# SPGB



## Proper Tidy (May 2, 2010)

So that people are not pissed off at the debate going on on the Plaid Cymru thread.

My criticism of the SPGB.

I do not reject the final goal, if you like, or perhaps more accurately the only goal, of the SPGB - the abolition of capitalism, or the wages system as they like to say in the olde worlde language.

I reject the notion that it is not the business of a socialist organisation to fight for every day improvements for the working class.

I understand the argument of the SPGB; that fighting for improvements in fact justifies capitalism. I don't completely disagree; certainly, if socialists fall into the trap of solely fighting for reforms then it is difficult to argue that that are not, in fact, reformists. It is also true that capitalism has offered reforms to the benefit of the working class in the past in order to strangle socialist movements - the New Deal and the social-democratic outlook following WW2 is an example; it is beyond doubt that the strength of the Soviet Union and the strength of the Communist parties (such as in France, where the Communist Party was for a time the largest party) was a motivation for the reforms offered by capitalism; and that by offering reforms which didn't threaten the system of capitalism it contributed to the marginalisation of socialist ideas.

However, I believe the position of SPGB to be based upon a misunderstanding of historical events; of Marxian theory; and of the material conditions necessary for socialism.

There needs to be a distinction drawn between reforms 'passed down' from above, such as New Deal, and improvements achieved from below through struggle; and an acceptance that improvements achieved from below are likely to contribute to creating the necessary conditions.

Workers engaged in struggle against the miseries of capitalism are likelier to become aware of the motives and beneficiaries of capitalism; of their place within the class system; and to gain a greater class consciousness. If this struggle achieves a degree of success, by achieving improvements in their conditions, they are likely to gain heart, and to believe that the abolition of capitalism is possible as well as desirable; indeed, they may become convinced that it is necessary. This is particularly the case if organised social movements involved in such struggles also advocate the abolition of capitalism, which is the case Marx made when he advocated trade unions also struggling for the abolition of the wages system as well as struggling against the impositions of capitalism upon their workers.

By failing to participate in struggle as an organised socialist movement, not only do SPGB and WSM not contribute to the struggle for socialism, they also make themselves irrelevant to the vast majority of working class people, even those - a minority as present - convinced of the need for socialism.

I hope this makes some sense and outlines the objections I have, which are also the objections, so far as I can tell, of the vast majority of SPGB's critics.


----------



## tbaldwin (May 2, 2010)

Deluded nonsense....


----------



## TomR77 (May 2, 2010)

I wouldn't go that far.  It's far from nonsense.  The case made by Proper Tidy here makes sense to me, even if I disagree with it.  I thank him for taking the time and effort to state a clear case.  

This said, after participating in reformist movements over the years, I have come to believe that the S.P.G.B. position is the correct one.

Although I'm familiar with the arguments, there's nothing wrong in going over this again.  Self-criticism is healthy.  I will give this some further thought and consider both Proper Tidy's case, and his objections to the S.P.G.B. case.


----------



## cogg (May 2, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> Deluded nonsense....



Good self criticism.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 2, 2010)

Are these different to the SP I know who are largely ex militant? or are they some other, less well known grouplet. Fuc me you need a spotters guide for the orthodox brit left these days.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 2, 2010)

The SPGB is very different to the SP which originated in the old 'Militant'.  The SPGB is very much a minority within minorities, but claims to be the oldest Socialist party dating back to 1904.  They will have nothing to do with any 'reformist' ideas.  Their aim is the abolition of Capitalism.  They are part of the WSM or World Socialist Movement.  They will have a national membership of probably a few hundred I guess, but am open to correction on that guess.


----------



## TomR77 (May 3, 2010)

Hocus Eye. said:


> The SPGB is very different to the SP which originated in the old 'Militant'.  The SPGB is very much a minority within minorities, but claims to be the oldest Socialist party dating back to 1904.  They will have nothing to do with any 'reformist' ideas.  Their aim is the abolition of Capitalism.  They are part of the WSM or World Socialist Movement.  They will have a national membership of probably a few hundred I guess, but am open to correction on that guess.



Yep, you're pretty much there, Hocus.  The S.P.G.B. is not anti-reformist as such.  The position is a little more subtle.  The Party welcomes reforms and improvements that benefit the working class, but will not campaign for reforms or improvements, as this would be helping to perpetuate the capitalist system and also detracts from the case for a socialist society.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 3, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Are these different to the SP I know who are largely ex militant? or are they some other, less well known grouplet. Fuc me you need a spotters guide for the orthodox brit left these days.



As has been said, very different. I'm SP, as in old Militant.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> As has been said, very different. I'm SP, as in old Militant.



And I'm SPGB as in *the* Socialist Party of Great Britain.

Looking forward to any valid contribution you make.  Hope you enjoy it as much has I've enjoyed it on the other thread.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> And I'm SPGB as in *the* Socialist Party of Great Britain.
> 
> Looking forward to any valid contribution you make.  Hope you enjoy it as much has I've enjoyed it on the other thread.



You're a one-eyed old fool aren't you.

So far as I can see, I've put the case in the simplest possible language on this thread and you are yet to respond, with either a 'valid contribution' or an invalid one.

Now, I'm not actually interested in winning or point-scoring, although you clearly are. I suggest you read through the last thread and see if you still come to the same self-aggrandising conclusion. Your last post on there is a joke - you yet again completely fail to understand the position I'm putting forward, yet again completely mis-apply Marxian theory and fall in to the typical trap of taught by rote Marxists of stroking your chin and saying 'well did not Engels say in blah blah' instead of applying Marxism, and again fail to address the actual criticisms made.

I started this thread to a) make sure we're not just pissing everybody else off and to b) give the SPGBers an opportunity to actually address the criticisms, naively thinking the failure to might be because there was so much other crap in there. I can see I was mistaken and that you are just bluster. Hopefully one of your more sensible comrades can help you out.


----------



## Roadkill (May 3, 2010)

Bring back nomoney!

</old skool u75>


----------



## DotCommunist (May 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> As has been said, very different. I'm SP, as in old Militant.



EVIL TROT SCUM!


No, jokes aside I have some time for the SP. Don't always see eye to eye politically but your lot do some good work.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 3, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> EVIL TROT SCUM!
> 
> 
> No, jokes aside I have some time for the SP. Don't always see eye to eye politically but your lot do some good work.



Haha! Yep we're certainly busy, damn reformists.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You're a one-eyed old fool aren't you.
> 
> So far as I can see, I've put the case in the simplest possible language on this thread and you are yet to respond, with either a 'valid contribution' or an invalid one.
> 
> ...



ProperTidy you are going completely OTT.  I've read your post several times and obviously I'll provide a reply once I feel ready.  In fact I'm really glad you started this thread and I agree it provides the opportunity for us to state our case for socialism.  And whether or not it is bluster on either of our parts only time will tell.  As for the assertion that I'm a 'rote Marxist' I can assure you I don't fit the part


----------



## dannysp (May 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You're a one-eyed old fool aren't you.
> 
> I thought this was a new thread where we could disscuss our diferences without pissing people off. I was hoping that we had done with all the chain jerking. Capitalism is scewing our future right up, let's try to be a bit more mature why not?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 3, 2010)

dannysp said:


> I thought this was a new thread where we could disscuss our diferences without pissing people off. I was hoping that we had done with all the chain jerking. Capitalism is scewing our future right up, let's try to be a bit more mature why not?



Fair enough, I probably over reacted there, apologies.


----------



## Shevek (May 3, 2010)

Are you in SP propertidy?


----------



## Streathamite (May 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Fair enough, I probably over reacted there, apologies.


so....what do you believe to be the way forward for a socialist movement, given that socialism, full stop, is _really_up shit street right now?


----------



## starfish (May 3, 2010)

Oh that SPGB, sorry thought you meant the other one.


----------



## Shevek (May 3, 2010)

isnt the way forward for socialism to...

I dunno. I have some ideas on anarchism but I kinda see anarchism as libertarian-socialism

Kind of why would anyone want to have non-libertarian socialism or authoritarian socialism when you could have the libertarian version of socialism i.e. anarchism?

It baffles me

bloody sectarians


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 3, 2010)

starfish said:


> Oh that SPGB, sorry thought you meant the other one.



Yeah I'm in SP (CWI) as in old Militant. Sometimes referred to as the hilarious SPEW.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 3, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> so....what do you believe to be the way forward for a socialist movement, given that socialism, full stop, is _really_up shit street right now?



Well, it is pretty much in my first post. Socialism through struggle, essentially. Electoral politics is fine but not by itself.


----------



## Streathamite (May 3, 2010)

Shevek said:


> Kind of why would anyone want to have non-libertarian socialism or authoritarian socialism when you could have the libertarian version of socialism i.e. anarchism?


but we have got absolutely nowhere near having the latter, in practice, but quite a large way towards having the former, in practice.
half a loaf etc


----------



## Streathamite (May 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Well, it is pretty much in my first post. Socialism through struggle, essentially. Electoral politics is fine but not by itself.



you need to clarify and expand. What struggle, where, how?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 3, 2010)

Shevek said:


> isnt the way forward for socialism to...
> 
> I dunno. I have some ideas on anarchism but I kinda see anarchism as libertarian-socialism
> 
> ...



We're not Stalinists, Shevek!

Authoritarian socialism indeed.

Without wishing to be disrespectful, anarchism can mean a variety of things, and all too frequently is essentially an extreme form of liberalism. It doesn't challenge the status quo. But that is for another debate, I think.

Perhaps reading up on the differences between Proudhon and Marx and Bukarin and Marx might be helpful for you Shevek.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 3, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> ypu need to clarify and expand. What struggle, where, how?



Not now, I can't be arsed. As I say, I outline my position in the first post and repeatedly in the George Monbiot thread, you could read that.

Struggle, as in class struggle. Everywhere.


----------



## Shevek (May 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> We're not Stalinists, Shevek!
> 
> Authoritarian socialism indeed.
> 
> ...



Hi proper tidy. Respect to you for not shouting me down and having a proper debate. I am surprised (pleasantly). 

On my interpretation of anarchism. My experience of it comes mainly from Chomsky not from C19th texts. 

Chomsky argues that we should identify unwarranted bastions of power in our society, outdated totalitarian and feudal structures such as the state and private monopolies and dismantle them. THAT to me is quite RADICAL and challenging the status quo. 

On another point. Do you think that people need to have 'faith' in socialism in the sense of a philosophical belief in the manifest rightness and inveitability and also functionality of a socialist society. What I mean to say is do people have to invest some 'hope' into it, take a leap of faith. What I'm driving at is its not entirely rational, partly emotional too. Heart and head together.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 3, 2010)

I'm not sure what Bukarin has got to do with anarchism?


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 3, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I'm not sure what Bukarin has got to do with anarchism?


I think he meant Bakunin, but apart from that, as far as I can see, his case for and against the SPGB is fairly put. Except that he omitted to say that the Trotskyist position in favour of seeking support on the basis of offering pro-worker reforms within capitalism rather than directly for socialism is based on the view propounded by Lenin that


> The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively and by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e. the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation,etc.



and that



> there can be no talk of an independent ideology formulated by the working masses themselves in the process of their movement



In other words, they think that workers are too thick to work out socialism for themselves and that socialists, to get a following (and of course they are officers looking for infantry), must pitch their demands at this level. Which is why all these Trotskyist groups are calling for a "new workers party" or an "anti-capitalist party", ie in effect a Labour Party Mark II. Maybe I'm wrong and the Trotskyists are not that cynical but that they really believe their own propaganda here, ie are Old Labourists who think that the way to socialism does lie through reforms. It is certainly the impression their campaigns give.


----------



## mk12 (May 3, 2010)

Shevek said:


> isnt the way forward for socialism to...



flip flop between the Lib Dems and anarchism?


----------



## selamlar (May 3, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Are these different to the SP I know who are largely ex militant? or are they some other, less well known grouplet. Fuc me you need a spotters guide for the orthodox brit left these days.



Oh so very different.  Small Party of Good Boys, innit.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 3, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> I think he meant Bakunin, but apart from that, as far as I can see, his case for and against the SPGB is fairly put. Except that he omitted to say that the Trotskyist position in favour of seeking support on the basis of offering pro-worker reforms within capitalism rather than directly for socialism is based on the view propounded by Lenin that
> 
> 
> and that
> ...



Yeah sorry I mean Bakunin.

Socialists of the Leninist traditions certainly do believe that, although I would contest it is cynical. Scientific socialism isn't merely a throwaway term to distinguish us from the utopians; it is taking into account a material analysis of past events and the contemporary situation. We don't believe workers are too 'thick' - this sort of thinking places us as middle-class or bourgeois dictating to the proles, whereas I can assure you in my tradition certainly it is overwhelmingly working-class, from top to bottom. However, in terms of building mass support for socialism throughout society, the demands for abolition of capitalism can appear abstract unless directly linked to transitional demands that link socialism to the current material conditions in society. Our view is that by participation in struggle, the abstraction of demands for socialism will wither away and workers on a mass scale throughout society will themselves reach the same conclusions that the abolition of capitalism in all its forms is needed. It is key, when discussing this, to highlight that we do not shy away from talking of socialism or the abolition of capitalism; but we do attempt to make struggle for socialism relevant to present material conditions.

It is a characterisation - and an incorrect one - to portray Leninist traditions, or at least Leninism applied correctly, as patronising towards the working class as a mass body. I would contest that we see class consciousness as a process; neither do Leninist movements - or again Leninism applied correctly  - perceive their roles as being to lead workers to socialism, but to lead workers into the struggle for socialism, from which point the working class as a class will have reached the same conclusions. It may seem a spurious distinction but it isn't, it is key to understanding our position.

We call for a new workers' party because it is a relevant material demand that is translatable to the working class as a whole; and because it develops the process, whereas a demand for socialism and nothing but is, imo, too abstract a demand to attract mass support until we have the material conditions, for which we would need a mass workers' party. I would also dispute that this is a Labour Party mark II - the LP was never a genuine workers party; it was at base a workers party but with a bourgeois leadership. We do not want to replicate this.

I hope this also answers Shevek's question with regard to emotionalism, which is something we reject entirely. The tools for the abolition of capitalism lie in capitalism itself; it is the creator if its own destruction.


----------



## mk12 (May 3, 2010)

> It is a characterisation - and an incorrect one - to portray Leninist traditions, or at least Leninism applied correctly, as patronising towards the working class as a mass body. I would contest that we see class consciousness as a process; neither do Leninist movements - or again Leninism applied correctly - perceive their roles as being to lead workers to socialism, but to lead workers into the struggle for socialism, from which point the working class as a class will have reached the same conclusions. It may seem a spurious distinction but it isn't, it is key to understanding our position.


This seems to contradict the works of all those in your tradition who discuss this topic. 

Kautsky:



> The vehicle of science is not the proletariat, but the bourgeois intelligentsia: it was in the minds of individual members of this stratum that modern socialism originated, and it was they who communicated it to the more intellectually developed proletarians who, in their turn, introduce it into the proletarian class struggle where conditions allow that to be done.



Lenin quotes this passage, and claims it is "profoundly true". This doesn't suggest the workers reach their own conclusions. In fact, Kautsky's views actually _criticise_ this notion.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 3, 2010)

Shevek said:


> Hi proper tidy. Respect to you for not shouting me down and having a proper debate. I am surprised (pleasantly).
> 
> On my interpretation of anarchism. My experience of it comes mainly from Chomsky not from C19th texts.
> 
> ...



I like Chomsky - am actually reading one of his at the moment, the essential Chomsky which is interesting because it has a lot of his linguistics stuff in, which I'd never read before. I don't dispute its radicalism; however I would contend that Chomsky does not offer any tangible analysis of how the 'end game' is achievable. My concern with anarchism is that it is all too easily co-opted or thwarted by capitalism. In short, HOW to dismantle them. And you should read up on the 19c anarchists, they are key to your tradition - both in terms of understanding the overall position and its flaws. Anarchism and earlier utopian socialism are inextricably linked, and modern anarchism imo inherited many of the flaws of utopianism. But I'm not unsympathetic btw, I lent towards so-called libertarian communism myself in my teenage years. I suppose my eureka moment then wasn't so much analytical or based in the writings of intellectuals - I hadn't read so much back then - but in the realisation that the tradition of libertarian communism hadn't achieved much and I felt it was unlikely to. This led me on a journey towards, eventually, Trotskyism.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2010)

...and you came out in  Bolivia 1952.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 3, 2010)

mk12 said:


> This seems to contradict the works of all those in your tradition who discuss this topic.
> 
> Kautsky:
> 
> ...



Yes. Kautsky was rather blunt wasn't he? I would personally reject that, as many Leninists would. It is ultimately about applying Marxism rather than falling into dogma. I don't take the black and white view that the authoritarianism of Stalinism was completely in-evident prior to Stalin, although I do believe that Stalin deformed Leninism. I do accept that their was an authoritarian tendency, which you've hit upon, prior to Stalinism, albeit, particularly with the continuation of Trotskyism, would not necessarily have led to the same point. In short, Lenin wasn't infallible, as nobody is. Marx would not have shared the view of Kautsky imo, and Lenin's belief in it was more of a reflex to the Russian situation rather than based upon an international context. We live in a more developed capitalist society which would make it a moot point. I suppose in short I'm saying it is a contradiction, which possibly explains some of the wide variations in how Leninism is perceived and applied by Leninists of various traditions.


----------



## mk12 (May 3, 2010)

You're a Leninist who rejects one of the central planks of Leninism then?


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2010)

... and also says it's outdated


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> ... and also says it's outdated



I didn't say that. I said the Leninist far left wasn't particularly relevant to the average person, which it isn't. I didn't mean the ideas, I meant yer actual far left parties, which I would say is a given. The point I was making is that the SPGB is itself largely irrelevant to the small minority of us convinced of socialism, who are in turn largely irrelevant to the working class.

And mk12, I'm a Trostkyist, which is a form of Leninism, but which has differences with a more classical interpretation of Leninism, albeit Trotskyists see themselves as a continuation of Leninism. This is one of those differences.

Perhaps I'm not explaining it very well. We would argue that Russia in 1917 was very different to, say, the UK today, in which working class people are generally more highly educated, and in which capitalism is more highly developed, and that you need to apply Marxism rather than forcing dogma on to the current situation.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 3, 2010)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Proper Tidy View Post on: George Monbiot the unreported revolution
> 
> You're still not grasping the criticism that has been directed at SPGB. Any of you.
> ...



The objective economic conditions for socialism already exist in that capitalism has shewn the working class how to produce an abundance in excess of its needs, it fails in that it is unable to distribute that abundance to meet human needs. On the other hand the subjective conditions, which I gather is the point you are trying to make still remains at the stage which Marx described as, "The class in itself". In my estimation the workers have grasped a broad understanding of democracy but have failed in understanding how to use democracy for their own ends and in their own interests. This is precisely the barrier the SPGB are trying to break down.

The struggle for everyday improvements goes on whether we like it or not. In fact that is every politicians game plan. They may well not be improvements that we are in particularly in favour of nonetheless they are improvements so far as the capitalist political economy is concerned.

Your stance on the other hand is that improvements for the working class can be gained but not in the here and know. In fact you stress any improvements are only feasible in a socialist society where supposedly a socialist government will bring them into effect. If this is your idea of socialism I have to disagree indeed it is not even a half-way house for you insist that the wages system will still be in existence in your definition of socialism.

Besides that there is no valid explanation on how you intend to get from A to B. Is it by using the political process or by using the political system, or do you envisage by-passing either through mass demonstrations on their own in order to accomplish your aim? Perhaps you can clarify how exactly you intend to gain political power.



> Quote:
> By struggling for improvements - or reforms, if you insist - you are demonstrating to working class people, who may not yet possess a socialist consciousness, the benefits of socialism; that by doing so, workers brought into struggle by the class war being waged by the wages system, or capitalism, will themselves reach the conclusion that the abolition of the wages system, or capitalism, is necessary.



But you are not in truth demonstrating to working class people the benefits of socialism all you are doing is supposedly laying down the conditions for socialism in a socialist society? Surely this is a contradiction? Unless of course you go along with the outdated theory of a higher stage of socialism/communism?

Have you ever considered that once you attain your description of socialism/communism that the situation may well arise with the working class turning around and saying these improvements will do us nicely and refuse to budge an inch? With your long-term strategy in tatters through the use of short-term tactics will your next move be an attempt to impose socialism/communism whether the workers want it or not? That is definitely a prescription for failure.



> Quote:
> Others are also making the point that the SPGB's position, which I will come to, has made the SPGB less relevant to working people than the Marxian approach, which in itself is increasingly irrelevant, and that this should be a cause of concern to those involved in the SPGB and the WSM.



What the heck are you stating here? You are not surely saying that the Marxian approach/theory should be abandoned due to -according to these 'others' - its irrelevance? Well all I can say on that score is go ahead and do it and we will wait and see how far it gets you. Unless of course SPEW are already in the process of doing it. But the truth is they never accepted the Marxian theory in the first place!



> Quote:
> Now, I do understand the position of SPGB; that by adopting a Marxian approach of fighting for everyday improvements alongside the advocation of socialism, you are unwittingly capitulating to reformism - that every improvement achieved, regardless of whether it was achieved by militancy from below or not, regardless of whether a number of those involved in achieving the improvement advocate the abolition of capitalism, in material effect strengthens capitalism's position rather than weakens it as it demonstrates that capitalism can be reformed.



Hole in one.



> Quote:
> I suspect neither party will come around to the view of the other. Fair enough. However, using Marx to make your case is not going to benefit you, as Marx categorically did not advocate the position you adopt. He advocated the struggle for the abolition of the wages system (socialism) alongside the struggle for improvements to the wages system (reformism) that are in the benefit of the working class. Ergo, Marxian theory makes the case of struggle for both; and that struggle for the latter will benefit struggle for the former. Reformists believe that capitalism can be reformed, which is not the position adopted by what you may regard as the Marxist left or whatever definition you use. Neither is the whole martyr act likely to win you many friends.



And here we come to the crux of your argument. Marx wrote and explained his understanding of Political Economy when capitalism was still in its latter stages of development. He could foresee the necessity for speeding this development up so the struggle for socialism was brought that bit nearer. And the reason why he advocated improvements for the workers circumstances was because he had formed the impression such reforms would shorten the full development of capitalism. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think he said, 'the workers are in fact the engine house of capitalism'.

We are now living in the 21st Century and obviously the full development of capitalism has taken place. In fact it reached that stage about a hundred years ago. Admittedly it took a little longer to enact the reforms which Marx advocated but nevertheless the greater majority have been achieved. So in fact you are using an historical analysis which has been taken over by events. But lets keep the record straight for Marx and Engles admitted at a later date they had been proven wrong by events. Indeed, Engles states as such in the 1872 preface of the Communist Manifesto.
Last edited by Gravediggers; 03-05-2010 at 00:32.
Edit/Delete Message


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2010)




----------



## Proper Tidy (May 3, 2010)

Out of interest GD, do you have a link to the preface to the 1872 (I assume you mean 1872 anyway) Communist Manifesto? Can't recall ever reading it, although I must have - its included in modern copies I take it.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> What the heck are you stating here? You are not surely saying that the Marxian approach/theory should be abandoned due to -according to these 'others' - its irrelevance? Well all I can say on that score is go ahead and do it and we will wait and see how far it gets you. Unless of course SPEW are already in the process of doing it. But the truth is they never accepted the Marxian theory in the first place!



No - butchers also got confused on this so I probably phrased it craply.

What I mean is that the Marxist parties of the far left are not as relevant to the working class as they once were, and have never been as relevant as we would have liked them to be, obviously. This is a constant cause of concern. Now, the SPGB are irrelevant to the far left, if that makes sense - irrelevant to the irrelevant - yet it doesn't seem to bother the SPGB, who just say, effectively, one day the workers will come round.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> The objective economic conditions for socialism already exist in that capitalism has shewn the working class how to produce an abundance in excess of its needs, it fails in that it is unable to distribute that abundance to meet human needs. On the other hand the subjective conditions, which I gather is the point you are trying to make still remains at the stage which Marx described as, "The class in itself". In my estimation the workers have grasped a broad understanding of democracy but have failed in understanding how to use democracy for their own ends and in their own interests. This is precisely the barrier the SPGB are trying to break down.
> 
> The struggle for everyday improvements goes on whether we like it or not. In fact that is every politicians game plan. They may well not be improvements that we are in particularly in favour of nonetheless they are improvements so far as the capitalist political economy is concerned.
> 
> ...



No, that is a poor characterisation of where we stand.

The conditions for socialism exist in as much as the economic and material conditions exist - but clearly we do not live in a particularly class-conscious society. It is this that must be addressed, and this is surely also part of the necessary conditions.

You concede yourself that we do not have the necessary class consciousness so I am at a loss to understand your objection to this. 

You also still fail to differentiate between a) what you term 'reforms' which are passed down from above, effectively gifted by capitalism, whether to the benefit of the working class in order to strangle socialist movements or to the detriment of the working class as capitalists seek to increase profits etc - like now, where they are determined to make the working class pay for their crisis, and b) 'reforms' which are achieved through struggle from below, in which workers struggle for improvements, and in which workers gain a greater sense of class consciousness and the belief that capitalism must be abolished. If you continue to ignore the difference between a and b then we will never get further in this debate!

We do not stress improvements are only possible at some distant point in the future - in fact, that appears to me to be SPGB's position. We argue that improvements are possible here and now; and that if these improvements are achieved through struggle from below that they will lead to greater consciousness; and that our role is to participate in these struggles for immediate gains and to put forward our position that improvements alone are not enough; workers will still be degraded by capitalism; and eventually any improvements will be driven back by the very nature of capitalism; and that what is needed is socialism. Where we differ is in how best to achieve socialism; we promote socialism through struggle; you promote 'socialism and nothing but'.

I don't get your last paragraph in the above quote, perhaps you can expand.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Out of interest GD, do you have a link to the preface to the 1872 (I assume you mean 1872 anyway) Communist Manifesto? Can't recall ever reading it, although I must have - its included in modern copies I take it.



I have a copy, but I'll try and get a link for you.  In fact, for some reason, its rarely I've come across a copy of the CM with the 1872 preface by Engles.  To me it underlines their commitment to historical materialism and social dynamics and also it refutes the allegations that they were economic determinist.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I have a copy, but I'll try and get a link for you.  In fact, for some reason, its rarely I've come across a copy of the CM with the 1872 preface by Engles.  To me it underlines their commitment to historical materialism and social dynamics and also it refutes the allegations that they were economic determinist.



Okay, ta GD


----------



## Gravediggers (May 3, 2010)

Here it is:

PREFACE TO 1872 GERMAN EDITION

The Communist League, an international association of workers, which could of course be only a secret one, under conditions obtaining at the time, commissioned us, the undersigned, at the Congress held in London in November 1847, to write for publication a detailed theoretical and practical programme for the Party. Such was the origin of the following Manifesto, the manuscript of which travelled to London to be printed a few weeks before the February Revolution. First published in German, it has been republished in that language in at least twelve different editions in Germany, England, and America. It was published in English for the first time in 1850 in the _Red Republican_, London, translated by Miss Helen Macfarlane, and in 1871 in at least three different translations in America. The french version first appeared in Paris shortly before the June insurrection of 1848, and recently in _Le Socialiste_ of New York. A new translation is in the course of preparation. A Polish version appeared in London shortly after it was first published in Germany. A Russian translation was published in Geneva in the 'sixties. Into Danish, too, it was translated shortly after its appearance.

However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes." (See The Civil War in France: Address of the General Council of the International Working Men's Assocation, 1871, where this point is further developed.) Further, it is self-evident that the criticism of socialist literature is deficient in relation to the present time, because it comes down only to 1847; also that the remarks on the relation of the Communists to the various opposition parties (Section IV), although, in principle still correct, yet in practice are antiquated, because the political situation has been entirely changed, and the progress of history has swept from off the earth the greater portion of the political parties there enumerated.

But then, the Manifesto has become a historical document which we have no longer any right to alter. A subsequent edition may perhaps appear with an introduction bridging the gap from 1847 to the present day; but this reprint was too unexpected to leave us time for that.

KARL MARX

FREDERICK ENGELS

June 24, 1872
London


----------



## Gravediggers (May 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> So that people are not pissed off at the debate going on on the Plaid Cymru thread.
> 
> My criticism of the SPGB.
> 
> ...



There is one fatal flaw in this analysis.  You have admitted on previous threads that the struggle for improvements, or what we call reforms will only come to fruition once and when a socialist society is established.  In fact you have underlined this by stating the struggle for the reforms which you anticipate will be of benefit to the workers are unachievable within capitalism.

So in effect your tactics are to convince the working class that reforms are urgently necessary, and they have to come from below, and in the full realisation that these particular reforms can only be enacted within a socialist society and further this socialist society is the transitional stage to the abolition of capitalism.  Thus, it is possible for the workers to control the effects of capitalism within a socialist society.  Phew ... and we have been labeled the impossibilists!

Is this not an exercise in putting the cart before the horse?  Or rather an exercise in futility?  It also begs the question on how you will proceed from A to B is it merely by demanding reforms or is the intention to capture political power through utilising the democratic political process, through a coup d'etat, or by activity on the streets?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> There is one fatal flaw in this analysis.  You have admitted on previous threads that the struggle for improvements, or what we call reforms will only come to fruition once and when a socialist society is established.  In fact you have underlined this by stating the struggle for the reforms which you anticipate will be of benefit to the workers are unachievable within capitalism.



No I haven't.

I've argued that transitional demands - which are different to the 'reforms' that we base our day to day campaigning on - lead directly to socialism. For example:



> A democratic socialist plan of production based on the interests of the overwhelming majority of people, and in a way that safegaurds the future



Or



> No to imperialist wars and occupations



Are both demands that are ultimately unachievable under capitalism.

But you have conflated this to 'all our demands are unachievable' which isn't the case.

For example:



> An immediate 50% increase in the state retirement pensions, as a step towards a living pension. Reinstate the link with average earnings now.



Is entirely achievable under capitalism.

Transitional demands link the every day struggles to socialism but not all our demands are transitional. Rendering the below somewhat redundant.



Gravediggers said:


> So in effect your tactics are to convince the working class that reforms are urgently necessary, and they have to come from below, and in the full realisation that these particular reforms can only be enacted within a socialist society and further this socialist society is the transitional stage to the abolition of capitalism.  Thus, it is possible for the workers to control the effects of capitalism within a socialist society.  Phew ... and we have been labeled the impossibilists!
> 
> Is this not an exercise in putting the cart before the horse?  Or rather an exercise in futility?  It also begs the question on how you will proceed from A to B is it merely by demanding reforms or is the intention to capture political power through utilising the democratic political process, through a coup d'etat, or by activity on the streets?



Thanks for the Engels preface. I have to go out now but will read it later/tomorrow.


----------



## mk12 (May 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> And mk12, I'm a Trostkyist, which is a form of Leninism, but which has differences with a more classical interpretation of Leninism, albeit Trotskyists see themselves as a continuation of Leninism. This is one of those differences.



I'd argue 'Trotskyism' added a couple of other theories, but overall there are no real differences at all. All of the central planks of Leninism (the party, consciousness etc) can be found in Trotskyism. There are no "differences".



> Perhaps I'm not explaining it very well. We would argue that Russia in 1917 was very different to, say, the UK today, in which working class people are generally more highly educated, and in which capitalism is more highly developed, and that you need to apply Marxism rather than forcing dogma on to the current situation.



I'd agree. Although i'm not convinced that most Trotskyists would agree that the methods, strategy and tactics used in Petrograd in 1917 need to be re-evaluated. And I think if I probed you harder (oo er) we'd find you wouldn't either.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Out of interest GD, do you have a link to the preface to the 1872 (I assume you mean 1872 anyway) Communist Manifesto? Can't recall ever reading it, although I must have - its included in modern copies I take it.



You use this if you like.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm#preface-1872


----------



## robbo203 (May 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> So that people are not pissed off at the debate going on on the Plaid Cymru thread.
> 
> My criticism of the SPGB.
> 
> ...




I think your analysis is a bit confused here.  Trade union struggle is not reformism and it is in fact the position of the SPGB (of which I am not a member BTW) to advocate militant trade union struggle (many of them have been, or are, active trade unionists) even if this does not (and cannot) in itself lead to socialism.  Moreover, being opposed to "reformism " (the advocacy of reforms) does not mean. of course, opposing reforms but I think you grasp this distinction....

What I dont understand, however,  is your rationale for distinguishing between so called transitional demands and reforms.  Reforms are, by their very nature, measures introduced by the state.  You are not suggesting  - are you? - that there is a subset of such reforms which are labelled transitional demands, the advocacy of which is somehow qualitatively different from "reformism".  If  so what makes them qualitatively different?  In what sense do they provide a link between the ongoing struggles within capitalism and the struggle to overthrow capitalism (which reformism by its very nature cannot do)

Frankly I think the whole trotskyist argument about "transitional demands" is incredibly muddled and feebly conceived.  The abyssmal record of the Second International  which was characterised by social democratic parties that sought to combine a maximum and mimimum programme yet all ended up as thoroughly capitalist organisations shows the utter futility of such an approach.  On that point I think we can all agree, the SPGB's uncompromising opposition to such an approach has been more than vindicated


----------



## Gravediggers (May 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Have you ever considered that once you attain your description of socialism/communism that the situation may well arise with the working class turning around and saying these improvements will do us nicely and refuse to budge an inch? With your long-term strategy in tatters through the use of short-term tactics will your next move be an attempt to impose socialism/communism whether the workers want it or not? That is definitely a prescription for failure.



*ProperTidy* its noticeable you have failed to reply to this.  I know its a pain but....


----------



## dannysp (May 3, 2010)

Hi All
This is an attempt to put clear water between the Leninist/Trotskyist position on social revolution and that of The SPGB.
What follows is my report of what I've heard an SPGB speaker relate at Speakers Corner Hyde Park on more than one occasion, it's paraphrase not verbatim and I've added some and lost some but not diluted the original meaning. It was simply put so easy the retain the gist, so here's my take on what I heard said.

History can be seen in many ways, so here's some you might like to consider. First history is there so we can learn from it, to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. Second, simple, the more we know the more we can do, the better we know the better we can do. Third, now this a philosophical way of viewing history an just a little challenging. We can, if we've a mind to, see human history as a right of passage, a coming of age, now when a human comes of age, completes their right of passage they become an adult, and on reaching adulthood they know who they are, and knowing that they know what the want, what's achievable. There's more than that though, adulthood brings a qualification, adults are qualified to take responsibility for non adults, children! We can't expect children to take responsibility for adults.
If we take a good look at our world we discover that 40,000+ young humans with same level of humanity as all of us here are dieing every day, 40,000 every day, from the lack of clean fresh drinking water, some wholesome food, easily providable medicine. Millions upon millions are robed of their childhood and their health destroyed, forced to work in dingy sweatshops to make their exploiters rich. Children are kidnapped, forced to bare arms and kill their fellows crippling their personalities so tyrants can swell their Swiss bank accounts, and that's not all of it.
If we take that into account we come to the irrefutable conclusion that we are not taking responsibility for our young, and therefor our society has not completed its right of passage, it has yet to come of age, we live therefor in an immature society.
What is holding us back is that we have yet to discover, recognise and acknowledge a natural law, it's not the kind of law made in parliaments that can be and are regularly ignored, it unbreakable, like the laws of light, thermo dynamics and gravity. It's the law of social responsibility which states: The only way to deal with social responsibility responsibly is to share it. Giving over your social responsibility to leaders is irresponsible, if someone claims as a "leader" that they can exercise your responsibility for you they are irresponsible, have nothing to do with them.
It's been said "that with freedom comes responsibility" those who state that have the world on its head, it's with responsibility comes freedom.
If we are to free ourselves from this revolting unhygienic morass of ignorance and all it brings with it we have to organise as equals, sharing our knowledge our potential our responsibility, through the most wholesome, profound democracy we can achieve, nothing else will do.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 3, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Hi All
> This is an attempt to put clear water between the Leninist/Trotskyist position on social revolution and that of The SPGB.
> What follows is my report of what I've heard an SPGB speaker relate at Speakers Corner Hyde Park *on more than one occasion*....



There should be a prize for such understatement.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## dannysp (May 3, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> There should be a prize for such understatement.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Louis you don't know how you wound, you really don't, sob sob.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> The objective economic conditions for socialism already exist in that capitalism has shewn the working class how to produce an abundance in excess of its needs, it fails in that it is unable to distribute that abundance to meet human needs. On the other hand the subjective conditions, which I gather is the point you are trying to make still remains at the stage which Marx described as, "The class in itself". In my estimation the workers have grasped a broad understanding of democracy but have failed in understanding how to use democracy for their own ends and in their own interests. This is precisely the barrier the SPGB are trying to break down.
> 
> The struggle for everyday improvements goes on whether we like it or not. In fact that is every politicians game plan. They may well not be improvements that we are in particularly in favour of nonetheless they are improvements so far as the capitalist political economy is concerned.
> 
> ...



[





> QUOTE=Proper Tidy;10607818]No, that is a poor characterisation of where we stand.
> 
> The conditions for socialism exist in as much as the economic and material conditions exist - but clearly we do not live in a particularly class-conscious society. It is this that must be addressed, and this is surely also part of the necessary conditions.
> 
> You concede yourself that we do not have the necessary class consciousness so I am at a loss to understand your objection to this.



There is no disagreement, Ive already clearly stated that the workers have failed to use democracy to further their end and interests.



> You also still fail to differentiate between a) what you term 'reforms' which are passed down from above, effectively gifted by capitalism, whether to the benefit of the working class in order to strangle socialist movements or to the detriment of the working class as capitalists seek to increase profits etc - like now, where they are determined to make the working class pay for their crisis, and b) 'reforms' which are achieved through struggle from below, in which workers struggle for improvements, and in which workers gain a greater sense of class consciousness and the belief that capitalism must be abolished. If you continue to ignore the difference between a and b then we will never get further in this debate!



OK there are capitalist reforms and there are working class reforms.  But they are still reforms where ever they may have originated.  The difference as I see it (and its a fact) are the capitalist reforms are designed to benefit the ruling class exclusively, whilst the workers reforms are designed to benefit the workers and the capitalists.  They would not be enacted otherwise, so its a two way split where one benefit is counter balanced by the other.



> We do not stress improvements are only possible at some distant point in the future - in fact, that appears to me to be SPGB's position. We argue that improvements are possible here and now; and that if these improvements are achieved through struggle from below that they will lead to greater consciousness; and that our role is to participate in these struggles for immediate gains and to put forward our position that improvements alone are not enough; workers will still be degraded by capitalism; and eventually any improvements will be driven back by the very nature of capitalism; and that what is needed is socialism. Where we differ is in how best to achieve socialism; we promote socialism through struggle; you promote 'socialism and nothing but'.



Your are bordering on the ridiculous here if you think the SPGB "stress improvements are only possible at some distant point in the future".  Not at all, for we have always stated the workers can and should struggle to improve their conditions under capitalism, in the realisation that not to do so would leave them in the gutter.  But also in the knowledge that the fight for reforms makes for no fundamental change in the social relationships of capitalism.  Like I've said previously, the SPGB judge reforms from wherever in the class divide they may originate from, on their merits.

Granted socialism can only be promoted through struggle but that is not what is in dispute.  What is in dispute is the means and ends which are utilised to finalise the class struggle.  For SPEW the means and ends consists of struggling for reforms which are combined with a set of transitional demands to obtain socialism.  Yet the socialism you describe consists of these transitional demands being the base for working class power.  When in reality they are to do with the workings of the wages system.   And wherever you have the wages system you also have the profit system.  In short, despite the fact you call it socialism, some one some where will be creaming off the top.

Yes the SPGB stand for socialism and nothing but.  And by making this stand we are clear that the struggle for reforms or transitional demands is not the same has the struggle for a socialist revolution.


----------



## dannysp (May 3, 2010)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dannysp View Post
Hi All
This is an attempt to put clear water between the Leninist/Trotskyist position on social revolution and that of The SPGB.
What follows is my report of what I've heard an SPGB speaker relate at Speakers Corner Hyde Park on more than one occasion....




Louis MacNeice said:


> There should be a prize for such understatement.
> 
> There should be a prize for being such a piece of work Louis.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2010)

Quote  you morons


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2010)

Oh god hyuo'er dpo boringh.


----------



## dannysp (May 4, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Oh god hyuo'er dpo boringh.



See, It works.


----------



## ernestolynch (May 4, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I like Chomsky - am actually reading one of his at the moment, the essential Chomsky which is interesting because it has a lot of his linguistics stuff in, which I'd never read before. I don't dispute its radicalism; however I would contend that Chomsky does not offer any tangible analysis of how the 'end game' is achievable. My concern with anarchism is that it is all too easily co-opted or thwarted by capitalism. In short, HOW to dismantle them. And you should read up on the 19c anarchists, they are key to your tradition - both in terms of understanding the overall position and its flaws. Anarchism and earlier utopian socialism are inextricably linked, and modern anarchism imo inherited many of the flaws of utopianism. But I'm not unsympathetic btw, I lent towards so-called libertarian communism myself in my teenage years. I suppose my eureka moment then wasn't so much analytical or based in the writings of intellectuals - I hadn't read so much back then - but in the realisation that the tradition of libertarian communism hadn't achieved much and I felt it was unlikely to. This led me on a journey towards, eventually, Trotskyism.



A chicken in every pot...


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 4, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Frankly I think the whole trotskyist argument about "transitional demands" is incredibly muddled and feebly conceived.  The abyssmal record of the Second International  which was characterised by social democratic parties that sought to combine a maximum and mimimum programme yet all ended up as thoroughly capitalist organisations shows the utter futility of such an approach.


Good point, but the Trotskyist theory of "transitional" reform demands is worse than the old Social Democratic one as it abandons the "maximum" programme (on Lenin's grounds that workers are incapable of understanding it). So we are just left with a reform programme.

Proper Tidy's justification for this is that socialist consciousness will develop out of the struggle for these reforms. In other words, while these reforms might not to be "stepping stones" to socialism as in the old gradualist Social Democratic conception they are stepping stones to socialist consciousness. But are they? And how?

You could take the view, as Proper Tidy seemed to at one point, that this will happen spontaneously, but this, as has already been pointed out here, would be quite unLeninist. Or you could take the view (Lenin's) that all that is required to overthrow capitalism is for the "working masses" to have a high enough degree of "trade union consciousness" to be led by the vanguard party which knows how to steer them.

All Trotskyist groups take this second position as can be clearly seen by their campaign slogans and election promises: Make the Rich Pay, Jobs for All, Nationalise the Banks, Increase the Minumum wage, Fix Pensions at Average Male Earnings, etc, etc. Socialism doesn't get a look in, is in fact dismissed as utopian.


----------



## robbo203 (May 4, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> Good point, but the Trotskyist theory of "transitional" reform demands is worse than the old Social Democratic one as it abandons the "maximum" programme (on Lenin's grounds that workers are incapable of understanding it). So we are just left with a reform programme.
> 
> Proper Tidy's justification for this is that socialist consciousness will develop out of the struggle for these reforms. In other words, while these reforms might not to be "stepping stones" to socialism as in the old gradualist Social Democratic conception they are stepping stones to socialist consciousness. But are they? And how?
> 
> ...




Yes, this is exactly the problem.  The struggle for reforms cannot in itself lead to socialist consciousness.  Proper Tidy argues that 

_Workers engaged in struggle against the miseries of capitalism are likelier to become aware of the motives and beneficiaries of capitalism; of their place within the class system; and to gain a greater class consciousness. If this struggle achieves a degree of success, by achieving improvements in their conditions, they are likely to gain heart, and to believe that the abolition of capitalism is possible as well as desirable; indeed, they may become convinced that it is necessary_

But the weakness in this argument is all too evident. If they do achieve a "degree of success" then the likelihood is not that they will go on from there to struggle for socialism but rather become even more deeply embroiled in reformist struggle. Afterall if you can suceed in getting one reform passed, why not go for another? On the other hand, if they fail this is not going make them see the need for revolution but far more likely will result ion apathy, fatalism, escapism and the fragmentation of class solidarity.  Banging your head repeatedly against a brick wall  is not exactly conducive to raising ones's consciousness.


*Either way - success or failure - the outcome is most probably going to be the co-option of workers all the more firmly into capitalism*


Of course workers have to struggle in capitalism and not only to overthrow capitalism. But here is where the all important distinction between trade union struggle in the economic field and the political struggle for reforms introduced by the state, comes into play.  Many leftists are very confused on this point ,some even seeing trade union struggle as "reformist".  Its not.  Trade union struggle is *process oriented *in that the class struggle is an ongoing process inherent in capitalism.  Reformism on the other hand is *goal oriented*.  It involves political choices - ultimately to mend capitalism rather than end it, as a priority - whereas we have no choice about struggling in the economic field in which trade unions operate.

It seems to me that this is where the SPGB scores heavily in its debate with its left wing critics.  The leftist or trotskyist approach of transitional demands is transperantly weak.  Most workers intuitively realise that to call for the raising of the state pension by 50% which Proper Tidy claims is "achievable" is in fact totally unrealistic within the context of British capitalism today. From the perspective of the workers, transitional demands are often viewed as opportunist and even risky. They understand well enough that in capitalism there is no such thing as a free lunch. This makes the leftists appear woolly minded without their feet firmly grounded in capitalist reality.  Little wonder they attract such little support (and in that respect most leftist grouplets are in no position to scoff at the SPGB's lack of support)

The point is that there is no organic link between transitional demands and the struggle for socialism. Its a myth.  There is no substitute for socialist understanding.  However, here is where the SPGB approach is not entirely convincing in my view.  Can socialist understanding come about through an exclusive focus on propagandism - necessary though this may be? Im not convinced.  

However, I do firmly believe that the SPGB is far more right than it is wrong and that the only way out of the impasse of what might loosely be called radical politics must entail embracing what the SPGB has been insistently arguing for all these years and decisively rejecting the treadmill of reformism which, in effect, is all that the left has to offer


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 4, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Question: How do you wind up a wally on a discussion board?
> Answer: Post something they're incapable of understanding!



I understand the quote; I'm not surprised you didn't get the joke though.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## dannysp (May 4, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I understand the quote; I'm not surprised you didn't get the joke though.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Joke, ah yes I see. I thought you were  being cruel, perish the thunk.


----------



## dannysp (May 4, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I understand the quote; I'm not surprised you didn't get the joke though.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Ah I think I see Louis. Is this a ref' to the late great Harry B?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 4, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> The point is that there is no organic link between transitional demands and the struggle for socialism. Its a myth.  There is no substitute for socialist understanding.
> 
> However, I do firmly believe that the SPGB is far more right than it is wrong and that the only way out of the impasse of what might loosely be called radical politics must entail embracing what the SPGB has been insistently arguing for all these years and decisively rejecting the treadmill of reformism which, in effect, is all that the left has to offer



I'm thoroughly enjoying your contribution and as you are aware members of the SPGB always prick their ears up regarding engagement in class struggle.  In this respect could you clarify the assertion made above, "However, here is where the SPGB approach is not entirely convincing in my view.  Can socialist understanding come about through an exclusive focus on propagandism - necessary though this may be? Im not convinced.".   For I'm interested in what alternatives you may propose in this respect.  What other political activity is available for participation in the class struggle?

Can't promise though I'll be Mr Nice Guy with my response.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 4, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> Good point, but the Trotskyist theory of "transitional" reform demands is worse than the old Social Democratic one as it abandons the "maximum" programme (on Lenin's grounds that workers are incapable of understanding it). So we are just left with a reform programme.
> 
> Proper Tidy's justification for this is that socialist consciousness will develop out of the struggle for these reforms. In other words, while these reforms might not to be "stepping stones" to socialism as in the old gradualist Social Democratic conception they are stepping stones to socialist consciousness. But are they? And how?
> 
> ...



I take it then that you equate Lenin's perspective of "trade union consciousness" with "refomism"?   If this is indeed the case the reference to it in, 'What is to be done?' is a clear indication of how much he held the working class in contempt.


----------



## TomR77 (May 4, 2010)

ProperTidy said:


> _Workers engaged in struggle against the miseries of capitalism are likelier to become aware of the motives and beneficiaries of capitalism; of their place within the class system; and to gain a greater class consciousness. If this struggle achieves a degree of success, by achieving improvements in their conditions, they are likely to gain heart, and to believe that the abolition of capitalism is possible as well as desirable; indeed, they may become convinced that it is necessary_
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


----------



## TomR77 (May 4, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> The point is that there is no organic link between transitional demands and the struggle for socialism. Its a myth.  There is no substitute for socialist understanding.  However, here is where the SPGB approach is not entirely convincing in my view.  _*Can socialist understanding come about through an exclusive focus on propagandism - necessary though this may be? Im not convinced.*_


 [My emphasis].

With all respect robbo, that is not the S.P.G.B. view.  Part of the problem the S.P.G.B. have is with people characterising, indeed mischaracterising, its views.  The S.P.G.B.'s case is clear and logical, but it also has nuances and subtleties.


----------



## TomR77 (May 4, 2010)

What do we define as reforms and improvements benefiting the working class?  I could make a pretty good case that the British Monarchy is an anti-capitalist institution and its continuation benefits the working class in many ways.  I do not believe that in fact this is the case, but I could make a strong case for it.  And isn't this the problem with a broadly reformist approach to things? What may seem like a benign or beneficial reform or improvement to one person, may seem less so to another.  

Taking a more obvious example.  I have been remonstrated with on here for, supposedly, opposing increased funding for the N.H.S.  But as a worker, would it be wise for me to support increased healthcare funding?  One might think so - but where does this funding come from, and what is the opportunity cost of it?

In truth, all political decisions taken under capitalism have their root in economics, treasury or finance issues, and are interlinked.  More funding for one worthy cause means less funding for another worthy cause.

Is it wise for conscious workers to support reforms?


----------



## kenny g (May 4, 2010)

Isn't a lot of the SPGB position that we are all one family? Anyway, that was the impression last time I was at Hyde Park.


----------



## JHE (May 4, 2010)

I thought you were in the SPGB, Kenny.  Am I confusing you with someone else or have you left?


----------



## TomR77 (May 4, 2010)

You may be right, but anyway - isn't the daily struggle of capitalism, the lived experience, sufficient struggle to raise consciousness among workers that there is something serious fucked-up about capitalism?

Do we all really need to go out, unfurl our banners and ask for 'The Right To Work', 'Higher Wages', and so on?

Aren't the bosses actually going to laugh at us as we campaign for our own exploitation?

We don't need higher wages or a right to work.  We need no wages and a right not to work, and only conscious workers can achieve it.  They will do so through the lived experience of struggle, and through education, electoral campaigning, trade unionism and propaganda.  The SPGB is playing its part, by trying to disseminate the case for socialism. The SPGB is correct to do so.  Nothing that Proper Tidy has said on here convinces me otherwise.  I really wish that were not the case - a return to reformist activity is tempting for me, and I have no ego vested here.  But the truth is, after due consideration of the arguments, I find the SPGB case unanswerable.


----------



## kenny g (May 4, 2010)

JHE said:


> I thought you were in the SPGB, Kenny.  Am I confusing you with someone else or have you left?



Left a long time ago.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 4, 2010)

TomR77 said:


> Nothing that Proper Tidy has said on here convinces me otherwise.  I really wish that were not the case - a return to reformist activity is tempting for me, and I have no ego vested here.  But the truth is, after due consideration of the arguments, I find the SPGB case unanswerable.



Wow, lot has gone on here since the last time I posted. I will read through it all and respond, eventually.

Tom - I would have thought the most striking criticism of the SPGB would be that they're so irrelevant to both the wider movement and the working class, which would strike me as a failing which they should be looking to address. Even if we accept the tenet that they are only there to propagandise, which I still dispute, then they need people to propagandise to, which is difficult when nobody is listening.

I'm also still confused by this stated aim of SPGB that it is not their role to involve themselves in struggle, whilst maintaining that trade unions etc have a place. This seems to contradict itself; what is the point in wearing two different hats, to use a shit turn of phrase. But anyway, I will comment on the rest later.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 4, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Left a long time ago.



I would be interested to know the reasons why.  I'm open to a private message if you think that is necessary but I would much prefer you put it in the public domain.  As a member of the SPGB I've seen members come and go and then come again.   In fact I resigned at one period myself.  Just out of curio I'm looking to see if there is any pattern to members resigning.

My main concern is do you still consider yourself a socialist?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 4, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Wow, lot has gone on here since the last time I posted. I will read through it all and respond, eventually.
> 
> Tom - I would have thought the most striking criticism of the SPGB would be that they're so irrelevant to both the wider movement and the working class, which would strike me as a failing which they should be looking to address. Even if we accept the tenet that they are only there to propagandise, which I still dispute, then they need people to propagandise to, which is difficult when nobody is listening.
> 
> I'm also still confused by this stated aim of SPGB that it is not their role to involve themselves in struggle, whilst maintaining that trade unions etc have a place. This seems to contradict itself; what is the point in wearing two different hats, to use a shit turn of phrase. But anyway, I will comment on the rest later.




It is not the SPGB's stated aim to involve itself in the struggle for reforms.  It sticks with the main struggle i.e. the struggle for world revolution by the workers and for the workers and without the hinderance of a self imposed vanguard.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 4, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> It is not the SPGB's stated aim to involve itself in the struggle for reforms.  It sticks with the main struggle i.e. the struggle for world revolution by the workers and for the workers and without the hinderance of a self imposed vanguard.



Yes I get that. But this position would only be logical if SPGB stated that the trade union struggle or struggle for improvements was a pointless diversion - as you do for liberation struggles. Yet you don't - you and others have repeatedly stated on here that you support trade union struggle etc, but that you won't organise as SPGB within the TU movement. My question is - why? Why separate it out like that? To what end? Why wear two hats when one will do.


----------



## dannysp (May 4, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Isn't a lot of the SPGB position that we are all one family? Anyway, that was the impression last time I was at Hyde Park.



If we're not, genetics is all wrong.


----------



## kenny g (May 4, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I would be interested to know the reasons why.



I started to doubt the existence of Capitalism.


----------



## kenny g (May 4, 2010)

dannysp said:


> If we're not, genetics is all wrong.



I wasn't suggesting it was, or that we aren't.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 4, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yes I get that. But this position would only be logical if SPGB stated that the trade union struggle or struggle for improvements was a pointless diversion - as you do for liberation struggles. Yet you don't - you and others have repeatedly stated on here that you support trade union struggle etc, but that you won't organise as SPGB within the TU movement. My question is - why? Why separate it out like that? To what end? Why wear two hats when one will do.



We don't say the TU struggle or the struggle for improvements is a pointless diversion.  On the contrary, and as I've stated on a previous post, we think they are essential to the general wellbeing of the exploited class.  For if they were to refuse to participate in either struggle they would soon end up in the gutter.   Both struggles are important to the survival of the working class as a class.  History clearly illustrates where there is oppression you will have struggle and it is important that  socialists recognise why and how that struggle takes place.  The struggle for improvements to living conditions, wages and working conditions will continue whether or not the SPGB were involved or not.  

For us the danger of such involvement is well recorded in the history of the struggle.  Your time and effort is taken up with the day-to-day struggles. Whilst the struggle to end all class struggle is left to wither or get strangled by the ability of capitalism to adapt to social improvements by linking them to economic growth, or where an increase in wages are concerned giving it about six months for the economy to adsorb its effects.

Our caveat is neither struggle or even when in combination, can bring about a transformation in the social relationships of capitalism, for their only role is to alleviate the the effects of exploitation.  The struggle for working class emancipation is stuck in a rut, rather than the crevasse you are trying to make it, it still refuses to think for itself and is still a class in its self.  I've said it before the role of socialists is to help the workers to recognise their own strength and to use democracy as a weapon in its emancipation.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 4, 2010)

kenny g said:


> I started to doubt the existence of Capitalism.



OK but do you still have them doubts? If so could you please explain the reason for them?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 4, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> For us the danger of such involvement is well recorded in the history of the struggle.  Your time and effort is taken up with the day-to-day struggles.



But this falls down on the claim made on here that SPGB members do involve themselves in the day to day, just not as an organised SPGB bloc.

So, for the sakes of clarity - does the SPGB encourage you not to involve yourselves (not support from a distance but involve yourselves) in struggle?

And if this isn't the case, what difference does it make, other than symbolic? As you are still taking up your "time and effort", but losing the ability to bring workers into the socialist movement through involvement with your bloc in day to day activities, like the unions.

It either seems academic, or cynical, much like SPGB's position on standing in elections despite an unwillingness to do anything if elected.


----------



## dannysp (May 5, 2010)

kenny g said:


> I wasn't suggesting it was, or that we aren't.


Hi Cousin
To bring according to ability and take according to needs is what makes a family work, n'est pas?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 5, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> But this falls down on the claim made on here that SPGB members do involve themselves in the day to day, just not as an organised SPGB bloc.
> 
> So, for the sakes of clarity - does the SPGB encourage you not to involve yourselves (not support from a distance but involve yourselves) in struggle?
> 
> ...



The SPGB do not have to encourage individual members not to get involved in the day-to-day struggles thrown up by capitalism.  And neither does it have to encourage the members to get involved.  As socialists the way we see it is that we have no choice on the matter but too get involved.  To us it is totally irrational to take a step back from the struggle we have to meet it head on.

For example, during my work years if there was a union in place I put my name on the dotted line and attended branch meetings, and several times found myself being elected as a branch officer, although I never sought office.  Where there was no union in place I joined one, and in one instance got blacklisted for my efforts to form a branch.  When I was out of work I joined in a variety of local activity, from rent strikes to barricading the streets.  

When I decided to take very early retirement I became a benefit and advice worker, besides being a volunteer driver for the local community transport.  I eventually settled down as a volunteer disability counsellor working in one of the most deprived areas in south Wales.  That in itself was a heart breaking experience. 

However, whatever capacity I found myself in, either as a paid worker or as an unpaid volunteer, whenever the opportunity came along I always put the socialist case.  And I know of many members doing much the same.  That to me is the practical experience and activity of day-to-day class struggle.  It is not academic neither is it symbolic of going through the motions.

My political experience started with me standing in the local elections has a Tenant's Representative.  I then joined Plaid and drifted into the left by attending meetings held by the Welsh Socialist/Republican Movement, SWP, and the old CPGB.  I joined the SPGB because I realised that being actually involved in the political activity for reforms was not what I wanted out of politics, and in fact I had been involved with the left because I had formed the false impression that they were revolutionaries.  When in actual fact I found them to be a bunch of control freaks who paid lip service to my understanding of democracy.

The question of being elected to political office is always under discussion within the SPGB.  And on times there have been very heated discussions and debates with no compromise given or expected from either side.  Nevertheless, despite the differences of opinion and analysis the membership as a whole are united in the knowledge that being a political party whose aim is to eventually capture political power, and with the working class using us as a tool, we have no choice but to participate in the political process, as and when the opportunity arises.

And as such we do not look on our election activity has a paper chase for new members but a positive response to the challenges of capitalism.  We are serious in our election efforts and are committed and determined to put the case for socialism as and when we can.   Obviously, if new members do come along because of our election efforts all to the good.  If they don't we will still plug away in the best way we can.

You have wisely, broached the subject of if ever the time arose and socialist delegates are elected to political office what would they do?  The answer(s) to this question depends on the actual number of socialist delegates elected.  

For instance, if a single or a small group of socialists are elected they would be in the minority, but it also is unlikely they would be denied any voice in the political process.  Reforms would still be judged on their merits and where it is clear that there is a clear benefit to the ruling class the socialist delegates will be putting the case for socialism.  If on the other hand it is a two way split with both classes gaining some benefit this will also be put.  And the case for socialism will still be stated. 

In short, the socialist delegates would use all and every opportunity to be rebels and advocate socialism.  Obviously, if there were to be a majority of socialist delegates who had a clear majority from the electorate the picture changes from one of rebels to rebellion.  End of play.

If it were ever decided by the membership to abandon the political process of electioneering the SPGB would in truth become a dogmatic sect.  And I with many other members would leave.  This is very, very unlikely to happen. We want socialism and know that the workers have to use the political process in order to get it.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 5, 2010)

Thanks, but that hasn't actually answered my question in full.

You state that SPGB offer no guidance on whether or not members involve themselves in the day to day struggle, which fits with what I know of SPGB, which is essentially that if the member continues to agree with the party line then nothing else matters.

You also assert that as a socialist you of course wish to involve yourself in day to day struggles - I agree, by the way.

Doesn't this mean that your whole basis for SPGB not involving themselves in struggle is redundant? You state that our 'time and effort is wasted' by day to day involvement. I am not sure I agree that seeking improvements for working class people can accurately be called 'wasted time' but either way, your time and effort is also wasted.

So what do SPGB gain by abstaining from the political process away from electoral politics? I can't see any benefit. I do see a disadvantage, which is that with no organised SPGB body involved in the political process beyond elections you have no way to bring workers into a committedly socialist bloc. Perhaps this explains in part the very low membership of SPGB, but of course the implications are wider, in that workers will remain solely engaged in day to day struggles - or will remain reformists as you may define it.

Therefore, SPGB's abstentionist position would appear to be superficial in a practical sense, and counter-productive politically.

You also state your case with regard to electoral politics, yet I am still in need of a little clarity. What, from the point of view of the electorate who vote for you, is the advantage of electing an SPGB member? Given that you are obligated to not participate in the political process once elected. If I was a voter, I would be disinclined to elect anybody who is unwilling to fight for me.

I understand that you are saying you will use political office to advocate socialism; all well and good. But let's suspend reality and say that your man in Vauxhall gets elected. He is one man. He can advocate socialism until the cows come home but in a real sense this will not bring socialism any closer. Besides advocating socialism, he will not have the support of his party to actively fight for his voters, or to fight for improvements. So why would or should any typical voter vote for him?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 5, 2010)

TomR77 said:


> In truth, all political decisions taken under capitalism have their root in economics, treasury or finance issues, and are interlinked.  More funding for one worthy cause means less funding for another worthy cause.
> 
> Is it wise for conscious workers to support reforms?



Hmm. If it meant a reform would decrease the likelyhood of incidents of accidents and death amongst the working class I would most certainly welcome it.  The introduction of the M.O.T. and H&S legislation springs to mind.  But as to actively supporting such reforms, very doubtful glad to say.  In fact I would be promoting socialism by illustrating such legislation have benefits for both classes, and retains the status quo.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Hmm. If it meant a reform would decrease the likelyhood of incidents of accidents and death amongst the working class I would most certainly welcome it.



Agreed. Tom's argument is very silly. It ignores basic class analysis. For a start, we don't have one monetary figure with which to budget. Secondly, we are not one class; we don't all have equal needs. By Tom's argument, there is no point taxing the rich to increase spending on public services used primarily by the poor because it is shifting it from one place to another. Yes, it is - from those who don't need it to those who do.

And of course socialists should fight for this; otherwise you're just distant theoriticians and not militant fighters.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 5, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Thanks, but that hasn't actually answered my question in full.
> 
> You state that SPGB offer no guidance on whether or not members involve themselves in the day to day struggle, which fits with what I know of SPGB, which is essentially that if the member continues to agree with the party line then nothing else matters.
> 
> ...



You are going over old ground here.  You know the SPGB make a clear distinction between the struggle for reforms and the struggle for revolution.  How is our time and effort wasted by making this distinction?  You have consistently tried to make the case that for you there is no dividing line between the two, when clearly there have been numerous contributions on this thread and others which say otherwise.  

In this attempt to converge the two very different concepts you have constantly ignored the lessons of history and the evidence by Marx and Engles viz the 1872 preface of the CM, plus the history of the Social Democratic movement.  Its old hat, its been tried over and over again and failed.  So of course if you continue to ignore what went before and despite the evidence to the contrary you are indeed wasting your time and effort besides being dogmatic.



> So what do SPGB gain by abstaining from the political process away from electoral politics? I can't see any benefit. I do see a disadvantage, which is that with no organised SPGB body involved in the political process beyond elections you have no way to bring workers into a committedly socialist bloc. Perhaps this explains in part the very low membership of SPGB, but of course the implications are wider, in that workers will remain solely engaged in day to day struggles - or will remain reformists as you may define it.
> 
> Therefore, SPGB's abstentionist position would appear to be superficial in a practical sense, and counter-productive politically.



We do not abstain from the political process apart from election politics.  We have debated with all and sundry.  And we are always willing to debate with any political organisation or party.   We have also held forums with those organisations who seek a moneyless, free access, common ownership, production for use society despite the fact our respective ideas on how to attain it are at odds.  We attend demonstrations and our opponents meetings to state our case.  What more do you want and more to the point what more is available?

I have pointed out the distinction, on another thread, between the political system and the political process.  It appears you see them one and the same when in actual fact they are not.  We won't touch the political system with a barge pole whereas your support for reforms and transitional demands clearly do mean getting your hands dirty.  

By the SPGB abstaining from the political system this provides the workers with a valid alternative to capitalism.  And yes if we failed to provide this alternative the workers would be stuck in the crevasse of reformist measures rather than the rut of not understanding the full implications of democracy.  Possibly it could be argued that support for reforms had served a useful purpose, the struggle for democracy, and TU recognition, for instance.  

Your case rests on the assumption that by supporting reforms there is still some life in the old dog(ma) yet.  We argue the converse and explain that with the battle for democracy being won, we have now reached the stage where it is a struggle for ideas.  




> You also state your case with regard to electoral politics, yet I am still in need of a little clarity. What, from the point of view of the electorate who vote for you, is the advantage of electing an SPGB member? Given that you are obligated to not participate in the political process once elected. If I was a voter, I would be disinclined to elect anybody who is unwilling to fight for me.



We are obligated to participate in the political process, and in this respect all socialist delegates will be mandated to rigorously pursue working class interests.  To do otherwise would mean participation in the political system.  To clarify still further, and as I explained earlier, the socialist delegates will be rebels, but they will also be rebels by the non-participation in representative democracy and exercising participatory democracy.  This will indeed upset the apple cart but in the battle for ideas socialist ideas must be put to the test in practical terms.



> I understand that you are saying you will use political office to advocate socialism; all well and good. But let's suspend reality and say that your man in Vauxhall gets elected. He is one man. He can advocate socialism until the cows come home but in a real sense this will not bring socialism any closer. Besides advocating socialism, he will not have the support of his party to actively fight for his voters, or to fight for improvements. So why would or should any typical voter vote for him?



What I've said in the previous paragraph provides every reason why the workers should vote for socialism.  In fighting for working class interests of course s/he will have the support of the Socialist Party, and of socialists.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 5, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Agreed. Tom's argument is very silly. It ignores basic class analysis. For a start, we don't have one monetary figure with which to budget. Secondly, we are not one class; we don't all have equal needs. By Tom's argument, there is no point taxing the rich to increase spending on public services used primarily by the poor because it is shifting it from one place to another. Yes, it is - from those who don't need it to those who do.
> 
> And of course socialists should fight for this; otherwise you're just distant theoriticians and not militant fighters.



Neither TomR77 or myself argued what you are arguing here, rather the reverse.  By deliberately deleting my full quote you are attempting to grasp at straws.  Sorry it won't work, not by far.


----------



## TomR77 (May 5, 2010)

I think we all need to move beyond points-scoring here.  I accept that I need to re-familiarise myself with the Trotskyist case now and again when entering debate with Trotskyists.  Likewise, opponents and critics of the S.P.G.B. should familiarise themselves fully and properly with the S.P.G.B. case.  Some of the criticisms are caricatures of that case, or distortions of what I and others re saying.

The point I am trying to make about reforms is that I do not think it is wise for the working class to support them in the context of the fight for capitalism.  I stated repeatedly on the other thread that I have no objection to reforms per se, just that I do not think they are part of socialism.


----------



## TomR77 (May 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Hmm. If it meant a reform would decrease the likelyhood of incidents of accidents and death amongst the working class I would most certainly welcome it.  The introduction of the M.O.T. and H&S legislation springs to mind.  But as to actively supporting such reforms, very doubtful glad to say.  In fact I would be promoting socialism by illustrating such legislation have benefits for both classes, and retains the status quo.



In making a valid point, I accept I took the logic of it too far, but I still think that by advocating or campaigning for reforms, workers sell themselves short.  Health & safety legislation is, for the most part, a good thing - but would it be necessary for workers to agitate for such legislation in a socialist society?  I doubt it.  So why not campaign for socialism?  The crime of the working class is that they ask for so little.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 5, 2010)

TomR77 said:


> In making a valid point, I accept I took the logic of it too far, but I still think that by advocating or campaigning for reforms, workers sell themselves short.  Health & safety legislation is, for the most part, a good thing - but would it be necessary for workers to agitate for such legislation in a socialist society?  I doubt it.  So why not campaign for socialism?  *The crime of the working class is that they ask for so little*.



In rush the socialist super heroes to save the working class from a life of crime.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Captain Hurrah (May 5, 2010)

I had you down as too serious to use the :facepalm.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 5, 2010)

Captain Hurrah said:


> I had you down as too serious to use the :facepalm.



Normally yes; but that sentence left me speechless. However, I may go back and edit.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Gravediggers (May 5, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Normally yes; but that sentence left me speechless. However, I may go back and edit.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



You stop your yaketty, yak.  Now that would be crime!


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> You stop your yaketty, yak.  Now that would be crime!



Teaching the working class, telling posters what to do; your work is never done GD.

Anymore of your dreary poetry?

Here's some to keep you going:

The room was suddenly rich and the great bay-window was
Spawning snow and pink roses against it
Soundlessly collateral and incompatible:
World is suddener than we fancy it.

World is crazier and more of it than we think,
Incorrigibly plural. I peel and portion
A tangerine and spit the pips and feel
The drunkenness of things being various.

And the fire flames with a bubbling sound for world
Is more spiteful and gay than one supposes -
On the tongue on the eyes on the ears in the palms of one's hands -
There is more than glass between the snow and the huge roses.​
Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Gravediggers (May 5, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Teaching the working class, telling posters what to do; your work is never done GD.
> 
> Anymore of your dreary poetry?
> 
> ...



Tuning up for Tolpuddle I gather, unfortunately you will have to take a translator along otherwise the working class audience will have some difficulty in understanding what the fuck it is all about.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Tuning up for Tolpuddle I gather, unfortunately you will have to take a translator along otherwise the working class audience will have some difficulty in understanding what the fuck it is all about.



Priceless GD...and clueless at the same time; you really have got your work cut out for you.

Louis Macneice


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2010)

Tolpuddle reformists


----------



## robbo203 (May 5, 2010)

TomR77 said:


> [My emphasis].
> 
> With all respect robbo, that is not the S.P.G.B. view.  Part of the problem the S.P.G.B. have is with people characterising, indeed mischaracterising, its views.  The S.P.G.B.'s case is clear and logical, but it also has nuances and subtleties.



My point was that the SPGB depends on propagandism and political organisation as the route to socialism.  It quite rightly emphasises the need for workers to acquire socialist consciousness before socialism can be achieved.  However, it does not look *beyond *the idea of consciously spreading socialist ideas through propaganda as a means of raising consciousness.  Yes of course it will argue that ideas arise out of material conditions not just through spreading ideas but as an organisation it is concerned solely with the direct dissemination of ideas as a way of achieving socialism.

If this is a caricature of the SPGB's position perhaps you could enlighten me as to why you think it is


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Tolpuddle reformists



Apparently thick as well.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Gravediggers (May 5, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> My point was that the SPGB depends on propagandism and political organisation as the route to socialism.  It quite rightly emphasises the need for workers to acquire socialist consciousness before socialism can be achieved.  However, it does not look *beyond *the idea of consciously spreading socialist ideas through propaganda as a means of raising consciousness.  Yes of course it will argue that ideas arise out of material conditions not just through spreading ideas but as an organisation it is concerned solely with the direct dissemination of ideas as a way of achieving socialism.
> 
> If this is a caricature of the SPGB's position perhaps you could enlighten me as to why you think it is



I've asked you in a previous post what other political activity you think we could be involved with?  If you are unable to supply one then yes it is a caricature.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I've asked you in a previous post *what other political activity you think we could be involved with*?  If you are unable to supply one then yes it is a caricature.



Crticial thinking and historical research? You could try this for a start (it might help with your clueless problem).

Louis MacNeice


----------



## belboid (May 5, 2010)

This thread is a marvellous example of just how worthless the SPGB are, and why no one pays them any attention, except for the giggles. Such abstract self-indulgent drivel, magnificently tedious.


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2010)

belboid said:


> This thread is a marvellous example of just how worthless the SPGB are, and why no one pays them any attention, except for the giggles. Such abstract self-indulgent drivel, magnificently tedious.



Have you read the lord monbiot/Plaid Cymru one? It's even better.


----------



## belboid (May 5, 2010)

I started but soon realised I needed to dust the eaves.


----------



## fractionMan (May 5, 2010)

Roadkill said:


> Bring back nomoney!
> 
> </old skool u75>



Yeah, he was a brilliant advert for the SPGB.  

Nearly joined.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 5, 2010)

belboid said:


> This thread is a marvellous example of just how worthless the SPGB are, and why no one pays them any attention, except for the giggles. Such abstract self-indulgent drivel, magnificently tedious.



Just like your assertion here!


----------



## belboid (May 5, 2010)

Sorry, please do remind me of everything you have achived in your 100+ years of existence.

Oh you already have.  Absolutely nothing.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 5, 2010)

How's the historical research going GD? Here's a couple more verses for the meantime:

I was born in Belfast between the mountain and the gantries
To the hooting of lost sirens and the clang of trams:
Thence to Smoky Carrick in County Antrim
Where the bottle-neck harbour collects the mud which jams

The little boats beneath the Norman castle,
The pier shining with lumps of crystal salt;
The Scotch Quarter was a line of residential houses
But the Irish Quarter was a slum for the blind and halt.

The brook ran yellow from the factory stinking of chlorine,
The yarn-milled called its funeral cry at noon;
Our lights looked over the Lough to the lights of Bangor
Under the peacock aura of a drowning moon...​
Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 5, 2010)

belboid said:


> Sorry, please do remind me of everything you have achived in your 100+ years of existence.
> 
> Oh you already have.  Absolutely nothing.



GD's contributions to these boards are all part and parcel of the SPGB's heroic revolutionary practice; at least I think that's what he said.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Gravediggers (May 5, 2010)

belboid said:


> Sorry, please do remind me of everything you have achived in your 100+ years of existence.
> 
> Oh you already have.  Absolutely nothing.



Another well rehearsed assertion from the left.  Do you take lessons of your parrot?


----------



## belboid (May 5, 2010)

So, you agree you've achieved nothing then?

Alternate reponse:

Says the man who simply cuts n pastes Speakers Corner rambles


----------



## Gravediggers (May 5, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> How's the historical research going GD? Here's a couple more verses for the meantime:
> 
> I was born in Belfast between the mountain and the gantries
> To the hooting of lost sirens and the clang of trams:
> ...



Nice one Louis,  I'd keep that one for Tolpuddle if I were you.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Nice one Louis,  I'd keep that one for Tolpuddle if I were you.



You think the working class dimwits might be able to make sense of it then? Perhaps I should get you, as a barometer of working class intelligence, to vet all _my_ poems.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Gravediggers (May 5, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> You think the working class dimwits might be able to make sense of it then? Perhaps I should get you, as a barometer of working class intelligence, to vet all _my_ poems.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Just like Julie Birchall you don't notice appreciation when it's obvious.  Or you choose to reject it from dimwits like myself.  You are so egoistic I'm sure you are quite capable of applying self-censorship to anything you care to mention.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Just like Julie Birchall you don't notice appreciation when it's obvious.  Or you choose to reject it from dimwits like myself.  You are so egoistic I'm sure you are quite capable of applying self-censorship to anything you care to mention.



Who is Julie Birchall?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Gravediggers (May 5, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Who is Julie Birchall?
> 
> Louis MacNeice



And here is me thinking you were a friend of google.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> And here is me thinking you were a friend of google.



Did you mean?








Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 5, 2010)

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## TomR77 (May 5, 2010)

Louis MacNeice and Butchersapron have destroyed this thread.  I am sick of their attitude to other contributors.  I wouldn't mind, but I don't even find their  posts funny.  It seems to me their only intention is to come on here and sneer at anyone with a different view.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 5, 2010)

TomR77 said:


> Louis MacNeice and Butchersapron have destroyed this thread.  I am sick of their attitude to other contributors.  I wouldn't mind, but I don't even find their  posts funny.  It seems to me their only intention is to come on here and sneer at anyone with a different view.



Is that our crime?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## belboid (May 5, 2010)

TomR77 said:


> Louis MacNeice and Butchersapron have destroyed this thread.  I am sick of their attitude to other contributors.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> You are going over old ground here.  You know the SPGB make a clear distinction between the struggle for reforms and the struggle for revolution.  How is our time and effort wasted by making this distinction?  You have consistently tried to make the case that for you there is no dividing line between the two, when clearly there have been numerous contributions on this thread and others which say otherwise.
> 
> In this attempt to converge the two very different concepts you have constantly ignored the lessons of history and the evidence by Marx and Engles viz the 1872 preface of the CM, plus the history of the Social Democratic movement.  Its old hat, its been tried over and over again and failed.  So of course if you continue to ignore what went before and despite the evidence to the contrary you are indeed wasting your time and effort besides being dogmatic.



No, it is you who has misunderstood my point.

Okay - we, as in us pesky Trots etc - are wasting our 'time and effort' by engaging in day to day struggle, or 'reformism'.

But so are you - you state that SPGB members also involve themselves in the day to day, just not as an SPGB bloc.

So where is the advantage for you? You still waste your 'time and effort' don't you? The only difference is that you don't do it as an SPGB bloc - meaning you can't bring workers into that bloc (as it doesn't exist) through struggle.

So where is the advantage?



> We do not abstain from the political process apart from election politics.  We have debated with all and sundry.  And we are always willing to debate with any political organisation or party.   We have also held forums with those organisations who seek a moneyless, free access, common ownership, production for use society despite the fact our respective ideas on how to attain it are at odds.  We attend demonstrations and our opponents meetings to state our case.  What more do you want and more to the point what more is available?
> 
> I have pointed out the distinction, on another thread, between the political system and the political process.  It appears you see them one and the same when in actual fact they are not.  We won't touch the political system with a barge pole whereas your support for reforms and transitional demands clearly do mean getting your hands dirty.



I'm not talking about debate or propocandising - I'm talking about involving yourselves in the political process (not system) once elected. Why should anybody vote for you, if all you will do is propagandise?



> By the SPGB abstaining from the political system this provides the workers with a valid alternative to capitalism.  And yes if we failed to provide this alternative the workers would be stuck in the crevasse of reformist measures rather than the rut of not understanding the full implications of democracy.  Possibly it could be argued that support for reforms had served a useful purpose, the struggle for democracy, and TU recognition, for instance.



But you don't abstain from the political system - it is the opposite, you abstain from the process but not the system - you stand in elections but won't do anything if elected!



> Your case rests on the assumption that by supporting reforms there is still some life in the old dog(ma) yet.  We argue the converse and explain that with the battle for democracy being won, we have now reached the stage where it is a struggle for ideas.



Then why are our ideas not yet supported on a mass scale? 



> We are obligated to participate in the political process, and in this respect all socialist delegates will be mandated to rigorously pursue working class interests.  To do otherwise would mean participation in the political system.  To clarify still further, and as I explained earlier, the socialist delegates will be rebels, but they will also be rebels by the non-participation in representative democracy and exercising participatory democracy.  This will indeed upset the apple cart but in the battle for ideas socialist ideas must be put to the test in practical terms.



So this is an admission that you will abstain from participation in the process, system, whatever, if elected. Again, why the hell would anybody vote for you? It is liking going to a caff for lunch which has no food.



> What I've said in the previous paragraph provides every reason why the workers should vote for socialism.  In fighting for working class interests of course s/he will have the support of the Socialist Party, and of socialists.



I agree 'workers should vote for socialism' although why they would vote for SPGB is a complete mystery.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 5, 2010)

TomR77 said:


> Louis MacNeice and Butchersapron have destroyed this thread.  I am sick of their attitude to other contributors.  I wouldn't mind, but I don't even find their  posts funny.  It seems to me their only intention is to come on here and sneer at anyone with a different view.



I beg to differ.  Its the obvious absence of Proper Tidy and his supporters who have failed to reply to the stinging criticisms posted which maybe destroying this thread.   I suspect he's licking his wounds or possibly seeking reinforcements.  But on the other hand he could be employing the tactic of ignoring the criticisms in order to justify the charge of the SPGB being an irrelevance.  Which reminds me isn't that the last refuge of the scoundrel?


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2010)

Into the dustbin of history! 

What timing.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Neither TomR77 or myself argued what you are arguing here, rather the reverse.  By deliberately deleting my full quote you are attempting to grasp at straws.  Sorry it won't work, not by far.



Tom argued the point that a 'reform' in one area is just going to take money from a different area. That is what he said. I only quoted half of what you said because it was the only part relevant to what Tom had said, nothing sinister or devious.

Tom appears to believe that we have a set budget to work from, and more worryingly that striving for an improvement in one area will have an impact elsewhere so is pointless - ignoring the fact that the improvement would be in the interests of the working class, whereas the impact elsewhere would be on the wealthiest. This sounds suspiciously like a national interest argument to me.


----------



## belboid (May 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> the stinging criticisms



  

it just gets better and better


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I beg to differ.  Its the obvious absence of Proper Tidy and his supporters who have failed to reply to the stinging criticisms posted which maybe destroying this thread.   I suspect he's licking his wounds or possibly seeking reinforcements.  But on the other hand he could be employing the tactic of ignoring the criticisms in order to justify the charge of the SPGB being an irrelevance.  Which reminds me isn't that the last refuge of the scoundrel?



When have I 'sought reinforcements' you tool?

Projecting again I see. I don't feel the need to rally the troops to help me out, unlike you, and I don't see u75 as the battle-ground of socialist ideas, unlike you. I don't know why I keep coming back - morbid curiosity I suppose.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I beg to differ.  Its the obvious absence of Proper Tidy and his supporters who have failed to reply to the stinging criticisms posted which maybe destroying this thread.   I suspect he's licking his wounds or possibly seeking reinforcements.  But on the other hand he could be employing the tactic of ignoring the criticisms in order to justify the charge of the SPGB being an irrelevance.  Which reminds me isn't that the last refuge of the scoundrel?



With Proper Tidy back on I withdraw my observations and comments above.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> With Proper Tidy back on I withdraw my observations and comments above.



Oh boo to me, I went to bed then had the audacity to go out this morning. I should of course have stayed logged on for fear I may be accused of running away.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 5, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> No, it is you who has misunderstood my point.
> 
> Okay - we, as in us pesky Trots etc - are wasting our 'time and effort' by engaging in day to day struggle, or 'reformism'.
> 
> ...



I can see that this discussion is going to end up as a list of distinctions.  I have repeatedly emphasised that it is politically useless and a waste of time and effort to attempt to make a link between reforms and revolution.  I have also continued to demonstrate that socialists find it impossible to opt out of the day-to-day class struggle and have to be involved.  I have admitted that the workers have to improve their conditions under capitalism, with the caveat that although we acknowledge the struggle for reforms can be part of the class struggle they can not be by the evidence of history be the struggle for revolution.  Socialists do not participate in the day-to-day struggle to gain an advantage.  Indeed, what advantage is to be gained in dealing with the effects of reforms?





> I'm not talking about debate or propocandising - I'm talking about involving yourselves in the political process (not system) once elected. Why should anybody vote for you, if all you will do is propagandise?



Would you rather we done a Guy Fawkes?



> But you don't abstain from the political system - it is the opposite, you abstain from the process but not the system - you stand in elections but won't do anything if elected!



So to you standing in defiance of representative democracy and advocating participatory democracy by example is doing nothing.  If you fail to see that activity as an act of revolution you are more blinkered than I thought.




> Then why are our ideas not yet supported on a mass scale?



It could well be that the workers are not ready for them, or perhaps they are unaware of the alternatives.  I dunno you tell me?  If you think there is some kind of magic wand think again!



> So this is an admission that you will abstain from participation in the process, system, whatever, if elected. Again, why the hell would anybody vote for you? It is liking going to a caff for lunch which has no food.



No we do not and wont abstain form the political process.



> I agree 'workers should vote for socialism' although why they would vote for SPGB is a complete mystery.



This being the case and you agree with our definition of socialism how come you see it as a mystery?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I can see that this discussion is going to end up as a list of distinctions.  I have repeatedly emphasised that it is politically useless and a waste of time and effort to attempt to make a link between reforms and revolution.  I have also continued to demonstrate that socialists find it impossible to opt out of the day-to-day class struggle and have to be involved.  I have admitted that the workers have to improve their conditions under capitalism, with the caveat that although we acknowledge the struggle for reforms can be part of the class struggle they can not be by the evidence of history be the struggle for revolution.  Socialists do not participate in the day-to-day struggle to gain an advantage.  Indeed, what advantage is to be gained in dealing with the effects of reforms?



You're deliberately missing the point here, aren't you?

You assert that we are 'wasting time and effort' engaging in day to day struggle.

You also asset that those in the SPGB engage in day to day struggle - or 'waste time and effort' - just not as an organised bloc.

So where is the advantage for you?



> Would you rather we done a Guy Fawkes?



I would rather you use your elected political position to do something positive for the people who have voted for you. To abstain will only smear all socialists and lead the electorate to think we are all useless in political office.



> So to you standing in defiance of representative democracy and advocating participatory democracy by example is doing nothing.  If you fail to see that activity as an act of revolution you are more blinkered than I thought.



But nobody elects you to propagandise. They elect you to make a difference, which you refuse to do.



> It could well be that the workers are not ready for them, or perhaps they are unaware of the alternatives.  I dunno you tell me?



It could well be that we do not yet have the required level of class consciousness and consequently insufficient desire to abolish capitalism. Ergo, we do not have the right conditions, and pamphlets and speaker's corner will do little to change this.



> No we do not and wont abstain form the political process.



But you do. Standing for elections but abstaining from representing your electorate is no different to electing a shop steward who then refuses to represent his members.



> This being the case and you agree with our definition of socialism how come you see it as a mystery?



Your definition of socialism is sound. Your understanding of how to get there is non-existent. I like the idea of living on a fluffy white cloud in perpetual ecstasy too, but I'm yet to join a fundie church.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 5, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Did you mean?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



GD you never got back to me on this question.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## barney_pig (May 5, 2010)

belboid said:


> Sorry, please do remind me of everything you have achived in your 100+ years of existence.
> 
> Oh you already have.  Absolutely nothing.


always a joy when a leninist comes up with this one
 what would be the leninist roll achievements of the alst 100 years?
    the bolshevik coup
  the suppression of all other socialists
 the banning of strikes 
 the repression of the anarchists
 the massacre of kronstadt
 the the enforced collectivization
 the ukranian famine
 extermination of the kulaks
the doctors plot
the great purges
 the march madness
the third period
the Hitler/stalin pact
 the crushing of the spanish revolution
the smashing of the berlin building workers in1953
the betrayal of the greek revolution
the invasion of hungary
the invasion of czechoslovakia
the great leap forward
 the cultural revolution
 Pol Pot
shining Path
 black september
 Tiannamen Square

so much to be proud of


----------



## belboid (May 5, 2010)

and so many points to miss entirely 

(btw, it is entirely unnecessary to be a 'trot' whtever that might be these days, to think the SPGB are just a pathetic joke)


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 5, 2010)

barney_pig said:


> always a joy when a leninist comes up with this one
> what would be the leninist roll achievements of the alst 100 years?
> the bolshevik coup
> the suppression of all other socialists
> ...



Yeah, I did all of that. Like to keep busy, you know.

Do we really class Maoists as Leninists btw?


----------



## belboid (May 5, 2010)

ex-trots do often like to blame trots for everything done in the name of 'communism' I notice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 5, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yeah, I did all of that. Like to keep busy, you know.
> 
> Do we really class Maoists as Leninists btw?



They are all part of capitalism's left wing; apologists one and all. It is only the SPGB (well one or other of them anyway) who aren't...or something like that.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## dennisr (May 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> With Proper Tidy back on I withdraw my observations and comments above.



my how generous. 

some of us have to work for a living you plonker


----------



## dannysp (May 6, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yeah, I did all of that. Like to keep busy, you know.
> 
> Do we really class Maoists as Leninists btw?



The left have fucked up big time everywhere and always whenever they've got their hands on power. The SPGB have fucked up nothing. The crime of the SPGB as far as the left is concerned is not so much that it would have nothing to do with the fuck ups, but that it predicted them, knowing you can't have Socialism without Socialists.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 6, 2010)

dannysp said:


> The left have fucked up big time everywhere and always whenever they've got their hands on power. The SPGB have fucked up nothing. The crime of the SPGB as far as the left is concerned is not so much that it would have nothing to do with the fuck ups, but that it predicted them, knowing you can't have Socialism without Socialists.



True.

If you never do anything, ever, then nobody can ever accuse you of anything (except doing nothing, of course).

Excellent logic.

Btw, the terrible trots were busy getting exiled and executed for speaking out against authoritarian communism when the rest of the left were tied up fantasising over five year plans and Moscow show trials, so I'll be fucked if I'll let a few people on a message board pin the fucking Hitler/Stalin pact on the tradition.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 6, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Btw, the terrible trots were busy getting exiled and executed for speaking out against authoritarian communism when the rest of the left were tied up fantasising over five year plans and Moscow show trials, so I'll be fucked if I'll let a few people on a message board pin the fucking Hitler/Stalin pact on the tradition.


I think only one person here could be interpreted as making this absurd accusation and I don't think he has anything to do with the SPGB. I don't think the SPGB was fantasising over 5-Year Plans either but was saying that Russia was state capitalist. Your "terrible trots" however were saying throughout this period that Russia was some sort of "workers state" despite the fact that the workers there were exploited and oppressed. And they were (and still are) fantasising over 5-Year Plans as here:


> What remained of the workers' state, however, was a planned economy; an economy not owned by private individuals in order to make a profit as under capitalism, but owned by the state.
> Lenin and Trotsky's aim was a planned economy run democratically by committees of workers for the benefit of all.
> However, when Stalin and the bureaucracy took control, workers were allowed no input into how the economy or society was run.
> Despite this deformation of the planned economy, Russia progressed economically from a backward country to a superpower. This proves what could be possible if an economy is planned.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 6, 2010)

dannysp said:


> The left have fucked up big time everywhere and always whenever they've got their hands on power. The SPGB have fucked up nothing. The crime of the SPGB as far as the left is concerned is not so much that it would have nothing to do with the fuck ups, but that it predicted them, knowing you can't have Socialism without Socialists.



THe SPGB has commited no crimes. How could it. However, the SPGB and its members have and continue to be, by turns, a risible, ignorant, charming, slightly irritating, po-faced, entertaining, smug irrelevance.

Well done chaps for keeping the history alive - Louis MacNeice

p.s. GD (or one of the reinforcements) who is Julie Birchall?


----------



## belboid (May 6, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> (or one of the reinforcements)



you think GD rang all his other comrades (or sent a telegraph, that being more appropriate to their members ages) to say 'quick!  someone is actually _talking to us_, come and help'?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 6, 2010)

belboid said:


> you think GD rang all his other comrades (or sent a telegraph, that being more appropriate to their members ages) to say 'quick!  someone is actually _talking to us_, come and help'?



Do you think it is urely coincidence that that on this, and on the 'Welsh' thread, we have enjoyed the company of such a percentage of the SPGB's membership?
This is the very cut and thrust of political activity for GD; surely he'd want to share the opportunity.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## belboid (May 6, 2010)

They dont get their comrades to come and help out with any trades union work, but do with a discussion on the internet.  What a vital organisation.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 6, 2010)

belboid said:


> They dont get their comrades to come and help out with any trades union work, but do with a discussion on the internet.  What a vital organisation.



The opportunity to put 'the case for socialism' (singular and definite article) is obviously better here than in your workplace.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Gravediggers (May 6, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You're deliberately missing the point here, aren't you?
> 
> You assert that we are 'wasting time and effort' engaging in day to day struggle.
> 
> ...



I did not nor intend to deliberately miss the point.  For some reason you have gained the impression that individual socialists have no 'advantage' to gain by being involved in the day-to-day struggle for this is a waste of effort and time.  And that to be consistent they need to follow the party line by abstaining from the struggle.   Individual socialists are consistent when participating in the  day-to-day struggle by not getting involved in supporting reformist activity.   Of course there is no advantage to be gained when dealing with the effects of reforms, other than like I've stated, to use it as an opportunity to put the case for socialism.



> I would rather you use your elected political position to do something positive for the people who have voted for you. To abstain will only smear all socialists and lead the electorate to think we are all useless in political office.



It depends on what you mean by positive.  Surely it is a positive step by advocating and practicing participatory democracy rather than staying with the status quo of representative democracy and all the implications that go with it?  If we accepted representative democracy it would mean the socialist delegate having to take up all and every issue and problem of capitalism.  Whereas, by practicing participatory democracy we bound by mandate to only take up the issues and problems that are in the interest of the working class.  This is in fact doing something for the people who voted for us and we are not abstaining from *their mandate* to express their interests.



> But nobody elects you to propagandise. They elect you to make a difference, which you refuse to do.



But you are missing the point here, for we have in fact been elected to propagate the socialist case and nothing less, with the intention of making a difference in how democracy can be used in the interest of the working class.



> It could well be that we do not yet have the required level of class consciousness and consequently insufficient desire to abolish capitalism. Ergo, we do not have the right conditions, and pamphlets and speaker's corner will do little to change this.



Just because the conditions are not as yet present is no reason to abandon the class struggle.   In fact it provides all the more reason to participate by way of pamphlets and speakers corner, etc, etc. 



> But you do. Standing for elections but abstaining from representing your electorate is no different to electing a shop steward who then refuses to represent his members.



We will represent those voters who voted for us but we will refuse to represent those voters who still desire changes to capitalism.



> Your definition of socialism is sound. Your understanding of how to get there is non-existent. I like the idea of living on a fluffy white cloud in perpetual ecstasy too, but I'm yet to join a fundie church.



If you see our definition of socialism as sound you need to figure out the full implications of that definition in respect of understanding the concurrent activity.  This entails using the democratic political process to bring about a majority of socialists for with out this majority who have volunteered their support we won't have socialism.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 6, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> The opportunity to put 'the case for socialism' (singular and definite article) is obviously better here than in your workplace.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Crikey!  Louis I would careful for you are starting to make a bit of sense at long last.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 6, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I did not nor intend to deliberately miss the point.  For some reason you have gained the impression that individual socialists have no 'advantage' to gain by being involved in the day-to-day struggle for this is a waste of effort and time.  And that to be consistent they need to follow the party line by abstaining from the struggle.   Individual socialists are consistent when participating in the  day-to-day struggle by not getting involved in supporting reformist activity.   Of course there is no advantage to be gained when dealing with the effects of reforms, other than like I've stated, to use it as an opportunity to put the case for socialism.



You're still not getting what I am saying. I don't know how I can re-phrase it yet again.

Of course you can contribute as individuals. But what is the advantage of not doing so as an organised bloc? You are still 'wasting your time and effort' - so no advantage - but you are not able to bring fellow workers into your bloc - so a disadvantage.



> It depends on what you mean by positive.  Surely it is a positive step by advocating and practicing participatory democracy rather than staying with the status quo of representative democracy and all the implications that go with it?  If we accepted representative democracy it would mean the socialist delegate having to take up all and every issue and problem of capitalism.  Whereas, by practicing participatory democracy we bound by mandate to only take up the issues and problems that are in the interest of the working class.  This is in fact doing something for the people who voted for us and we are not abstaining from *their mandate* to express their interests.



Participatory democracy my arse! Okay, so you as an SPGB member gets elected as a councillor (I know, far fetched). This isn't going to make any significant contribution to either establishing socialism or to participatory democracy. So why would anybody bother electing you just for you to abstain? You are avoiding the points raised.



> But you are missing the point here, for we have in fact been elected to propagate the socialist case and nothing less, with the intention of making a difference in how democracy can be used in the interest of the working class.



Well, you haven't been elected, have you? And your position on what you will do if elected probably explains why.



> Just because the conditions are not as yet present is no reason to abandon the class struggle.   In fact it provides all the more reason to participate by way of pamphlets and speakers corner, etc, etc.



I never said it was a 'reason to abandon class struggle'. It may, however, give cause to broaden your efforts beyond pamphlets and speakers corner though, no?



> We will represent those voters who voted for us but we will refuse to represent those voters who still desire changes to capitalism.



That'll win 'em over.



> If you see our definition of socialism as sound you need to figure out the full implications of that definition in respect of understanding the concurrent activity.  This entails using the democratic political process to bring about a majority of socialists for with out this majority who have volunteered their support we won't have socialism.



Still missing the point. How to get there, GD. This debate is a bit like snakes and ladders isn't it.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 6, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Crikey!  Louis I would careful for you are starting to make a bit of sense at long last.



Only to you GD...only to you. And you still can't answer a straight forward question; who is Julie Birchall?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Gravediggers (May 6, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Did you mean?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's here for sure but a bit dated.  Must have been taken when she gave a donation to the SPGB.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 6, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Only to you GD...only to you. And you still can't answer a straight forward question; who is Julie Birchall?
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Only if you insist Louis.


----------



## butchersapron (May 6, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> That's here for sure but a bit dated.  Must have been taken when she gave a donation to the SPGB.



You take money off of stalinists?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 6, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You take money off of stalinists?



All donations are gratefully received.  Even one off you.  No strings attached tho.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 6, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> That's her for sure but a bit dated.  Must have been taken when she gave a donation to the SPGB.



No that's Julie Birchill.






Louis MacNeice

p.s. I've also corrected your post.


----------



## audiotech (May 6, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> That's here for sure but a bit dated.  Must have been taken when she gave a donation to the SPGB.



Julie Burchill, who had her dad whisper in her ear as a child in the sixties, when the US were being thrown out of Vietnam by the Vietnamese, 'we've won'.

I admire her for her consistent championing of the working-class. Julie, like us all, has some contradictions though. First, claiming that she has never renounced the Communist beliefs of her youth, but then later announcing to all that she had 'found God', became a Lutheran and later a "self-confessed Christian Zionist".


----------



## Gravediggers (May 6, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> No that's Julie Birchill.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks Louis for the correction.  Mystery solved.  Hope it adds to you ego.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 6, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Thanks Louis for the correction.  Mystery solved.  Hope it adds to your ego.



Alter ego surely?

Louis MacNeice

p.s. and I've treated you to another correction. How's your gender idenfication?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 6, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Alter ego surely?
> 
> Louis MacNeice
> 
> p.s. and I've treated you to another correction. How's your gender idenfication?



Thanks again Louis.  But gender *idenfication* is irrelevant in respect of impersonations.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 6, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Thanks again Louis.  But gender *identification* is irrelevant in respect of impersonations.



What does that actually mean?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## belboid (May 6, 2010)

I suspect it means 'I cant bring myself to admit I fucked up'


----------



## Gravediggers (May 6, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> What does that actually mean?
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Thanks for correcting your typo, it certainly provides meaning to impersonations.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 6, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Thanks for correcting your typo, it certainly provides meaning to impersonations.



So Belboid's right then; in fact you're clueless and dishonest, an all round  great advert for the 'case'.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Gravediggers (May 6, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You're still not getting what I am saying. I don't know how I can re-phrase it yet again.
> 
> Of course you can contribute as individuals. But what is the advantage of not doing so as an organised bloc? You are still 'wasting your time and effort' - so no advantage - but you are not able to bring fellow workers into your bloc - so a disadvantage.



Excuse me, but you seemed to have forgotten that most members joined the SPGB precisely because of their stand on reforms.  Many like myself had worked it out for themselves and gave a sigh of relief when eventually they came across a party which expressed and reflected their political understanding of capitalism - in that seeking improvements to the condition of wage slavery only perpetuates the situation.  And in truth is an exercise in running on the spot.  Yet it has to be engaged in if we are determined to stay out of the gutter.

This is an advantage for the working class cos it allows them to become involved in class struggle as individuals whilst their preference for revolution remains a class issue rather than an individual issue.  




> Participatory democracy my arse! Okay, so you as an SPGB member gets elected as a councillor (I know, far fetched). This isn't going to make any significant contribution to either establishing socialism or to participatory democracy. So why would anybody bother electing you just for you to abstain? You are avoiding the points raised.



I have not avoided the points raised.  The workers are going to elect us on a clear mandate of non-participation in representative democracy.  That does not entail us from abstaining from the political process, far from it.  And if you hold the opinion, "This isn't going to make any significant contribution ... ...", are you not also denying the power of the vote to make exactly this contribution to revolutionary practice?




> Well, you haven't been elected, have you? And your position on what you will do if elected probably explains why.



No we haven't been elected but we will continue stand for election so long has our resources allow us.  Without a majority of socialists we won't get socialism. I agree that our position in regards to explaining the revolutionary process can be on times a bit difficult to understand as evidenced by your repeated questions on the subject of participatory democracy.  

Nevertheless, as history well illustrates the struggle for democracy was centuries in the making.  We are now at the stage when the idea of establishing a participatory democracy makes the struggle for self-emancipation that much nearer.  It must be achieved if humanity wants and wishes for progress in our understanding of social evolution.



> I never said it was a 'reason to abandon class struggle'. It may, however, give cause to broaden your efforts beyond pamphlets and speakers corner though, no?



I know you never said to abandon the class struggle, but that seemed the logical implication to what you said.

We are always open to suggestions of a positive nature.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 6, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> ...I know you never said to abandon the class struggle, but that seemed the logical implication to what you said.
> 
> We are always open to suggestions of a positive nature.



As I said clueless and dishonest; inventing implications and pretending openess. You're a proper politician, just like the rest.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Gravediggers (May 6, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So Belboid's right then; in fact you're clueless and dishonest, an all round  great advert for the 'case'.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Shame on you Louis, when you can't see the joke I'm making at your expense.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 6, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Shame on you Louis, when you can't see the joke I'm making at your expense.



No ones laughing; what does that tell you?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 6, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Excuse me, but you seemed to have forgotten that most members joined the SPGB precisely because of their stand on reforms.  Many like myself had worked it out for themselves and gave a sigh of relief when eventually they came across a party which expressed and reflected their political understanding of capitalism - in that seeking improvements to the condition of wage slavery only perpetuates the situation.  And in truth is an exercise in running on the spot.  Yet it has to be engaged in if we are determined to stay out of the gutter.
> 
> This is an advantage for the working class cos it allows them to become involved in class struggle as individuals whilst their preference for revolution remains a class issue rather than an individual issue.



Why can't you answer this question? How many different ways do I have to phrase it?

Given that we have established your criticism that others on the left are 'wasting time and effort' is false, as you also 'waste time and effort', what is the advantage for SPGB to refuse to organise as a bloc?

It really is a very simple question, yet you keep coming back with ever more convoluted replies which don't bloody answer it! Just answer it for pity's sake man.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 6, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Why can't you answer this question? How many different ways do I have to phrase it?
> 
> Given that we have established your criticism that others on the left are 'wasting time and effort' is false, as you also 'waste time and effort', what is the advantage for SPGB to refuse to organise as a bloc?
> 
> It really is a very simple question, yet you keep coming back with ever more convoluted replies which don't bloody answer it! Just answer it for pity's sake man.



You have not established any such thing, despite the fact that you are trying very hard to do so.  What has been established is this: The left are wasting time and effort by trying to amalgamate reformism with revolution; the left and individual socialists are wasting time and effort when engaging in the effects of reforms; and despite the fact it's part and parcel of class struggle, it is a struggle against the effects of capitalist exploitation and the retention of the status quo; in effect there is no advantage to be gained in this aspect of class struggle; whereas there is every advantage to be gained by individual socialists to engage in the revolutionary struggle to establish socialism through a socialist party, for it is here the workers establish themselves as a class for its self and for them to affirm that this struggle is not a waste of time and effort.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 6, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> You have not established any such thing, despite the fact that you are trying very hard to do so.  What has been established is this: The left are wasting time and effort by trying to amalgamate reformism with revolution; the left and individual socialists are wasting time and effort when engaging in the effects of reforms; and despite the fact it's part and parcel of class struggle, it is a struggle against the effects of capitalist exploitation and the retention of the status quo; in effect there is no advantage to be gained in this aspect of class struggle; whereas there is every advantage to be gained by individual socialists to engage in the revolutionary struggle to establish socialism through a socialist party, for it is here the workers establish themselves as a class for its self and for them to affirm that this struggle is not a waste of time and effort.



Crikey. They could just replace you lot with a recorded message you know.


----------



## whichfinder (May 6, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Crikey. They could just replace you lot with a recorded message you know.




Then if you listened to it enough times it might just start to sink in.  Second thoughts; no such luck!


----------



## Gravediggers (May 6, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> *ProperTidy* its noticeable you have failed to reply to this.  I know its a pain but....



uote:
Originally Posted by Gravediggers View Post

Have you ever considered that once you attain your description of socialism/communism that the situation may well arise with the working class turning around and saying these improvements will do us nicely and refuse to budge an inch? With your long-term strategy in tatters through the use of short-term tactics will your next move be an attempt to impose socialism/communism whether the workers want it or not? That is definitely a prescription for failure.

ProperTidy its noticeable you have failed to reply to this. I know its a pain but....  This is my second bump up.

Last edited by Gravediggers; 05-05-2010 at 01:27.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 7, 2010)

Re-posted from TUSC thread post number 286



> Well yes of course we want to pick up votes from the working class, who are predominantly disaffected former Labour voters. Not exactly a revelation is it?
> 
> No I won't be voting Labour. What makes you think that?
> 
> In the absence of any genuine Left candidates, I'll be voting Plaid.



It seems Proper Tidy has promised to abandon his political principles for internationalism.  No doubt he will have a ready made excuse why.  If he was a member of the SPGB he would be out on his arse sharpish.  Voting for the enemy illustrates quite clearly how opportunists operate when they lack a political consciousness on their class interests.


----------



## robbo203 (May 7, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I've asked you in a previous post what other political activity you think we could be involved with?  If you are unable to supply one then yes it is a caricature.



Well, that is precisely the point - I didnt have "other political activity" in mind, I was referring to something *other than *political activity.  

Despite the entertaining drivel provided by the assorted clowns on this thread scoffing at the SPGB and its accomplishments (or lack of),  I think the SPGB is far more right than it is wrong. Certainly it hasnt achieved much but you cannot simply dismiss what the SPGB has to say on this pretext.  This is just not serious criticism.  I do have one or two reservations about what the SPGB has to say but any fair minded critic has to acknowlege that the arguments in general  presented by the SPGB are formidable and have stood the test of time.  They havenet yet been widely accepted but then how long did it take for a helio-centric view of the universe to replace one in which everything, including the sun, revolved around the earth?  The extent of support for an idea is no indicator of its veracity.  If it was we should all be filing obediently into the polling booths to vote Conservative who I see are set to have the largest share of the vote as I write.

The SPGB has not made much progress in my view *not *becuase there is much wrong with its political approach - though there are one or two aspects of its case in serious need of modification - but becuase of this problematic relation with "praxis" , with the day to day business of trying to get by in capitalism.  To put it differently, socialism appears to come across as some remote disembodied ideal, theoretically plasusible and attractive no doubt, but disconnected from the lives of workers. 

This is why I think we need something to complement the political approach of the SPGB.  The SPGB is part of the solution in the way that state capitalist Leninist Left can never be.  The "abstract propagandism" of the SPGB, necessary though it is, is not enough if we are to make real progress towards a socialist society.  And I am not here just talking about the obvious point that socialist ideas do not just stem from the material conditions of class struggle that we live in.  What needs to be acknowledged  is the vital importance of fostering material relationships in the here and now that *prefigure *and lend crdibility to socialism as an idea.

This is what the SPGB fails to do and as a consequnece comes across unfortunately as promoting an ideal that has little relevance to the pressing needs of workers today.  That may be qiute wrong but it is precisely the impression that counts in this case.


----------



## whichfinder (May 7, 2010)

The SPGB beat the trotskyist candidate in Vauxhall so what does that tell us about the arguments put forward by *Proper Tidy* and others concerning day-to-day demands?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/e83.stm


----------



## dennisr (May 7, 2010)

whichfinder said:


> The SPGB beat the trotskyist candidate in Vauxhall so what does that tell us about the arguments put forward by *Proper Tidy* and others concerning day-to-day demands?
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/e83.stm



you are going to crow over less than 50 votes when both parties got around 0.3% of the overall vote.

0.3% of the vote after 100+ years - well done...

deluded


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 7, 2010)

"The SPGB has not made much progress in my view not becuase there is much wrong with its political approach - though there are one or two aspects of its case in serious need of modification - but becuase of this problematic relation with "praxis" , with the day to day business of trying to get by in capitalism. To put it differently, socialism appears to come across as some remote disembodied ideal, theoretically plasusible and attractive no doubt, but disconnected from the lives of workers."​
"The SPGB beat the trotskyist candidate in Vauxhall so what does that tell us about the arguments put forward by Proper Tidy and others concerning day-to-day demands?"​






Assorted clowns, drowning their sorrows after having been rendered redundant by comedy gold posts.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## belboid (May 7, 2010)

whichfinder said:


> The SPGB beat the trotskyist candidate in Vauxhall so what does that tell us about the arguments put forward by *Proper Tidy* and others concerning day-to-day demands?
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/e83.stm



and both put together got less than the English Democrats. Which seems to suggest you were both a waste of time


----------



## fractionMan (May 7, 2010)

whichfinder said:


> The SPGB beat the trotskyist candidate in Vauxhall so what does that tell us about the arguments put forward by *Proper Tidy* and others concerning day-to-day demands?
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/e83.stm



lol.

srsly?



> Daniel Lambert 								 							 							Socialist Party of Great Britain 							143 							0.3 							+0.3
> 
> Jeremy Drinkall 								 							 							Anticapitalists - Workers Power 							109 							0.3 							+0.3



it's a landslide !


----------



## tbaldwin (May 7, 2010)

whichfinder said:


> The SPGB beat the trotskyist candidate in Vauxhall so what does that tell us about the arguments put forward by *Proper Tidy* and others concerning day-to-day demands?
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/e83.stm



Shamefully the media seem to have largely ignored this important political break through.
Very steady progress by the SPGB. Perhaps you will be able to form a co-alition government with the Green party next time round.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 7, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Well, that is precisely the point - I didnt have "other political activity" in mind, I was referring to something *other than *political activity.
> 
> This is why I think we need something to complement the political approach of the SPGB.  The SPGB is part of the solution in the way that state capitalist Leninist Left can never be.  The "abstract propagandism" of the SPGB, necessary though it is, is not enough if we are to make real progress towards a socialist society.  And I am not here just talking about the obvious point that socialist ideas do not just stem from the material conditions of class struggle that we live in.  What needs to be acknowledged  is the vital importance of fostering material relationships in the here and now that *prefigure *and lend credibility to socialism as an idea.
> 
> This is what the SPGB fails to do and as a consequence comes across unfortunately as promoting an ideal that has little relevance to the pressing needs of workers today.  That may be quite wrong but it is precisely the impression that counts in this case.



I've been aware of the problem, 'to complement the political approach of the SPGB' for many years and had thoughts on how to bring about the 'material relationships in the here and now that *prefigure *and lend credibility to socialism as an idea'.  You will agree, I'm sure, that the general reluctance to change in any organisation is a formidable barrier to overcome.   Generally, people need time and understanding, before the changes can be introduced and adopted as a positive move in the right direction.   Nevertheless, the SPGB membership can be persuaded to adopt an experimentation approach in this regard.

The problem is what in fact can you experiment with that is in line with our thoughts on the problem?  What 'experimental changes' would you suggest?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 7, 2010)

whichfinder said:


> The SPGB beat the trotskyist candidate in Vauxhall so what does that tell us about the arguments put forward by *Proper Tidy* and others concerning day-to-day demands?
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/e83.stm



Brilliant!


----------



## belboid (May 7, 2010)

most voters probably thought SPGB are the ex-millies tho, which makes it a suprisingly small vote


----------



## robbo203 (May 7, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I've been aware of the problem, 'to complement the political approach of the SPGB' for many years and had thoughts on how to bring about the 'material relationships in the here and now that *prefigure *and lend credibility to socialism as an idea'.  You will agree, I'm sure, that the general reluctance to change in any organisation is a formidable barrier to overcome.   Generally, people need time and understanding, before the changes can be introduced and adopted as a positive move in the right direction.   Nevertheless, the SPGB membership can be persuaded to adopt an experimentation approach in this regard.
> 
> The problem is what in fact can you experiment with that is in line with our thoughts on the problem?  What 'experimental changes' would you suggest?



Well, as I see it anything that can aid the transcendance of the commodity relationship is potentially useful in this regard - from intentional communties to projects like freecycle,  LETS and much more. There is in fact a helluva lot out there if you care to look.

The problem with the SPGB is that it takes at best a neutral stance towards such things and even, at times, a condescending cynicism.  "Yes its OK to participate in such things but its not going to bring about socialism", seems to be the prevailing response.  This is so so shortsighted.  Nobody is saying that forming a commune or joining a LETS group etc is going to bring about socialism.  Of course not.  But by taking the stance that it does the SPGB is cutting itself of from what could be its natural constituency.  It needs to see that the kind of "socialistic praxis" evidenced by these  activities - "socialistic" in the sense of transcending the commodity relationship - is actually a hugely significant seedbed for socialist consciousness.  Its a seedbed that needs to be irrigated - if I might stretch the metaphor a little - by precisely the kind of abstract propagandism in which the SPGB excels.  In short the SPGB needs to change its perspective 180 degrees and develop a far more welcoming, accommodating and positive attitude.


Im not suggesting that the organisation as such participates in such things but that its attitude towards them needs to fundamentally change so that the link between socialism as a realisable goal and the day to day struggles of workers under capitalism can become more tangible and apparent. 

Look , what the SPGB is standing for is really the only worthwhile goal to pursue within radical politics.  As far as Im concerned the state capitalist or Leninist Left is finished.  Its never going to be a serious force again.  It belongs to the past.  For all that the scoffers on this thread might scoff, the ideas that the SPGB stands for  - and not just the SPGB but others in the non-market anti-statist sector too - represent a potential future whose time may well come and sooner than any of us might imagine.  Im not going to say that the SPGB alone heralds such a future but it certainly part of a potential alignment of forces that could bring it about.  

The same cannot be said of most of the Left.  They are too wedded to the core principles of capitalism and statism to make that necessary leap of the imagination and to begin to think outside of the box.  Ironically they serve to entrench capitalist values though their endorsement of state capitalism and the ideology of possibilism and reformism


----------



## TomR77 (May 7, 2010)

I broadly agree with you robbo (apologies for my comment earlier in the thread - it wasn't intended to be disrespectful).  

I also agree with Proper Tidy to some extent, in that the S.P.G.B. does seem a little sterile, though I think the solution is more along the lines of what robbo is suggesting.


----------



## TomR77 (May 7, 2010)

whichfinder said:


> The SPGB beat the trotskyist candidate in Vauxhall so what does that tell us about the arguments put forward by *Proper Tidy* and others concerning day-to-day demands?
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/e83.stm



Whichfinder - personally, I don't think it tells us anything positive about either argument.

I wouldn't say the socialist argument is unpopular.  To qualify for unpopularity, socialism would need to be widely-known and understood.  

Isn't it extraordinary, after all the supposed public disquiet and anger about Iraq, Afghanistan, MPs' expenses, the economy, and so on, and what happens?  Tweedledum and Tweedledee get most of the votes.  Tweedledum may replace Tweedledee if Tweedledumber agrees to join with Tweedledum.  And that's about it, folks.

It's reality like this that makes me think more and more that we socialists need to join together and stop bickering over theological differences.


----------



## robbo203 (May 7, 2010)

TomR77 said:


> I broadly agree with you robbo (apologies for my comment earlier in the thread - it wasn't intended to be disrespectful).
> 
> I also agree with Proper Tidy to some extent, in that the S.P.G.B. does seem a little sterile, though I think the solution is more along the lines of what robbo is suggesting.




Personally, I think it would take just a small shift in its approach which would not *in any way *threaten or undermine its socialist integrity, to radically transform the SPGB's prospects:

It needs to take a more positive and supportive stance towards developments
that assist the transcendance of commodity relationships along the lines I suggested earlier.

It needs to modify its "hostility clause" in a way that permits a more discriminating approach towards political opponents, some of whom (likewise advocating a wageless stateless marketless commonwealth) can hardly be called "opponents" at all.

And it needs to scrap or, at least, modify its absurdly pointless and quite unnecessary policy of not admitting people with religious beliefs (not that I am religious myself).

If it did these 3 things alone (or even just one or two of them) I am certain that the SPGB would immediately feel the benefits of it.  I personally know of several people who would join the SPGB like a shot if only this were to happen.  There must be many others who think likewise.

A revived and modernised SPGB could, I suggest, quite soon become a pretty significant voice in radical politics in the UK.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 7, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Well, as I see it anything that can aid the transcendance of the commodity relationship is potentially useful in this regard - from intentional communties to projects like freecycle,  LETS and much more. There is in fact a helluva lot out there if you care to look.
> 
> The problem with the SPGB is that it takes at best a neutral stance towards such things and even, at times, a condescending cynicism.  "Yes its OK to participate in such things but its not going to bring about socialism", seems to be the prevailing response.  This is so so shortsighted.  Nobody is saying that forming a commune or joining a LETS group etc is going to bring about socialism.  Of course not.  But by taking the stance that it does the SPGB is cutting itself of from what could be its natural constituency.  It needs to see that the kind of "socialistic praxis" evidenced by these  activities - "socialistic" in the sense of transcending the commodity relationship - is actually a hugely significant seedbed for socialist consciousness.  Its a seedbed that needs to be irrigated - if I might stretch the metaphor a little - by precisely the kind of abstract propagandism in which the SPGB excels.  In short the SPGB needs to change its perspective 180 degrees and develop a far more welcoming, accommodating and positive attitude.
> 
> ...



I agree that the common problem facing all organisations who adhere to the principles of common ownership, democratic control by the community, free access, etc; is in providing a valid framework which transcends the commodity relationships.  You mention communes, freecycle and LETS as possible bridges to be encouraged rather than dismissed has treating the effects of capitalism and an adaptation of particular circumstances within commodity relationships.

On the surface such projects do look promising by providing a limited insight on what is possible within capitalism, and projecting the foresight they have generated into what might occur within socialist society.    Freecycle, for instance is about recycling other peoples garbage, and I'm all in favour of that, and I assume you to be a fan also.  After all why waste when there is still some use left in the product?  An there is no doubt this will be carried on in socialism. Yet as you well know all of the projects you mention have their failings.  And it would be silly to ignore these failings completely, especially when you consider that they have in turn been adapted to the commodity relationships of capitalism.

M&S for instance recycles, or donates if you like, its sell by and use by products to the homeless.  Trading Standards agencies are at this very moment adopting a national policy to give all the pirated clothing seized to the homeless.  M&S reduce their waste collection costs and Trading Standards massively reduce the cost of incineration.  Obviously, the workers have gained in some respects, and I for one would prefer a handout from M&S rather than dipping into the bin at my local Macdonalds!  But capitalism loves a compromise when there is reduction in costs.

So just like reforms such projects have to be judged on their merits.  And I would suggest that just like reforms they are not bridges to socialism.  For where is the revolutionary content in the projects you have mentioned?  There is none from where I am standing.

I'll leave it at that for know, rather than digress from this part of the discussion.


----------



## robbo203 (May 8, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I
> So just like reforms such projects have to be judged on their merits.  And I would suggest that just like reforms they are not bridges to socialism.  For where is the revolutionary content in the projects you have mentioned?  There is none from where I am standing..




They are not in themselves "bridges to socialism" but, unlike reforms, can become so since they represent a transcendance of the commodity relationship in material terms today.  

They need in other words to be infused with socialist consciousness in order to realise that potential.

The problem is that the SPGB for some reason holds back from seeing such non-commodified projects for what they are and responding appropriately  i.e. as seedbeds of socialist consciousness.  What this means is that SPGB's "abstract propagandism" has no kind of material substratum that it can ground itself in and so comes across as somewhat idealistic.  

Saying that the idea of socialism arrises out of class struggle is simply  not enough.  Reformism also arises out of material cisrcumstances of class struggle as does militant trade unionism neither of which offer a way out of capitalism.  

The idea of socialism to be plausible or credible needs something to anchor itself in and this is where the SPGB's case is unfortunately somewhat lacking...


----------



## Gravediggers (May 8, 2010)

> robbo203 said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I think it would take just a small shift in its approach which would not *in any way *threaten or undermine its socialist integrity, to radically transform the SPGB's prospects:
> ...


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 8, 2010)

Ooh, hostility clause. Tell me more.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 8, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Ooh, hostility clause. Tell me more.



The text was in a previous post on the other thread, you must have skimmed past it because its in what you term olde language.  If you are really interested do a google on WSM and you'll find it much quicker than going through the 700+ postings on the other thread.

Its practical application is what you and others have experienced here and elsewhere.  We stand opposed to all other political parties.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 8, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> The text was in a previous post on the other thread, you must have skimmed past it because its in what you term olde language.  If you are really interested do a google on WSM and you'll find it much quicker than going through the 700+ postings on the other thread.
> 
> Its practical application is what you and others have experienced here and elsewhere.  We stand opposed to all other political parties.



Are you hostile to everybody bar 'The Zeitgeist Movement'?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 8, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Are you hostile to everybody bar 'The Zeitgeist Movement'?



We are not hostile to everybody, that is just silly.  We are hostile to all political parties, and Zeitgeist is not a political party and unlikely to be so.  In fact it clearly abhors politics and don't see class struggle as a solution to the problems of society.  It seeks a technical fix to the problems of production and distribution which in my view is a mechanistic approach to social evolution.  Which we both know ignores the social dynamics of class struggle.

Having said that a big part of their analysis includes a moneyless society, and a fair conclusion that 'human behaviour' is not the problem in releasing the potential for technology to be for the benefit of all humanity.  On these points alone they are speaking in a language the SPGB are very familiar with. There is a more in their arguments where there is basic agreement, but I can't remember them off hand.

We are engaging with them on a very friendly basis, but very critical in their approach to politics, class struggle, social evolution and their acceptance of a technical elite running the economical inputs and outputs.  Hopefully, in the near future the SPGB will organise a debate/forum with them on the clear understanding that despite the similarities the means and ends are totally at odds.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 8, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> We are not hostile to everybody, that is just silly.  We are hostile to all political parties, and Zeitgeist is not a political party and unlikely to be so.  In fact it clearly abhors politics and don't see class struggle as a solution to the problems of society.  It seeks a technical fix to the problems of production and distribution which in my view is a mechanistic approach to social evolution.  Which we both know ignores the social dynamics of class struggle.
> 
> Having said that a big part of their analysis includes a moneyless society, and a fair conclusion that 'human behaviour' is not the problem in releasing the potential for technology to be for the benefit of all humanity.  On these points alone they are speaking in a language the SPGB are very familiar with. There is a more in their arguments where there is basic agreement, but I can't remember them off hand.
> 
> We are engaging with them on a very friendly basis, but very critical in their approach to politics, class struggle, social evolution and their acceptance of a technical elite running the economical inputs and outputs.  Hopefully, in the near future the SPGB will organise a debate/forum with them on the clear understanding that despite the similarities the means and ends are totally at odds.



What they seek is reforms, is it not? A sort of 'progression to utopia' approach. Like hardcore liberals, I always think.

I wonder what your distinction between social movements and political parties is? Is it purely the electoral thing? Because Zeitgeist clearly have pretensions to transform society.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 8, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> What they seek is reforms, is it not? A sort of 'progression to utopia' approach. Like hardcore liberals, I always think.
> 
> I wonder what your distinction between social movements and political parties is? Is it purely the electoral thing? Because Zeitgeist clearly have pretensions to transform society.



No ZM don't seek reforms of any nature.  From what I can gather what they seek is a transformation in peoples attitudes to the use of technology.   They recognise the application of technology depends on the profit motive and that capitalism is creating a barrier in many respects for its fullest application to meeting human needs.  Same language different style to the SPGB.

The SPGB are not opposed to social movements as such.  But we are critical of their limitations.  For instance, although the Civil Rights movements in the US and N.I., and Solidarity in Poland along with the anti-apartheid movement were clear examples of class struggle, they were taking place within the political system of capitalism.  This being the case the conclusion was obvious that the demands only brought about a change in political masters.

Although they all sought democratic reforms none of these movements initially contested elections.  In the case of Solidarity they transformed themselves into a political party shortly after the reforms went through and we immediately changed our position from one of support to opposition.  

Like I've said previously we judge all reforms on their merits, and in this respect all social movements which seek to establish democracy are likely to gain our support, in the knowledge that democracy despite the limitations of being hampered by the social relationships of capitalism is of value to the spread of socialist ideas and leading eventually to the abolition of capitalism.


----------



## robbo203 (May 8, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> > Excuse me, but just in case you haven't notice a quiet revolution as taken place at 52 Clapham High St in regards to expressing hostility towards all political opponents.  At long last the SPGB have become more discerning in the application of the "hostility clause" by recognising and accepting that it is a pointless exercise to hold a debate with an opponent whose aim is very similar to our own when a forum would be more appropriate.  We most certainly disagree with them on harmonising the means and ends but in other respects its very hard not to disagree.
> >
> > For example, we've had forums with Ian Bone and Brian Morris both of whom are well known anarchists, and Glen Morris of Arctic Voice.  And recently, members helped in founding the ECA Working Group which takes a non-partisan approach to establishing a rebuttal towards the followers of von Mises.   I gather you are a member of this group!
> > .
> ...


----------



## robbo203 (May 8, 2010)

Proper Tidy

I dont think you have explained how your transitional demands are not reformist.  What is the difference in your view? Merely saying something is organically linked to the struggle for socialism means nothing unless a linkage can be demonstrated

Cheers


----------



## Gravediggers (May 8, 2010)

> robbo203 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, yes, I am aware of such developments and welcome them although I note that there has still been some resistance within the SPGB to them from the traditionalists.  But does this go far enough? To my way of thinking, not really. It does not apply to other political parties for example.   I think the SPGB is still too attached to the somewhat antiquated language of its declaration of principles (1904) in which it declares
> ...


----------



## robbo203 (May 8, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> > The SLP might well proclaim it represents the interests of the working class. But on closer study of their case it becomes obvious that what we mean by socialism and what they mean there is little similarity despite the fact their definition of socialism sounds plausible.   Has for Socialist Studies after the split they declared their understanding of democracy put us in the shade.  Yet when this democratic understanding was put under the microscope what occurred - they promptly decided to hold several secret meetings from which the public were barred - but in practice meant any member of the SPGB was excluded from asking questions relating to them calling themselves 'THE SPGB'.
> >
> > All meetings held by the SPGB are open to the public for we have nothing to hide.  And unlike other political parties we allow questions from non-members so long as they relate to the business in discussion..
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2010)

The graveyard of unquoters.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 9, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> This isnt really relevant to the point at issue, is it?  The Socialist Studies group may be traditionalists and not particularly democratic but I dont think one can dispute that they advocate socialism in the SPGB sense.  As for your comments on the De Leonist SLP,well, let me put it this way - if they dont represent the interests of the working class, then by the black-or-white logic of the hostility clause that means they must represent the interests of some section of the master class.  Would you care to specifiy which section this is?



The Socialist Studies may well advocate socialism but their undemocratic practices proves they are not. And that in itself is surely relevant.  As for the SLP they represent the Undertakers.



> Well, yes, but as I say the World in Common group is not really subject to the same kind of imperative to "recruit members" as would apply to a political party like the SPGB.  The purpose of WiC is quite different and if people are interested to learn more then they can visit our website at www.worldincommon.org .  In fact, some members of WiC are also members of political parties or other organisations within the non market anti-statist sector


 
Nobody is disagreeing with this.  But according to your opinion there are any number of workers who hold religious beliefs and want to join the SPGB. Because the door was firmly closed you and others set up WiC to provide an outlet for these workers with religious beliefs.  This unspecified number now have had an opportunity to become a reality.  So how many members of WiC have religious beliefs?



> Well your memory is obviously defective.  My leaving the SPGB was principally (though not exclusively) about its policy on excluding people with religious beliefs which I think is a rather pointless exercise.  If one's religious beliefs did in any way conflict with one's socialist convictions this would show itself in other ways.  You dont need to ban religious ideas from the organisation itself.



Now your logic (just like your assumptions and conclusions) are faulty here.  For on the one hand you are saying open the door to those with religious beliefs for if they came into conflict with socialist convictions it would show itself in other ways.  This assumes there is no conflict to start with when clearly there is.  I need not remind you that the SPGB has no time for leaders in any shape or form yet all religions bend the knee to the Great Man in the sky.  Indeed it begs the question is their priority to some cosmic being or socialist principles.  Do me a favour ...



> However, the formation of "world in common" was a quite a separate matter.  It wasnt me alone who set up WiC but several people some of whom were never even in the SPGB to begin with.  Im afraid you really do not know what you are talking about in this respect.  Trust me, the "commonalities issue" was the central motivating factor behind the formation of WiC



Robbo you should know me by now I don't trust myself alone anybody who asks me to trust them.  On your bike. 



> I have no idea what you are talking about here.  Apart from anything else you evidently dont understand what is meant by "metaphysics" which is actually a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of reality.  It is perfectly possible to talk about there being a materialist metaphysics in this sense.  I suspect you are confusing philosophical idealism with metaphysics.  But idealism is only a type of metaphysics just as materialism is another.
> 
> Look all I am saying is that metaphysical debates about the nature of reality - interesting though they may be - have little if no bearing on a practical movement to establish socialism.  By mean all means discuss the issues in a philosophical group but is it really necessary to foist this on the movement itself.  I honestly dont think so.  I take a pragmatic view here.  I believe it is entirely possible for an individual to hold religious beliefs and be a socialist.  Perhaps not all religious beliefs but certainly some.  It may be hard for a devout muslim or christain fundamentalist to be a socialist but can you really say the same of someone who holds, say,  deistic or pantheistic beliefs.  I dont think so.  Moreover you have to differentiate between the social policies of certain religions like Christianity and their metaphysical assumptions.  It is possible to go along with the latter while rejecting most if not all of the former.  I say this as a former Catholic who rejected all religion



 I did say I didn't want to dig over old ground and you have done just that and consequently made the hole bigger.  When you fall in don't call us to help you back out.



> Well if the application of the hostility clause has been modified as you claim then why not change the wording of the original clause to make this clearer? Personally, I think a modernised version of the DoP would be great for the SPGB.  I dont buy this silly argument that has been put about by some of the traditionalists that the DoP says all that needs to be said and cannot be improved  upon.  I mean, come on - apart from anything else its wording is just so antiquated and this in itself helps to reinforce the unfortunate impression that the SPGB is an irrelevance today, a throwback to a bygone Edwardian age.  Of course I dont think it is at all but it needs to something about its appearance, how it comes across in the eyes of workers.



I've said all I have to say on this.



> I think you mean optimist rather than pessimist.  Far from thinking the long decline of the SPGB from its high water mark in the immediate post war years is inevitable, I think it can turn around its political fortunes in a big way.  It is still the one political party that stands head and sholuders above the rest for the clarity of its arguments and the appeal of its vision. However, it really does need to get its act together, chuck out the kind of policies that hold back its growth and modernise its approach if it is to realise its potential.  It is still too hidebound by tradition and paranoic about the possibility of change from within.
> 
> However, critical though I am of some things about the SPGB, I still wish it well.  With the Left in utter disarray now at last the time to make its mark may finally have come.  The history the SPGB has been a history of wasted opportunities. Lets hope this is going to change.



Only history will prove you correct.


----------



## robbo203 (May 9, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> The Socialist Studies may well advocate socialism but their undemocratic practices proves they are not. And that in itself is surely relevant.  As for the SLP they represent the Undertakers.



No its not relevant.  Its the *goal *that we are talking about.  The goal in the case of SS is precisely the same as that of the SPGB.  The SLP of the De Leonist variety also basically advocated socialism in the SPGB sense  though with a somewhat different perspective on how it might be organised.  The SLP was likewise part of the "impossibilist" tradition and in the Socialist Standard was once referred to as "our political cousins"



Gravediggers said:


> Nobody is disagreeing with this.  But according to your opinion there are any number of workers who hold religious beliefs and want to join the SPGB. Because the door was firmly closed you and others set up WiC to provide an outlet for these workers with religious beliefs.  This unspecified number now have had an opportunity to become a reality.  So how many members of WiC have religious beliefs?



Wrong GD. World in Common was not primarily set up to "provide an outlet for these workers with religious beliefs".  I was there at the time. I know what I am talking about. You dont.  You are confusing my particular criticisms of the SPGB (which were not confined to its policy on religion), with the formation of WiC which was founded by several individuals some of whom were not even members of the SPGB. The question of religion simply did not loom as large as you imagine.

There are one or two members of WiC who have religious beliefs as far as I know. Its just not an issue.  It doesnt interfere with their political beliefs which are fiercely socialist.  If they started expressing capitalist sentiments they would be expelled as has happened to one individual.  I really recommend the same approach to the SPGB. It works!  Whats more.  It *will *mean an influx of new members for the SPGB, rather more than you think.  I know this for a fact.



Gravediggers said:


> Now your logic (just like your assumptions and conclusions) are faulty here.  For on the one hand you are saying open the door to those with religious beliefs for if they came into conflict with socialist convictions it would show itself in other ways.  This assumes there is no conflict to start with when clearly there is.  I need not remind you that the SPGB has no time for leaders in any shape or form yet all religions bend the knee to the Great Man in the sky.  Indeed it begs the question is their priority to some cosmic being or socialist principles.  Do me a favour ...




Er ..no.  This is not quite correct.  I am not assuming anything. It is you who is assuming an inevitable conflict between socialist convictions and religous beliefs such that the latter will inevitably override and undermine the former.  I say thats bollocks.  There is nothing inevitable about it.  I know socialists who have been socialists for years and have held religious beliefs.  They are as much socialists as you and I.  You are taking an a priori abstract view of this issue, I am taking a pragmatic view.  I am saying to you why not suck it and see.  It *may *be in some cases that an individuals religious beliefs induce them to move away from socialism. OK, in *that *case if they start believing in the leadership principle or if they start thinking that employers have a divine right to exploit their workers *then * by all means expel them.  But in my experience most socialists with religious convictions are steadfastly socialist in their outlook just like you and I

I would finally say that your view of religion is a very narrow one.  The concept of some "Great Man in the Sky"  is peculiar to only certain religions, not all. Animistic religions or pantheism are just a few examples here.  Also, the logic of what you suggesting is that before we can have socialism everyone has to be converted to atheism.  Afterall, if people are still religious in socialism this will undermine a socialist society according to you.  But the idea is just ludicrous (and it makes socialism appear utterly impossible).  Ideas, including religious ideas, adapt to the kind of society we live in.  This is the historical materialist perspective, after all.  Historical materialism is relevant to the socialist movement, philosophical materialism is not.  The latter should be strictly confined to philosophy study circles in my opinion, it has no place in a serious political movement



Gravediggers said:


> I did say I didn't want to dig over old ground and you have done just that and consequently made the hole bigger.  When you fall in don't call us to help you back out.
> .



You said you didnt want to dig over old ground and then promptly did just that! Dont be suprised if I then robustly defend myself against the charges you make.  Whether I have fallen into a hole of my own making I will leave to others to decide for themselves though I have a sneaky feeling that its the other way round.  

Look, when all is said and done, GD I entered this thread with a view to actually supporting the SPGB in its debate with the Left reformists.  In fairness, I said I had a few criticims of the SPGB but fundamentally I think the SPGB is still far and away the best political party around in terms of its ideas and arguments.  People who scoff at it are mostly misinfomed and failing to see and appreciate the wealth of insightful analysis that the SPGB has to offer.  You infortunately decided to latch on to my few criticisms of the Party and make a big deal of it.  I didnt want that.  You talked about how the  application of the hostility clause in the SPGB has changed in recent years and that the SPGB now engages in forums rather than debates with individuals on the same wavelength.  Well, I am on the same wavelength as the SPGB.  I too am a revolutionary socialist.  Yet what kind of response do I get from you.? Frankly, nothing that convinces me that there has been a "quiet revolution" in the way that the hostility clause is applied.  Why GD? I think on sober reflection you might see that I am not being unreasonable here.


----------



## The39thStep (May 9, 2010)

sort of turgid debate that would put anyone normal  off being interested in the left


----------



## robbo203 (May 9, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> sort of turgid debate that would put anyone normal  off being interested in the left



Evidently, you are interested enough to feel the need to pass comment.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2010)

Scorn isn't really interest.


----------



## robbo203 (May 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Scorn isn't really interest.




Then why would  you be interested in expressing scorn? I suggest there is a fine line between that and arrogance.  If you are really not interested, dont bother to comment . And if you do want to comment, say something useful.  Dont just pontificate - scornfully.  We ve got enough smart-ass one -liners on this forum as it is


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2010)

Because it's fitting. And deserving. 

Too many long winded non-market irrelevance as well. This thread is shit, you're shit, they're shit (and that you're too scared to join them says it all). 

Yours, a nietzschean-bordiguist.


----------



## TomR77 (May 9, 2010)

I can see merit in Robbo's point on religion and socialism to the extent that I acknowledge and accept not all religious beliefs are hierarchical.  I suspect that when Marx expressed his exasperation at the social phenomena of various religious beliefs (_Critique of Hegel_), he was referring to those religious and spiritual movements - the Abrahamic religions chief among them - that emphasise an internal hierarchy, i.e. a god of some kind.

But Marx's remarks on religion do tend to get overemphasised.  Indeed, were he around today, I suspect Marx would be surprised at the emphasis placed on his views about religion, which really weren't all that important. There is no reason for socialists to be opposed to religion as such, and I think it is also fair to say that there is no actual consistent socialist position on religion.  Our position, really, is more of an opposition to the hierarchy of oppression that religion attempts to soften or justify, rather than a proper analysis of religious belief in and of itself.

I am a lifelong, strong atheist, but even from this standpoint, I must acknowledge that belief in god is perfectly rational in certain circumstances.  Even a person who believes in a god could also - just about - be a socialist.  Each position isn't necessarily contradictory to the other.

It follows, in my view, that religious and generally spiritual people who understand and accept the S.P.G.B.'s case should be welcomed as members of the S.P.G.B.  Granted, it would cause some unholy rows (excuse the awful pun), but as a point of principle, I do not see what the problem is.  The S.P.G.B. is not a religious or theological or philosophical organisation of any stripe.  Nor is the RAC, so far as I can tell, but they don't exclude people just for believing in a god.  

Of course, as an atheist, I happen to think that religious beliefs are silly.  But then, I would think that.  It doesn't mean I am right, nor does it have anything to do with socialism in any case.  And people will still believe silly things, and believe in silly things, in a socialist society.  Arguably, more so, actually, since they'll have more time to be silly.  They may even come to think human activity causes significant changes in global climate.  Some socialists even think that now.  And that's a silly belief, with no science to support it, but no-one is calling for the expulsion of those members, still less suggesting they are not socialists, nor should they.


----------



## robbo203 (May 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Because it's fitting. And deserving.
> 
> Too many long winded non-market irrelevance as well. This thread is shit, you're shit, they're shit (and that you're too scared to join them says it all).
> 
> Yours, a nietzschean-bordiguist.



Yawn.  There now.  Ive descended to your infantile level.  And kept it short and snappy just as you like it.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2010)

And the thread improves thereby.


----------



## robbo203 (May 9, 2010)

TomR77 said:


> I can see merit in Robbo's point on religion and socialism to the extent that I acknowledge and accept not all religious beliefs are hierarchical.  I suspect that when Marx expressed his exasperation at the social phenomena of various religious beliefs (_Critique of Hegel_), he was referring to those religious and spiritual movements - the Abrahamic religions chief among them - that emphasise an internal hierarchy, i.e. a god of some kind.
> 
> But Marx's remarks on religion do tend to get overemphasised.  Indeed, were he around today, I suspect Marx would be surprised at the emphasis placed on his views about religion, which really weren't all that important. There is no reason for socialists to be opposed to religion as such, and I think it is also fair to say that there is no actual consistent socialist position on religion.  Our position, really, is more of an opposition to the hierarchy of oppression that religion attempts to soften or justify, rather than a proper analysis of religious belief in and of itself.
> 
> ...



I think this sums up the situation very well.  Thanks for that.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 9, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Re-posted from TUSC thread post number 286
> 
> 
> 
> It seems Proper Tidy has promised to abandon his political principles for internationalism.  No doubt he will have a ready made excuse why.  If he was a member of the SPGB he would be out on his arse sharpish.  Voting for the enemy illustrates quite clearly how opportunists operate when they lack a political consciousness on their class interests.



Thought I may as well go back through the thread a bit.

Least worst option imo, in the absence of any candidates that I actually wanted to vote for.

Strange position you adopt however vis a vis 'nationalism'. In what way are Plaid nationalist but Lab/Con/Lib not?

They're all nationalists of one form or another aren't they? So why this particular criticism?

I would much prefer to criticise them for being liberals or at best social-democrats whilst dressing themselves up as socialists, but there we go.

From an ex-Plaid member too, eh GD?


----------



## TomR77 (May 9, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> From an ex-Plaid member too, eh GD?



What is this, sacrilege!


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 9, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Proper Tidy
> 
> I dont think you have explained how your transitional demands are not reformist.  What is the difference in your view?



A transitional demand demands something which is not possible under capitalism, or at least under a market-driven unplanned economy. You characterise a planned economy as state-capitalist I believe?



> Merely saying something is organically linked to the struggle for socialism means nothing unless a linkage can be demonstrated



Well I don't quite get what you mean. If a demand is unachievable under capitalism but is achievable under socialism, and this demand is used as a rallying call for which to agitate for struggle, how does that not provide a link?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 9, 2010)

TomR77 said:


> What is this, sacrilege!



Not me my friend, Mr Diggers has fessed up somewhere on here!


----------



## robbo203 (May 9, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> A transitional demand demands something which is not possible under capitalism, or at least under a market-driven unplanned economy. You characterise a planned economy as state-capitalist I believe??



If something is not possible under capitalism then why call for it to be realised under capitalism?  This is like inviting someone to bang their head against the wall and expect their consciousness to be raised as a result.  And, yes, it is within capitalism that you propose these transitional demands should be realised even while you admit they are unachievable.  Raising the minimum  wage to £10 ph or increasing the pension by 50% presupposes the existence of  money and market relationships that characterise capitalism.

On the question of the so called planned economy there is an awful lot of nonsense talked about this on the Left.  All economies without exception involve planning - even the most extreme free market version of capitalism.  Every enterprise has its "plans".  Its a question of the degree of coordination of these plans. There is only so far you can go with this since sooner or later the logistical problem will prove insurmountable.  Literal society-wide planning in the form of one single plan based on a Leontief type matrix of inputs and outpot is utterly impossible.  If you want me to elaborate on that I will happily do so.

In the state capitalist economy of the Soviet Union there was a degree of cordinated planning but only a degree.  In fact there never was a single 5 year plan that was ever truly fulfilled.  What happened is that the plans, rather than guide the economy in any meaningful sense, were constantly modified to fit the changing realities.  Occiasiionally, the plan was not even made available until well into the implementation period.  To talk about the Soviet Union being a planned economy is thus a complete myth.



Proper Tidy said:


> Well I don't quite get what you mean. If a demand is unachievable under capitalism but is achievable under socialism, and this demand is used as a rallying call for which to agitate for struggle, how does that not provide a link?



It doesnt provide a link for the very simple reason that it presupposes capitalism not genuine socialism.  There is no such thing as a minimum wage - to take one example - in the  non-market non-monetary system called socialism (aka communism).  Wages or more accurately *generalised *wage labour is what defines capitalism


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 9, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> If something is not possible under capitalism then why call for it to be realised under capitalism?  This is like inviting someone to bang their head against the wall and expect their consciousness to be raised as a result.  And, yes, it is within capitalism that you propose these transitional demands should be realised even while you admit they are unachievable.  Raising the minimum  wage to £10 ph or increasing the pension by 50% presupposes the existence of  money and market relationships that characterise capitalism.
> 
> On the question of the so called planned economy there is an awful lot of nonsense talked about this on the Left.  All economies without exception involve planning - even the most extreme free market version of capitalism.  Every enterprise has its "plans".  Its a question of the degree of coordination of these plans. There is only so far you can go with this since sooner or later the logistical problem will prove insurmountable.  Literal society-wide planning in the form of one single plan based on a Leontief type matrix of inputs and outpot is utterly impossible.  If you want me to elaborate on that I will happily do so.
> 
> ...



You would do well to read what I've already written more than once on this here forum.

Increases to the minimum wage and raising pensions and trying them back into income are not transitional demands. They are just demands.

Perhaps you should do a little reading up and then come back, so that we're both signing off the same hymn sheet, comrade.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 9, 2010)

> robbo203 said:
> 
> 
> > No its not relevant.  Its the *goal *that we are talking about.  The goal in the case of SS is precisely the same as that of the SPGB.  The SLP of the De Leonist variety also basically advocated socialism in the SPGB sense  though with a somewhat different perspective on how it might be organised.  The SLP was likewise part of the "impossibilist" tradition and in the Socialist Standard was once referred to as "our political cousins"
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2010)

If i fucking this one more time:


----------



## Gravediggers (May 9, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Thought I may as well go back through the thread a bit.
> 
> Least worst option imo, in the absence of any candidates that I actually wanted to vote for.
> 
> ...



Thanks for that Proper Tidy.  Yes I agree they are all nationalists dressed up in 'protecting british interests'.  Plaid on they other hand are out to protect welsh interests first with british interests coming second on their list of priorities.  I know, I know difficult and dangerous for any trapeze artist but that is the price you pay for accepting the political system and all its ramifications.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> If i fucking this one more time:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 9, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Thanks for that Proper Tidy.  Yes I agree they are all nationalists dressed up in 'protecting british interests'.  Plaid on they other hand are out to protect welsh interests first with british interests coming second on their list of priorities.  I know, I know difficult and dangerous for any trapeze artist but that is the price you pay for accepting the political system and all its ramifications.



Cripes. I voted for them, I haven't joined forces.

Did you vote Diggers?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 9, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Cripes. I voted for them, I haven't joined forces.
> 
> Did you vote Diggers?



To late to withdraw your ballot paper the damage is done.  And although you haven't joined forces with them you have most definitely supported their political platform which is to promote welsh nationalism.  How does that square with your membership to SPEW?  

I've told you before this board is open to public scrutiny.  The SPGB would never tolerate such lack of socialist understanding and out on your arse it would be.  How your regional committee and EC deal with such a flagrant breach of internationalism remains to be seen.

No I was too busy on this thread to go and place my vote for  socialism by marking my ballot paper with 'World Socialism and nothing but'.  Like I said previously there is no compromise with the political system even when it comes to the ballot paper.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 9, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> To late to withdraw your ballot paper the damage is done.  And although you haven't joined forces with them you have most definitely supported their political platform which is to promote welsh nationalism.  How does that square with your membership to SPEW?
> 
> I've told you before this board is open to public scrutiny.  The SPGB would never tolerate such lack of socialist understanding and out on your arse it would be.  How your regional committee and EC deal with such a flagrant breach of internationalism remains to be seen.
> 
> No I was too busy on this thread to go and place my vote for  socialism by marking my ballot paper with 'World Socialism and nothing but'.  Like I said previously there is no compromise with the political system even when it comes to the ballot paper.



Haha!

Who I choose to vote for is bollocks all to do with either my regional committee or the EC. We're a party not a fucking cult.


----------



## dannysp (May 9, 2010)

I'm troubled, disappointed, well you would be if you were in agreement with the squeeby geebies, but something else has cropped up though, it's these two posts 54 and 145. In 54  you might just remember it, or perhaps you might've missed it, you know the one with all that gross sentimentality about those starving, dieing and neglected Kids in their hundreds of millions all over the place, and as we all know "sentimentality is the bank holiday of cynicism", I can well understand the general attitude to such mawkish drivel, shame on me! 
What it is that troubles and disappoints me is a trick's has been missed an opportunity lost on the part of those who, let's say, are not entirely enamored with the politics, the proposition of the SPGB, The small party of good boys have laid claim to the existence of a unbreakable natural law, the law of social responsibility no less! What arrogance, impertinence, presumption, effrontery and worst of all hubris, it's saturated in it. So where is she, the Goddess of comeuppance? Where's the Nemesis so thoroughly deserved? This is an assertion by those who, according to most who are familiar with their stance, are irrelevant, pointless, laughable, a conventicle of cobwebbed Utopian theoreticians. I'd started to calculate how much thread it would take to sew me back together after you lot had torn me apart, but I remain intact somehow.
I revisited post 54 and it's such a lonely place, I had to kick away the tumbleweed to reread it. There were two sets of tracks though leading directly to and away, it seems a long enough barge pole was briefly available to poke it with "understatement" and then  "ramble".
Come on, where are you learned dialecticians? You have the latest equipment, why hasn't post 54 gone through the shredder? There was a heart on a sleeve why wasn't it pierced? This is only the squeebys after all. 
More disappointment after post 145 when I wrote:

"The left have fucked up big time everywhere and always whenever they've got their hands on power. The SPGB have fucked up nothing. The crime of the SPGB as far as the left is concerned is not so much that it would have nothing to do with the fuck ups, but that it predicted them, knowing you can't have Socialism without Socialists".

Why the disappointment? Modesty, the refusal to blow a trumpet. Well I was expecting a barrage, avalanche a cornucopia no less of examples of the left unfucking up, a magnificence of shining beacons of social emancipation the left, through devoted self sacrifice and their mastery of leadership, have brought us to, but no, and quite rightly it was thought best to point out what a bunch no nothing do nothing fuckwits the SPGB is, and it has absolutely no justification to criticise the left. Point Taken.

Proper Tidy did venture something worth recollection here,

"Btw, the terrible trots were busy getting exiled and executed for speaking out against authoritarian communism when the rest of the left were tied up fantasising over five year plans and Moscow show trials, so I'll be fucked if I'll let a few people on a message board pin the fucking Hitler/Stalin pact on the tradition".

All there is a minor quibble and a passing observation. Correct me if I'm wrong but surely if something is "authoritarian" it can't be Communism, the phrase P/T used here is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron. But what do I know?
 P/T reminds us of the fate of those "terrible trots" at the hands of the Stalinist, tragic and despicable, no argument here, but at the risk of being impertinent can ask P/T to stretch his memory if possible a few years further back to the time just after the Bolshevik coup, sorry revolution when workers in their thousands many of whom would have found an open door, a seat at the table of the SPGB and referred to as Comrades, were diligently rounded up to be dispatched, disappeared, eliminated, murdered for "speaking out". 
I know I shouldn't be so morbid but I have to ask, where was our now mummified deity, and our saintly ice-picked martyr at the time? Oh yes, I remember, in charge! In fucking charge! But Lenin and Trotsky were honorable men and the glorious end justified the means.

So what has the SPGB achieved? As you know, a few pamphlets, a magazine published every month for a 106 years  and some other piddling stuff I'll not go into here, but the most important contribution as I see it, the SPGB has made, is in viewing capitalism as unhealthy, socially unhygienic, so therefor what was needed was a disinfectant, and they discovered one. Now you can't pick it off a shelf at Tesco's or even Waitrose, we have to make it ourselves. I'm hesitating here because in naming the product and giving out the recipe is to claim the existence of another unbreakable social law, perish the thought, but here goes; Democracy can only be democracy when all socially relevant information is freely available to all. If this is not the case then there are crooks about and it ain't democracy. The more of us who get together to make this disinfectant, the quicker we can clean the place up.
Yep! You're right just another self indulgent ramble.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2010)

How many votes did you get danny?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 9, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Haha!
> 
> Who I choose to vote for is bollocks all to do with either my regional committee or the EC. We're a party not a fucking cult.



Who you choose to vote for as nothing to do with a political cult, but it has everything to do with your political understanding of your class position.  We went through all of this on the other thread.  If you wish to continue the argument here please feel free to do so.


----------



## dannysp (May 9, 2010)

"I am a lifelong, strong atheist, but even from this standpoint, I must acknowledge that belief in god is perfectly rational in certain circumstances.  Even a person who believes in a god could also - just about - be a socialist.  Each position isn't necessarily contradictory to the other".

"Of course, as an atheist, I happen to think that religious beliefs are silly".  

How can something be rational in one paragraph and then silly in another?
What are these circumstamces?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 9, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Who you choose to vote for as nothing to do with a political cult, but it has everything to do with your political understanding of your class position.  We went through all of this on the other thread.  If you wish to continue the argument here please feel free to do so.



GD. In the absence of political alternatives, I am entitled to vote for who I perceive to be the least worst option. It has bugger all to do with either 'my political understanding of my class position' or regional/national officers in SP. It has everything to do with who I would prefer out of the limited options as my MP.

I know you reject the real world so it must be a confusing scenario for you.

Perhaps you can explain, through the shining light of your exemplary political understanding of your class position, why you have flip-flopped from nationalists to reformists to cult, and how you saw the light.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> How many votes did you get danny?



Why bother to ask a question when you already know the answer?  Butchers you are such a disappointment when it comes to stating the obvious.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2010)

I don't know the answer. You do.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 9, 2010)

dannysp said:


> I'm troubled, disappointed, well you would be if you were in agreement with the squeeby geebies, but something else has cropped up though, it's these two posts 54 and 145. In 54  you might just remember it, or perhaps you might've missed it, you know the one with all that gross sentimentality about those starving, dieing and neglected Kids in their hundreds of millions all over the place, and as we all know "sentimentality is the bank holiday of cynicism", I can well understand the general attitude to such mawkish drivel, shame on me!
> What it is that troubles and disappoints me is a trick's has been missed an opportunity lost on the part of those who, let's say, are not entirely enamored with the politics, the proposition of the SPGB, The small party of good boys have laid claim to the existence of a unbreakable natural law, the law of social responsibility no less! What arrogance, impertinence, presumption, effrontery and worst of all hubris, it's saturated in it. So where is she, the Goddess of comeuppance? Where's the Nemesis so thoroughly deserved? This is an assertion by those who, according to most who are familiar with their stance, are irrelevant, pointless, laughable, a conventicle of cobwebbed Utopian theoreticians. I'd started to calculate how much thread it would take to sew me back together after you lot had torn me apart, but I remain intact somehow.
> I revisited post 54 and it's such a lonely place, I had to kick away the tumbleweed to reread it. There were two sets of tracks though leading directly to and away, it seems a long enough barge pole was briefly available to poke it with "understatement" and then  "ramble".
> Come on, where are you learned dialecticians? You have the latest equipment, why hasn't post 54 gone through the shredder? There was a heart on a sleeve why wasn't it pierced? This is only the squeebys after all.
> ...



Ho ho ho


----------



## dannysp (May 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> How many votes did you get danny?



None, the SPGB got 143, perhaps we in the SPGB should all join the BNP seeing they must be right and us wrong as they received more electoral support.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2010)

You might do well to take a few lessons off them, yes, i agree.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 9, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> GD. In the absence of political alternatives, I am entitled to vote for who I perceive to be the least worst option. It has bugger all to do with either 'my political understanding of my class position' or regional/national officers in SP. It has everything to do with who I would prefer out of the limited options as my MP.
> 
> I know you reject the real world so it must be a confusing scenario for you.
> 
> Perhaps you can explain, through the shining light of your exemplary political understanding of your class position, why you have flip-flopped from nationalists to reformists to cult, and how you saw the light.



So you voted for the least worse of four evils.  I therefore beg to differ that it has nothing to do with your political understanding of your class position.  By voting for the enemy e.g. the representative of the welsh capitalist class it illustrates you have a total lack of understanding of where your working class interests lie, or even what they are.

Here you are posturing that reforms and transitional demands are the way forward for the working class yet blatantly urge all and sundry to vote blindly without a thought on how this reflects on the case promoted by SPEW.


----------



## dannysp (May 9, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Ho ho ho



That's done it, such a withering critique has completely changed my mind, I've undergone a veritable epiphany and had a eureka moment. Look could you send an application form to 52 Clapham High St SW4 7UN, I'll pick it up when I go to hand in my resignation, thanks.
D'you  think they'll let me join? I'll swear Trotsky is God.


----------



## dannysp (May 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You might do well to take a few lessons off them, yes, i agree.



And what would those "lessons" consist of butch?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 9, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> So you voted for the least worse of four evils.  I therefore beg to differ that it has nothing to do with your political understanding of your class position.  By voting for the enemy e.g. the representative of the welsh capitalist class it illustrates you have a total lack of understanding of where your working class interests lie, or even what they are.
> 
> Here you are posturing that reforms and transitional demands are the way forward for the working class yet blatantly urge all and sundry to vote blindly without a thought on how this reflects on the case promoted by SPEW.



You're on a different fucking planet man.

What has you not voting achieved? I'd have preferred a Plaid MP than a Labour MP on the basis that a Plaid MP is likely to be opposed to the cuts that are coming and to continued imperial adventures. So I voted Plaid.

It doesn't indicate anything more than a choice between the options available to me.

You appear to see something noble is your abstentionist approach. But here's the thing - it means a big fat fuck all.

If you can find me "blatantly urg(ing) all and sundry to vote blindly without a thought on how this reflects on the case promoted by SPEW" the you're a fucking magician. I have not encouraged anybody to vote Plaid, why the fuck would I?

Or do you think all good socialists should abstain from voting when they don't have a candidate to vote for? What, for example, would be the SPGB line if it was a choice between a Labour politician and a BNP politician? 'Stay at home, it isn't important'?

I voted for the candidate least likely to fuck me up the arse and charge me for it - because I don't live on a cloud stroking my beard. Spin that however you like.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2010)

dannysp said:


> And what would those "lessons" consist of butch?



One would be how to attract people.

What was your name on the ballot paper then if it was a SPGB vote?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 9, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You're on a different fucking planet man.
> 
> What has you not voting achieved? I'd have preferred a Plaid MP than a Labour MP on the basis that a Plaid MP is likely to be opposed to the cuts that are coming and to continued imperial adventures. So I voted Plaid.
> 
> ...



I do not have to put any spin on this feeble excuse what so ever.  You have done a perfectly good job as it stands.  And you claim you live in the world of reality.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 9, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I do not have to put any spin on this feeble excuse what so ever.  You have done a perfectly good job as it stands.  And you claim you live in the world of reality.



I'm not excusing anything you pompous prick. I have nothing I need to offer an excuse for.


----------



## dannysp (May 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> One would be how to attract people.
> 
> What was your name on the ballot paper then if it was a SPGB vote?



The BNP are repellent n'est pas, and yes a name, "a rose or turd by any other would smell as sweet or as fowl"


----------



## TomR77 (May 9, 2010)

dannysp said:


> "I am a lifelong, strong atheist, but even from this standpoint, I must acknowledge that belief in god is perfectly rational in certain circumstances.  Even a person who believes in a god could also - just about - be a socialist.  Each position isn't necessarily contradictory to the other".
> 
> "Of course, as an atheist, I happen to think that religious beliefs are silly".
> 
> ...



You've taken my words slightly out of context; always the danger when quoting selectively.  Maybe also, I didn't convey my meaning very well.  I don't want to get sidetracked in a debate about god (I find it a pretty dull subject), but objectively, I cannot disprove the existence of any god, and if someone wishes to believe in the existence of supernatural or spiritual forces, then this could be considered an entirely rational position.  It's 10 o'clock at night and I'm knackered, so please don't expect me to start itemising the circumstances when it's OK to believe in what you and I know is a load of old cobblers.

I happen to think that the majority of religious and spiritual beliefs are inconsistent with the pattern of our existence.  The body of scientific evidence and inquiry points to a material reality only, but I don't see this as a basis for excluding from the socialist movement those who choose a faith.  Let them join.  Socialism is a scientific case, but there are plenty of scientists and other inquiring intellectuals who hold religious faith.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2010)

dannysp said:


> The BNP are repellent n'est pas, and yes a name, "a rose or turd by any other would smell as sweet or as fowl"



So it was you they voted for. Or didn't.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 9, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'm not excusing anything you pompous prick. I have nothing I need to offer an excuse for.



Away you go nothing left in the bag of tricks except insults I presume.  Must be because truth hurts even when a 'feeble reason' fails the scrutiny of defining the class enemy.

OK save your breath.  Could you explain what you understand to be a socialist commitment, a socialist determination, and a socialist non-compromise?


----------



## TomR77 (May 9, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You're on a different fucking planet man.
> 
> What has you not voting achieved? I'd have preferred a Plaid MP than a Labour MP on the basis that a Plaid MP is likely to be opposed to the cuts that are coming and to continued imperial adventures. So I voted Plaid.
> 
> ...



It's a small step from there to voting Labour, LibDem...or may God forgive us...the Tories.  Yes, you could vote Tory on this basis.  Why not?  If you apply the logic of the argument, there's nothing against it.  The Conservative Party has, essentially, been a liberal/centre-left party for the past 50 years anyway (including under Thatcher).  And didn't Plaid try to enter a coalition with them in Wales?  

On Plaid specifically, they are nominally a left-wing party, but they also have this ideological confusionism that other Celtic nationalist parties have in that there is this very strong nationalist/home language constituency.  You see this also in Sinn Fein (Ireland) and the SNP (Scotland), both of which are nominally centre-left or left-wing, but which also have some very right-wing and conservative factions who are basically silenced or appeased by the nationalistic mission of their parties' leaderships.

The problem with Proper Tidy's whole gambit here is that he is entering the capitalist arena, and having to mediate all the inconsistencies and contradictions of the parties.  One has to ask the obvious and glaring question - Why?  Vote Plaid, he is saying, but why should a socialist vote for anything other than socialism?


----------



## robbo203 (May 9, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> > And that goal has to harmonise with the means.  When it don't the goal is inevitably going down the plughole.
> >
> >
> > .
> ...


----------



## TomR77 (May 9, 2010)

Just following on from that last post, why should a socialist vote for anything other than socialism?

Proper Tidy and Butchersapron will now leap in and say that voting for socialism is either not possible at present, or would be a futile gesture, and we should accept this.  Rather than aiming for objectives we would want idealistically, they will say, we should accept that there is a limit to what can be achieved realistically in society, and so we should hunker down for a struggle under capitalism in the hope that this will eventually lead to mass socialist consciousness.

Fair enough.  I accept the validity in this argument.  However, at the risk of being branded a "pompous prick", I do not accept that this means we should limit our political choices.  Voting Plaid Cymru is a barmy thing for a socialist to do.  If SPEW or SPGB or something similar are not standing candidates in your area, then vote for yourself by writing 'Socialism' on the ballot paper.

And as for the benefits which the working class might derive from voting Plaid Cymru, well as an Impossibilist I would reject any premise that the workers would derive any benefit from improving the conditions of their own exploitation.  I do so on perfectly reasonable and logical grounds.  I was actually too magnanimous with GD earlier, on the other thread. I would not vote for health and safety legislation.  The working class should be voting for socialism.  Period.  

But here my attention turns again to Proper Tidy.  He told us previously that the struggle was from below, and not necessarily political.  How does this square with his admission that he has voted Plaid?  We have turned full-circle and I can only repeat the assertion that I have made all along.  While not necessarily opposed to reforms per se, I do not see the advantage to the working class in voting to continue the system that exploits them.  People such as Proper Tidy can make the system nicer and show the working class what they can achieve in practical terms, but that will only lead to socialism where there is a socialist majority - and such a majority will not want or need Proper Tidy's help, or ours.  

If we want socialism, then we need to persuade workers of the socialist case, in the same way that each of us has been persuaded of the socialist case.  It's that clear and simple.  The way forward, I think, is to reform the S.P.G.B. internally so that it ditches some of its sectarianism, and improves its relations with the rest of the anti-state sector, and professionalises its organisation, media relations and campaigning.


----------



## robbo203 (May 9, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You would do well to read what I've already written more than once on this here forum.
> 
> Increases to the minimum wage and raising pensions and trying them back into income are not transitional demands. They are just demands.
> 
> Perhaps you should do a little reading up and then come back, so that we're both signing off the same hymn sheet, comrade.



I tell you what - just to make things easier ,can you give a succinct defintion of  a transntional demand and a practical example.  I have yet to see how it can be differentiated in any meangful way from straightforwad reformism.  And reformism, as we know, accepts capitalism as the basic framework within which reformist measures are carried out by the state


----------



## TomR77 (May 9, 2010)

Here we go, workers self-management again.....Just you watch....

"Ah, Mr. Tidy.  Yes, yes, do come in.  Take a seat in the boardroom, why don't you.  Now, you and those other chaps have been agitating for...er...what was it this time?  Workers self-management?  Yes, jolly good.  Well, we've been looking into this and we'd be delighted to accede to your demands.  Delighted, delighted.  Care for a glass of cherry?"

Maybe it will be something else....but whatever it is, I guarantee the capitalists will be more than delighted - delighted - to accede to Mr. Tidy's demands.

Up the workers!

Or maybe not...


----------



## Gravediggers (May 9, 2010)

TomR77 said:


> And as for the benefits which the working class might derive from voting Plaid Cymru, well as an Impossibilist I would reject any premise that the workers would derive any benefit from improving the conditions of their own exploitation.  I do so on perfectly reasonable and logical grounds.  I was actually too magnanimous with GD earlier, on the other thread. I would not vote for health and safety legislation.  The working class should be voting for socialism.  Period.



I did not imply or suggest socialist should vote for H&S legislation.  What I said was workers would "welcome" such legislation despite the fact there were benefits to the capitalist class.  A tad pragmatic I agree but nonetheless a recognition that we can only expect crumbs from reforms when our aspirations and expectations are set so low.





> If we want socialism, then we need to persuade workers of the socialist case, in the same way that each of us has been persuaded of the socialist case.  It's that clear and simple.  The way forward, I think, is to reform the S.P.G.B. internally so that it ditches some of its sectarianism, and improves its relations with the rest of the anti-state sector, and professionalises its organisation, media relations and campaigning.



I tend to agree with you here, albeit without the reference to sectarianism, but as always I ask the inevitable question: Please feel free to elaborate on your suggestions for improvements, either here or if you so wish, or by making use of the Personal Messages on this board.


----------



## TomR77 (May 9, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I did not imply or suggest socialist should vote for H&S legislation.  What I said was workers would "welcome" such legislation despite the fact there were benefits to the capitalist class.  A tad pragmatic I agree but nonetheless a recognition that we can only expect crumbs from reforms when our aspirations and expectations are set so low.



No problem - I think it's my fault in getting the semantics wrong of 'support', 'campaign for', 'vote for', and so on.  It's half-11 on a Sunday night, so I'm sure you'll let me off on that one.  At this time of night, I can barely spell semantics, let alone type it - and I've work in the morning, so I'd better hit the sack!  Hope to debate with you again maybe later in the week.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 9, 2010)

It's like arguing with five gibbering drunks, it really is. Do you people not ever read back what you've written? Dear fucks.



> A democratic socialist plan of production based on the interests of the overwhelming majority of people, and in a way that safeguards the environment.



Or



> Repeal all laws that trample over civil liberties. For the right to protest! End Police harassment.



Spot the difference.

Here's a clue - one is achievable under capitalism, the other isn't.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 9, 2010)

TomR77 said:


> It's a small step from there to voting Labour, LibDem...or may God forgive us...the Tories.  Yes, you could vote Tory on this basis.  Why not?  If you apply the logic of the argument, there's nothing against it.  The Conservative Party has, essentially, been a liberal/centre-left party for the past 50 years anyway (including under Thatcher).  And didn't Plaid try to enter a coalition with them in Wales?
> 
> On Plaid specifically, they are nominally a left-wing party, but they also have this ideological confusionism that other Celtic nationalist parties have in that there is this very strong nationalist/home language constituency.  You see this also in Sinn Fein (Ireland) and the SNP (Scotland), both of which are nominally centre-left or left-wing, but which also have some very right-wing and conservative factions who are basically silenced or appeased by the nationalistic mission of their parties' leaderships.
> 
> The problem with Proper Tidy's whole gambit here is that he is entering the capitalist arena, and having to mediate all the inconsistencies and contradictions of the parties.  One has to ask the obvious and glaring question - Why?  Vote Plaid, he is saying, but why should a socialist vote for anything other than socialism?



Jesus wept.

The problem with you squeegees is that you are so obviously trapped in a little bubble of your own making. You're a fucking cult.

You're objections to anybody taking the least worst option in an election are deranged. Utterly deranged.

It might at least be logical if you refused to participate in electoral politics yourselves but you fucking don't!


----------



## dannysp (May 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Jesus wept.
> 
> The problem with you squeegees is that you are so obviously trapped in a little bubble of your own making. You're a fucking cult.
> 
> ...



OK then you vote for your national capitalist party, I guarantee you will get fucked up the arse but they might, just might charge you a little less and you never know, they could offer you some subsidised lube. That'll be so much better. 
Fantastic race the capitalists, fantastic.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 10, 2010)

dannysp said:


> OK then you vote for your national capitalist party, I guarantee you will get fucked up the arse but they might, just might charge you a little less and you never know, they could offer you some subsidised lube. That'll be so much better.
> Fantastic race the capitalists, fantastic.



Whereas by abstaining, you still get fucked up the arse, but you don't have even the slightest say in who fucks you up the arse, how hard, and how fast.

World of difference, that.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 10, 2010)

robbo203;10636436][QUOTE=Gravediggers said:


> Y
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Gravediggers (May 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> It's like arguing with five gibbering drunks, it really is. Do you people not ever read back what you've written? Dear fucks.
> 
> 
> Quote:
> ...




Now why would we need the state machinery in socialism?  Beats me, but the retention of the state is a necessity if you wish to repeal all laws that trample over civil liberties, have no right to protest and seek and end to police harassment.  But if the state is still in existence don't that also mean that the capitalist class are also still in existence?

But on the other hand Proper Tidy is under the impression that the state becomes a neutral institution under socialism.  Or it could be me recovering from my drunken stupor.  Naw I much prefer a puff so I get a fit of the giggles when I read such nonsense.


----------



## robbo203 (May 10, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> robbo203;10636436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 10, 2010)

dannysp said:


> OK then you vote for your national capitalist party, I guarantee you will get fucked up the arse but they might, just might charge you a little less and you never know, they could offer you some subsidised lube. That'll be so much better.
> Fantastic race the capitalists, fantastic.



Nice analogy danny.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 10, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I know you find my style of argument off putting, you always have.  But I did warn you at the very beginning not to expect a Mr Nice guy approach from me.  I call a spade a spade and if you don't like it, tough.  So your pity old me response is being given the cold shoulder.  It takes all sorts to make the socialist case for Mr Nice and Mr Angry both have their roles to play.  I accept that as a fact and have no need to get on my bike!  Yes it would be nice to have a nice revolution but fortunately there are too many like myself who are unable to contain their anger after what we have experienced.



Socialism as some sort humourless role play game; compose a biting paragraph and increase your 'case points' by two. Please tell me you are appropriately dressed when your posting.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Gravediggers (May 10, 2010)

TomR77 said:


> No problem - I think it's my fault in getting the semantics wrong of 'support', 'campaign for', 'vote for', and so on.  It's half-11 on a Sunday night, so I'm sure you'll let me off on that one.  At this time of night, I can barely spell semantics, let alone type it - and I've work in the morning, so I'd better hit the sack!  Hope to debate with you again maybe later in the week.



Yeh it all gets somewhat confusing when the left get so mixed up in their effort to square the circle.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 10, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Yeh it all gets somewhat confusing when the left get so mixed up in their effort to square the circle.



It's always soemone else's fault; if it wasn't for those damnable lefties you'd have got it all sorted long ago.

Louis MacNeice

p.s. not hating, just pointing and laughing, pointing and laughing.


----------



## TomR77 (May 10, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> It's always soemone else's fault; if it wasn't for those damnable lefties you'd have got it all sorted long ago.
> 
> Louis MacNeice
> 
> p.s. not hating, just pointing and laughing, pointing and laughing.



Glass of cherry, anyone?  Or should it be port?

Up the workers, eh wot.


----------



## dannysp (May 10, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> It's always soemone else's fault; if it wasn't for those damnable lefties you'd have got it all sorted long ago.
> 
> Louis MacNeice
> 
> p.s. not hating, just pointing and laughing, pointing and laughing.



Hi Louis, thanks for the appreciation, of am I missing something?
As for those "damnable lefties" I can't help imagining that if all of those lefties had been Socialists, you know had campaigned for the end of the wages system, for common ownership, democratic control, from ability to need, the society Marx among others worked for, and had got together in one organisation, we would probably have grown up with Socialism and my grandchildren would be living it.
Am I wrong?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 10, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Hi Louis, thanks for the appreciation, of *am I missing something*?
> As for those "damnable lefties" I can't help imagining that if all of those lefties had been Socialists, you know had campaigned for the end of the wages system, for common ownership, democratic control, from ability to need, the society Marx among others worked for, and had got together in one organisation, we would probably have grown up with Socialism and my grandchildren would be living it.
> *Am I wrong*?



Yes and yes.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 10, 2010)

TomR77 said:


> Glass of cherry, anyone?  Or should it be port?
> 
> Up the workers, eh wot.



Stoned fruit.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## dannysp (May 10, 2010)

00
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannysp View Post
OK then you vote for your national capitalist party, I guarantee you will get fucked up the arse but they might, just might charge you a little less and you never know, they could offer you some subsidised lube. That'll be so much better.
Fantastic race the capitalists, fantastic.

Quote: Proper Tidy
Whereas by abstaining, you still get fucked up the arse, but you don't have even the slightest say in who fucks you up the arse, how hard, and how fast.

World of difference, that. 


When you put a mark next to the preferred pederast on your ballot paper, being fucked up the arse is no longer rape it's consensual. You are in effect putting your head between your knees puckering your freckle and pointing it skywards. When I get a ballot paper and there ain't a Socialist Party to vote for, I write through the boxes where I'm supposed to put my cross www.worldsocialism.org. In writing that I'm saying I know I'm being violated, and, I'm not prepared to submit to or legitimise those perverts who seek to violate me and my fellow workers. 
Unlike you Proper Tidy.


----------



## butchersapron (May 10, 2010)

Wow, it's all coming out now. How easy to lift the rock.


----------



## dannysp (May 10, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Yes and yes.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Thanks Louis I see it all now, again thanks.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 10, 2010)

dannysp said:


> 00
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by dannysp View Post
> OK then you vote for your national capitalist party, I guarantee you will get fucked up the arse but they might, just might charge you a little less and you never know, they could offer you some subsidised lube. That'll be so much better.
> ...



Good analogy stick with it; I don't think you could put the 'case' any more clearly.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 10, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Thanks Louis I see it all now, again thanks.



Danny Magoo.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 10, 2010)

TomR77 said:


> Glass of cherry, anyone?  Or should it be port?
> 
> Up the workers, eh wot.



Not the foreign ones surely; 'I have seen with my own eyes what excess and uncontrolled immigration actually does to communities. I feel nothing but disgust...'

Have you met dannysp? You could swap opinions on mass immigration and anal sex; it would make for an edifying and illuminating exchange.

Louis MacNeice

p.s. perhaps GD could chip in with something on 'hysteria'?


----------



## dannysp (May 10, 2010)

TomR77 said:


> You've taken my words slightly out of context; always the danger when quoting selectively.  Maybe also, I didn't convey my meaning very well.  I don't want to get sidetracked in a debate about god (I find it a pretty dull subject), but objectively, I cannot disprove the existence of any god, and if someone wishes to believe in the existence of supernatural or spiritual forces, then this could be considered an entirely rational position.  It's 10 o'clock at night and I'm knackered, so please don't expect me to start itemising the circumstances when it's OK to believe in what you and I know is a load of old cobblers.
> 
> I happen to think that the majority of religious and spiritual beliefs are inconsistent with the pattern of our existence.  The body of scientific evidence and inquiry points to a material reality only, but I don't see this as a basis for excluding from the socialist movement those who choose a faith.  Let them join.  Socialism is a scientific case, but there are plenty of scientists and other inquiring intellectuals who hold religious faith.



Hi Tom
As they say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" so where is this proof of the "supernatural"? Which is of course a one word oxymoron, well none as far as I can see.
I'm quoting selectively again, you wrote "and if someone wishes to believe in the existence of supernatural or spiritual forces, then this could be considered an entirely rational position" you then go on to say "It's 10 o'clock at night and I'm knackered, so please don't expect me to start itemising the circumstances when it's OK to believe in what you and I know is a load of old cobblers".
You seem to be contradicting yourself again. To believe and to know are to different things entirely, why should the Party let anybody join when the applicant believes in a load of old cobblers? The question we should ask is, where are all these religious committed Socialists? They're not being turned away from the Party in droves I can assure you. Let's put it this way, the more we identify with the spurious, the less we identify with reality, the more we identify with a god or gods the less we identify with humans.
Hope you got a good nights sleep.


----------



## dannysp (May 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy post 245
Quote
I voted for the candidate least likely to fuck me up the arse and charge me for it - because I don't live on a cloud stroking my beard. Spin that however you like.[/QUOTE]

So I spun it.


----------



## TomR77 (May 10, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Proper Tidy post 245
> Quote
> I voted for the candidate least likely to fuck me up the arse and charge me for it - because I don't live on a cloud stroking my beard. Spin that however you like.



So I spun it.[/QUOTE]

The problem is, Proper Tidy, the S.P.G.B. does not live in the clouds.  The idea that it is aloof and detached from the class struggle is a misunderstanding of the Party's case.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 10, 2010)

TomR77 said:


> The problem is, Proper Tidy, the S.P.G.B. does not live in the clouds.  The idea that it is aloof and detached from the class struggle is a misunderstanding of the Party's case.



Yet a prevalent one. So, is that a problem of how the party and its members come across, or everybody else?

You know the answer. If you don't then re-read the contributions on here.


----------



## dennisr (May 10, 2010)

TomR77 said:


> The problem is, Proper Tidy, the S.P.G.B. does not live in the clouds.  The idea that it is aloof and detached from the class struggle is a misunderstanding of the Party's case.



I think folk have been waiting for some examples - well, even one - for most of this thread.


----------



## TomR77 (May 10, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Hi Tom
> As they say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" so where is this proof of the "supernatural"? Which is of course a one word oxymoron, well none as far as I can see.
> I'm quoting selectively again, you wrote "and if someone wishes to believe in the existence of supernatural or spiritual forces, then this could be considered an entirely rational position" you then go on to say "It's 10 o'clock at night and I'm knackered, so please don't expect me to start itemising the circumstances when it's OK to believe in what you and I know is a load of old cobblers".
> You seem to be contradicting yourself again. To believe and to know are to different things entirely, why should the Party let anybody join when the applicant believes in a load of old cobblers? The question we should ask is, where are all these religious committed Socialists? They're not being turned away from the Party in droves I can assure you. Let's put it this way, the more we identify with the spurious, the less we identify with reality, the more we identify with a god or gods the less we identify with humans.
> Hope you got a good nights sleep.



Danny,

I have not said there is any proof of the supernatural, spiritual, or religious.  I hold both a theological and a scientific position.  I hold that there is no god or other similar supernatural being.  There is a large body of science to support this position, but no proof.

As I stated earlier, I accept that the pattern of scientific, historical and anthropological inquiry would seem to suggest there is no kind of god, and that most religions are political ideologies.  This does not mean there is no god, only that there is no serious evidence for the existence of any god, and furthermore, there are other historical and materialist reasons why people might believe in god, and those reasons are quite separate from the belief itself.

As there is no serious evidence for the existence of any god, then there is no particular reason why I should believe there is a god, and as it happens, I do not believe in god.  That does not mean there is or is not a god, only that I do not believe there is a god and I have reasonable grounds for my belief, or absence of belief.

Against this background, I would be surprised if anyone were to suggest that atheism is an irrational position.  Likewise, I must concede that belief in a god can be a perfectly rational position.  In the end, neither position can be falsified at this time. That is not to affirm faith over reason.  Quite the opposite.  It is to assert the importance of reason and inquiry in determining the basis and value of belief systems.  I am happy when religionists assert that belief in God is non-falsifiable, for they place themselves in the realms of science and reason.  The only remaining question then is, which belief system is closest to the truth?

On the specific issue of religious people joining the S.P.G.B., I don't have a particular problem with it.  I think there would be a strong movement towards spirituality within a socialist society.  I take a scientific view of these things and I am not a spiritual person, as I am keen to emphasise, but it would be arrogant to deny the possibilities presented by other perspectives and other means of inquiry.  The human brain and mind are still not understood at any significant level.  An analogy with our knowledge of the great forests and oceans is apt.  We have barely tapped our potential and its possibilities.


----------



## TomR77 (May 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yet a prevalent one. So, is that a problem of how the party and its members come across, or everybody else?
> 
> You know the answer. If you don't then re-read the contributions on here.



You are right that Party members do often come across sometimes as brusque know-alls in debate.  I apologise for my own failings in this regard.  I am now in a (very dull) debate with Danny on the admission of religious people to the SPGB, and I'm starting to feel like I've been called in to see the fucking headmaster.  Maybe there's some lube waiting for me.


----------



## dannysp (May 10, 2010)

Hi Tom, GD, Robbo
When it comes to insults, the crowd on here should sharpen up their knives if they want to draw blood, here's something from the May 74 Socialist Standard they might find instructive.

In 1943 the West Ham branch of the Socialist Party of Great Britain challenged the local branch of the Communist Party to debate the respective objects of the parties. A reply from their branch secretary dated the 23rd February stated that "the Communist Party has NO dealings with murderers, liars, renegades or assassins. The Communist Party of Great Britain refuses with disgust to deal with such renegades. We treat them as vipers to be destroyed".  

Got to go some to beat that.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 10, 2010)

TomR77 said:


> You are right that Party members do often come across sometimes as brusque know-alls in debate.  I apologise for my own failings in this regard.  I am now in a (very dull) debate with Danny on the admission of religious people to the SPGB, and I'm starting to feel like I've been called in to see the fucking headmaster.  Maybe there's some lube waiting for me.



You have my sympathies, really


----------



## TomR77 (May 10, 2010)

I jest.  In all fairness, I think part of the problem is the nature of the case the S.P.G.B. are trying to make.

It's not easy telling the truth.  I'm often surprised when people complain about dishonest politicians.  Politicians are meant to be dishonest.  It is the politicians who are honest who are never listened to.  The dishonest ones are feted and admired.  There's a reason for that, a weakness all of us share, which is a resistance to the truth.

Herbert Agar, an American journalist, distributionist and popular historian wrote this line:-

"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear".

Or, as another sage said - "The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off".

I think at least part of the reason many don't like the S.P.G.B. is, if anything, a reluctance to confront reality.


----------



## TomR77 (May 10, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Hi Tom, GD, Robbo
> When it comes to insults, the crowd on here should sharpen up their knives if they want to draw blood, here's something from the May 74 Socialist Standard they might find instructive.
> 
> In 1943 the West Ham branch of the Socialist Party of Great Britain challenged the local branch of the Communist Party to debate the respective objects of the parties. A reply from their branch secretary dated the 23rd February stated that "the Communist Party has NO dealings with murderers, liars, renegades or assassins. The Communist Party of Great Britain refuses with disgust to deal with such renegades. We treat them as vipers to be destroyed".
> ...


----------



## dannysp (May 10, 2010)

TomR77 said:


> You are right that Party members do often come across sometimes as brusque know-alls in debate.  I apologise for my own failings in this regard.  I am now in a (very dull) debate with Danny on the admission of religious people to the SPGB, and I'm starting to feel like I've been called in to see the fucking headmaster.  Maybe there's some lube waiting for me.



Sorry if I read like a headmaster because the last school I went to had one who was an alchoholic religeous nutter who liked beating boys.
The "lube" jibe is cheap and uncalled for, as I and the SPGB wish to scew no one.

Write out one hundred times "I must in future reread and think about wot I done wrote, before hitting the 'submit reply' button.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 10, 2010)

I also think quoting obscure branch releases from 1943 is unlikely to change the image significantly


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 10, 2010)

TomR77 said:


> I jest.  In all fairness, I think part of the problem is the nature of the case the S.P.G.B. are trying to make.
> 
> It's not easy telling the truth.  I'm often surprised when people complain about dishonest politicians.  Politicians are meant to be dishonest.  It is the politicians who are honest who are never listened to.  The dishonest ones are feted and admired.  There's a reason for that, a weakness all of us share, which is a resistance to the truth.
> 
> ...



So the SPGB's unpopularity is proof of its correctness; that's handy.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Gravediggers (May 10, 2010)

TomR77 said:


> Danny,
> 
> I have not said there is any proof of the supernatural, spiritual, or religious.  I hold both a theological and a scientific position.  I hold that there is no god or other similar supernatural being.  There is a large body of science to support this position, but no proof.
> 
> ...



I find it hard to get my head around the assertion that a belief in God is non-falsifiable?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 10, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Hi Tom, GD, Robbo
> When it comes to insults, the crowd on here should sharpen up their knives if they want to draw blood, here's something from the May 74 Socialist Standard they might find instructive.
> 
> In 1943 the West Ham branch of the Socialist Party of Great Britain challenged the local branch of the Communist Party to debate the respective objects of the parties. A reply from their branch secretary dated the 23rd February stated that "the Communist Party has NO dealings with murderers, liars, renegades or assassins. The Communist Party of Great Britain refuses with disgust to deal with such renegades. We treat them as vipers to be destroyed".
> ...



You get the insults you deserve danny and it's pointing and laughing in 2010.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## dannysp (May 10, 2010)

There is another one that I quote from memory, "It is extremely difficult to change peoples minds when maintaining their way of life and sense of self relies on them not changing it.
People have egos, tell them they're a wage slave, therefor bred to be servile, no matter how gently put, tends to as the saying goes, piss them off.



TomR77 said:


> I jest.  In all fairness, I think part of the problem is the nature of the case the S.P.G.B. are trying to make.
> 
> It's not easy telling the truth.  I'm often surprised when people complain about dishonest politicians.  Politicians are meant to be dishonest.  It is the politicians who are honest who are never listened to.  The dishonest ones are feted and admired.  There's a reason for that, a weakness all of us share, which is a resistance to the truth.
> 
> ...


----------



## whichfinder (May 10, 2010)

TomR77 said:


> Let them join.



Not a hope in hell


----------



## TomR77 (May 10, 2010)

You're probably right.


----------



## robbo203 (May 10, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Hi Tom
> As they say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" so where is this proof of the "supernatural"? Which is of course a one word oxymoron, well none as far as I can see.
> I'm quoting selectively again, you wrote "and if someone wishes to believe in the existence of supernatural or spiritual forces, then this could be considered an entirely rational position" you then go on to say "It's 10 o'clock at night and I'm knackered, so please don't expect me to start itemising the circumstances when it's OK to believe in what you and I know is a load of old cobblers".
> You seem to be contradicting yourself again. To believe and to know are to different things entirely, why should the Party let anybody join when the applicant believes in a load of old cobblers? The question we should ask is, where are all these religious committed Socialists? They're not being turned away from the Party in droves I can assure you. Let's put it this way, the more we identify with the spurious, the less we identify with reality, the more we identify with a god or gods the less we identify with humans.
> Hope you got a good nights sleep.



Danny 

Has it not occured to you that the Party is not turning away these religious committed socialists "in droves" for the very simple reason that the vast majority of them simply dont bother to apply.  So you just dont get to hear of them.  Once they get wind of the religious ban, thats it - they're off.  Or at least the great majority of them.  Ive actually made a point of trying to contact some of these people before they disappear into the ether.  There are quite a few of them Ive encountered over the years and this is only me - one person - limited to internet contacts.  There must be many many more out there. Maybe the Socialist Standard ought to do a survey to find out how many of its readers are religious.  You might be surprised.

OK so religion is irrational but dont you think it is equally irrational to turn away people who clearly want and understand socialism and are therefore fully committed socialists.  It is unnecessarily restricting the growth of the party for the sake of a dogma.  All the necessary safeguards are in place so that if perchance someone's religious views  did induce them to move away from a socialist outlook this would "come out in the wash" so to speak.  The religious ban is totally superfluous and unneccesary.  

If religion really is the great enemy of socialism as it is made out to be then clearly the great majority of people will have to be converted to athesim before you can have socialism.  This is simply not on the cards.  Whats more it makes an extremely difficult task appear even more difficult.  

Far better to take a pragmatic view on this issue.  Drop the ban on religious views but ensure that the individuals applying are fully socialist in their outlook.  If the SPGB had done this from the start I have no doubt that it would be several times larger than it is today.  Of course the religious ban is not the only reason why it is small - probably the major reason is what i call the self perpetuating small party syndrome  - but any restriction  on its growth that can be removed ought to be removed.

cheers

R


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 10, 2010)

In fairness, it isn't like you're turning away atheists in droves either


----------



## Gravediggers (May 10, 2010)

dennisr said:


> I think folk have been waiting for some examples - well, even one - for most of this thread.



Despite this being an assertion, it does hold water to some degree for it depends on what sort of example you are looking for.  The class struggle, as I understand it is part and parcel of the battle for ideas and there have been plenty examples of this on this and other threads.  For instance, the case for 'reform or revolution' has been put with various arguments for and against.  

This is not to say that the discussion and debate is at an end, it will go on until the workers reach the conclusion that the case for revolution is more valid than the case for reforms. You may not agree that this is the example of class struggle you are looking for and dismiss it as an exercise in abstract propaganda or such like, and although we would disagree with that view you are entitle to hold it. But until you provide some example of what you understand to be 'class struggle' we will be floundering in assumptions and even more assertions.


----------



## two sheds (May 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> In fairness, it isn't like you're turning away atheists in droves either


----------



## robbo203 (May 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> .
> 
> I've argued that transitional demands - which are different to the 'reforms' that we base our day to day campaigning on - lead directly to socialism. For example:
> 
> ...




OK Proper Tidy, Ive located your post above in which you explain the difference between reforms and transitional demands

A few comments

First of all A "democratic socialist plan of production based on the interests of the overwhelming majority of people, and in a way that safegaurds the future " is not really a "transitional demand" at all, is it?  You are talking about socialism - arent you? -in which case you are referring to the final goal of socialists. By definition this cannot be "transitional".  

If on the other hand by "socialist" you mean the state taking over industry and running it purportedly in the interests of the overwhelming majority (state capitalism) then I inite you to explain how you think this links up with the struggle for a genuine non-market non-statist socialist society.  The fact is state capitalism leads nowhere - it is a dead end.  It certainly doesnt facilitate socialism (despite what Engels said on the subject in (Socialism Utopian and Scientific)

So before going on you need to clarify what you mean by this "democratic socialist plan of production"

You then go on to cite another transitional demand - namely "No to imperialist wars and occupations"  .  You say this is unahievable under capitalism but, if so, how does it possibly link up with the struggle for socialism?  Anti-imperialism does not in itself imply a socialist outlook.  You might argue that a socialist outlook entails anti-mperialism but, if so, you are putting the cart before the horse.  What this calls for is the forstering of a socialist outlook in the first place but your transtional demands appear to be offered as a circuitous route to realising this outlook.   But it cant happen like that.  If you dont have a socialist outlook how are you expected to see that the demand "No to imperialist wars and occupations" is unachievable within capitalism?  

Let me put it differently.  Suppose you had a vigorous and powerful socialist movement consisting of hundreds of thousands of members.  Governments of all hues have to justify their plans to wage war to the electorate.  They can get away with their militaristic adventures today because the vast majority of the population are imbued with capitalist and nationalistic values. Given the existence of a significant socialist movement, however,  it will be well nigh impossible for them to do this.  The whole climate of opinion will have been profoundly changed by the time the socialist movement is a force to be reckoned with.  


What I am saying is that anti imperialism is not a link to socialism (indeed so called national liberation movements espousing anti imperialism invariably become capitalist governments on assming power).  On the contrary, it is a socialist outlook that is the best guarantee against imperialistic militarism. Yet the whole point of your  so called transtional demand is that it it is made in absence of a socialist outlook and as a means to expedite the latter.  As I say , its putting the cart before the horse

You differentiate between transtional demands and reforms on the grounds that the latter are "entirely achievable" within capitalism.  It is highly questionable whether an "immediate 50% increase in the state retirement pensions" is entirely achievable as you claim but I will let that pass.  What I want to know is does this mean that you advocate such reforms on the grounds that they are entirely achievable and if so how does this not make you a reformist?

I think, if I might say so, that your criticisms of the SPGB on the question of intervening in the day to day struggle are a little woolly.  One has to differentiate between those struggles that take place in the economic field and are carried out by organisations like trade unions and the political struggle to bring about refroms.  The SPGB does not advocate reforms (i.e. reformism) even if it acknowleges that some reforms can benefit workers.  To advocate reforms necessarily means putting revolution on the back boiler and eventually forgetting about it altogether (as the history of the Second International amply demonstrates).

However the SPGB does certainly urge workers to organise militantly  on the econominc front and, in fact, many members of the SPGB have been or are active trade unionists.  Some have been very prominent trade unionists or shop stewards.  Quite correctly, the SPGB itself as a political organisation does not directly involve itself in trade unions because for one thing, the strength of a trade union depends on combination and unity.  It needs to be broad-based which means of course appealing to workers, the majority of whom may not be socialists at all.  Direct political intervention by a political party would, I think, create unnecessary division and undermine the unity of workers in the trade union

Your argument that the SPGB is somehow abstaining from the class struggle is quite false because you fail to grasp the subtlety of the argument put forward by the SPGB.  As a political organisation it does not get involved in economic struggles but in its message to individual workers it argues for militant involvement in these struggles but by the workers themselves.  This actually maximises the potential for militant action through an  appeal to workers generally irrespective of their political views.


----------



## dannysp (May 10, 2010)

Has it not occurred to these religious Socialists to form their own party. The great majority need not convert to atheism, we need to come of age, to see ourselves as who we are and the world as it is, and only then will we be in a position to change it.
Try post 54 if there's not to much tumbleweed.
Thanks



robbo203 said:


> Danny
> 
> Has it not occured to you that the Party is not turning away these religious committed socialists "in droves" for the very simple reason that the vast majority of them simply dont bother to apply.  So you just dont get to hear of them.  Once they get wind of the religious ban, thats it - they're off.  Or at least the great majority of them.  Ive actually made a point of trying to contact some of these people before they disappear into the ether.  There are quite a few of them Ive encountered over the years and this is only me - one person - limited to internet contacts.  There must be many many more out there. Maybe the Socialist Standard ought to do a survey to find out how many of its readers are religious.  You might be surprised.
> 
> ...


----------



## robbo203 (May 10, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Has it not occurred to these religious Socialists to form their own party. The great majority need not convert to atheism, we need to come of age, to see ourselves as who we are and the world as it is, and only then will we be in a position to change it.
> Try post 54 if there's not to much tumbleweed.
> Thanks




The problem is, of course, that we are talking about individuals who come to hear of the party on a one-by-one basis and similarly disappear one-by-one into the ether.  For the most part, they will not know of each others existence.  Even if a few of them did get together there is the problem of the small party syndrome I referred to earlier which is an even bigger constraint in my view.  By this I mean that because an organisation is small it appears to lack credibility.  And because it appears to lack credibility people dont join.  So the organisation continues to remain small.  Its a self perpetuating process.

The SPGB like every small organisation is subject to precisely the same constraint.  This is precisely why it needs to eliminate all unnecessary obstacles to its future growth -  like the religious ban - if it is ever to reach that critical mass of members which will enable accelerated growth.


----------



## robbo203 (May 11, 2010)

Hi Proper Tidy

I would be interested to see your response to post no.304 and in particular what you mean by a "socialist plan of production"

cheers


----------



## whichfinder (May 11, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> By this I mean that because an organisation is small it appears to lack credibility.  And because it appears to lack credibility people dont join.  So the organisation continues to remain small.  Its a self perpetuating process.
> 
> The SPGB like every small organisation is subject to precisely the same constraint.  This is precisely why it needs to eliminate all unnecessary obstacles to its future growth -  like the religious ban - if it is ever to reach that critical mass of members which will enable accelerated growth.




Highly specious argument.  Take a look at the content of posts on this and similar threads over recent weeks, particularly at the moment.  Then you'll come close to really explaining why the SPGB remains a small organisation.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 11, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Hi Proper Tidy
> 
> I would be interested to see your response to post no.304 and in particular what you mean by a "socialist plan of production"
> 
> cheers



A plan of production democratically ran in the interests of the majority.

Awaits predictable 'that isn't socialism, that is reformism, apologist for capitalism etc'


----------



## Gravediggers (May 11, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> A plan of production democratically ran in the interests of the majority.
> 
> Awaits predictable 'that isn't socialism, that is reformism, apologist for capitalism etc'



Naw.  Sounds just fine to me.  But a few details on specifics would be helpful.  Will there still be buying and selling, a market, exchange, commodity production, wages and salaries, etc, ?  If not what will they be replaced with?


----------



## butchersapron (May 11, 2010)

Can someone remove the entirely redundant first two tags please?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Can someone remove the entirely redundant first two tags please?



Why what's your reason for deciding they are 'redundant'?  Put it to a vote.


----------



## butchersapron (May 11, 2010)

They're redundant on a thread about the SPGB. 

And no, i'm no democrat.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> They're redundant on a thread about the SPGB.



And how the fuck you came to that conclusion beats me.  Explain yourself or go to bed.



> And no, i'm no democrat.



We are well are of that butchers no need to remind us.


----------



## butchersapron (May 11, 2010)

Thank you PT.


----------



## robbo203 (May 12, 2010)

whichfinder said:


> Highly specious argument.  Take a look at the content of posts on this and similar threads over recent weeks, particularly at the moment.  Then you'll come close to really explaining why the SPGB remains a small organisation.



I agree that there is a lot of hostile and misinformed guff said about the SPGB but I really dont think that is the primary reason why it remains small. Most people are not hostile , just sceptical. They dont think socialism is ever likely to happen or at least not in a very long time and this conviction I am certain is closely linked with the observation that after a hundred years or so, the socialist movement is still tiny


----------



## robbo203 (May 12, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> A plan of production democratically ran in the interests of the majority.
> 
> Awaits predictable 'that isn't socialism, that is reformism, apologist for capitalism etc'



Sorry but I am going to wrongfoot you here.  If it is socialism then by defintion it cannot be a transitional demand.  So which is it?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 12, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Sorry but I am going to wrongfoot you here.  If it is socialism then by defintion it cannot be a transitional demand.  So which is it?



Christ alive.

Why don't you just put 'transitional demand' into Wikipedia or something. I think I have run out of words to explain it to you. I'll give it one last bash.

A transitional demand is a material demand (as in, not abstract) that you can put forward now but which would ultimately need the abolition of capitalism to realise.

Socialism is the objective; but putting forward a demand for a 'stateless, moneyless, nationless, classless society' can seem a wee bit abstract. So, you put forward specific demands which would ultimately lead to this point but which are not as abstract.

A transitional demand is in effect an agitational mechanism to link current circumstances to the overall goal of socialism. Transitional demands are designed to be reasonable and aspirational - jobs for all being a classic transitional demand - but ultimately unachievable without a complete transformation of society. Hence, it links from our current material position to our maximum objective - socialism.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 12, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> A transitional demand is a material demand (as in, not abstract) that you can put forward now but which would ultimately need the abolition of capitalism to realise.
> 
> Socialism is the objective; but putting forward a demand for a 'stateless, moneyless, nationless, classless society' can seem a wee bit abstract. So, you put forward specific demands which would ultimately lead to this point but which are not as abstract.
> 
> A transitional demand is in effect an agitational mechanism to link current circumstances to the overall goal of socialism. Transitional demands are designed to be reasonable and aspirational - jobs for all being a classic transitional demand - but ultimately unachievable without a complete transformation of society. Hence, it links from our current material position to our maximum objective - socialism.


That's clear enough. The trouble is that calling such reform demands "transitional" is begging the question in assuming that through struggling for them workers will conclude that socialism is the only way out.

Let's run with your example of "Jobs for All".  A Trotskyist group launches a campaign around this knowing that it is "ultimately unachievable". They get a following for this demand. The question that then arises is: at what point does the Trotskyist organisation introduce the idea that the only solution is socialism? 

Surely it's not going to leave this for the followers to work out for themselves? And, as it's true and can be shown to be true on the basis of past experience, why not say so right from the start?

Admittedly this would not necessarily rule out campaigning for "Jobs for All" but only the Trotskyist justification for it. It could be justified on the basis that it was just a means of trying to make things less worse under capitalism which had nothing to do with socialism, i.e the classic Labourist/reformist position.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 12, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> That's clear enough. The trouble is that calling such reform demands "transitional" is begging the question in assuming that through struggling for them workers will conclude that socialism is the only way out.
> 
> Let's run with your example of "Jobs for All".  A Trotskyist group launches a campaign around this knowing that it is "ultimately unachievable". They get a following for this demand. The question that then arises is: at what point does the Trotskyist organisation introduce the idea that the only solution is socialism?
> 
> ...



Even if we are to assume that the "Jobs for All" is justified this then begs the follow-on question i.e. is "Jobs for All" part of the "socialist plan of production"?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 12, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> That's clear enough. The trouble is that calling such reform demands "transitional" is begging the question in assuming that through struggling for them workers will conclude that socialism is the only way out.
> 
> Let's run with your example of "Jobs for All".  A Trotskyist group launches a campaign around this knowing that it is "ultimately unachievable". They get a following for this demand. The question that then arises is: at what point does the Trotskyist organisation introduce the idea that the only solution is socialism?
> 
> ...



Well neither SP nor as far as I'm aware any other Trotskyist party, movement or sect puts their demands in stages - our transitional demands are put forward alongside demands that could be achievable under capitalism* and crucially an assertion that SP stands for "a democratic society run for the needs of all and not the profits of a few". So we do say socialism is necessary right from the start - transitional demands are not, as if often construed by spectators of Trotskyism, designed to pull the wool over anybody's eyes or somehow mislead working class people, they are merely to make the need for struggle more relevant/less abstract; to demonstrate the material realities possible under socialism.

Anybody familiar with Trotskyist groups, for all the criticisms people may have, will know that they both a) look to recruit at all times and b) look to educate members with frequent meetings, activity, conferences, schools etc. In fact, one of the primary criticisms tends to be 'burn-out' of recruits by encouraging members to participate in very high levels of activity combined with encouraging members to attend frequent meetings, schools etc in order to not just build the party but to develop the members understanding and consciousness. I'm not saying this is exclusive to Trotskyist groups, just highlighting that it isn't exactly the mushroom treatment; quite the opposite in fact. So even fairly new recruits will have an understanding of our positions, our overall goal, and the methods we advocate to achieve our goals - it isn't exactly pandering to reformism. Likewise, if as some of the critics would have we are trying to shake a short-cut, we would no doubt be keener to obscure our principles for fear of losing support, yet we advertise quite openly that we are revolutionary Marxists.

I should perhaps broaden out what I mean by achievable, too. Jobs for all, for example, isn't a complete impossibility under capitalism; it is, however, highly unlikely and clearly not in the interests of capitalism or capitalists.

Sorry, perhaps a bit of a ramble. Early and very little sleep!


*Which could be construed as reformist but context is everything and as I say such demands are only part of a set of demands that do require socialism.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 12, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Well neither SP nor as far as I'm aware any other Trotskyist party, movement or sect puts their demands in stages - our transitional demands are put forward alongside demands that could be achievable under capitalism* *Which could be construed as reformist but context is everything and as I say such demands are only part of a set of demands that do require socialism.


 This is getting confusing. So the reform programme of Trotskyist groups is part "transitional" and part "ordinary reformist", part reforms that can't be achieved under capitalism and part reforms that can. But how are people supposed to be able to tell which are meant to be which?


Proper Tidy said:


> and crucially an assertion that SP stands for "a democratic society run for the needs of all and not the profits of a few". So we do say socialism is necessary right from the start


Yes Trotskyist groups do say this from time, but it's not given much prominence as talking about socialism is regarded as too "abstract".


Proper Tidy said:


> - transitional demands are not, as if often construed by spectators of Trotskyism, designed to pull the wool over anybody's eyes or somehow mislead working class people, they are merely to make the need for struggle more relevant/less abstract; to demonstrate the material realities possible under socialism.


On the contrary, I would have thought that what they encourage is reformist illusions, ie that the "transitional demand" part of the reform programme could in fact be achieved under capitalism.


Proper Tidy said:


> Anybody familiar with Trotskyist groups, for all the criticisms people may have, will know that they both a) look to recruit at all times and b) look to educate members with frequent meetings, activity, conferences, schools etc.


This is true (all too true) but this comes under the heading of "training cadres" to lead the "masses". It's not about spreading socialist ideas amongst workers.


Proper Tidy said:


> I should perhaps broaden out what I mean by achievable, too. Jobs for all, for example, isn't a complete impossibility under capitalism; it is, however, highly unlikely and clearly not in the interests of capitalism or capitalists.


I was going to say that from time to time, as in Britain in the 1950s, "Jobs for All" does occur under capitalism, but it's still not something that any government can bring about even with pressure from below.


----------



## dannysp (May 12, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> I agree that there is a lot of hostile and misinformed guff said about the SPGB but I really dont think that is the primary reason why it remains small. Most people are not hostile , just sceptical. They dont think socialism is ever likely to happen or at least not in a very long time and this conviction I am certain is closely linked with the observation that after a hundred years or so, the socialist movement is still tiny



People equate socialism with the red fascism of the USSR, DDR, Pol Pot, state authoritarianism and queuing for potatoes etc, and the factionalized left don't help, in fact they're a hindrance.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 12, 2010)

dannysp said:


> People equate socialism with the red fascism of the USSR, DDR, Pol Pot, state authoritarianism and queuing for potatoes etc, and the factionalized left don't help, in fact they're a hindrance.



As I said it's always someone else's fault; dim working class people, red fascists, the factionalised left, 'arse fuckers', hostility and guff (I'll leave foreigners out as Tom is only a faint hearted wannabe rather than the real deal). When are you lot going develop a spine and accept your responsibility for your century and a bit of abject failure?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## dannysp (May 12, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> As I said it's always someone else's fault; dim working class people, red fascists, the factionalised left, 'arse fuckers', hostility and guff (I'll leave foreigners out as Tom is only a faint hearted wannabe rather than the real deal). When are you lot going develop a spine and accept your responsibility for your century and a bit of abject failure?
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Thanks for that. Perhaps you could point out the glorious achievements of the left over the past century and a bit.


----------



## dennisr (May 12, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Thanks for that. Perhaps you could point out the glorious achievements of the left over the past century and a bit.



you go first and maybe the others will follow


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 12, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Thanks for that. Perhaps you could point out the glorious achievements of the left over the past century and a bit.



I'm not the one claiming to be the way the truth and the light; come on danny in the modern venacular 'grow a pair'. Or are you going down your colleague GD's route, claiming postings on U75 as a successful political activity? Keep us entertained.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## dannysp (May 12, 2010)

;

Anybody familiar with Trotskyist groups, for all the criticisms people may have, will know that they both a) look to recruit at all times and b) look to educate members with frequent meetings, activity, conferences, schools etc. In fact, one of the primary criticisms tends to be 'burn-out' of recruit

I'm sure burn out does occur but I think it's more a case of disillusionment. People join, mainly youngsters full of enthusiasm and find they have to defer to the enlightened leadership, after awhile the penny drops when they see their leaders these uber "Marxists" are on some kind of an ego trip.
Look what's happening with the SWP for an example.


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2010)

Now there's something wrong with the SWP!!! Where do these people get this stuff from? FYI Danny, the SWP is a SOCILAIST party - the name may give you a clue. Grow a brian MORAN!


----------



## dannysp (May 12, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I'm not the one claiming to be the way the truth and the light; come on danny in the modern venacular 'grow a pair'. Or are you going down your colleague GD's route, claiming postings on U75 as a successful political activity? Keep us entertained.
> 
> Louis MacNeice




But you imply the left has been more successful than the SPGB.
Hopefully others are reading this discussion and they can make up their own minds.
Just to let you know, you're keeping me entertained.
Thanks


----------



## belboid (May 12, 2010)

dannysp said:


> But you imply the left has been more successful than the SPGB.



'We beat the scum One Nil' (Leeds Central) has been more succesful than the SPGB


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 12, 2010)

dannysp said:


> But you imply the left has been more successful than the SPGB.
> Hopefully others are reading this discussion and they can make up their own minds.
> Just to let you know, you're keeping me entertained.
> Thanks




Wrong danny the SPGB is part of the left; a very small irrelevant part that's in denial, but a part none the less. 

Louis (care in the community is my middle name) MacNeice


----------



## Gravediggers (May 12, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Wrong danny the SPGB is part of the left; a very small irrelevant part that's in denial, but a part none the less.
> 
> Louis (care in the community is my middle name) MacNeice



Only if you say so Louis.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Now there's something wrong with the SWP!!! Where do these people get this stuff from? FYI Danny, the SWP is a SOCILAIST party - the name may give you a clue. Grow a brian MORAN!



You appear to have lost yours.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 12, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Only if you say so Louis.



Which bit are you disagreeing with: left, small, irrelevant, in denial? Go on give us a laugh.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Gravediggers (May 12, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Which bit are you disagreeing with: left, small, irrelevant, in denial? Go on give us a laugh.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with any of it, just giving you permission to say what you like.  If you think it is necessary of course.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 12, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with any of it, *just giving you permission *to say what you like.  If you think it is necessary of course.



Leadership is such a burden; it's good of you lot to shoulder the load. More pearls please GD.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## dennisr (May 12, 2010)

I did not really know much about the SPGB before virtually the entire entire membership started camping out on this thread.

I think a lot less of them now - not sure if that is due more to the politics you folk have outlined here or the wonderful personalities that have come across so well


----------



## belboid (May 12, 2010)

it is most peculiar that the only one of their members/supporters/sympathisers/whatever who actually contributes to the boards, y'know actually discusses stuff other than the SPGB, hasn't made a single contribution to the four threads the members are camping out on.  I wonder why?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 12, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Leadership is such a burden; it's good of you lot to shoulder the load. More pearls please GD.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Just being the democrat.


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2010)

dennisr said:


> I did not really know much about the SPGB before virtually the entire entire membership started camping out on this thread.
> 
> I think a lot less of them now - not sure if that is due more to the politics you folk have outlined here or the wonderful personalities that have come across so well



It's like them weird evolutionary developments on isolated islands.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 12, 2010)

belboid said:


> it is most peculiar that the only one of their members/supporters/sympathisers/whatever who actually contributes to the boards, y'know actually discusses stuff other than the SPGB, hasn't made a single contribution to the four threads the members are camping out on.  I wonder why?



We welcome any discussion on most subjects concerning the political economy, race, poverty, war, human behaviour, social evolution, etc, etc.  All you have to do is fire away.  This thread up to know as been focused on the issue of 'reform versus revolution' but our analysis covers a far wider field.  Give it a shot.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> It's like them weird evolutionary developments on isolated islands.



And from the quality of your contributions it looks like you've been camping out on one for years.


----------



## dannysp (May 12, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Wrong danny the SPGB is part of the left; a very small irrelevant part that's in denial, but a part none the less.
> 
> Louis (care in the community is my middle name) MacNeice



There is a right wing way and a left wing way of running capitalism, both attached to the same putrescent vulture. The SPGB will have nothing to do with any of that.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 12, 2010)

belboid said:


> 'We beat the scum One Nil' (Leeds Central) has been more succesful than the SPGB


And than many of the Trotskyist candidates. In Cardiff Central the TUSC candidate (162 votes) only beat the Monster Raving Loony Party (142) by 20 votes. Pots and kettles come to mind.


----------



## dannysp (May 12, 2010)

dennisr said:


> I did not really know much about the SPGB before virtually the entire entire membership started camping out on this thread.
> 
> I think a lot less of them now - not sure if that is due more to the politics you folk have outlined here or the wonderful personalities that have come across so well



If you go to the top of this page you will find the title of this thread is SPGB,
so where are we entitled to "camp out"? 
There are 2 members of the SPGB on this tread which works out at 0.61% of the membership.
If the left started to like the SPGB, then we would assume we were doing something wrong.
If by any chance you might wish to know more about us and the World Socialist Movement, without the abrasive personalities of GD and myself, visit www.worldsocialism.org, if possible without prejudice.
If you find that we are bunch of no-hopers, you'll have at least plenty of 'accurate' ammunition to lob in our direction.
Thanks


----------



## robbo203 (May 12, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Christ alive.
> 
> Why don't you just put 'transitional demand' into Wikipedia or something. I think I have run out of words to explain it to you. I'll give it one last bash.
> 
> ...



You stilll dont get it, do you? So let me explain again. Your "socialist plan of production" is really socialism isnt it, so how the hell can it possibly be a *transitional *demand it. Its just another way of calling for a  'stateless, moneyless, nationless, classless society' but less abstract as you would put it.

Now you say "jobs for all" is a transntional demand.  This is a bit more like it and more in conformity with what is actually meant by a transitional demand.  It also demonstrates clearly that transitional demands are nothing more than a type of reformist demand - different from other reformist demands only in that it is unachievable by your own admission.

So why do you advocate such a thing.  Ah yes because it links up with the struggle for socialism.  Bollocks.  How does campaigning for wage slavery for all link up with the struggle for socialism?  It doesnt.  In fact, it takes for granted, and helps to entrench, capitalism.  It is in effect arguing for something to happen withi9n capitalism, not for transcending capitalism at all. And becuase it is unachievable all it will succeed in doing is divert effort and attention away from socialism into a campaign that is iinevitably going to fail and result in mass disillusionment as a consequence.  I cannot think of any think more daft than to do something that you know if advance is unachievable.  Talk about banging your head  against a brick wall

Im disappointed, Proper Tidy. I thought there was a glimmering of socialist awareness in your previous posts. It appears you are nothing more than a reformist who pays lip service to socialism and thats it.


----------



## robbo203 (May 12, 2010)

dannysp said:


> People equate socialism with the red fascism of the USSR, DDR, Pol Pot, state authoritarianism and queuing for potatoes etc, and the factionalized left don't help, in fact they're a hindrance.



Yes this is sadly true.  However, I still maintain that the vast majority of people who do come across real socialist ideas and genuine socialist organisations like the SPGB do not feel inclined to join even though they 
grasp well enough that this has got nothing to do with the state capitalism of the USSR et al.  I think they do not feel inclined to join primarily becuase they do not think socialism is remotely possible.  And perhaps the most persuasive reasons for them coming to this conclusion is the fact that after 100 years or so, the SPGB is still a relative tiny organisation.  It might not seem a very  rational reason for not joining but it is neverthless a highly potent reason


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 12, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> You stilll dont get it, do you? So let me explain again. Your "socialist plan of production" is really socialism isnt it, so how the hell can it possibly be a *transitional *demand it. Its just another way of calling for a  'stateless, moneyless, nationless, classless society' but less abstract as you would put it.



No, you don't get it. You really don't.

I assume your misunderstanding is based on the word transitional.

Let me repeat - a transitional demand in the Trostksyist sense is an agitational mechanism designed to link current conditions to the need for socialism. This does not necessarily imply the measure itself would be a transition from capitalism to socialism, it implies that the demand links from the current to socialism.

If you're going to dish out lectures on other people's socialist understanding them make sure you know what you're talking about eh.



> Now you say "jobs for all" is a transntional demand.  This is a bit more like it and more in conformity with what is actually meant by a transitional demand.  It also demonstrates clearly that transitional demands are nothing more than a type of reformist demand - different from other reformist demands only in that it is unachievable by your own admission.



Spectacularly missing the point since 1904.

How can it be a reformist demand if it isn't possible (or is highly unlikely) as a reform you numpty. It is a revolutionary demand - admittedly not a maximum demand but neither is it a minimum demand. It is a bridge; a mechanism to make the achievement of the abolition of capitalism more relevant to a working class that is not, and however much you dream will never be, homogeneously convinced of the need for socialism in the abstract sense you propagate. 



> So why do you advocate such a thing.  Ah yes because it links up with the struggle for socialism.  Bollocks.  How does campaigning for wage slavery for all link up with the struggle for socialism?  It doesnt.  In fact, it takes for granted, and helps to entrench, capitalism.  It is in effect arguing for something to happen withi9n capitalism, not for transcending capitalism at all.



You are jumping here.

If you can't understand the need to create the necessary conditions of consciousness then you will never quite grasp this, and neither will you have any impact whatsoever on the struggle for socialism.



> And becuase it is unachievable all it will succeed in doing is divert effort and attention away from socialism into a campaign that is iinevitably going to fail and result in mass disillusionment as a consequence.  I cannot think of any think more daft than to do something that you know if advance is unachievable.



Better to not try and therefore not fail - the SPGB way.

How, if the struggle for a demand not only requires socialism but is directly linked to the struggle specifically for socialism within the same movement, is it a diversion?

This is something every single SPGB member has claimed, not once with any justification, let alone analysis or even reasoning. I suspect this is one of the golden rules you are all taught as a universal truth and therefore completely fail to question - but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Struggling for the same objective by propagating various differing material objectives still leads to the same place.



> Talk about banging your head  against a brick wall



Quite.



> Im disappointed, Proper Tidy. I thought there was a glimmering of socialist awareness in your previous posts. It appears you are nothing more than a reformist who pays lip service to socialism and thats it.



And back to the SPGB brainwash. Reformism! Reformism!

Don't you see? You're whole party and tradition is based upon the big lie - that only you are the true torch bearers of socialism; that anybody else who deviates from your abstract singular demand is culpable of reformism; that struggle is not the road to socialism. It is utter unsubstantiated shite. Yet this is your USP so it is pushed at all times by your party to the point where you and your comrades accept it without question; it is an ideological pivot; and it is wrong wrong wrong.

One of your former comrades here:

http://thesocialistway.blogspot.com/2010/02/stand-up-to-hard-times.html

You should take his advice on board, although I suspect you will dismiss it completely. Yet if the exact same criticisms keep coming up, from those within SPGB, and outside of SPGB, and from all sorts of differing traditions, this should spell something out to you: They have a point.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 12, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Yes this is sadly true.  However, I still maintain that the vast majority of people who do come across real socialist ideas and genuine socialist organisations like the SPGB do not feel inclined to join even though they
> grasp well enough that this has got nothing to do with the state capitalism of the USSR et al.  I think they do not feel inclined to join primarily becuase they do not think socialism is remotely possible.  And perhaps the most persuasive reasons for them coming to this conclusion is the fact that after 100 years or so, the SPGB is still a relative tiny organisation.  It might not seem a very  rational reason for not joining but it is neverthless a highly potent reason



It is a perfectly rational reason - although it would seem to me not so much that they don't belief socialism is possible; but that they don't believe the SPGB method will ever lead to it.

SPGB aren't very good at self-criticism are they? Always somebody elses fault, every time.

Perhaps you should do more to encourage people to join: for example, activity; participation in struggle; working with other socialists. Oh but that would be the USP fucked wouldn't it.


----------



## discokermit (May 12, 2010)

sometimes i go past the spgb office on the bus and think about popping in to see if they are ok, need any shopping etc.

i thought i would be doing a good deed and we could sit and have a cup of tea and some biscuits and they could tell tales from before the great war and i could tell them to make sure to wear lots of layers and stuff.

but reading their behaviour on these threads i'm not sure i will now. i bet if you kick a football in their garden they stick a knife in it whilst cackling.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 12, 2010)

We have nothing to lose but our beards


----------



## Gravediggers (May 12, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> No, you don't get it. You really don't.
> 
> I assume your misunderstanding is based on the word transitional.
> 
> ...



Confusion, confusion leading to a contradiction.  According to this hogwash a transitional demand is not part of the transition. It is a link between capitalism and socialism, or supposed to be in the Trotskyist sense.  More likely that the transitional demands and the so called links are just a smokescreen  for the introduction of state capitalism.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 12, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Confusion, confusion leading to a contradiction.  According to this hogwash a transitional demand is not part of the transition. It is a link between capitalism and socialism, or supposed to be in the Trotskyist sense.  More likely that the transitional demands and the so called links are just a smokescreen  for the introduction of state capitalism.



Why would we smokescreen it?

The dictatorship of the proletariat - which would take the form of what you duplicately term 'state capitalism' - would be necessary under any conditions as a precursor to genuine socialism. 

The key difference between the Trot position and the position of other Leninists, and obviously Stalinists, is that we believe the dictatorship of the proles would need to be wholly democratic and not based upon an unaccountable bureaucracy.

You lot need to brush up on what other people think if you're going to try and debate with them.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 12, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Why would we smokescreen it?
> 
> The dictatorship of the proletariat - which would take the form of what you duplicately term 'state capitalism' - would be necessary under any conditions as a precursor to genuine socialism.
> 
> ...



I have already done my brushing up, years ago, on what the supposedly key difference are between the Trot's, Leninists and Stalinists.  Essentially, in principle there are no differences for they all accept the doctrine of dictatorship over the proletariat.  In effect a one party state where democratic principles are not applicable to any form of opposition.  

A society where buying and selling, a market, and wage slavery will still exist and where someone somewhere will be creaming off the top.  A society where all members and supporters of the SPGB will have to do a quick exit as political refugees or face the consequences ....  ...


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 12, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I have already done my brushing up, years ago, on what the supposedly key difference are between the Trot's, Leninists and Stalinists.  Essentially, in principle there are no differences for they all accept the doctrine of dictatorship over the proletariat.  In effect a one party state where democratic principles are not applicable to any form of opposition.



Have you completely given up on trying to substantiate your criticisms or provide any analysis then?

I'm genuinely perplexed that you seem to believe we can go from what we have today to socialism tomorrow with no in between. It is utterly barking.

Dictatorship of the proletariat isn't a specifically Leninist position. It is a Marxist position. By rejecting this position you are essentially saying that society can be transformed from a dictatorship of the bourgeois - a capitalist class society - to a classless communist society without an intermediate dictatorship of the proletariat. In which case, why do you even need the working class? Socialism isn't the fetishism of the working class; it is the realisation that by liberating themselves the working class also hold the key to liberating society from class structures. You are showing your utopianism again.



> A society where buying and selling, a market, and wage slavery will still exist and where someone somewhere will be creaming off the top.



Again. We stand for a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat, not an unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy. 

Perhaps you are confused by the use of 'dictatorship' - this can be a problem when using 'old' language, as I'm sure SPGB members will be all too aware of (ahem). Dictatorship is not meant to imply authoritarianism or a lack of democratic mechanisms, as we often understand by the word in a modern sense. It is based upon the Roman use of the word as a term for constitutional republicanism.



> A society where all members and supporters of the SPGB will have to do a quick exit as political refugees or face the consequences ....  ...



Hahahaha! An ode to the martyrs of the old boys club eh.


----------



## robbo203 (May 12, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> see


----------



## robbo203 (May 12, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> No, you don't get it. You really don't.
> 
> I assume your misunderstanding is based on the word transitional.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately for you, I do get  it. All too well. You on the other hand haven't been paying attention to a word Ive said.  I know very well that a transitional demand is meant in theory to be "an agitational mechanism designed to link current conditions to the need for socialism."  But actually it does nothing of the sort in fact. A transitional demand is a complete myth, it doesnt do amnything to aid progress towards socialism.  Quite the contrary.

I  suspect you dont really understand what is meant by a traditional demand yourself. So you dont understand where the logic of what you are saying is leading you.  First you called a "socialist plan of production" a transitional demand.  It is not. A socialist plan of production means simply socialism.  A transitional demand by definition is something that is meant to expedite socialism but how can something that is meant to expedite socialism be socialism? Your argument is incoherent.  

Another example you give - full employment -is on the other hand, a better example of what is meant by a so called transitional demand.  However I asked you to explain in what meaningful sense this could be said to linked to socialism. How does it expedite socialism?  Predictably, like most Trots , you have no answer, when it comes down to nitty gritty.




Proper Tidy said:


> Spectacularly missing the point since 1904.
> 
> How can it be a reformist demand if it isn't possible (or is highly unlikely) as a reform you numpty. It is a revolutionary demand - admittedly not a maximum demand but neither is it a minimum demand. It is a bridge; a mechanism to make the achievement of the abolition of capitalism more relevant to a working class that is not, and however much you dream will never be, homogeneously convinced of the need for socialism in the abstract sense you propagate.
> .



See, once again you make these sweeping claims without the slightest attempt to theortetically justify it.  Its a "bridge" you say.  Oh right I get it then - its a bridge because you say its a bridge . No attempt to justify this astonishing claim.

Of course a demand can be reformist even if it isnt possible.  You dont seem to understand what is meant by reformism, do you?.  It is the purpose, not the outcome, that characterises something as reformist. Refromism means literally measures undertaken by the state designed to reform capitalism in some way, to ameliorate some short coming.  It is part of the revolutionary socialist poisition that reformism is bound to fail in the long run - even if somew refroms may temporaily benefit workers -  since capitalism cannot be run in the interest of the workers.  If you are say reforms are possible in the sense of being achievable well then I suggest by that argument you ought to be a reformist pushing for refroms.  Go ahead and join  the capitalist labour party or maybe the Liberals. Be consistent.  The irony could be keener.  Here you are vehemently trying to deny your reformist outlook while giving ammunition to the reformist cause by asserting just how achievable it is. 




Proper Tidy said:


> You are jumping here.
> 
> If you can't understand the need to create the necessary conditions of consciousness then you will never quite grasp this, and neither will you have any impact whatsoever on the struggle for socialism.
> 
> .




This is idealist claptrap.  You dont have to create the necessary conditions of consciousness.  They alreasy exist.  They consist in the class struggle.  The point is to try to clarify the class struggle,  not invent it.


Proper Tidy said:


> Better to not try and therefore not fail - the SPGB way.
> .



I am not in the SPGB but whatever the shortcoming of the SPGB and there are one or two they pale into significance by comrasion with the Trots and others on the lenninist left.  



Proper Tidy said:


> How, if the struggle for a demand not only requires socialism but is directly linked to the struggle specifically for socialism within the same movement, is it a diversion?
> .



This demonstrates how far removed from socialism you actually are.  How does  the unavhieavable goal of full employment require socialism. Do you know even know what socialism means?  Socialism means a complete end to the system of employment and a class divided society of employers and employees.  



Proper Tidy said:


> This is something every single SPGB member has claimed, not once with any justification, let alone analysis or even reasoning. I suspect this is one of the golden rules you are all taught as a universal truth and therefore completely fail to question - but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Struggling for the same objective by propagating various differing material objectives still leads to the same place.
> .



The proof of the pufdding is in the eating.  The advocacy of reforms whether achievable or not necessarily means the displacement and ultimately the complete abandonment of any kind of of revolutionary aspiration. The parties of the Second International sought - just like you - to combine a minimum and maximum programme and without exception each and every one of them ended up completely abandoning  the idea of  genuine socialism



Proper Tidy said:


> And back to the SPGB brainwash. Reformism! Reformism!
> 
> Don't you see? You're whole party and tradition is based upon the big lie - that only you are the true torch bearers of socialism; that anybody else who deviates from your abstract singular demand is culpable of reformism; that struggle is not the road to socialism. It is utter unsubstantiated shite. Yet this is your USP so it is pushed at all times by your party to the point where you and your comrades accept it without question; it is an ideological pivot; and it is wrong wrong wrong.
> 
> .



Like I say Im not in the SPGB but on this point I think the SPGB is dead right. Reformism (including the pursuit of unachievable refroms miscalled transitional demands) will lead to the abdandonment of socialism.  Organising politically and consciously for socialism is crucial but I dont think it is sufficient in itself. If you go back and read through some of the earlier posts you will see what I am talking about. But that emphatically does not mean  the advocacy of reforms


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 13, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Unfortunately for you, I do get  it. All too well.



But quite evidently you don't. Honestly, you're not even close in your chracterisation. If you understood then you wouldn't continually be making this point about a socialist plan of production, which demonstrates your complete misunderstanding of the issue.

Without sounding patronising, go read up on it as I've run out of words to explain it to you, and then come back, because it seems futile persisting with this debate if you are working off a false premise.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 13, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> In effect a one party state



And one last point, because I missed it in the last post. Trotskyists do not believe in the one party state. You do not know the difference between Trots and other forms of Leninism.


----------



## robbo203 (May 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> But quite evidently you don't. Honestly, you're not even close in your chracterisation. If you understood then you wouldn't continually be making this point about a socialist plan of production, which demonstrates your complete misunderstanding of the issue.
> 
> Without sounding patronising, go read up on it as I've run out of words to explain it to you, and then come back, because it seems futile persisting with this debate if you are working off a false premise.





I think the fact that all you can do in response to my argument is to assert that I dont know what I am talking  about without even once logically demonstrating in what way I have erred, tells me that you have no credible response to offer.  You are simply hiding behind the arrogant assumption that you know best without being willing to seriously engage with the points Ive made.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 13, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> I think the fact that all you can do in response to my argument is to assert that I dont know what I am talking  about without even once logically demonstrating in what way I have erred, tells me that you have no credible response to offer.  You are simply hiding behind the arrogant assumption that you know best without being willing to seriously engage with the points Ive made.



No, that isn't it. I've just ran out of ways of explaining it to you - I must have explained it about a dozen times at least now. I'll accept it is my failure to articulate it if it makes you feel any better - but I'm at a loss as to how to get you to understand it, so perhaps you might take it in if you read it from another source.


----------



## robbo203 (May 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> No, that isn't it. I've just ran out of ways of explaining it to you - I must have explained it about a dozen times at least now. I'll accept it is my failure to articulate it if it makes you feel any better - but I'm at a loss as to how to get you to understand it, so perhaps you might take it in if you read it from another source.




Well perhaps it might help if you actually dealt with the arguments I presented instead of pompously brushing them aside on the basis that i dont know what I am talking about.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 13, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Well perhaps it might help if you actually dealt with the arguments I presented instead of pompously brushing them aside on the basis that i dont know what I am talking about.



But why, when the points you make are working off an incorrect characterisation of the transitional programme? I'm just going to end up answering every point in the same way - ie wrong end of the stick!

You might think I'm being pompous btw and perhaps I am, but dear me pot kettle black. It's only a few posts back we had GD doing his Jesus act (they're going to send us to the gulags waah) for no apparent reason.


----------



## robbo203 (May 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> But why, when the points you make are working off an incorrect characterisation of the transitional programme? I'm just going to end up answering every point in the same way - ie wrong end of the stick!
> 
> You might think I'm being pompous btw and perhaps I am, but dear me pot kettle black. It's only a few posts back we had GD doing his Jesus act (they're going to send us to the gulags waah) for no apparent reason.



See what I mean? You keep on doing this!  You assert that I am working off "an incorrect characterisation of the transitional programme? " without bothering to explain in any way *why *you think this.  Proof is what I want not airey fairy opinion


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 13, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> See what I mean? You keep on doing this!  You assert that I am working off "an incorrect characterisation of the transitional programme? " without bothering to explain in any way *why *you think this.  Proof is what I want not airey fairy opinion



Fucks sake! How many times do you want me to explain it??

I have explained it about a dozen times. You are not getting it at all, either by design or accident. What do you expect me to do, keep saying the same things in different ways until the penny drops? What am I, your serf?

I'm not going to keep continually explaining the same process in ever smaller circles. Last time I explained it, you jumped on me for using the analogy of a bridge - which I only used because I'm constantly having to simplify the language just so you get it! Surely you must see the sheer futility of this?


----------



## robbo203 (May 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Fucks sake! How many times do you want me to explain it??
> 
> I have explained it about a dozen times. You are not getting it at all, either by design or accident. What do you expect me to do, keep saying the same things in different ways until the penny drops? What am I, your serf?
> 
> I'm not going to keep continually explaining the same process in ever smaller circles. Last time I explained it, you jumped on me for using the analogy of a bridge - which I only used because I'm constantly having to simplify the language just so you get it! Surely you must see the sheer futility of this?



Duh,. Look I understand your analogy.  I understand what you mean by a "bridge".  What I am trying to say to you in very simple language that what you think is a bridge is *not *a bridge at all.  In other words , transitional demands do not lead to socialism or link up with socialism in any way. The descriptor "transitional" is in other words a misnomer

*THIS *is what youve got to address not the bloody meaning of your bridge analogy.  I got that loud and clear ages ago.  Catch up sunshine.  Jesuuus


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2010)

What time is Buick on?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 13, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Duh,. Look I understand your analogy.  I understand what you mean by a "bridge".  What I am trying to say to you in very simple language that what you think is a bridge is *not *a bridge at all.  In other words , transitional demands do not lead to socialism or link up with socialism in any way. The descriptor "transitional" is in other words a misnomer
> 
> *THIS *is what youve got to address not the bloody meaning of your bridge analogy.  I got that loud and clear ages ago.  Catch up sunshine.  Jesuuus



No you tit. I'm not objecting to a perceived failure to understand what bridge means. I'm objecting to having to answer continual straw-men arguments caused by your complete failure to understand what is mean by transitional in the Trotskyist sense, despite me using ever simpler language which to be frank isn't doing it justice because it is too fucking simplistic.

I'm not going to keep going round in circles. It is futile. So, either you can do your own research, or don't do you own research, or claim this as a vital propaganda victory for the World Socialist Movement if you really want to. I'm past caring, I really am.

_Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience._


----------



## robbo203 (May 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> No you tit. I'm not objecting to a perceived failure to understand what bridge means. I'm objecting to having to answer continual straw-men arguments caused by your complete failure to understand what is mean by transitional in the Trotskyist sense, despite me using ever simpler language which to be frank isn't doing it justice because it is too fucking simplistic.
> 
> I'm not going to keep going round in circles. It is futile. So, either you can do your own research, or don't do you own research, or claim this as a vital propaganda victory for the World Socialist Movement if you really want to. I'm past caring, I really am.
> 
> _Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience._




But you *are *objecting to what you perceive is my failure to understand what a transitional  deamd is!!  Go back and read your earlier posts.  You are so bloody confused you dont even know what your line of argument is it would seem.  

But *still *you refuse to address the very simple claim I made - that transitional demands do not expedite  or link up with socialism.  If they do, demonstrate this. Show me how this happens.  

You havent shown me how this happens because you cant. Your silence on this matter speaks volumes


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 13, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> But you *are *objecting to what you perceive is my failure to understand what a transitional  deamd is!!



Yes! I am! I am exactly saying it is your failure to understand what a transitional demand is, which is why I wrote that! Well done, I think this is the first time you've grasped what I'm saying in about three pages.



> But *still *you refuse to address the very simple claim I made - that transitional demands do not expedite  or link up with socialism.  If they do, demonstrate this. Show me how this happens.



But they do, and I have repeatedly explained why, and you don't get it, so you keep coming back with straw men arguments based on a misunderstanding! So please, for fucks sake, if you are intent on pursuing this debate then at least have the good grace to make sure you know what we're talking about!



> You havent shown me how this happens because you cant. Your silence on this matter speaks volumes



No you're right, I can't. Apparently words don't work with you. I suspect you don't want to get it rather than can't get it but there we go.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 13, 2010)

> Proper Tidy said:
> 
> 
> > Have you completely given up on trying to substantiate your criticisms or provide any analysis then?
> ...


----------



## Gravediggers (May 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> And one last point, because I missed it in the last post. Trotskyists do not believe in the one party state. You do not know the difference between Trots and other forms of Leninism.



You may not believe in a one party state but what you are proposing is on the slippery slope towards that conclusion.  Trotsky himself with his actions at Kronstadt knew exactly how to put the opposition down and helped in the construction of a one party state.


----------



## robbo203 (May 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> But they do, and I have repeatedly explained why, and you don't get it, so you keep coming back with straw men arguments based on a misunderstanding! So please, for fucks sake, if you are intent on pursuing this debate then at least have the good grace to make sure you know what we're talking about!




OK once again - how does a transitional demand link up with socialism?  Dont just say "its because a transitional demand links up with socialism".  Explain *how*  This is what you havent done.  At all.   Your argument thus far  has consisted simply in dogmatic assertion. In effect you are saying something is so because you say it is so and anyone who disagree with you is engaging in "straw man arguments"

Straw man argument? Ha! I took your example of a so called transitional demand of  "full employment" which you said necessitates socialism thereby demonstrating you do not really understanbd what socialism is.  Socialism is a society in which there is *no employment *at all since there are no employers or employees.  

So how does calling for full employment link up with the call for a society with no employment, eh?.  If you can answer just this question that would be something to go on with


----------



## Gravediggers (May 13, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What time is Buick on?



Any time you want him on butchers.  By all accounts he's keeping a close eye on your antics so why not ask him to put in appearance?  Not that he will accept your invite when it is so obvious the members of the SPGB and their supporters are doing quite fine thank you.


----------



## JWH (May 13, 2010)

Just out of interest - why does anyone ever bother to discuss anything with the SPGB members on these threads? I don't inhabit this forum constantly but I pop in every now and again, and over the years I don't think I have ever seen an SPGB person concede a point or even make a point in an insightful or humorous way. Their sheer dogged tenacity at banging away at the same point constantly and unfailingly in order to be the last man standing and score a point is almost impressive in a WTF way, but otherwise they're just headbangers. Idee fixe doesn't even cover it.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 13, 2010)

> the Transitional Program of 1938 constitutes a part of the fundamental program of the Fourth International. It is its most important part politically in the sense that on the basis of the totality of teachings contained in the fundamental program, _it formulates a political program aimed at mobilizing the masses into actions which correspond to their level of consciousness at a given moment, in order to lead them, through the education they receive in the course of these actions, to the highest level of consciousness, which will carry them to the conquest of power._
> 
> Key Elements of Program
> 
> ...


.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 13, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Any time you want him on butchers.  By all accounts he's keeping a close eye on your antics so why not ask him to put in appearance?  Not that he will accept your invite when it is so obvious the members of the SPGB and their supporters are doing quite fine thank you.



A century and more of doing quite fine; forward with the Edwardian socialist super men! If only I understood eh GD?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 13, 2010)

JWH said:


> Just out of interest - why does anyone ever bother to discuss anything with the SPGB members on these threads? I don't inhabit this forum constantly but I pop in every now and again, and over the years I don't think I have ever seen an SPGB person concede a point or even make a point in an insightful or humorous way. Their sheer dogged tenacity at banging away at the same point constantly and unfailingly in order to be the last man standing and score a point is almost impressive in a WTF way, but otherwise they're just headbangers. Idee fixe doesn't even cover it.



I like jokes that are repeated time and time again; many of the SPGB contributors are past masters at this comic tradition.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## robbo203 (May 13, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> .
> Quote:
> _the Transitional Program of 1938 constitutes a part of the fundamental program of the Fourth International. It is its most important part politically in the sense that on the basis of the totality of teachings contained in the fundamental program, it formulates a political program aimed at mobilizing the masses into actions which correspond to their level of consciousness at a given moment, in order to lead them, through the education they receive in the course of these actions, to the highest level of consciousness, which will carry them to the conquest of power.
> 
> ...



Interesting. It demonstrates how utterly mechanistic and elitist is the trot worldview.  A transitional program  is not a programme in transition to anywhere else.  It is just another way of running capitalism under the illusion that it is something else


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 13, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Interesting. It demonstrates how utterly mechanistic and elitist is the trot worldview.  A transitional program  is not a programme in transition to anywhere else.  It is just another way of running capitalism under the illusion that it is something else



Errrr



> It is its most important part politically in the sense that on the basis of the totality of teachings contained in the fundamental program, it formulates a political program aimed at mobilizing the masses into actions which correspond to their level of consciousness at a given moment, in order to lead them, *through the education they receive in the course of these actions*, to the highest level of consciousness, which will carry them to the conquest of power.





> a series of slogans linked to national and international conjunctural conditions which in combination have the objective of raising the masses to the highest political level during the process of their struggles.



So what I had been saying then, eh Robbo. Still, at least you had the good grace to acknowledge this and your own repeated misunderstandings 



> using the slogan as a transitional governmental formula corresponding to the organizational conditions and consciousness of the masses at a given moment, and not as a synonym for the dictatorship of the proletariat. A program without the perspective of a government of the working masses to carry out anti-capitalist measures, is not a transitional program.



And this really rather contradicts your oft-repeated but as yet wholly unsubstantiated claim that it is "another way of running capitalism blah blah".

Interesting that you use the criticism that it is 'mechanistic'. Scientific in fact. I appreciate this may be perturbing for such dye-in-the-wool utopians...

Elitist though, you will have to explain. "Mobilising the masses into actions (based upon) their (current) level of consciousness" would seem to me to be an eminently analytical, against as opposed to a hopelessly utopian and unrealistic, view to take.


----------



## dannysp (May 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> No, that isn't it. I've just ran out of ways of explaining it to you - I must have explained it about a dozen times at least now. I'll accept it is my failure to articulate it if it makes you feel any better - but I'm at a loss as to how to get you to understand it, so perhaps you might take it in if you read it from another source.



If an idea has any merit it should have about it the possibility of being put simply.


----------



## dannysp (May 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> But why, when the points you make are working off an incorrect characterisation of the transitional programme? I'm just going to end up answering every point in the same way - ie wrong end of the stick!
> 
> You might think I'm being pompous btw and perhaps I am, but dear me pot kettle black. It's only a few posts back we had GD doing his Jesus act (they're going to send us to the gulags waah) for no apparent reason.



I remember reminding you a few posts ago on how communists like us in the SPGB were murdered in the SU when Trotsky shared the helm.
Remember? No denial just a "ho ho ho". You are a trotskyist, aren't you?


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2010)

dannysp said:


> I remember reminding you a few posts ago on how communists like us in the SPGB were murdered in the SU when Trotsky shared the helm.
> Remember? No denial just a "ho ho ho". You are a trotskyist, aren't you?



Did you? Which communists are you talking about?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 13, 2010)

dannysp said:


> If an idea has any merit it should have about it the possibility of being put simply.



Perhaps the difficulty isn't at the transmission end?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## dennisr (May 13, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Remember? No denial just a "ho ho ho". You are a trotskyist, aren't you?



I can confirm that PT was the one and only - the famous "wrexham bolshevik" of soviet russia 1917 fame. He was personally to blame for the fantasy oppression you so rightly raise and face. His hands are already red with your fantasy comrades gore and blood.

I am sure he is relieved to be able to finally cast off this burden, this heavy hand that has - rightly - been weighing on his soul for so many decades.

Meanwhile back in the real world...


----------



## dannysp (May 13, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Did you? Which communists are you talking about?




In post 132.
The communists among thousands of others who dared to speak out against the Bolsheviks denial of free speech, a free press and dictatorial tyranny.
Its all in the archives of the NKVD and KGB.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2010)

Post#132 is by bell end and nothing to do with that. I can't find anything surrounding that post either.

So, which communists are you on about?


----------



## dannysp (May 13, 2010)

dennisr said:


> I can confirm that PT was the one and only - the famous "wrexham bolshevik" of soviet russia 1917 fame. He was personally to blame for the fantasy oppression you so rightly raise and face. His hands are already red with your fantasy comrades gore and blood.
> 
> I am sure he is relieved to be able to finally cast off this burden, this heavy hand that has - rightly - been weighing on his soul for so many decades.
> 
> Meanwhile back in the real world...



Of course Proper Tidy is in no way responsible for the the murders directly after 1917 in the SU, but he affirms the ideas of a man that was.


----------



## dannysp (May 13, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Post#132 is by bell end and nothing to do with that. I can't find anything surrounding that post either.
> 
> So, which communists are you on about?



Alopogies, post 232 2nd para fom end, save you reading it all.


----------



## dennisr (May 13, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Of course Proper Tidy is in no way responsible for the the murders directly after 1917 in the SU, but he affirms the ideas of a man that was.



I'm sure he will feel better for knowing that. 

Do you really think the idea of claiming some association between the yourself, the SPGB and oppositionists to the soviet union in 1917 is going to increase your relevance or the relevance of your arguments? (Especially whe nit is really not much more than a fantasy association in your head...)

I think you will find most of us have moved on a bit. I mean the anarchists here don't spend their time shouting 'never forget kronstadt' every time I raise political differences with them over particular questions in the here and now. I may be wrong but I am guessing most folk would think "what is this plonker going on about?"


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2010)

Thank you. That doesn't really say anything like "communists like us in the SPGB" does it? It just says workers _who would been allowed in the SPGB_. Them's two very different things.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 13, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Alopogies, post 232 2nd para fom end, save you reading it all.



'..when workers in their thousands many of whom would have found an open door, a seat at the table of the SPGB and referred to as Comrades..'

It's pretty low to try and boost your membership with dead people who can't say no. Are you really so incapable of convincing living workers?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## belboid (May 13, 2010)

inaugurating the dead into the party?  truly the SPGB are the mormons of socialism


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 13, 2010)

belboid said:


> inaugurating the dead into the party?  truly the SPGB are the mormons of socialism



To be fair he didn't quite do it (call it comedic license), but he was posthumously claiming them for the tradition; which isn't exactly a principled act.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2010)

belboid said:


> inaugurating the dead into the party?  truly the SPGB are the mormons of socialism



I know i shouldn't, but I'm going to try and be fair here. I think we've just got a perfect storm here. Most of the SPGB aren't like this in my experience.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 13, 2010)

Why stop at the dead though? Why not claim all workers as subconscious party members? I await the SPGB's Freudian turn and subsequent exponential growth.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 13, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I know i shouldn't, but I'm going to try and be fair here. I think we've just got a perfect storm here. Most of the SPGB aren't like this in my experience.



Can't some of them (who I agree aren't like this at all) have a quiet word; I've got work to do.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2010)

It's a weird dialectic at work here isn't it - most workers aren't good enough to join when they're alive but once dead, well...

To make a serious point, beyond the anarchists, most the communists killed when trotsky was still in power were bolsheviks - miasniikov and those of that ilk were proud bolsheviks attempting to put the train back on the tracks.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 13, 2010)

JWH said:


> Just out of interest - why does anyone ever bother to discuss anything with the SPGB members on these threads? I don't inhabit this forum constantly but I pop in every now and again, and over the years I don't think I have ever seen an SPGB person concede a point or even make a point in an insightful or humorous way. Their sheer dogged tenacity at banging away at the same point constantly and unfailingly in order to be the last man standing and score a point is almost impressive in a WTF way, but otherwise they're just headbangers. Idee fixe doesn't even cover it.



Is it just the SPGB who fail to, "concede a point or even make a point in an insightful or humorous way" ? I do not see anything on that score from our opponents except that is insults, swearing, sarcasm, etc, when they start head butting the wall by failing to reply to the arguments.

In fact on the previous thread, 'The unreported revolution in Wales by George Monbiot' and also on this thread there are several examples where we have conceded a point to the posters.  Not always humorous I agree, but insightful and serious very much so.  In regards to humour I thought the posting on the 'Love Party' was full of satire to make a point that is relevant to the discussions.


----------



## dylans (May 13, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> It's a weird dialectic at work here isn't it - most workers aren't good enough to join when they're alive but once dead, well...
> 
> To make a serious point, beyond the anarchists, most the communists killed when trotsky was still in power were bolsheviks - miasniikov and those of that ilk were proud bolsheviks attempting to put the train back on the tracks.



Indeed and it's not a question of yelling "remember kronstadt" It's about seriously questioning if the nature of leninist party and state models inevitably lead to execution squads and party purges which seems to be the case with every lenin inspired revolution.  I want a revolution. I don't want to get shot for disagreeing with the party line


----------



## discokermit (May 13, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> To make a serious point, beyond the anarchists, most the communists killed when trotsky was still in power were bolsheviks - miasniikov and those of that ilk were proud bolsheviks attempting to put the train back on the tracks.


the workers opposition? miasnikov-'45, medvedev-'37, shliapnikov-'37


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2010)

discokermit said:


> the workers opposition? miasnikov-'45, medvedev-'37, shliapnikov-'37



Fair enough, sloppy language - point was, the communists being oppressed weren't, on the whole, the anti-Bolshevik SPGB fellow-travelers as claimed above but committed bolsheviks (aside from the anarchist-communists of course).


----------



## Gravediggers (May 13, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I like jokes that are repeated time and time again; many of the SPGB contributors are past masters at this comic tradition.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Surely, Louis you are including your good self in this example for every time you post its a repetitive example of sarcasm that's meant to be a joke but fortunately went quite stale 10 years ago.  Try a bit of satire and you might, just might get a job with Private Eye.


----------



## robbo203 (May 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Errrr
> 
> 
> So what I had been saying then, eh Robbo. Still, at least you had the good grace to acknowledge this and your own repeated misunderstandings
> .



Sigh.  I havent done any such thing.  I understand well enough what is meant by a  so called transitional demand and the theory behind.  My point is simply that the theory is crap.  There is no way that calling for full employment can lead to a society (socialism) in which the very notion of employment itself becomes redundant.   Still waiting to hear how you imagine this will work but then I then I guess I will forever to get answer from you on that score.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 13, 2010)

dylans said:


> Indeed and it's not a question of yelling "remember kronstadt" It's about seriously questioning if the nature of leninist party and state models inevitably lead to execution squads and party purges which seems to be the case with every lenin inspired revolution.  I want a revolution. I don't want to get shot for disagreeing with the party line



Could not agree with you more.  Its the main reason why the SPGB have consistently stated why they are a vehicle for the working class to use in gaining political power.  Once the workers have gained political power our role in the class struggle comes to an end and we as a political organisation will promptly disband.  Can't wait.

For those political parties and organisations who think that once the workers have gained political power they will still have a function to perform, even if its laying down the party line they are in for a rude awaking.  With an entirely different set of social relationships and the workers thinking for themselves - without resorting to leaders - the 'political system' will be defunct and obsolete.  Indeed party politics will give way to social cooperation.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 13, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Its the main reason why the SPGB have consistently stated why we are the vehicle for the working class to use in gaining political power.



Surely this is closer to the unpalatable truth; although I can see why you might want to spin it.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Gravediggers (May 13, 2010)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravediggers View Post
Its the main reason why the SPGB have consistently stated why we are the vehicle for the working class to use in gaining political power.



Louis MacNeice said:


> Surely this is closer to the unpalatable truth; although I can see why you might want to spin it.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Its only unpalatable to the likes of you Louis. For the truth is when the workers gain political power you and your kind would be redundant with no threads like this one to massage your egoistic style.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 13, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Fair enough, sloppy language - point was, the communists being oppressed weren't, on the whole, the anti-Bolshevik SPGB fellow-travelers as claimed above but committed bolsheviks (aside from the anarchist-communists of course).


Do you think these people that the then Trotskyist Anton Ciliga met in the early 1930s in a concentration camp for political prisoners (called a "political isolator"), where they had been sent at a time when Trotsky was still a leading member of the Russian government and one-party State,  might have qualified as kindred souls of the SPGB:



> As to our political conversations, I opened them by asking an exceedingly serious question in a light-hearted way."I can understand the attitude of the social-democrats in Europe; they do not like to go to prison, they do not want to risk a revolution, they have already secured a few good places in bourgeois society and are unwilling to lose them. But you, the Russian social-democrats, what do you want? For the last ten years you have drifted from prison to prison. Is it to restore capitalism and the parliamentary republic n Russia? It surely isn't worth while? I cannot understand you."
> 
> They were very much taken aback at first by the way in which I stated the problem; then one of them answered, "It would indeed be perfectly futile to wish to restore capitalism in Russia, for the good reason that capitalism, though in a modified form, exists there and has never ceased to exist. What we desire, what has led us into prison, is workers' democracy, the workers' right of freely organizing themselves" That set the debate going. Rosa Luxemburg was quoted and her discussions with Lenin in 1903 and 1918 on the respective parts played by masses and leaders in the workers' movement. We were shown with abundant detail that the present system in Russia had preserved all the essential characteristics of capitalism : production of commodities, wages, exchange markets, money, profits and even partial sharing out of profits among bureaucrats in the form of high salaries, privileges and so on.(The Russian Enigma, p.194. See also here)


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2010)

I put that text on line (and the other one at that link), i don't need pointing to it thanks. You said when Trotsky was still in power in the USSR, so we're talking pre-1298 at the very latest. The book that it's  chapter on, if you read it, confirms that most of the political prisoners in the isolaters were indeed bolsheviki of one stripe or another - even smirnov who developed his state-capitalist theory whilst there.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 13, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I put that text on line (and the other one at that link), i don't need pointing to it thanks. You said when Trotsky was still in power in the USSR, so we're talking pre-1928 at the very latest.


No, I didn't say that the discussion took place when Trotsky was still a leading member of the Russian government (ie till 1925/6) but that they had been imprisoned while Trotsky was still a leading member. The conversation took place in the early 1930s and, on the previous page, Ciliga says that "our new social-democratic neighbours had from eight to ten years' persecution behind them", ie they had been persecuted since the early 20s -- when Trotsky was a leading figure in the Russian regime. In any event, they weren't Bolsheviks or in the Bolshevik tradition. And they were persecuted and imprisoned.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> No, I didn't say that the discussion took place when Trotsky was still a leading member of the Russian government (ie till 1925/6) but that they had been imprisoned while Trotsky was still a leading member. The conversation took place in the early 1930s and, on the previous page, Ciliga says that "our new social-democratic neighbours had from eight to ten years' persecution behind them", ie they had been persecuted since the early 20s -- when Trotsky was a leading figure in the Russian regime. In any event, they weren't Bolsheviks or in the Bolshevik tradition. And they were persecuted and imprisoned.



So the SPGB are now social-democratic in the sense that Ciliga meant i.e classical European social-democrats -  is that right? These are the people you're saying who share the same platform as you? Despite 100 years of your party specifically and sharply differentiating yourself from just that tradition. Genius, not only dead Bolsheviks are now enrolled, but in some jehovian manouvere, dead social democrats are now press-ganged!

So i'm still waiting to learn who these SPGB style communists were.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 13, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I put that text on line (and the other one at that link), i don't need pointing to it thanks. You said when Trotsky was still in power in the USSR, so we're talking pre-1298 at the very latest. The book that it's  chapter on, if you read it, confirms that most of the political prisoners in the isolaters were indeed bolsheviki of one stripe or another - even smirnov who developed his state-capitalist theory whilst there.



Butchers you are to be commended that on times you are capable of doing something of a serious nature.  Pity is that most of the time you express a load of twaddle.


----------



## dannysp (May 13, 2010)

dennisr said:


> I'm sure he will feel better for knowing that.
> 
> Do you really think the idea of claiming some association between the yourself, the SPGB and oppositionists to the soviet union in 1917 is going to increase your relevance or the relevance of your arguments? (Especially whe nit is really not much more than a fantasy association in your head...)
> 
> I think you will find most of us have moved on a bit. I mean the anarchists here don't spend their time shouting 'never forget kronstadt' every time I raise political differences with them over particular questions in the here and now. I may be wrong but I am guessing most folk would think "what is this plonker going on about?"




I would have thought that the politically motivated murder of Russian sailors for demanding democracy, was something to bare in mind when examining Trotsky's political theories.


----------



## JWH (May 14, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Is it just the SPGB who fail to, "concede a point or even make a point in an insightful or humorous way" ? I do not see anything on that score from our opponents except that is insults, swearing, sarcasm, etc, when they start head butting the wall by failing to reply to the arguments.
> 
> In fact on the previous thread, 'The unreported revolution in Wales by George Monbiot' and also on this thread there are several examples where we have conceded a point to the posters.  Not always humorous I agree, but insightful and serious very much so.  In regards to humour I thought the posting on the 'Love Party' was full of satire to make a point that is relevant to the discussions.



I am not offering analysis based on scientific observation or double blind tests, I am afraid - just cheap shots from the peanut gallery based on my inconsistent and not particularly attentive forays in this forum over a few years.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 14, 2010)

JWH said:


> I am not offering analysis based on scientific observation or double blind tests, I am afraid - just cheap shots from the peanut gallery based on my inconsistent and not particularly attentive forays in this forum over a few years.



That being the case I respect your honest admission that you are not particularly interested in a serious discussion.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> > using the slogan as a transitional governmental formula corresponding to the organizational conditions and consciousness of the masses at a given moment, and not as a synonym for the dictatorship of the proletariat. A program without the perspective of a government of the working masses to carry out anti-capitalist measures, is not a transitional program.
> 
> 
> And this really rather contradicts your oft-repeated but as yet wholly unsubstantiated claim that it is "another way of running capitalism blah blah".


I'm afraid it doesn't. What Frank was saying is that a "Workers Government" is not the same as "the dictatorship of the proletariat" but something less than this. What in fact it meant was a Social Democrat/Communist Party coalition government such as the Communist International had started calling for from 1921 as the immediate aim. In the British context it would have been a Leftwing Labour government (with the Communist Party affiliated to Labour) such as Trotsky called for in his 1926 pamphlet _Where is Britain Going?_.

Inevitably, given "the organizational conditions and consciousness of the masses" (trade unionism, reformism, Labourism) who would have voted in such a government, it would be a government that would seek improvements within the context of capitalism (so-called "anti-capitalist measures"). Which couldn't go any further precisely because of the low level of "consciousness of the masses". So, it would end up governing capitalism, while taking some steps towards state capitalism.

This is still the general Trotskyist perspective. It's the logic behind them calling for a "New Workers Party" (to form such a government) rather than for socialism as such.


----------



## JWH (May 14, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> That being the case I respect your honest admission that you are not particularly interested in a serious discussion.



I am certainly not interested in a serious discussion about whether SPGB members are funny or not. I'm not sure I could handle the footnotes, for a start.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 14, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> I'm afraid it doesn't. What Frank was saying is that a "Workers Government" is not the same as "the dictatorship of the proletariat" but something less than this. What in fact it meant was a Social Democrat/Communist Party coalition government such as the Communist International had started calling for from 1921 as the immediate aim. In the British context it would have been a Leftwing Labour government (with the Communist Party affiliated to Labour) such as Trotsky called for in his 1926 pamphlet _Where is Britain Going?_.
> 
> Inevitably, given "the organizational conditions and consciousness of the masses" (trade unionism, reformism, Labourism) who would have voted in such a government, it would be a government that would seek improvements within the context of capitalism (so-called "anti-capitalist measures"). Which couldn't go any further precisely because of the low level of "consciousness of the masses". So, it would end up governing capitalism, while taking some steps towards state capitalism.
> 
> This is still the general Trotskyist perspective. It's the logic behind them calling for a "New Workers Party" (to form such a government) rather than for socialism as such.



You're extrapolating there.

It seems clearer to me that the article suggests that transitional demands are not a programme for a dictatorship of the proletariat, but agitational demands designed to tap into contemporary consciousness. In fact, it explicitly states that.



> It is its most important part politically in the sense that on the basis of the totality of teachings contained in the fundamental program, it formulates a political program aimed at mobilizing the masses into actions which correspond to their level of consciousness at a given moment, in order to lead them, through the education they receive in the course of these actions, to the highest level of consciousness, which will carry them to the conquest of power....
> 
> ...a series of slogans linked to national and international conjunctural conditions which in combination have the objective of raising the masses to the highest political level during the process of their struggles...
> 
> ...With the validity of each slogan being determined by its correspondence with the internal logic of the mass movement, the key piece in the program is precisely the culminating slogan of the whole chain – the slogan for a workers’ and farmers’ government or for a workers’ government. Here again the Fourth International has both revived and enriched the teachings of the third and fourth congresses of the Communist International by using the slogan as a transitional governmental formula corresponding to the organizational conditions and consciousness of the masses at a given moment, and not as a synonym for the dictatorship of the proletariat.



Out of interest - given SPGB seemingly reject in its entirety any notion of a dictatorship of the proletariat or indeed any form of intermediary period, despite the obvious dangers to a vulnerable revolution in the face of an inevitable onslaught from hostile forces - what is your view on how a transformation can be undertaken? Perhaps I have missed something but the SPGB case seems to jump from now to a global socialist nirvana with very little substance in between. I appreciate you are of the impossibilist tradition but even so; gaining mass support for socialism on an international scale via the ballot box then abolishing capitalism then living happily ever after in a world of super-abundance, without any resistance along the way, seems a little far fetched. Perhaps you think my characterisation is a little flippant but this is pretty much how it appears.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You're extrapolating there.
> It seems clearer to me that the article suggests that transitional demands are not a programme for a dictatorship of the proletariat, but agitational demands designed to tap into contemporary consciousness. In fact, it explicitly states that.
> 
> 
> ...


I agree that the aim is "to tap into contemporary consciousness" (which is assumed to be trade unionist/reformist) but look at why and how:


> in order to lead them, through the education they receive in the course of these actions


I take this to mean that the Trotskyist vanguard is to put forward slogans designed to appeal to the reformist consciousness of "the masses" in order to "lead" them in reformist struggles (which the vanguard know can't succeed) so as "educate" them that capitalism can't be reformed. I imagine that it was this that led Robbo to describe this approach as "elitist".

It is still the Trotskyist perspective and why Trotskyist groups all try to assume the leadership of and direct any more or less spontaneous protest movements that arise rather than letting these self-organise themselves without outside political interference.

As to the "dictatorship of the proletariat", this was a slogan Marx picked up in Paris when he was there in the 1840s and never used publicly afterwards. For him it meant little more than the exercise of political power by the working class which he couldn't envisage as being anything other than through full and complete political democracy. But to Lenin and Trotsky it meant the exclusive exercise of political power by the self-appointed vanguard of the working class, ie by them and their highly centralised and disciplined party. A quite different concept which in post-1917 Russia meant in practice the dictatorship (in the literal sense) of the vanguard Bolshevik party over the proletariat and the rest of the population.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 14, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> I agree that the aim is "to tap into contemporary consciousness" (which is assumed to be trade unionist/reformist) but look at why and how:
> I take this to mean that the Trotskyist vanguard is to put forward slogans designed to appeal to the reformist consciousness of "the masses" in order to "lead" them in reformist struggles (which the vanguard know can't succeed) so as "educate" them that capitalism can't be reformed. I imagine that it was this that led Robbo to describe this approach as "elitist".
> 
> It is still the Trotskyist perspective and why Trotskyist groups all try to assume the leadership of and direct any more or less spontaneous protest movements that arise rather than letting these self-organise themselves without outside political interference.



So not what you said initially at all then?



> in order to lead them, through the education they receive in the course of these actions



I would suggest the latter half ('through the education they receive in the course of these actions') is actually a reference to the belief that workers will learn far more about the material nature of society through their own actions in struggle, rather than through propaganda sheets and so forth. This is a point that has been made continually in the debates with squeegees on here.

This constant preciousness about 'leading' is tiresome too. Expecting the working class universally to possess a heightened socialist consciousness is just utopianism; all movements require political leadership. We're not talking about some paternalistic middle class trend here - socialists are from the working class themselves, and unlike other traditions we don't promote a closed shop with entrance exams, we promote constant recruitment amongst working class people.



> As to the "dictatorship of the proletariat", this was a slogan Marx picked up in Paris when he was there in the 1840s and never used publicly afterwards. For him it meant little more than the exercise of political power by the working class which he couldn't envisage as being anything other than through full and complete political democracy. But to Lenin and Trotsky it meant the exclusive exercise of political power by the self-appointed vanguard of the working class, ie by them and their highly centralised and disciplined party. A quite different concept which in post-1917 Russia meant in practice the dictatorship (in the literal sense) of the vanguard Bolshevik party over the proletariat and the rest of the population.



I notice you skip over the large chunk of my post referring to this...


----------



## robbo203 (May 14, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> I agree that the aim is "to tap into contemporary consciousness" (which is assumed to be trade unionist/reformist) but look at why and how:.



This is the point that PT and others miss. By simply "tapping" into mere trade union reformist conscious, this doesnt actually lead you anywhere .... except more trade union reformist consciousness!  In other words, it reinforces the existing consciousness which underpins support for capitalism.  However, communist consciousness necessitates a qualitative break in consciousness.  You cannot have communist (aka socialist) consciousness wthout being aware of the kind of society you want to put in place of capitalism.  But the timid state capitalist Left, being so terrified of bourgeois opinion,  think that to call for a moneyless, wageless socialist commonwealth will make one somehow appear "utopian".  We just cant have that now , can we? Just one more way in which these leftists help inadvertently to reinforce capitalist values and a capitalist outlook



Jean-Luc said:


> I take this to mean that the Trotskyist vanguard is to put forward slogans designed to appeal to the reformist consciousness of "the masses" in order to "lead" them in reformist struggles (which the vanguard know can't succeed) so as "educate" them that capitalism can't be reformed. I imagine that it was this that led Robbo to describe this approach as "elitist".
> 
> It is still the Trotskyist perspective and why Trotskyist groups all try to assume the leadership of and direct any more or less spontaneous protest movements that arise rather than letting these self-organise themselves without outside political interference.
> 
> As to the "dictatorship of the proletariat", this was a slogan Marx picked up in Paris when he was there in the 1840s and never used publicly afterwards. For him it meant little more than the exercise of political power by the working class which he couldn't envisage as being anything other than through full and complete political democracy. But to Lenin and Trotsky it meant the exclusive exercise of political power by the self-appointed vanguard of the working class, ie by them and their highly centralised and disciplined party. A quite different concept which in post-1917 Russia meant in practice the dictatorship (in the literal sense) of the vanguard Bolshevik party over the proletariat and the rest of the population.




Your analysis is pretty sound. It needs to be recognised that leninist vanguardism is totally at variance with the principle that the emancipation of the working class must carried out by the workers themselves


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 14, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> This is the point that PT and others miss. By simply "tapping" into mere trade union reformist conscious, this doesnt actually lead you anywhere .... except more trade union reformist consciousness!  In other words, it reinforces the existing consciousness which underpins support for capitalism.  However, communist consciousness necessitates a qualitative break in consciousness.  You cannot have communist (aka socialist) consciousness wthout being aware of the kind of society you want to put in place of capitalism.  But the timid state capitalist Left, being so terrified of bourgeois opinion,  think that to call for a moneyless, wageless socialist commonwealth will make one somehow appear "utopian".  We just cant have that now , can we? Just one more way in which these leftists help inadvertently to reinforce capitalist values and a capitalist outlook



Robbo yet again misses the point by several miles.

Where do we shy away from calling for socialism, for a "moneyless, wageless socialist commonwealth"? We state clearly in every publication that we stand for this. What we try to do is to add substance to this, to make this abstract aim relevant to working people.

Neither do we call this 'utopian' as you claim. What we call utopian is your approach to bringing this about.

The straw men arguments are tedious.




> Your analysis is pretty sound. It needs to be recognised that leninist vanguardism is totally at variance with the principle that the emancipation of the working class must carried out by the workers themselves



WTF? That 'the emancipation of the working class must carried out by the workers themselves' is a core tenet of socialism of all variants.


----------



## robbo203 (May 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Robbo yet again misses the point by several miles.
> 
> Where do we shy away from calling for socialism, for a "moneyless, wageless socialist commonwealth"? We state clearly in every publication that we stand for this. What we try to do is to add substance to this, to make this abstract aim relevant to working people.
> 
> ...




Who is the "we" you are talking about? Im making a point about the state capitalist left in general.  If genuine socialism is even mentioned it is couched as some ill defined ultimate  goal obscured by a rash of reformist transitional demands like "no to privatisation" (i.e. yes to state capitalism) or "tax the rich" or whatever

And how, pray, do you or whatever organisation it is that you belong to,  try to "add substance to this, to make this abstract aim relevant to working people." Ah yes. let me think .  Thats it!  You call for unachievable (by your own admission) "transitional demands"!  Like full employment.  This has got sod all to do with socialism which is a society of no employment but somehow in some obscure way you imagine this is "adding substance" to the socialist goal.   Its dialectics comrade, innit?




Proper Tidy said:


> WTF? That 'the emancipation of the working class must carried out by the workers themselves' is a core tenet of socialism of all variants.



Which is precisely why Leniniism of all hues is at variance with this basic socialist tenet


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 14, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Who is the "we" you are talking about? Im making a point about the state capitalist left in general.  If genuine socialism is even mentioned it is couched as some ill defined ultimate  goal obscured by a rash of reformist transitional demands like "no to privatisation" (i.e. yes to state capitalism) or "tax the rich" or whatever
> 
> And how, pray, do you or whatever organisation it is that you belong to,  try to "add substance to this, to make this abstract aim relevant to working people." Ah yes. let me think .  Thats it!  You call for unachievable (by your own admission) "transitional demands"!  Like full employment.  This has got sod all to do with socialism which is a society of no employment but somehow in some obscure way you imagine this is "adding substance" to the socialist goal.   Its dialectics comrade, innit?
> 
> ...



You're a fool. Where's the chap from Carlisle gone? He was prepared for an actual debate instead of going round in ever decreasing circles.


----------



## robbo203 (May 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You're a fool. Where's the chap from Carlisle gone? He was prepared for an actual debate instead of going round in ever decreasing circles.




This is a bit pathetic isnt it?  Whenever a telling point is made against you you retreat into insult.  Why is this I wonder? Lets face it - you are not actually interested in debate.  I ve asked you many times to explain, for example, how the call for "full employment" is compatible with, or aids, the revoltiuonary aim of the "abolition of the wages system".  Yet you shy away from any explanation.  Like I said before, your silence speaks volumes


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 14, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Gravediggers View Post
> Its the main reason why the SPGB have consistently stated why we are the vehicle for the working class to use in gaining political power.
> 
> ...



I'm glad you agreed with my amendment; although I'm not convinced that someone with your messianic proclivities should be chucking around accusations of egoism.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## belboid (May 14, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> a telling point



  you like that phrase dont you?  Despite not knowing one when it slaps you in the face


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> So not what you said initially at all then?


I agree that Frank's explanation of the "transitional programme" is ambiguous. At one point he talks of raising the consciousness of "the masses" from a trade unionist/reformist one to consent to the vanguard party leading an insurrection against the capitalist State. At another he talks of "raising" it only to a desire to have a "Workers Government" (of capitalism).


Proper Tidy said:


> I would suggest the latter half ('through the education they receive in the course of these actions') is actually a reference to the belief that workers will learn far more about the material nature of society through their own actions in struggle, rather than through propaganda sheets and so forth


Maybe, except how are they going to interpret their experiences differently unless they also hear different explanations of it? And this must involve meetings, propaganda sheets and so forth. So what we are talking about is not the need for these (even you don't think that workers will spontaneously come to your conclusions, do you?), but their _content_. 

As the sheets you put out concentrate on advocating a "New Workers Party" or a "Workers Government" that doesn't advance their understanding much (it fact it reflects it, and of course is designed to, to attract a following). Workers will only interpret their experiences to conclude that socialism is the only way out if they are presented with this. 

Hence the need for explicitly socialist meetings, propaganda sheets and so forth. Even the old Social Democrats with their "maximum" and "minumum" programmes accepted that. What the Trotskyist theory of "transitional demands" does is to abandon explaining the maximum programme on the grounds that it is too "abstract" and "utopian" for the benighted masses to understand.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You're a fool. Where's the chap from Carlisle gone? He was prepared for an actual debate instead of going round in ever decreasing circles.



He's still here and lol at your pathetic attempts to square the circle by suggesting the dictatorship of the proletariat is a democratic institution.  By whose standards?  And whose political model are you going to adopt?  Not the SPEW political structure surely with its slates to perpetuate the political elite?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 14, 2010)

JWH said:


> I am certainly not interested in a serious discussion about whether SPGB members are funny or not. I'm not sure I could handle the footnotes, for a start.



Surely you mean footlights or spotlights on your self?


----------



## JWH (May 14, 2010)

Huh?


----------



## ellmann164 (May 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You're a fool. Where's the chap from Carlisle gone? He was prepared for an actual debate instead of going round in ever decreasing circles.



Are you sure you want an actual debate? What a difference a week makes.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 14, 2010)

JWH said:


> Huh?



He means, that while he posts only in the interests of and for the good of the working class, you post to satisfy your own ego. Is he lacking in any sense of irony or self awareness? Quite possibly.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 14, 2010)

ellmann164 said:


> Are you sure you want an actual debate? What a difference a week makes.



PT has been trying very hard; his reward has been barely digested gobbets of the Socialist Standard. It's been messy and unpleasant; in the circumstances I think he's shown great tolerance.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## robbo203 (May 14, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> Hence the need for explicitly socialist meetings, propaganda sheets and so forth. Even the old Social Democrats with their "maximum" and "minumum" programmes accepted that. What the Trotskyist theory of "transitional demands" does is to abandon explaining the maximum programme on the grounds that it is too "abstract" and "utopian" for the benighted masses to understand.




Bingo. Youve hit the nail on the head.  But not only is the maiximum programme  thereby shelved - and hence any possiblity of socialism - but the advocacy of a miminum programme of reformist (including so called transitional) demands  actually diverts attention away from the need for socialism.  

While Im not a member of the SPGB, on this point the SPGB is absolutely spot on.  You cannot have socialism without workers understanding and wanting it and you cannot get that *without the idea of socialism being talked about and discussed directly and openly*.  No amount of subterfuge or social engineering by a vanguard elite will ever deliver socialism.  It has got to come from the ground up - consciously.

The state capitalist Left are terrified of bourgeois opinion which is why they want so desparately to seem "realistic" and not utopian.  Cant have workers talking about a society without money can we now?  

Such "realism" is a certain recipe for ensuring we remain trapped within the reality that is capitalism


----------



## Gravediggers (May 14, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> PT has been trying very hard; his reward has been barely digested gobbets of the Socialist Standard. It's been messy and unpleasant; in the circumstances I think he's shown great tolerance.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



In fact Proper Tidy has been very conservative in the number of times: he's head butted the wall, chewed his fingers to the bone, stamped his feet in frustration, shit his pants, made rude and obscene gestures, pulled his hair out by the handful, tried choking himself, experienced two instances of blindness, lost his appetite for four days, bit the dog, read the Daily Mirror upside down wearing sun glasses, burnt his toast, refused to answer the phone, and finally convinced his GP that the SPGB was a contributory factor in his state of confusion and was there any medication for, 'Don't know where I'm going syndrome/disorder'?

Yeh under the circumstances he's done very well.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 14, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> In fact Proper Tidy has been very conservative in the number of times: he's head butted the wall, chewed his fingers to the bone, stamped his feet in frustration, shit his pants, made rude and obscene gestures, pulled his hair out by the handful, tried choking himself, experienced two instances of blindness, lost his appetite for four days, bit the dog, read the Daily Mirror upside down wearing sun glasses, burnt his toast, refused to answer the phone, and finally convinced his GP that the SPGB was a contributory factor in his state of confusion and was there any medication for, 'Don't know where I'm going syndrome/disorder'?
> 
> Yeh under the circumstances he's done very well.



Are you okay GD? This is just incoherent gibberish isn't it. You'll be talking in tongues next. Anyway, best to leave this sort of stuff out, you'll find yourself on the wrong end of your authoritarian Executive. They might take away your beard.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 14, 2010)

Let's get concrete. Here is the list of reform demands of one of Militant's candidates in the recent General Election. It happens to be their member Paul Crouchman standing as a TUSC candidate in Spelthorne but could have been any of the others:





> Your Socialist candidate is fighting for the millions, not tire millionaires. We demand:
> 
> We won‘t pay for their crisis ─ no cuts in public services * For a minimum wage of £8 an hour. No exemptions * For an immediate 50% increase in the pension as a step to a living pension * Stop the privatisation of education, health and services * For a democratic, nationalised banking and financial sector under popular control. No compensation to the financial "wizards" who have ruined the economic position of Britain and with it the lives of millions! * Bring the NHS back under democratic public control to build a top quality service free at the point of use * For free, good quality education for all from nursery to university. Abolish fees now! * Renationalise rail and other privatised utilities with compensation only on the basis of proven need * Stop council housing sell-offs. For a building programme of decent, affordable public housing * Repeal the anti-trade union laws  * Stop the destruction of our environment. For a socialist plan of energy production to meet the needs of the people and the environment * Say no to racism. Oppose the divisive and racist BNP * End the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan * For a democratic socialist society ─ run in the interests of the millions not the billionaires.


Which of these are "transitional" and which are ordinary reforms? As far as I can see none have any potential to go beyond capitalism. They are all common or garden reforms. In fact many involve returning to a state of affairs that used to exist under capitalism in Britain. How is "demanding" them, or even struggling for them, going to further the cause of socialism?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Are you okay GD? This is just incoherent gibberish isn't it. You'll be talking in tongues next. Anyway, best to leave this sort of stuff out, you'll find yourself on the wrong end of your authoritarian Executive. They might take away your beard.



I thought that would wake you up from your slumbers.  For the record the EC of the SPGB is purely an administrative body it has no powers to make party policy and must report to the membership twice a year.  Elections are held annually for the EC and party officers from those members nominated by the Branches with nominations are open to all members.  The EC must report to the membership twice a year, whilst party officers report to Annual Conference.   All policy and procedure is subject to a vote of the membership by a secret ballot.

In effect the EC of the SPGB is not in any position to tell the Branches or a member what to do.  If they tried to do so they would be out on their ear at the next ballot, or possibly before that.  In contrast you have SPEW's organisational structure:

_*Congress elects a National Committee, which in turn elects an Executive Committee of around a dozen or so members which runs the party on a day-to-day basis. Peter Taaffe is general secretary, and Hannah Sell deputy general secretary. In 2007 the Socialist Party Executive Committee of ten or eleven has a majority of women members. Areas of responsibility for the executive apart from the development of general policy matters are various campaigning roles, such as NHS, workplace and youth campaigns, together with editorial responsibilities for The Socialist, Socialism Today and other issues such as finance raising.

The Socialist Party argues that its method of elections to the National Committee does not promote individuals, but instead is conceived as the selection of a rounded-out team, including both experienced as well as young or less experienced but promising members, together with members from the trade unions and youth and other aspects of the Socialist Party's work. Each geographical region of the Socialist Party is felt to be in need of inclusion. In general, the Executive Committee, after a period of discussion with regional representatives, presents to the National Committee its "slate" or list of members selected from all aspects of work of the party. After any amendments from the National Committee, this list is proposed by the outgoing National Committee to the annual congress.*_


----------



## robbo203 (May 15, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> Let's get concrete. Here is the list of reform demands of one of Militant's candidates in the recent General Election. It happens to be their member Paul Crouchman standing as a TUSC candidate in Spelthorne but could have been any of the others:Which of these are "transitional" and which are ordinary reforms? As far as I can see none have any potential to go beyond capitalism. They are all common or garden reforms. In fact many involve returning to a state of affairs that used to exist under capitalism in Britain. How is "demanding" them, or even struggling for them, going to further the cause of socialism?



I think the list speaks for itself. Not one single item on it can be said to be linked to the "stuggle for socialism" or aids its realisation in any meangful way.  Militant stand not for socialism but for state capitalism which they have simpy redefined as "socialism"  In an earlier post PT said this

_Where do we shy away from calling for socialism, for a "moneyless, wageless socialist commonwealth"? We state clearly in every publication that we stand for this. What we try to do is to add substance to this, to make this abstract aim relevant to working people_

Perhaps he might care to provide a link to substantiate this claim.  I can see no evidence for this. 

I checked out the Respect Party site as well.  Same story.  Its just a reformist wishlist. 

These people are no threat to capitalism whatsover.  Shunning what they call the "utopian" approach of spelling out clearly the revolutiuonary socialist alternative to capitalism, they give credence to bourgeois claims that there is no alternative to capitalism


----------



## robbo203 (May 15, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> Let's get concrete. Here is the list of reform demands of one of Militant's candidates in the recent General Election.



Ive just noticed that this site says these leaflets are published by the "Socialist party of Great Britain".  That surely is an error.  The SPGB would not support this reformist programme. I think they mean SPEW


----------



## Gravediggers (May 15, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> I think the list speaks for itself. Not one single item on it can be said to be linked to the "stuggle for socialism" or aids its realisation in any meangful way.  Militant stand not for socialism but for state capitalism which they have simpy redefined as "socialism"  In an earlier post PT said this
> 
> _Where do we shy away from calling for socialism, for a "moneyless, wageless socialist commonwealth"? We state clearly in every publication that we stand for this. What we try to do is to add substance to this, to make this abstract aim relevant to working people_
> 
> ...



Just had a scan through their site and although there are loads and loads of demands for reforms, etc, I failed to find the definition of socialism which Proper Tidy claimed was in all their publications.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 15, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Just had a scan through their site and although there are loads and loads of demands for reforms, etc, I failed to find the definition of socialism which Proper Tidy claimed was in all their publications.



Yes, publications, as in the weekly newspaper and the monthly magazine. On the back page of the paper, titled 'what we stand for'.

Only 70p if you want a copy, call it a pound and I'll post you one out.

Found this comment from 1988 on the SPGB:



> It has been fortunate in finding a biographer in Robert Baltrop, whose book The Monument is a truthful and warmly affectionate account of a group whose aggression and cantankerousness have placed a strain on the tolerance of most people who encounter them.



Seems you haven't changed much. Is the whole 'aggressive and cantankerous' thing an actual strategy then? I just thought you lacked social skills.


----------



## robbo203 (May 15, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Just had a scan through their site and although there are loads and loads of demands for reforms, etc, I failed to find the definition of socialism which Proper Tidy claimed was in all their publications.




Likewise. Its an incredibly wishy washy jumble of ideas.  One thing Ive noticed with a lot of these state capitalist leftists is that they tend counterpose capitalism to something that they call a "planned economy".  As if capitalism does not entail planning.  Every capitalist business has plans.  The leftist idea of "socialism" is that all these plans need to be coordinated through (or dissolved within) society wide planning which implies of course a single Leontief type mega plan embracing all the inputs and outputs of production.  The idea of course is ludicrously impractical and logistically out of the question but if you accept this verdict what becomes of the distinction between a planned economy and capitalism?  Capitalism also entails planning so there must be something *other *than the banal term"planning" to distinguish socialism and capitalism.  The state capitalist Left are loathe to tell us what this is in clear forthright terms and one must wonder why this is.

Incidentally you may perhaps want to alert comrades in the SPGB about a website which cites the SPGB as the publisher of certain leaflets when it is clearly not. See my previous post


----------



## robbo203 (May 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Seems you haven't changed much. Is the whole 'aggressive and cantankerous' thing an actual strategy then? I just thought you lacked social skills.



Interesting comment from someone whose response to argument is to call his opponents numpties and fools


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 15, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> _*Congress elects a National Committee, which in turn elects an Executive Committee of around a dozen or so members which runs the party on a day-to-day basis. Peter Taaffe is general secretary, and Hannah Sell deputy general secretary. In 2007 the Socialist Party Executive Committee of ten or eleven has a majority of women members. Areas of responsibility for the executive apart from the development of general policy matters are various campaigning roles, such as NHS, workplace and youth campaigns, together with editorial responsibilities for The Socialist, Socialism Today and other issues such as finance raising.
> 
> The Socialist Party argues that its method of elections to the National Committee does not promote individuals, but instead is conceived as the selection of a rounded-out team, including both experienced as well as young or less experienced but promising members, together with members from the trade unions and youth and other aspects of the Socialist Party's work. Each geographical region of the Socialist Party is felt to be in need of inclusion. In general, the Executive Committee, after a period of discussion with regional representatives, presents to the National Committee its "slate" or list of members selected from all aspects of work of the party. After any amendments from the National Committee, this list is proposed by the outgoing National Committee to the annual congress.*_


I don't know where you dug this up from, but it's the organisational structure of all Trotskyist groups : the outgoing Executive Committee or whatever presents a slate selected by them which the membership has to accept in full or reject in full. So the ruling body is a self-selected and self-perpetuating elite. (The same method was applied to select the members of the Politburo of the CPSU, so the Trotskyists have inherited something from the days when Trotsky was a member of the government there).

Image trade unions choosing their executive committees in this way! In fact I don't understand why the trade union militants they have recruited, especially members of unions' executive committees, elected democratically, put up with this. But it confirms my view that Leninism is in fact a _lower_ stage of political consciousness than the trade union consciousness that Lenin derided. The working class, left to itself, has evolved democratic organisational forms way in advance of those practised by their would-be leaders.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yes, publications, as in the weekly newspaper and the monthly magazine. On the back page of the paper, titled 'what we stand for'.



Had another look and still can't find it.  This lack of prominence and availability makes me wonder why this is?  Other posters have suggested that the more involvement with reforms, demands, etc, inevitably places the revolutionary aim of socialism on the back burner.  It most certainly looks that this is a trueism?

Would appreciate a copy, or a direct link  here.


----------



## dylans (May 15, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Had another look and still can't find it.  This lack of prominence and availability makes me wonder why this is?  Other posters have suggested that the more involvement with reforms, demands, etc, inevitably places the revolutionary aim of socialism on the back burner.  It most certainly looks that this is a trueism?
> 
> Would appreciate a copy, or a direct link  here.



I think there is something to this. It becomes a cult of action and the focus on building the party and putting forward demands intended to move the working class towards revolutionary conclusions etc becomes something of a substitute for any attempt to define what the envisaged workers state will be. 
Will it be a one party state with the party interests defined as synonymous with the working class? Within the ruling party, will factions be encouraged or even tolerated without the ever present threat of a bullet in the cellar? Will genuine instruments of workers control and workers power ie soviets be allowed to function above and beyond the control of the party? Will alternative parties and independent workers  be allowed to stand for soviet and trade union elections? What happens if workers vote against the party? 

All these questions are blurred and consumed within the language of action and struggle and we know the reason for that. See my thread on Kronstadt to see how the Leninist party envisages its dictatorship of the proletariat. In practice it becomes nothing more than the dictatorship of the party elite.


----------



## robbo203 (May 15, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Just had a scan through their site and although there are loads and loads of demands for reforms, etc, I failed to find the definition of socialism which Proper Tidy claimed was in all their publications.




The thing is they do define what they call "socialism" but it has absolutely sod all to do with the "moneyless wageless socialist commonwealth" PT claims they advocate.  I ve scoured their site for some mention of this but found nothing.  The "socialism" that they strand for is clearly state capitalism.  They advocate the retention of wage labour and call for no cuts in basic pay.  All very well but its not socialism.  

They also refer to a system of so called "socialist" planning thus

_It would be necessary to draw up a plan, involving the whole of society, on what industry needed to produce._.

Society wide planning as this is called is an absolutely ludicrous idea.  The belief that you can somehow incorproate the millions upon millions of inputs and outputs relating to any lind of modern system of production into one matrix is just economically illiterate.  Its just not possible and this does not even take account of the fact that variables are constantly changing meaning you would have to constantly overhaul the plan all the time.  There would be many more people trying to do this in the central planning office than would actually be working!

The thing is that if you accept society wide planning is not possible then you cannot then claim that it is "planning" that distinguishes socialism from capitalism.  Capitalism too is full of plans. Every business has a plan.  So what exactly is the difference between capitalism and socialism if not "planning". Ive pressed PT on this point but as yet have had no answer

Of course Proper Tidy will not come out and say what this difference is because he knows his party does not define socialism as a moneyless wageless commonwealth.  He needs to recognise that his party stands for state capitalism and nothing more and this quite obvious from its call for widespread nationalisations.


----------



## robbo203 (May 15, 2010)

I see this site is still confusing the SPGB with Militant

http://www.thestraightchoice.org/parties/socialist_party_of_great_britain_[the]

Check under leaflets of other parties.  Didnt the SPGB have an elction leaflet in Vauxhall


----------



## butchersapron (May 15, 2010)

Great picture of dannysp on his way to vote. Looks like he's had a shave as well.


----------



## two sheds (May 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Great picture of dannysp on his way to vote. Looks like he's had a shave as well.



You're in danger of making fun of  the working class there


----------



## butchersapron (May 15, 2010)

The workers do not do humour. That is a capitalist whirligig.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 15, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Had another look and still can't find it.  This lack of prominence and availability makes me wonder why this is?  Other posters have suggested that the more involvement with reforms, demands, etc, inevitably places the revolutionary aim of socialism on the back burner.  It most certainly looks that this is a trueism?
> 
> Would appreciate a copy, or a direct link  here.



I've told you GD, if you want a copy of the paper it'll be a pound. PM me your address and I'll post it out, or you can subscribe. Call it a fiver a month and you'll get the magazine too,. Winner.

Btw, the what we stand for appears in every paper, magazine and book.

This is it, here.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I've told you GD, if you want a copy of the paper it'll be a pound. PM me your address and I'll post it out, or you can subscribe. Call it a fiver a month and you'll get the magazine too,. Winner.
> 
> Btw, the what we stand for appears in every paper, magazine and book.
> 
> This is it, here.



Thanks for that.


----------



## ernestolynch (May 15, 2010)

Is nomoney still alive?


----------



## sihhi (May 15, 2010)

whichfinder said:


> The SPGB beat the trotskyist candidate in Vauxhall so what does that tell us about the arguments put forward by *Proper Tidy* and others concerning day-to-day demands?
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/e83.stm



Wow! Post of the election cycle 2010! In fact perhaps post of the year!


----------



## robbo203 (May 16, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I've told you GD, if you want a copy of the paper it'll be a pound. PM me your address and I'll post it out, or you can subscribe. Call it a fiver a month and you'll get the magazine too,. Winner.
> 
> Btw, the what we stand for appears in every paper, magazine and book.
> 
> This is it, here.




And does the "what we stand for" say anything about a  "moneyless wageless socialist commonwealth"? Nope.  Thought not.  All it advocates is essentially state capitalism


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2010)

I don't want a moneyless wageless socialist commonwealth. Now what?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 16, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> And does the "what we stand for" say anything about a  "moneyless wageless socialist commonwealth"? Nope.  Thought not.  All it advocates is essentially state capitalism



Deary me. Does it not get a little bit boring, constantly repeating the same handful of mantras over and over again? If you say 'moneyless wageless' enough times will the revolution cometh?

We refer to socialism in every publication - "a democratic society run for the needs of all and not the profits of a few".


----------



## robbo203 (May 16, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Deary me. Does it not get a little bit boring, constantly repeating the same handful of mantras over and over again? If you say 'moneyless wageless' enough times will the revolution cometh?
> 
> We refer to socialism in every publication - "a democratic society run for the needs of all and not the profits of a few".



That could just as easily be said by the Labour Party or the young liberals.  When it comes down to specifics you clearly state that you stand for nationalisation of the top 150 companies and other state capitalist measures.  You clearly envisage the retention of money and wages in your so called socialist society.  I mention this only becuase you were the one who made the claim that your sect frequently referred to the need for a "moneyless wageless socialist commonwealth" in your publications.  (See post 423 in which you say _Where do we shy away from calling for socialism, for a "moneyless, wageless socialist commonwealth"? We state clearly in every publication that we stand for this _)  When pressed for evidence as usual you cannot give any.


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2010)

It doesn't matter *what* you stand for. You're human paste.


----------



## robbo203 (May 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I don't want a moneyless wageless socialist commonwealth. Now what?




You are completely at liberty not to want it.  Nobody is forcing you to want it and its certainly not something that can be imposed on people from above.  There now.  Happy?


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> You are completely at liberty not to want it.  Nobody is forcing you to want it and its certainly not something that can be imposed on people from above.  There now.  Happy?



I'm a worker. What's going on? Why am i missing it?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I'm a worker. What's going on? Why am i missing it?



You are all ways missing it, without fail.


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2010)

Help me then.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Help me then.



I'll try.  The struggle for a socialist society has to be voluntary it is a set of social relationships which cannot be forced upon people.  Same as the people living in Afganistan and Iraq have little understanding of the principles of democracy their reaction is a foregone conclusion they will reject it.  The same thing will happen if socialism is forced or imposed by a vanguard.

Workers have to understand that the principle framework of socialism is a society without money, common ownership of the means of living, free access to their needs, no state, no borders, no ruling class, etc.

You have given the impression here that you are aware of the party case for socialism.  So why do you ask?


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2010)

> The struggle for a socialist society has to be voluntary it is a set of social relationships which cannot be forced upon people


What 'set of social relationships' do you mean?


----------



## ernestolynch (May 16, 2010)

In what way are these boys different from the annekisseds though?


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 16, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> In what way are these boys different from the annekisseds though?


Somebody thought they weren't.


----------



## robbo203 (May 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What 'set of social relationships' do you mean?



I think Butchers knows all this.  Ive twigged that he is actually an _agent provocateur_ and all this veering between naff insults and dumbed down workerism is just a cunning ruse.  Yep, he's actually the SPGB's number 1 fan and a drinking buddy of Cde Buick. You cant fool me , Butchers


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (May 16, 2010)

I saw the SPGB at an election hustings, right bunch of nutters. The bloke from the platform was a classic. Started off by reading out a newspaper article from the SPGB paper from 1914 then went on to answer every question with the answer that it's all capitalism's fault. Which, of course, it is, but I think people were looking for something a tad more nuanced.

Came across as an utter crank to be honest. I see they are also ruining the p&p bulletin boards.


----------



## robbo203 (May 16, 2010)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I saw the SPGB at an election hustings, right bunch of nutters. The bloke from the platform was a classic. Started off by reading out a newspaper article from the SPGB paper from 1914 then went on to answer every question with the answer that it's all capitalism's fault. Which, of course, it is, but I think people were looking for something a tad more nuanced.
> 
> Came across as an utter crank to be honest. I see they are also ruining the p&p bulletin boards.



See, this is what really gets up my nose - Airy pompous generalisations writing of the SPGB as a "right bunch of nutters".  You talk about being looking for something  "a tad more nuanced".  *Well how about applying that same observation to your own comments*.  

You evidently dont know much about the SPGB.  On the basis of a single encounter you feel entitled to express this arrogant opinion of them.  Ive known the SPGB for years and while I have one or two criticisms of their case (touched on earlier in this thread) they are far from being what you make them out to be.  Your comments say more about you than they ever do about the SPGB.

As a general observation, I would say that people who criticise the SPGB with snidey off-the-shelf remarks of this kind make the fatal mistake of assuming that the SPGB is some kind of monolithic organisation populated by clones.  It is not. It is a remarkably diverse organisation with a healthy and vibrant internal debate going on all the time.  And unlike most other the organisatioms the SPGB is not afraid to hang its dirty washing out on the line and is scrupulously democratic  about doing just that


----------



## JWH (May 16, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Airy pompous generalisations writing of the SPGB as a "right bunch of nutters".


Not sure you can make as earthy and colloquial an expression as "right bunch of nutters" out to be "pompous".

And as for


> You evidently dont know much about the SPGB. On the basis of a single encounter you feel entitled to express this arrogant opinion of them


Well - you know - hustings are an occasion to reach out to people who might not have heard of you and wouldn't otherwise encounter you. You - and especially minor parties that can't buy ads on Facebook and Youtube - only get a single shot to interest people. 

A candidate is a representative of the party - if in the course of representing the party they come across as an "utter crank", then people are entitled to think that the party consists of utter cranks, don't you think? I assume that if the poster had said "I was really impressed by his answers, the SPGB came across as a bunch of visionary geniuses", you'd hardly be jumping in to say "oh, that's just a generalisation based on a single encounter, some of us are real bellends". 

I notice you're also not disputing the factual accuracy of the account or suggesting that reading old newspaper articles and blaming everything on capitalism would be an unusual or unfortunate thing for an SPGB person to do...


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 16, 2010)

JWH said:


> I notice you're also not disputing the factual accuracy of the account or suggesting that reading old newspaper articles and blaming everything on capitalism would be an unusual or unfortunate thing for an SPGB person to do...



One of them quoted a Communist Party east end branch report from 1947 the other day so probably not unusual


----------



## robbo203 (May 16, 2010)

JWH said:


> Not sure you can make as earthy and colloquial an expression as "right bunch of nutters" out to be "pompous".
> 
> And as for
> 
> ...



I can no more verify the factual accuracy of this account than can you=  -though I strongly suspect that the SPGB speaker did or said rather more than this individual let on and the account is highly exaggerated for dramatic effect.  How reading from an old newpaper article makes one a "nutter" I leave you to fathom and if One-Stop-Shop bothered to find out he would soon discover that the SPGB arguments are a tad more nuanced than just "blaming everything on capitalism".

However the main thrust of my argument was that on the basis of one single encounter this individual feels entitled to dismiss the SPGB as a  "right bunch of nutters".  Even assuming for the sake of argument that the behaviour of the SPGB speaker in question was eccentric, you cannot legitimately extrapolate from this to reach a conclusion about the nature of the organisation itself.  You ask if someone said the SPGB was a bunch of visionary genuines would I demur.  Too right I would!


There is a general point to be made here that the arguments and ideas of an organisation have to be seen and considered separately from the character and quirks of the  protagonists in question which in the SPGB's case are as varied as the membership itself.  Its just sheer irrational prejudice otherwise.  I reject the main political parties as capitalist organisations that help to reinforce a despicable social system but I am sure there are many decent  and well meaning folk in all of them.

Its the ideas that count, not the personalities of the mannerisms of the people who promote them


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (May 16, 2010)

> See, this is what really gets up my nose - Airy pompous generalisations writing of the SPGB as a "right bunch of nutters". You talk about being looking for something "a tad more nuanced". Well how about applying that same observation to your own comments.
> 
> You evidently dont know much about the SPGB. On the basis of a single encounter you feel entitled to express this arrogant opinion of them. Ive known the SPGB for years and while I have one or two criticisms of their case (touched on earlier in this thread) they are far from being what you make them out to be. Your comments say more about you than they ever do about the SPGB.
> 
> As a general observation, I would say that people who criticise the SPGB with snidey off-the-shelf remarks of this kind make the fatal mistake of assuming that the SPGB is some kind of monolithic organisation populated by clones. It is not. It is a remarkably diverse organisation with a healthy and vibrant internal debate going on all the time. And unlike most other the organisatioms the SPGB is not afraid to hang its dirty washing out on the line and is scrupulously democratic about doing just that



How was what I said pompous? That's how the bloke came across, and it wasn't just my observation but everyone else in the meeting. You could tell people just ended up feeling sorry for him in the end, and not because of his character (although he did seem a little bit of an odd job), but because of the political answers he was giving that seemed totally out of touch and off the wall. Also as he was the SPGB candidate for the local election I'm assuming the SPGB had a little thought about who they chose for the election, and it's either the case that he reflected, in general, the SPGBs politics or that the SPGB have an extremely strange selection process. But as all the other members giving out a free paper after the meeting came across in exactly the same way, I'm assuming it's not the selection process. I mean reading out an article from 1914 (with totally outdated language), is hardly likely to engage people at a local election hustings, and neither, by the way, is blaming workers and the people in the audience for the situation we are in.

You're right I don't know much about the SPGB, but JHE is right. Hustings are one of the few opportunities you have to reach out to a wider audience, and in this case the SPGB came across as a bunch of nutters. And I'm not talking about this individuals character but the way he explained the SPGBs politics and their answers to the questions that were being asked at the hustings. Rather than blame me for this, you should talk to them about why that's the case.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (May 16, 2010)

> Its the ideas that count, not the personalities of the mannerisms of the people who promote them



Exactly and the ideas came across as totally off the wall. I've heard plenty of socialists speak and the best ones relate those ideas to people's every day lives and experiences. This bloke just sounded totally abstract, patronising, reptitive and tedious. And the SPGB picked him as their election candidate.


----------



## robbo203 (May 16, 2010)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> How was what I said pompous? That's how the bloke came across, and it wasn't just my observation but everyone else in the meeting. You could tell people just ended up feeling sorry for him in the end, and not because of his character (although he did seem a little bit of an odd job), but because of the political answers he was giving that seemed totally out of touch and off the wall. Also as he was the SPGB candidate for the local election I'm assuming the SPGB had a little thought about who they chose for the election, and it's either the case that he reflected, in general, the SPGBs politics or that the SPGB have an extremely strange selection process. But as all the other members giving out a free paper after the meeting came across in exactly the same way, I'm assuming it's not the selection process. I mean reading out an article from 1914 (with totally outdated language), is hardly likely to engage people at a local election hustings, and neither, by the way, is blaming workers and the people in the audience for the situation we are in.
> 
> You're right I don't know much about the SPGB, but JHE is right. Hustings are one of the few opportunities you have to reach out to a wider audience, and in this case the SPGB came across as a bunch of nutters. And I'm not talking about this individuals character but the way he explained the SPGBs politics and their answers to the questions that were being asked at the hustings. Rather than blame me for this, you should talk to them about why that's the case.




This demonstrates exactly the point i was making.  Instead of "critically examing the "political answers he was giving", telling us *why *you thought they were "totally out of touch and off the wall", you prefer instead to resort to self indulgent ad hominens and ridicule.  The SPGB are summarily dismissed as a "bunch of nutters" when, by your own admission, you dont know much about them.  Like we are really supposed to be persuaded by such hearsay.  This is what I find so irritatingly arrogant.  I wonder if you can even recall what the article was about which may have been highly relevant to the meeting in question for all I know.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 16, 2010)

I love the way that the SPGB being irrelevant and having a bad image is somehow everybody else's fault


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> This demonstrates exactly the point i was making.  Instead of "critically examing the "political answers he was giving", telling us *why *you thought they were "totally out of touch and off the wall", you prefer instead to resort to self indulgent ad hominens and ridicule.  The SPGB are summarily dismissed as a "bunch of nutters" when, by your own admission, you dont know much about them.  Like we are really supposed to be persuaded by such hearsay.  This is what I find so irritatingly arrogant.  I wonder if you can even recall what the article was about which may have been highly relevant to the meeting in question for all I know.




*Why* does no one care?


----------



## robbo203 (May 16, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I love the way that the SPGB being irrelevant and having a bad image is somehow everybody else's fault



I love the way, when pressed to back up your claim that your (state capitalist)  party "does not shy  away from calling for socialism, for a "moneyless, wageless socialist commonwealth"  but states "clearly in every publication that we stand for this" , can produce no evidence whatsoever in support.  I think the irrelevance of what you party stands for to socialism is  pretty apparent by now.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 16, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> I love the way, when pressed to back up your claim that your (state capitalist)  party "does not shy  away from calling for socialism, for a "moneyless, wageless socialist commonwealth"  but states "clearly in every publication that we stand for this" , can produce no evidence whatsoever in support.  I think the irrelevance of what you party stands for to socialism is  pretty apparent by now.


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> I love the way, when pressed to back up your claim that your (state capitalist)  party "does not shy  away from calling for socialism, for a "moneyless, wageless socialist commonwealth"  but states "clearly in every publication that we stand for this" , can produce no evidence whatsoever in support.  I think the irrelevance of what you party stands for to socialism is  pretty apparent by now.


----------



## robbo203 (May 16, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


>




Talking of "relevance", what the hell has this got to do with anything I said?  I guess youve run out of words by the look of things.  "Intellectual" and "bankrutpcy" are two words that spring to mind which you might wish mull over.


Who are these geezers anyway, eh?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 16, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Talking of "relevance", what the hell has this got to do with anything I said?  I guess youve run out of words by the look of things.  "Intellectual" and "bankrutpcy" are two words that spring to mind which you might wish mull over.
> 
> 
> Who are these geezers anyway, eh?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 16, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I love the way that the SPGB being irrelevant and having a bad image is somehow everybody else's fault



What is irrelevant and having a bad image is typical assertions like this.  If the SPGB are irrelevant and have a bad image how do you explain the reasoning behind you putting up this thread.  Indeed, one can assume you thought that what the SPGB have to say is totally relevant despite the style or image it portrays.  

The truth is the SPGB arguments for a socialist revolution are in total opposition to what Trotskyist's like yourself espouse and found them to be fatally flawed in relation to relevance and image.  In both instances they are historically outdated in due to them being based on a stage in history which no longer appertains.  

For instance, despite observations to the contrary Trotskyist's insist on projecting the dictatorship of the proletariat has the image of the future.  Their reasoning being it is going to be a dictatorship of democracy!  And you expect the workers to be taken in by this hogwash.  Dream on!


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 16, 2010)




----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2010)

You're sick gd.

It's not funny when clowns like you front for the case - with spgb approval.


----------



## JWH (May 17, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> The SPGB are summarily dismissed as a "bunch of nutters" when, by your own admission, you dont know much about them.


OK - how many times should s/he listen to an SPGB candidate reading newspaper articles from 1914 and giving unhelpful answers before s/he is allowed to dismiss them as a crank?

Aren't you essentially arguing that the SPGB shouldn't be judged by its representatives?


----------



## robbo203 (May 17, 2010)

JWH said:


> OK - how many times should s/he listen to an SPGB candidate reading newspaper articles from 1914 and giving unhelpful answers before s/he is allowed to dismiss them as a crank?
> 
> Aren't you essentially arguing that the SPGB shouldn't be judged by its representatives?



I am interested in what was actually said rather than than who or how it was said. That's my point.  Capitalist politics is essentially the triumph of style over substance and observations about the SPGB such  as have been made on this thread typically reflect this.  Reading from a newspaper article does not make you a "nutter" particularly if the theme was pertinent - though we were not told what the article was about , merely the fact that it was read, which really says it all for me and suggests a somewhat narrow-minded inflexible conservative view of politics - that it has got to conform to a particular style or convention.  In any case, as I said, you dont judge the perspective of an organisation by the mannerisms of one individual, nor can you generalise from that one individual, the mannerisms of others in the organisation.  

This whole thing, it seems to me, reflects an unhealthy focus on personalities  within capitalist politics and the undemocratic concept of leadership. Like it really matters that Cameron or Clegg or Brown are suave, adept at argument, decisive and strong willed.  The hell it does.  Capitalism imposes its own requirements on whoever attempts to administer it and this is one of many insights the SPGB has brought to UK politics


----------



## frogwoman (May 17, 2010)

To be honest every single person from the SPGB I've seen who's ever posted on here or who I've ever met on demos has been a complete fucking loon.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 17, 2010)

Proper 
> Tidy;10662347 said:
			
		

>


Is 
> this a photo you would consider more appropriate to modern conditions?
> 
> 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



> 
> Or maybe this old geezer:
> 
> 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



>


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> To be honest every single person from the SPGB I've seen who's ever posted on here or who I've ever met on demos has been a complete fucking loon.



That's what's annoying me - my experience has been the exact opposite.


----------



## frogwoman (May 17, 2010)

I have looked at their website and they do have some worthwhile things to say - and i can't believe that ALL members of the spgb are like this given what you said about them ... but they are really shooting themselves in the foot here


----------



## JWH (May 17, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Capitalist politics is essentially the triumph of style over substance and observations about the SPGB such  as have been made on this thread typically reflect this...suggests a somewhat narrow-minded inflexible conservative view of politics - that it has got to conform to a particular style or convention.


Does this explain why the SPGB does so abysmally at elections - it wants to compete in the capitalist electoral circus but doesn't want to learn how to juggle?

Or is just that the "particular style or convention" of not being a crank, loon or nutter an unreasonable stretch for the SPGB?


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I have looked at their website and they do have some worthwhile things to say - and i can't believe that ALL members of the spgb are like this given what you said about them ... but they are really shooting themselves in the foot here



It's absurd isn't it? There are other SPBG members on here who don't do this stuff though - i've been on their wsm emalil discussion list for 10+ years now, and have had many a good debate. They're really not all like this.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 17, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


>



You'll notice Peter Taaffe isn't dressed as an Edwardian though. Mind you, it is an, ahem, unusual shirt.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 17, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> To be honest every single person from the SPGB I've seen who's ever posted on here or who I've ever met on demos has been a complete fucking loon.



I can only assume from such assertions that you have a compulsion for looking at yourself in a mirror?  However, I suspect that every encounter with the SPGB has been a put down for Troskyism which also questioned your class consciousness and political identity?  A constant state of denial is not good for your emotional wellbeing, perhaps you need a diagnoses?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 17, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I can only assume from such assertions that you have a compulsion for looking at yourself in a mirror?  However, I suspect that every encounter with the SPGB has been a put down for Troskyism which also questioned your class consciousness and political identity?  A constant state of denial is not good for your emotional wellbeing, perhaps you need a diagnoses?



Here's a tip, GD.

Not everybody else is a Trot.


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I can only assume from such assertions that you have a compulsion for looking at yourself in a mirror?  However, I suspect that every encounter with the SPGB has been a put down for Troskyism which also questioned your class consciousness and political identity?  A constant state of denial is not good for your emotional wellbeing, perhaps you need a diagnoses?



Come and see the vanguardism inherent in the parties elevated consciousness.


----------



## dylans (May 17, 2010)

Just had a look at the SPGB website and I have a couple of questions.



> *It is dangerous and futile to follow those who support violence by workers against the armed force of the state*. Violent revolution has sometimes meant different faces in the capitalist class, always meant dead workers, and never meant the liberation of the working class. Unless workers organize consciously and politically and take control over the state machinery, including its armed forces, the state will be ensured a bloody victory.


So when the state uses force to arrest workers, break up strikes, shoot demonsrators and crush all opposition,(as it will),  how do you propose workers defend themselves? 



> Political democracy is the greatest tool (next to its labour-power) that the working class has at its disposal.* When the majority of workers support socialism, so-called "revolutionary" war will not be required.* The real revolution is for workers to stop following leaders, to start understanding why society functions as it does and to start thinking for themselves.



So you envisage socialism as possible without a fight for state power?  The workers organise politically and the state is expected to do what? Say "fair enough" and hand over power to the working class?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> It's absurd isn't it? There are other SPBG members on here who don't do this stuff though - i've been on their wsm emalil discussion list for 10+ years now, and have had many a good debate. They're really not all like this.



Butchers I totally agree with you that the WSM Forum is a different ball game to what you have on urban75  http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum.html .  On the WSM Forum the posters themselves, including yourself I suspect, will not tolerate the slagging off, insults, misquotes, constant assertions, deliberate, bullying, etc, which is a common feature on this board.  In fact the wsm moderator only steps in when necessary, for the posters have imposed their own style of self-discipline.  Which means in effect, butchers, you employ a different style of posting there than you do here.  Calling the kettle black in this respect I gather.

Having said that the SPGB membership is a microcosm of society at large and you would expect that to be reflected here.  We are well known for calling a spade a spade and this thread is not exactly a dinner party full of polite conversation, is it.  Grrrrr.


----------



## frogwoman (May 17, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I can only assume from such assertions that you have a compulsion for looking at yourself in a mirror?  However, I suspect that every encounter with the SPGB has been a put down for Troskyism which also questioned your class consciousness and political identity?  A constant state of denial is not good for your emotional wellbeing, perhaps you need a diagnoses?



how do you know if i'm a trotskyist or not?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 17, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> how do you know if i'm a trotskyist or not?



I don't but I assumed that given the past postings chucked at the SPGB by the followers of Trotskyism your bland assertion reflected a similar political affiliation.  If I assumed wrongly my apologies.

But my advice regarding your emotional wellbeing still stands.


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I don't but I assumed that given the past postings chucked at the SPGB by the followers of Trotskyism your bland assertion reflected a similar political affiliation.  If I assumed wrongly my apologies.
> 
> But my advice regarding your emotional wellbeing still stands.



You really don't know that you've been arguing with a single trotskysist? One.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 17, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I don't but I assumed that given the past postings chucked at the SPGB by the followers of Trotskyism your bland assertion reflected a similar political affiliation.  If I assumed wrongly my apologies.
> 
> But my advice regarding your emotional wellbeing still stands.



Hang on, me aside most of your critics have been anarchists/libertarian socialists (from what I can gather)


----------



## JWH (May 17, 2010)

I'm not sure if I qualify as a critic or just a guttersnipe, but if I can be certain about one thing: I'm not a Trotskyist.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 17, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Hang on, me aside most of your critics have been anarchists/libertarian socialists (from what I can gather)



And dennisr?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 17, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> And dennisr?



Two, then


----------



## Gravediggers (May 17, 2010)

JWH said:


> I'm not sure if I qualify as a critic or just a guttersnipe, but if I can be certain about one thing: I'm not a Trotskyist.



Good for you.  I appreciate such posts for its honesty on stating what your political affiliations are not.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 17, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Two, then



If I took the trouble to go back over the postings and done a thorough search on their user profiles I suspect I would find a few more.  But I'll take your word for it there are only two trots, at present on this thread.


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2010)

You really really won't.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 17, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> If I took the trouble to go back over the postings and done a thorough search on their user profiles I suspect I would find a few more.  But I'll take your word for it there are only two trots, at present on this thread.



I don't think you will, you know. But feel free to have a look.

Trots are in short supply on this forum, and tbh at least one of them is a mentalist.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 17, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> If I took the trouble to go back over the postings and done a thorough search on their user profiles I suspect I would find a few more.  But I'll take your word for it there are only two trots, at present on this thread.



I suspect _you_ might find a few more; but you'd be wrong...again.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## JWH (May 17, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> If I took the trouble to go back over the postings and done a thorough search on their user profiles I suspect I would find a few more.



Joe McCarthy would be proud.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 17, 2010)

dylans said:


> Just had a look at the SPGB website and I have a couple of questions.
> 
> Quote:
> It is dangerous and futile to follow those who support violence by workers against the armed force of the state. Violent revolution has sometimes meant different faces in the capitalist class, always meant dead workers, and never meant the liberation of the working class. Unless workers organize consciously and politically and take control over the state machinery, including its armed forces, the state will be ensured a bloody victory.
> ...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 17, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> If some of the capitalist class tried to take back the state machinery by violent means they would soon find out that the working class are the strongest army in the world.



The firmness of the assertion doesn't make it any less just an assertion, or any less dangerous; even a 'trot' wouldn't encourage this sort of potentially lethal day dreaming.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Gravediggers (May 17, 2010)

JWH said:


> Joe McCarthy would be proud.



Yes no doubt, but where the whitchfinder McCarthy tried to shut them up I want the trots to keep yakking away so they put their foot in it every time and without fail.  And for a very good reason:  The more they look the fools the more possibility of recruits for true socialism.  urban75 you have got a fan for life - why pay for adverts when you have this tool at your disposal to spot the apologists for capitalism.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 17, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I don't think you will, you know. But feel free to have a look.
> 
> Trots are in short supply on this forum, and tbh at least one of them is a mentalist.



Let me guess who that is?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 17, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Yes no doubt, but where the whitchfinder McCarthy tried to shut them up I want the trots to keep yakking away so they put their foot in it every time and without fail.  And for a very good reason:  The more they look the fools the more possibility of recruits for true socialism.  urban75 you have got a fan for life - why pay for adverts when you have this tool at your disposal to spot down the apologists for capitalism.



If it's Trotskyists you want, then U75 isn't you're best bet. If on the other hand you're trying to cover your embarrassment at not being able to judge posters' political leanings, then  you're still wide of the mark. 

Louis MacNeice

p.s. what is 'spotting down'?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 17, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Let me guess who that [mentalist] is?



If there's any truth in the old adage, 'takes one to know one', then you should be able to spot them; or even 'spot them down'.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (May 17, 2010)

> This demonstrates exactly the point i was making. Instead of "critically examing the "political answers he was giving", telling us why you thought they were "totally out of touch and off the wall", you prefer instead to resort to self indulgent ad hominens and ridicule. The SPGB are summarily dismissed as a "bunch of nutters" when, by your own admission, you dont know much about them. Like we are really supposed to be persuaded by such hearsay. This is what I find so irritatingly arrogant. I wonder if you can even recall what the article was about which may have been highly relevant to the meeting in question for all I know.



It doesn't demonstrate your point at all, and this isn't about this blokes personality (odd though it was). It was the fact that he had no idea of how to put across the ideas of socialism. He either just repeated time after time that it was capitalisms fault, blamed workers and the audience for that fact, used totally out of date language and backed this up by reading an anti-war article from 1914 when asked about the Iraq and Afghan wars. It may well be that the article had valid points in it but it was written in such out of date language that any points were almost entirely lost. He then failed to relate this article at all to the present day and just sat back and said "see, nothings changed, it's capitalism". The room wasn't fall of trotskyists (although there may have been a few), it was just ordinary people and he totally failed to get anything across and made socialism look like an abstract and totally out of date philosophy.

As he was the SPGB election candidate, don't you think that is worrying? Am I not allowed to comment on how the SPGBs politics came across at this meeting, if that's the case, why bother let your election candidate turn up at all?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 17, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> The firmness of the assertion doesn't make it any less just an assertion, or any less dangerous; even a 'trot' wouldn't encourage this sort of potentially lethal day dreaming.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Of course they wouldn't because they know its not day dreaming and has the potential to rebound on their prized muddle thinking that dictatorship equals democracy.  That is assuming of course if the trots decided to join forces with a minority of capitalists and attempted to overcome by violent means a politically conscious working class.  Who incidentally are in the majority.

Quite possible in my estimate, especially when you take a look at the history of Trotskyism who are well known for taking sides in many of the worlds conflicts and power struggles.


----------



## dylans (May 17, 2010)

> The quote you cite is a reference to the use of violence to bring about socialism. Whereas your question refers to a totally different scenario. Going by what you describe I presume we are looking at a scenario where the workers are in the process of becoming a class for itself by using the ballot box and other means, strikes, demos, etc, to make their feelings known to the population?
> 
> And therefore gained reasonable support from wider society, but correct me if I'm wrong. This being the case we would expect this support to be reflected amongst the workers within the state machinery, who include the armed forces. However, IMO such a scenario as you describe is premature to say the least and unlikely to occur with a politically conscious working class who will take the route of the least amount of resistance



I'm talking about a situation where class struggle has reached a point where the question "who rules" is being asked. In such a situation workers will have siezed or be fighting to sieze and control of the means and tools of production and the organisational institutions of the state. Democratic organisations created by the workers themselves will be fighting for control of industries and state institutions. Demonstrations and protests, strikes and occupations s will be widespread as workers use the most effective weapons available to them. Armed defence militias created of  by and under the control of workers and created during the process of struggle, will be pitched against the armed might of the state. Demands will be made that simply can't be delivered without the ruling class giving up power. So the ruling classes will fight. 

In this situation it is naive and utopian to expect the organs of the state to be passive or to simply fold and come over to the side of the workers. Sure, in such a situation whole sections of the police and military may come over or refuse to shoot etc but you can be damn sure that a significant section won't. And how do we know? Because there has never been a situation where the ruling class give up without a fight. 



> when the workers decide to take the state under its control there is little the capitalist class can do about it


That is absurdly naive. They can drown it in blood


> No we don't "envisage socialism as possible without a fight for state power" - that is exactly what using the ballot box means.



No it is exactly what the ballot box doesn't mean. The electoral process is not a weapon that can be used for the siezure of state power. It is an mechanism to provide an escape valve for discontent and a tool to spin the illusion of democratic participation. 

When electoral participation threatens to seriously challenge the interests of ruling elites the response is repression. 
This is not abstract, turn on your TV and watch the news from Bangkok. There, the demands by the urban and rural poor for electoral transparency are being answered with bullets. 

Let's say you were a Thai member of the SPGB right now, in Bangkok. What would you say to those on the streets. That they have no chance and should go away and preach abstract ideals of socialism to their friends until they are convinced?  Or would you build barracades and handout  weapons, send out delegates to workers calling for solidarity strikes, appeal to low ranking troops and police to rebel, call for uprisings in other parts of the country etc.

What would you say to them?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 17, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> If it's Trotskyists you want, then U75 isn't you're best bet. If on the other hand you're trying to cover your embarrassment at not being able to judge posters' political leanings, then  you're still wide of the mark.
> 
> Louis MacNeice
> 
> p.s. what is 'spotting down'?



Just a typo and my attempt not to be too harsh on on them.


----------



## dannysp (May 17, 2010)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I saw the SPGB at an election hustings, right bunch of nutters. The bloke from the platform was a classic. Started off by reading out a newspaper article from the SPGB paper from 1914 then went on to answer every question with the answer that it's all capitalism's fault. Which, of course, it is, but I think people were looking for something a tad more nuanced.
> 
> Came across as an utter crank to be honest. I see they are also ruining the p&p bulletin boards.



The hustings meeting You've referred to here was organised by the Stop the War Coalition, so it was thought appropriate to to read the SPGB's editorial on the outbreak of WW1, which illustrated the cause of that conflict and that workers were being encouraged to lay down their lives in the interests of their respective ruling classes. It called the war "the business war" and was not worth the sacrifice "of one drop of workers blood" At the end of piece the candidate said, referring to the present conflicts in Afghanistan etc, "same carnage, same reasons for carnage". Now I think that's a pretty reasonable method of making a point when addressing a meeting organised by those who seek to stop war, it also demonstrates the SPGB's consistent attitude towards war.
In a following post you called the SPGB approach "patronizing", it's unfortunate that you found it so, but for some it's unavoidable because the SPGB refuses to lead anyone therefor we have to treat workers as they must be if we are to emancipate ourselves, as adults, as grown up, capable of living and thinking for ourselves.
As for nuance, we do broad brushstroke, primary colours and leave it to the critical thinking and imagination of our fellow workers to bring their own nuances.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 17, 2010)

dannysp said:


> The hustings meeting You've referred to here was organised by the Stop the War Coalition, so it was thought appropriate to to read the SPGB's editorial on the outbreak of WW1, which illustrated the cause of that conflict and that workers were being encouraged to lay down their lives in the interests of their respective ruling classes. It called the war "the business war" and was not worth the sacrifice "of one drop of workers blood" At the end of piece the candidate said, referring to the present conflicts in Afghanistan etc, "same carnage, same reasons for carnage". Now I think that's a pretty reasonable method of making a point when addressing a meeting organised by those who seek to stop war, it also demonstrates the SPGB's consistent attitude towards war.
> In a following post you called the SPGB approach "patronizing", it's unfortunate that you found it so, but for some it's unavoidable because the SPGB refuses to lead anyone therefor we have to treat workers as they must be if we are to emancipate ourselves, as adults, as grown up, capable of living and thinking for ourselves.
> As for nuance, we do broad brushstroke, primary colours and leave it to the critical thinking and imagination of our fellow workers to bring their own nuances.



Well done Danny; smug, lazy, ignorant and patronising all in one post. Do you do hustings?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2010)

Third persons creeping in there as well. This is quality:



> but for some it's unavoidable because the SPGB refuses to lead anyone therefor we have to treat workers as they must be if we are to emancipate ourselves,



treat 'em up real good boss.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 17, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Of course they wouldn't because they know its not day dreaming and has the potential to rebound on their prized muddle thinking that dictatorship equals democracy.  That is assuming of course if the trots decided to join forces with a minority of capitalists and attempted to overcome by violent means a politically conscious working class.  Who incidentally are in the majority.
> 
> Quite possible in my estimate, especially when you take a look at the history of Trotskyism who are well known for taking sides in many of the worlds conflicts and power struggles.



You're a complete fantasist aren't you?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 17, 2010)

dannysp said:


> The hustings meeting You've referred to here was organised by the Stop the War Coalition, so it was thought appropriate to to read the SPGB's editorial on the outbreak of WW1, which illustrated the cause of that conflict and that workers were being encouraged to lay down their lives in the interests of their respective ruling classes. It called the war "the business war" and was not worth the sacrifice "of one drop of workers blood" At the end of piece the candidate said, referring to the present conflicts in Afghanistan etc, "same carnage, same reasons for carnage". Now I think that's a pretty reasonable method of making a point when addressing a meeting organised by those who seek to stop war, it also demonstrates the SPGB's consistent attitude towards war.
> In a following post you called the SPGB approach "patronizing", it's unfortunate that you found it so, but for some it's unavoidable because the SPGB refuses to lead anyone therefor we have to treat workers as they must be if we are to emancipate ourselves, as adults, as grown up, capable of living and thinking for ourselves.
> As for nuance, we do broad brushstroke, primary colours and leave it to the critical thinking and imagination of our fellow workers to bring their own nuances.



Wow. Well done, I do believe you have set a new bench-mark.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 17, 2010)

dylans said:


> > I'm talking about a situation where class struggle has reached a point where the question "who rules" is being asked. In such a situation workers will have siezed or be fighting to sieze and control of the means and tools of production and the organisational institutions of the state. Democratic organisations created by the workers themselves will be fighting for control of industries and state institutions. Demonstrations and protests, strikes and occupations s will be widespread as workers use the most effective weapons available to them. Armed defence militias created of  by and under the control of workers and created during the process of struggle, will be pitched against the armed might of the state. Demands will be made that simply can't be delivered without the ruling class giving up power. So the ruling classes will fight.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## dannysp (May 17, 2010)

OK, the democratic route to revolution. 
As I see it. Communism/ Socialism is the best idea that we humans have developed, as in knowing itself to be the solution to the riddle of history, the end of prehistory, the end of a working class conditioned to be servile.
So first, at the risk of coming over as patronizing, we should know where the power in society lies, it's something that the capitalists are well aware of, it's with the working class, workers do everything necessary to reproduce capitalism day to day, workers therefor are irreplaceable, indispensable.
For capitalism to hold sway it must be seen by workers to be legitimate, it gains this legitimacy by allowing for elections to take place where workers are persuaded to vote for politicians who support capitalism, and in doing so, during the electoral process it lays on its back revealing its soft underbelly. It seems obvious to me that if you need to attack an enemy, and we do, the best place to attack is where the opponent has weakness, not strenth. The state is the public power of coercion, the monopoly of violence, so if we were to confront the state using armed force we'd be on a hiding to nothing, and in general workers loath violence and would be likely to sympathise with the state if a minority made use of it.
So again at the risk, this time of being all Utopian, what if workers in the future organised themselves within a political party, dare I say like the SPGB, with its idea of socialism without leaders proposing peaceful, democratic transformation of society, and that they become a minority of a size large enough to challeng the states legitimacy, that the state had to confront? What could the state do? It couldn't corrupt or disappear any leaders because there wouldn't be any. If it started banging up workers or suspending the democracy it claims to affirm, it reveals itself as the violent servant of its parasitic pay masters, and so looses in the eyes of workers the essential legitimacy needed for the continuance of class rule.  It's buggered if it does, buggered if it doesn't.
We don't need to resort to barricades and Molotov cocktails, of confrontation with the state on the streets, that's for those interested in a 1917 re-enactment event. It's purely means and ends, if we want to create a peaceful democratic society, we must use peaceful democratic means to do so.

In broad brushstroke.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 17, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You're a complete fantasist aren't you?



Would you be satisfied if I listed the worlds conflicts and power struggles where Trotskyist's have taken sides with a section of the capitalist class.  Can I have your permission to start with the great man himself or would you prefer a modern version?


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2010)

Start with Marx sure.


----------



## robbo203 (May 17, 2010)

dylans said:


> When electoral participation threatens to seriously challenge the interests of ruling elites the response is repression.



Dylans, 

With respect, I think your argument is somewhat ahistorical.  What I mean by this is that you are projecting into a hypothetical future situation in which there is a massive socialist movement of millions of members, the kind of circumstances and constraints that prevail today. You need to approach this question of capturing the state imaginatively and with an open mind.  

There might well be some violence by the state in the twilight period of capitalism.  As far as I know the SPGB doesnt not rule this out and GD or DannySP might like to confirm this.  However, its one thing to concede the possibility of violence, its another to base a revolutionary strategy on the premiss that the revolution will be violent.  *If you start from that premiss then it is far more likely that the state will use violence against you*.  There is an element of a self fulfilling prophecy in what you say. And if it comes to violence what then? You talk about "Armed defence militias" of workers  being pitched against the "armed might of the state" but , seriously, what chance does a workers milita have against a modern well equipped army?  We are not talking about 19th century barricades when there was admittedly much more of a level playing field.  To wilfully take on the state today is plainly suicidal.

I think we can all agree that it would be far better that a revolution be carried out peacefully than by violence.  What are the odds that a socialist revolution will be largely peaceful.  I actually think they are rather good myself.  The overthrow or implosion of state capitalism in Eastern Europe was very largely a peaceful affair.  The only possible exception was Romania if I remember correctly where one or two thousand people lost their lives.  Why did these state capitalist dictatorships collapse so easily and with such little resistance?  Quite simply becaue the regimes lost their authority to govern.
All governments, including dictatorships rely on the consent of the governed. When this goes their days are numbered.

It will be the same when capitalism nears its end. The cumulative build up of a socialist movement will irresistably alter the entire social climate of opinion.  Democratic ideas and forms of behaviour will be immensely strengthened and by the same token, anti-democratic ideas will wither and die out.  One cannot flourish in the same environment as the other.  In fact capitalist governments themsleves will not be immune to this shift in outlook but will change in response to it and in the direction that society as a whole is evolving.  Socialist ideas will seep everywhere including within the armed forces whose members will be more than likely to have friends or relatives who are socialists

This makes the prospect of violence less and less likely in my opinion as we approach the end of capitalism.  If the capitalist state really wanted to stop the socialist movement in its tracks *now *would be the time to do it - when the movement is still pitifully weak and fragmented.  When the movement is powerful and the writing is already on the wall it will simply be far too late to do anything about it


----------



## Gravediggers (May 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Start with Marx sure.



Yes even Marx sided with the capitalist class on occasion.  Most notably on Ireland and the American Civil War.  But I was referring to Trotsky himself with a touch of irony when bestowing the honour of great man on him.  Nothing great about ruthlessly murdering your fellow worker.


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2010)

I know what you were doing - i was undermining it.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I know what you were doing - i was undermining it.



No butchers you were trying to undermine and failed yet again.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 17, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Would you be satisfied if I listed the worlds conflicts and power struggles where Trotskyist's have taken sides with a section of the capitalist class.  Can I have your permission to start with the great man himself or would you prefer a modern version?



Knock yourself out. Perhaps you can give us another happy story about how you'll no doubt get a bullet in the head or banished to a far away land, as members of the WSM are persecuted for being the only pure socialist movement, just like in...err...


----------



## JWH (May 17, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Yes no doubt, but where the whitchfinder McCarthy tried to shut them up I want the trots to keep yakking away so they put their foot in it every time and without fail.  And for a very good reason:  The more they look the fools the more possibility of recruits for true socialism.  urban75 you have got a fan for life - why pay for adverts when you have this tool at your disposal to spot the apologists for capitalism.


Eh? Are you under the mistaken impression that Urban75 is a hub for Trots? And U75 has never bought ads for anything to my knowledge, least of all to attract or repel Trots. You're barking up the wrong tree entirely.


dannysp said:


> it was thought appropriate to to read the SPGB's editorial on the outbreak of WW1


Odd use of the passive voice there.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 18, 2010)

JWH said:


> Eh? Are you under the mistaken impression that Urban75 is a hub for Trots? And U75 has never bought ads for anything to my knowledge, least of all to attract or repel Trots. You're barking up the wrong tree entirely.



I've never held the impression that urban75 is a hub for trots, it is indeed a hub for everything which concerns the public.  And I welcome that for it enables joe public the opportunity to chat away as he pleases, and regardless whether or not the contribution is negative or positive.

When I referred to advertising I should have made it clearer that I was referring to advertising in newspapers where payment is demanded.  U75 is a public board with a considerable number of viewers observing particular threads which catch their eye.  In this respect U75 is a free advertising board.  And it is my intention to advertise true socialism whenever and wherever the opportunity arises.

The political affiliation or the apolitical views of the posters is immaterial to me.  If I spot an opportunity to put the case for socialism I shall do it.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 18, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I've never held the impression that urban75 is a hub for trots, it is indeed a hub for everything which concerns the public.  And I welcome that for it enables joe public the opportunity to chat away as he pleases, and regardless whether or not the contribution is negative or positive.
> 
> When I referred to advertising I should have made it clearer that I was referring to advertising in newspapers where payment is demanded.  U75 is a public board with a considerable number of viewers observing particular threads which catch their eye.  In this respect U75 is a free advertising board.  And it is my intention to advertise true socialism whenever and wherever the opportunity arises.
> 
> The political affiliation or the apolitical views of the posters is immaterial to me.  If I spot an opportunity to put the case for socialism I shall do it.



And can I just say what a cracking job you are doing, advertising true socialism. I reckon insulting, offending and patronising pretty much everybody, and if all else fails accusing them of being trots and culpable for every atrocity known to man, is definitely the way to go. All this advertising guff about appealing to people is just capitalist dogma, after all.

Keep up the good work, GD. I'm sure the masses reading this thread will be rushing to join the squeegees, you'll be deluged. Might even be worth making your contributions into a pamphlet.


----------



## JWH (May 18, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> U75 is a public board with a considerable number of viewers observing particular threads which catch their eye.  In this respect *U75 is a free advertising board*.  And it is *my intention to advertise true socialism* whenever and wherever the opportunity arises.



 Love it.


----------



## ernestolynch (May 18, 2010)

Who is the leader of the SPGB?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 18, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Who is the leader of the SPGB?



They don't have one, they have a ten man committee though, annual elections I think


----------



## robbo203 (May 18, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> And can I just say what a cracking job you are doing, advertising true socialism..



Which is more than can be said of your organisation PT. By the way, you still havent provided the link I asked for to back up your claim that your lot frequently referred to the need for a "moneyless wageless socialist commonwealth" in your publication.  I wonder why?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 18, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Which is more than can be said of your organisation PT. By the way, you still havent provided the link I asked for to back up your claim that your lot frequently referred to the need for a "moneyless wageless socialist commonwealth" in your publication.  I wonder why?



Could be because I long ago gave up trying to have an honest debate with you lot. You could call me a newly convinced impossibilist on this front.

Btw, my assertion was that we call for socialism (which would be, by definition, moneyless, wageless, stateless) in each and every publication.

But if you want to continue the debate, how about we refresh the subject a little? Perhaps you could explain why the SPGB don't oppose the far right or fascism? The will of the people or something, innit?

Also, you squeegees could perhaps do with a pamphlet on irony and sarcasm, seems to be a bit of a blind spot.


----------



## robbo203 (May 18, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Who is the leader of the SPGB?



There is no leader.  The concept of leadership is regarded by the SPGB as undemocratic.  There are party polls and conferences in which every member of the party has the right to vote.  There is an executive committee which manages the day to day business of the party in line with decisions laid down by the membership as a whole.  I think the SPGB is pretty much unique among political parties for the degree to which it is run along scrupulously democratic lines.  I can think of no other organisation that comes even close to matching it in this regard.  It is an extremely transperant organisation with everything being open to public scrutiny.  There is no such thing as a closed meeting in the SPGB.

SPGBers are renowned for speaking their own mind and, if this comes across occasionally as somewhat brusque and cantankerous , it does neverthless attest to a vibrant and healthy internal democracy.  Visit their internal forums if you need persuading.  If you think youve been the butt of some sarcastic comment from an SPGBer spare a thought for other members of the SPGB   It is an excellent place for assertiveness training!

But seriously, this is where all these snidey superficial comments we have heard about the SPGB on this thread go utterly and completely wrong.  People who make them know little or nothing about the SPGB.  It is far from being the kind of monolithic organisation populated by clones that it is made out to be.  For a small organisation it is very diverse.

I have one or two problems with certain aspects of its case which prevents me from being a member but that does not detract from the fact it is vastly more interesting and attractive than the mind-numbingly boring politics of leadership peddled by the conventional parties.  Thank christ the SPGB has not succumbed to the "Hello Magazine" weltanshauung of capitalist politics with it pathetic focus on the Camerons, Browns, Cleggs  and all the interchanegeable "suits" of this world which we , the bovine electorate, are expected to look up to and into whose hands we foolishly place our future. 

In the SPGB ironically, individuality is alive and well and flourishing.  In the massed ranks of the main capitalist parties it is dead husk.


----------



## robbo203 (May 18, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Could be because I long ago gave up trying to have an honest debate with you lot. You could call me a newly convinced impossibilist on this front.
> 
> Btw, my assertion was that we call for socialism (which would be, by definition, moneyless, wageless, stateless) in each and every publication..



You are not being honest here.  Your organisation clearly envisages socialism to be a society with money and wages - *read *the link you gave! - and if you think (rightly) that by definition, socialism would be  moneyless, wageless, stateless then perhaps it is time for you to hand in your resignation


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 18, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> You are not being honest here.  Your organisation clearly envisages socialism to be a society with money and wages - *read *the link you gave! - and if you think (rightly) that by definition, socialism would be  moneyless, wageless, stateless then perhaps it is time for you to hand in your resignation



It really doesn't. I appreciate nuance isn't your strong point but still.



> The Socialist Party fights for socialist change - a democratic society run for the needs of all and not the profits of a few. We also fight, in our day-to-day campaigning, for every possible improvement for working-class people.



Do you see what they do there?

We then put forward a set of demands.

You should really brush up on your socialist politics, Robbo. We are, lest you forget, a Marxist party. Ergo, we accept the Marxian aim of... a moneyless, wageless, stateless, democratic, socialist society.

Anyway - why don't you tell us more about why the SPGB don't oppose the far right or fascism?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 18, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Anyway - why don't you tell us more about why the SPGB don't oppose the far right or fascism?



I don't know where you picked up this nonsense from for clearly we are opposed to all capitalist ideologies.  Provide a link which makes your point.


----------



## moon23 (May 18, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> There is no leader.  The concept of leadership is regarded by the SPGB as undemocratic.  There are party polls and conferences in which every member of the party has the right to vote.  There is an executive committee which manages the day to day business of the party in line with decisions laid down by the membership as a whole.  I think the SPGB is pretty much unique among political parties for the degree to which it is run along scrupulously democratic lines.  I can think of no other organisation that comes even close to matching it in this regard.  It is an extremely transperant organisation with everything being open to public scrutiny.  There is no such thing as a closed meeting in the SPGB.
> 
> SPGBers are renowned for speaking their own mind and, if this comes across occasionally as somewhat brusque and cantankerous , it does neverthless attest to a vibrant and healthy internal democracy.  Visit their internal forums if you need persuading.  If you think youve been the butt of some sarcastic comment from an SPGBer spare a thought for other members of the SPGB   It is an excellent place for assertiveness training!
> 
> ...



I think the main capitalist parties might outnumber you a bit in terms of membership.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2010)

Where haver the SPGB posters and their fellow traveller got the impression that they're viewed as sort of battle hardened political warriors from? Do they really genuinely believe that they've got a reputation for fiercely speaking their mind and attacking political shibboleths? It's madness.


----------



## moon23 (May 18, 2010)

dylans said:


> I'm talking about a situation where class struggle has reached a point where the question "who rules" is being asked. In such a situation workers will have siezed or be fighting to sieze and control of the means and tools of production and the organisational institutions of the state. Democratic organisations created by the workers themselves will be fighting for control of industries and state institutions. Demonstrations and protests, strikes and occupations s will be widespread as workers use the most effective weapons available to them. Armed defence militias created of  by and under the control of workers and created during the process of struggle, will be pitched against the armed might of the state. Demands will be made that simply can't be delivered without the ruling class giving up power. So the ruling classes will fight.
> 
> In this situation it is naive and utopian to expect the organs of the state to be passive or to simply fold and come over to the side of the workers. Sure, in such a situation whole sections of the police and military may come over or refuse to shoot etc but you can be damn sure that a significant section won't. And how do we know? Because there has never been a situation where the ruling class give up without a fight.
> 
> ...



Get a Job.


----------



## moon23 (May 18, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Where haver the SPGB posters and their fellow traveller got the impression that they're viewed as sort of battle hardened political warriors from? Do they really genuinely believe that they've got a reputation for fiercely speaking their mind and attacking political shibboleths? It's madness.



Battle hardened from fighting the SWP for the best paper pitch maybe.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Battle hardened from fighting the SWP for the best paper pitch maybe.



They're a million times better than you.


----------



## moon23 (May 18, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> They're a million times better than you.



At losing deposits maybe.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 18, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I don't know where you picked up this nonsense from for clearly we are opposed to all capitalist ideologies.  Provide a link which makes your point.



From Wiki - perhaps not the most reliable of sources, admittedly.

I also notice Bridge Books, from my home town, have a book on yourselves. Any good? Got a few of thiers already, might look it up.



> Unlike other left groups the SPGB did not see fascism as a special threat to the working class. Rather than formulating it as the last refuge of capitalism organising to defend itself against the working class, the party's writers and speakers tended to view it as a particular type of reform movement. The two specific characteristics identified, though, were that it tended to be a form of national consolidation - unifying fragment nations such as Germany, Italy and Spain - and that it tended to have the mass support of the working class.[2]
> The party's theory made the working class the politically decisive class: thus if the working class supported fascism then fascism would prevail. Answers to letters in the Socialist Standard in the 1930s repeatedly made this point. Early writers noted what Benito Mussolini was able to do with the power of the state on his side, a part of a vindication of the SPGB's approach of the workers seizing control of the state. The SPGB, hence, declined to join anti-fascist fronts or to make a particular issue of anti-fascism



So anyway, what's your whole position on anti-racism and anti-fascism? Is it true that in a dictatorship your position would be to wait for the advent of parliamentary democracy rather than active resistance?


----------



## moon23 (May 18, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> From Wiki - perhaps not the most reliable of sources, admittedly.
> 
> I also notice Bridge Books, from my home town, have a book on yourselves. Any good? Got a few of thiers already, might look it up.
> 
> ...



What's the point of asking this question, it's completely hypothetical and pointless.  Rather than sitting around debating what a small leftist organisation might or might not do, you would be better off thinking about why these groups always bicker with each other.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 18, 2010)

moon23 said:


> What's the point of asking this question, it's completely hypothetical and pointless.  Rather than sitting around debating what a small leftist organisation might or might not do, you would be better off thinking about why these groups always bicker with each other.



Fuck off. As much as I've been irritated by the squeegees, I'd rather chat with them any day over you.


----------



## whichfinder (May 18, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> They don't have one, they have a ten man committee though, annual elections I think




Actually five men and five women at the moment   And yes, elections are held annually and the committee is always under the control of the membership not t'other way round.


----------



## JWH (May 18, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> They're a million times better than you.



Who is s/he?


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2010)

Just some lib-dem drifting into US style libertarianism.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (May 18, 2010)

> The hustings meeting You've referred to here was organised by the Stop the War Coalition, so it was thought appropriate to to read the SPGB's editorial on the outbreak of WW1, which illustrated the cause of that conflict and that workers were being encouraged to lay down their lives in the interests of their respective ruling classes. It called the war "the business war" and was not worth the sacrifice "of one drop of workers blood" At the end of piece the candidate said, referring to the present conflicts in Afghanistan etc, "same carnage, same reasons for carnage". Now I think that's a pretty reasonable method of making a point when addressing a meeting organised by those who seek to stop war, it also demonstrates the SPGB's consistent attitude towards war.
> In a following post you called the SPGB approach "patronizing", it's unfortunate that you found it so, but for some it's unavoidable because the SPGB refuses to lead anyone therefor we have to treat workers as they must be if we are to emancipate ourselves, as adults, as grown up, capable of living and thinking for ourselves.
> As for nuance, we do broad brushstroke, primary colours and leave it to the critical thinking and imagination of our fellow workers to bring their own nuances.



Wow that backs up what I was saying almost to a tee.

Also the canidate was called Daniel Lambert. Dannysp. Hmmmmmm.


----------



## TremulousTetra (May 18, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Fuck off. As much as I've been irritated by the squeegees, I'd rather chat with them any day over you.



 Thread started off so well, mainly because of you. But ^ is the way u75, internet forums, get's you.






			
				The Black Hand said:
			
		

> Though I agree that if these boards/U75 are anything to go by there is no hope. Selfish impotent nothingness rules here...



You seem like a decent socialist, stick with real people comrade.

Have a nice day.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (May 18, 2010)

By the way if the bloke who was the candidate is on here I would like to apologise for calling you an odd job. Whoever said it is right that I shouldn't get personal and I have no idea whether you are an odd job or not.

But I stick by all the political criticisms and the criticisms of how the politics came across i.e. outdated, abstract and patronising.


----------



## dylans (May 18, 2010)

I just think the SPGB are hopelessly utopian. As well as having absolutely nothing to say except abstract lectures on why human nature makes socialism possible. On wars and revolutions, strikes and battles, real struggles across the world they say nothing. 
In Bangkok they tell people to go home and become socialists. In greece they tell them to go home and erm, become socialists. That's it. Tell your friends to go home and become socialists. Read a pamphlet on on the abolishment of money. 
That's it. Then vote for them. 
Then when there is enough people we can have socialism.

Sorry guys.



> Arguments such as these were used to oppose the suffragettes


 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_Great_Britain



> During the Miner's Strike of 1984-5, the party walked a line between supporting the miners whilst simultaneously suggesting that they couldn't and wouldn't win


----------



## robbo203 (May 18, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> It really doesn't. I appreciate nuance isn't your strong point but still.
> 
> _The Socialist Party fights for socialist change - a democratic society run for the needs of all and not the profits of a few. We also fight, in our day-to-day campaigning, for every possible improvement for working-class people. _
> Do you see what they do there?
> ...



Either you are a bit slow on the uptake or you being delibereately obtuse.  I am well aware that SPEW claims to stand for a "democratic society run for the needs of all and not the profits of a few".  The Labour Party and the young liberal will no doubt say the same.  My  point really is about how you interpret this vague aim.  By itself this aim means very little

I looked through your "what we stand for" and nowhere - I repeat, nowhere -did  I see spelt out the "_marxian aim of a moneyless , wageless, stateless , democratic socialist society_".  On the contrary, there are plenty of references to various reformist demands which all imply the retention of money and the employment system.  You talk also about a "socialist government" which directly contradicts your claim that SPEW stands for a stateless socialist society.

I have asked you, not once, but many times for a simple statement from SPEW which shows clearly that it stands for a monyeless wageless stateless society.  Dont give me this bullshit about you being a marxist and therefore I am supposed to take it for granted that that you stand for this. Why are you so reluctant to put your money where your mouth is and produce a simple link or quote from any of your publications.  Is that too much to ask? Or could it be that you know full well you havent a leg to stand on.

As for your remark about the SPGB - dont be daft.  Of course the SPGB opposes fascism and the far right.  It opposes all organisations that support capitalism including the pseudo-marxist state capitalist Left such as SPEW


----------



## Gravediggers (May 18, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> From Wiki - perhaps not the most reliable of sources, admittedly.
> 
> I also notice Bridge Books, from my home town, have a book on yourselves. Any good? Got a few of thiers already, might look it up.



The wiki broad brush is OK.  There have been only two books on the SPGB.   Robert Barltrop wrote _*The Monument*_ which contains some factual errors but provides a feeling on the characters in the SPGB at the time.  If you come across a copy of this I would grab it because its no longer in print, and I do know there have been several enquiries on ebay. 

The other one is by Dave Perrin entitled *The Socialist Party of Great Britain: Politics, Economics and Britain's Oldest Socialist Party*.  This is the better one for understanding the party's position on many issues over the years.  If you are interested in purchasing a copy it maybe cheaper to get it from 52 Clapham High St rather than the bookseller.



> So anyway, what's your whole position on anti-racism and anti-fascism? Is it true that in a dictatorship your position would be to wait for the advent of parliamentary democracy rather than active resistance?



If I was to describe our position on racism and fascism I would be doing urban75 a disservice.  We have been opposed to both and over the years have written many attacks and analysis on the subject.   We have published two pamphlets on racism both out of print.  More recently, we published a pamphlet which combined an attack and analysis on the concept of race and the human nature versus human behaviour arguments: *Are we prisoners of our genes?*  This is available free online or can be purchased from 52 Clapham High St.

Dave Perrins' book has a chapter on Fascism, democracy and the Second World War.  We haven't published a pamphlet on fascism that I know of, but whenever its ugly head emerges out of the shadows aka the BNP you will find an article in the *Socialist Standard* relating to the most recent events.  We would dearly like to debate with the BNP so we have a vocal platform to destroy their pernicious drivel.   We are quite aware that such a debate will stoke the ire and anger of the left but our attitude is that the battle for ideas can only be won by punching very large holes in their arguments both in print and by vocal opposition.

Our position for class struggle in a dictatorship is that the struggle for democracy is the top priority for the working class and for socialists.  Our advice to socialists in such situations is to keep their heads down but to become involved if the opportunity arises, and they are clear that their involvement includes putting the socialist case.


----------



## dylans (May 18, 2010)

On  the Suffragettes



> In their cry for "equality" do not their methods betray them? *Every move on their part
> is an appeal not to sex equality but to sex fetishism.* Their tactics rely upon and appeal
> to the worship of sex. *They know that their sex gives them privileges before the
> magistrate and protects them from the usual police brutality,* and that *any strong
> ...



Wow


----------



## Gravediggers (May 18, 2010)

dylans said:


> I just think the SPGB are hopelessly utopian. As well as having absolutely nothing to say except abstract lectures on why human nature makes socialism possible. On wars and revolutions, strikes and battles, real struggles across the world they say nothing.
> In Bangkok they tell people to go home and become socialists. In greece they tell them to go home and erm, become socialists. That's it. Tell your friends to go home and become socialists. Read a pamphlet on on the abolishment of money.
> That's it. Then vote for them.
> Then when there is enough people we can have socialism.
> ...



According to this blinkered and tiresome assertion, "the SPGB have had nothing to say on wars, revolutions, strikes and battles, real struggles across the world they say nothing", one can only say that the poster totally ignores the historical record where the SPGB have had everything to say on the issues and problems of capitalism and those which confront the working class.

We are accused of telling the workers in Bangkok and Greece 'to go home and become socialists', when nothing could be further from the truth.  When such events occur our advice to the workers is clearly based on the question of; "Whose side are you on?'  

In this respect the workers in Bangkok are involving themselves in a power struggle between the different factions of the capitalist class.  In short workers are dying to further the interests of the Thai capitalists.  And in fact they should not go home but stay at home and let the capitalists fight it out amongst themselves.  

In Greece we have a totally different struggle taking place over the austerity measures the Greek government are imposing to pay of their debts to the international capitalists so that profits are maintained.  Like all struggles of this nature its essential the Greek worker recognise they are severely restricted and limited on what they can actually do in resisting any downward pressure on their conditions and standard of living.  

We have been here before and capitalism has the upper hand through the control of the state and the private ownership of the means of living.  However, regardless of this reality socialists urge the Greek workers to struggle and obtain any concessions that are possible.  In the meantime, socialists look forward to the day when their banners call for 'The abolition of the wages system'.   By staying at home the Greek workers are accepting defeat which in effect is an open invite to the politicians to impose further austerity measures.  Such inactivity is most certainly not in the interest of the workers.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 19, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> The wiki broad brush is OK.  There have been only two books on the SPGB.   Robert Barltrop wrote _*The Monument*_ which contains some factual errors but provides a feeling on the characters in the SPGB at the time.  If you come across a copy of this I would grab it because its no longer in print, and I do know there have been several enquiries on ebay.
> 
> The other one is by Dave Perrin entitled *The Socialist Party of Great Britain: Politics, Economics and Britain's Oldest Socialist Party*.  This is the better one for understanding the party's position on many issues over the years.  If you are interested in purchasing a copy it maybe cheaper to get it from 52 Clapham High St rather than the bookseller.
> 
> ...



It is the Dave Perrin book that is published by Bridge Books, Wrexham. Surprised me a bit, normally they just do local history - albeit often of a working class political nature.

So would I be correct in saying that you don't believe in campaigning against racism and fascism _specifically_ in any circumstances, but against capitalism as a whole? eg no differentiation between different forms of capitalism?

I found the last paragraph interesting - as much as I might criticise your positions, you are at least consistent in that you feel putting the case for socialism - and  only socialism, in its truest form - is the sole aim of socialists. Why is this not the case under a dictatorship? Why would you then switch to agitating for a capitalist parliamentary democracy? Seems peculiar. What about a monarchy - would you agitate for socialism or for capitalist parliamentary democracy in this instance? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (May 19, 2010)

dylans said:


> On  the Suffragettes



Sod 'em with their big hats, sashes and umbrellas.  There's a whole buried history of working class women fighting in labour struggles alongside and also sometimes against working class men at that time.  And those sent to prisons didn't have the middle class back-up to help stop their kids from going without food and shelter.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 19, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> It is the Dave Perrin book that is published by Bridge Books, Wrexham. Surprised me a bit, normally they just do local history - albeit often of a working class political nature.



Like advised check out the cheapest price before you add it too your library.  I have referred to it a number of times on this thread.



> So would I be correct in saying that you don't believe in campaigning against racism and fascism _specifically_ in any circumstances, but against capitalism as a whole? eg no differentiation between different forms of capitalism?



If you mean _campaigning_ through demo's, confrontations, disruption of meetings, etc, no we don't.



> I found the last paragraph interesting - as much as I might criticise your positions, you are at least consistent in that you feel putting the case for socialism - and  only socialism, in its truest form - is the sole aim of socialists. Why is this not the case under a dictatorship? Why would you then switch to agitating for a capitalist parliamentary democracy? Seems peculiar. What about a monarchy - would you agitate for socialism or for capitalist parliamentary democracy in this instance? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?



You haven't got the wrong end of the stick just not read what I wrote in regards to our consistency; *".... and they are clear that their involvement includes putting the socialist case".*  The same principle applies to a monarchy, in that we recognise the potential of capitalist parliamentary democracy becoming ammo for the workers the 'potential' only becomes a reality once the alternative of socialism is put in front of the workers with consistency.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 19, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Like advised check out the cheapest price before you add it too your library.  I have referred to it a number of times on this thread.



I noticed, just didn't realise it was published by Bridge Books. Got a lot of time for them, so may well get it. Will shop around for the price although as it happens a friend of a friend type thing means I usually get them cheap direct.



> If you mean _campaigning_ through demo's, confrontations, disruption of meetings, etc, no we don't.



So no then! Why is this, if I can ask? Purely in terms of propagandising socialism, do you not differentiate between capitalism in a parliamentary democracy and capitalism under an authoritarian ultra-nationalist/fascist regime? Of course I know you differentiate in real terms, I do mean purely from the point of view of achieving socialism.



> You haven't got the wrong end of the stick just not read what I wrote in regards to our consistency; *".... and they are clear that their involvement includes putting the socialist case".*  The same principle applies to a monarchy, in that we recognise the potential of capitalist parliamentary democracy becoming ammo for the workers the 'potential' only becomes a reality once the alternative of socialism is put in front of the workers with consistency.



Sorry, perhaps I'm slow on the uptake but I couldn't make head nor tail of this!


----------



## sihhi (May 19, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> We have been here before and capitalism has the upper hand through the control of the state and the private ownership of the means of living.  However, regardless of this reality socialists urge the Greek workers to struggle and obtain any concessions that are possible.  In the meantime, socialists look forward to the day when their banners call for 'The abolition of the wages system'. *By staying at home the Greek workers are accepting defeat which in effect is an open invite to the politicians to impose further austerity measures.  Such inactivity is most certainly not in the interest of the workers*.



This is excellent:- SPGB actively promote direct action in Greece. 

In what way will the SPGB support those who might be imprisoned in Greece. How will it act in Britain?


----------



## dylans (May 19, 2010)

Gravediggers you guys are out there. almost monastic in outlook, abstract preaching about utopia. 

Out of interest .When everyone makes an intellectual decision to live in a socialist stateless moneyless world society, and choose it through the ballot box, then we can have socialism. Until then all we can do is explain to people until they do. 

Then you guys get elected and then abolish money, Out of interest. Is this immediate? I mean do the workers decide they want socialism then just throw away their money and start giving each other things according to their needs and abilities etc. Thats what you are saying right.  ? No period  of building a classless society, just immediate socialism? 

Is that what you are saying?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 19, 2010)

dylans said:


> Gravediggers you guys are out there. almost monastic in outlook, abstract preaching about utopia.
> 
> Out of interest .When everyone makes an intellectual decision to live in a socialist stateless moneyless world society, and choose it through the ballot box, then we can have socialism. Until then all we can do is explain to people until they do.
> 
> ...



And remember nobody with a vested interest in continuing the present set up will be able to oppose the ballot. It's well intentioned day dreaming; it is also a dangerously blinkered, moth eaten, poorly taxidermied politics.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Gravediggers (May 19, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> .
> 
> So no then! Why is this, if I can ask? Purely in terms of propagandising socialism, do you not differentiate between capitalism in a parliamentary democracy and capitalism under an authoritarian ultra-nationalist/fascist regime? Of course I know you differentiate in real terms, I do mean purely from the point of view of achieving socialism.



We differentiate between parliamentary democracy and authoritarian ultra-nationalist/fascist regimes.  And subsequently our activities are in accordance with the circumstances individual socialists find themselves.  Until there is a substantial reaction towards the oppression of a authoritarian ultra-nationalist/fascist regimes there is little socialists can do.  Once this occurs socialists would become involved on the understanding their views can be put.

Quote:
You haven't got the wrong end of the stick just not read what I wrote in regards to our consistency; ".... and they are clear that their involvement includes putting the socialist case". The same principle applies to a monarchy, in that we recognise the potential of capitalist parliamentary democracy becoming ammo for the workers the 'potential' only becomes a reality once the alternative of socialism is put in front of the workers with consistency. [/QUOTE]



> Sorry, perhaps I'm slow on the uptake but I couldn't make head nor tail of this!



My fault I should have put it a bit clearer.  To us the workers need to recognise that parliamentary democracy offers the potential for bringing about socialism.  However, until this potential is expressed in socialist terms the possibilities of the potential becoming a reality remains hidden.  In effect the potential must be combined with an alternative.  I know I'm stating the obvious - but on times the obvious needs to be repeated to maintain consistency.  

What remains important to us is the struggle for democracy is very important, although its limitations are a constant burden, for those who desire fundamental changes.  Nonetheless, we take the idea of democracy a step further by proposing a participatory democracy as the political structure for socialism.


----------



## dylans (May 19, 2010)

> moth eaten, poorly taxidermied politics.



That's a perfect description..


----------



## dylans (May 19, 2010)

A good man though William. Did a nice bit of furniture.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 19, 2010)

dylans said:


> Then you guys get elected and then abolish money, Out of interest. Is this immediate? I mean do the workers decide they want socialism then just throw away their money and start giving each other things according to their needs and abilities etc. Thats what you are saying right.  ? No period  of building a classless society, just immediate socialism?
> 
> Is that what you are saying?



This is the bit I keep trying to understand. It's got me flummoxed. They reject entirely any notion of a transitionary period, so presumably, but then take umbrage with the suggestion they are utopian.

I don't get it.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 19, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> My fault I should have put it a bit clearer.  To us the workers need to recognise that parliamentary democracy offers the potential for bringing about socialism.  However, until this potential is expressed in socialist terms the possibilities of the potential becoming a reality remains hidden.  In effect the potential must be combined with an alternative.  I know I'm stating the obvious - but on times the obvious needs to be repeated to maintain consistency.
> 
> What remains important to us is the struggle for democracy is very important, although its limitations are a constant burden, for those who desire fundamental changes.  Nonetheless, we take the idea of democracy a step further by proposing a participatory democracy as the political structure for socialism.



Okay, I've got it now. So how come you recognise that reforms have a role to play in bringing about a necessary level of consciousness here, but not under parliamentary democracy? After all, the spectrum of parliamentary democracies is quite wide?


----------



## dylans (May 19, 2010)

Michael Foot described them as pure as milk. Not a bad compliment. I think they have the most integrity and honesty of all political organisations. Like I said, monastic.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 19, 2010)

dylans said:


> I think they have the most integrity and honesty of all political organisations.



That may be so; but I'm interested in what will work!


----------



## dylans (May 19, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> That may be so; but I'm interested in what will work!



Oh forget that.


----------



## dylans (May 19, 2010)

I read somewhere, Wiki maybe, that during some election campaign or other, the SPGB had written, in chalk on the pavement, "If you don't want socialism, don't vote for the SPGB".  

That's integrity. Nuts but honest.

On another demo an SPGB guy had a placard with "This demonstration is hopeless"


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 19, 2010)

dylans said:


> On another demo an SPGB guy had a placard with "This demonstration is hopeless"



Fair play, I like that!


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2010)

Breaking ranks by even being on the demo!


----------



## dylans (May 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Breaking ranks by even being on the demo!



I'm sure they were standing on the sidelines. 

Speakers corner is their spot with their speaking platform. In their past they had  a rep for producing superb orators. Though I never see them these days. 

They have a few quid though. (from 2007)



> The Metro today on p2 today had a story about political party funding. In the last quarter of last year it listed party's donations, the SPGB, receiving £166,000.



http://libcom.org/forums/organise/spgb-getting-166-000-3-months


----------



## DotCommunist (May 19, 2010)

So they have to compete with the bloke who rants about aliens stealing our women and the man ranting about AIDS being a creation of the government labs? Tough gig.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 19, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> So they have to compete with the bloke who rants about aliens stealing our women and the man ranting about AIDS being a creation of the government labs? Tough gig.



And Heiki Khoo - mind you, not sure he bothers any more since he got drummed out of Socialist Appeal. Shame, I've only caught speakers corner once and he was very good.


----------



## dennisr (May 19, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> So they have to compete with the bloke who rants about aliens stealing our women and the man ranting about AIDS being a creation of the government labs? Tough gig.



They have to compete with my mate - 'mr speakers corner' himself - Heiko Khoo.

http://www.speakerscorner.net
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heiko_Khoo



bugger - you beat me to it PT!...


----------



## dennisr (May 19, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> And Heiki Khoo - mind you, not sure he bothers any more since he got drummed out of Socialist Appeal. Shame, I've only caught speakers corner once and he was very good.



He's still going. He was my organiser and educator as a wee youth in pompey


----------



## Gravediggers (May 19, 2010)

sihhi said:


> This is excellent:- SPGB actively promote direct action in Greece.
> 
> In what way will the SPGB support those who might be imprisoned in Greece. How will it act in Britain?



We are not in the habit of telling the workers the specific activity appropriate to the day-to-day struggle.  If workers are imprisoned in Greece the SPGB will voice our support for them and individual socialists may help them best they can.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 19, 2010)

dennisr said:


> He's still going. He was my organiser and educator as a wee youth in pompey



Good to hear, don't know him myself but he's one of my 'facebook friends'. What's the score now then, freelance or back in the IMT fold?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 19, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> We are not in the habit of telling the workers the specific activity appropriate to the day-to-day struggle.  If workers are imprisoned in Greece the SPGB will voice our support for them and individual socialists may help them best they can.



Good for you GD; go on voice that support. You can feel a trenchant article coming on can't you?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Gravediggers (May 19, 2010)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Sod 'em with their big hats, sashes and umbrellas.  There's a whole buried history of working class women fighting in labour struggles alongside and also sometimes against working class men at that time.  And those sent to prisons didn't have the middle class back-up to help stop their kids from going without food and shelter.



Nice one.  The suffragettes generally ignored the plight of the working class women, despite the fact they welcomed their support in gaining the vote for women with property.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 19, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Nice one.  The suffragettes generally ignored the plight of the working class women, despite the fact they welcomed their support in gaining the vote for women with property.



What about the many suffragettes who were also active in the labour movement, the ILP, etc?


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Nice one.  The suffragettes generally ignored the plight of the working class women, despite the fact they welcomed their support in gaining the vote for women with property.



Hang on, it's very easy to attack the _votes for ladies, not women_ elements of the Suffragettes, their ignorance of the class nature of the situation and so on  - and people like Emma Goldman did - without descending into repressed rants about 'sex arrogance' and other ripperology. 

Is this really what Emile Pannekoek threw himself under the horse for?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 19, 2010)

dylans said:


> Gravediggers you guys are out there. almost monastic in outlook, abstract preaching about utopia.
> 
> Out of interest .When everyone makes an intellectual decision to live in a socialist stateless moneyless world society, and choose it through the ballot box, then we can have socialism. Until then all we can do is explain to people until they do.
> 
> ...



We do not envisage any such scenario.  With socialism gaining support we would expect the socialist working class preparing themselves for the eventual transformation of political power with a variety of activity taking place.  For instance, at this very moment the ECA Working Group is looking at the problems of calculating use value in socialist society.  Once we are nearer the point of no return we envisage an extension of public transport into free travel, either by the capitalists conceding the economic reality of  workers refusing to pay fares and the transport staff giving way to such demands.  Again another expectation is the extension of the free cycle project and the decline of ebay. 

There would also be a change in attitude towards implementing a resource based economy much on the lines presently being tackled by the ZM.  Our expectations in regards to countering the environmental damage caused by the continual growth of capitalism would also increase dramatically.

In effect we say the transistional period is taking place right now and gaining pace with every contradiction capitalism places in its path.  In Wales we already have free bus travel for the elderly and disabled, unfortunately it stops at the border.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2010)

You've been looking at that problem for a century+. Not sure i voted for you to do that on my behalf btw.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 19, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> What about the many suffragettes who were also active in the labour movement, the ILP, etc?



The point being?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 19, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> The point being?



Well, they weren't ignoring the plight of the working class then, were they? There are criticisms to be made of the movement, as butchers hit upon, but to dismiss the movement, particularly with the language of chauvinism, stinks of, well, chauvinism.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 19, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> We do not envisage any such scenario.  With socialism gaining support we would expect the socialist working class preparing themselves for the eventual transformation of political power with a variety of activity taking place.  For instance, at this very moment the ECA Working Group is looking at the problems of calculating use value in socialist society.  Once we are nearer the point of no return we envisage an extension of public transport into free travel, either by the capitalists conceding the economic reality of  workers refusing to pay fares and the transport staff giving way to such demands.  Again another expectation is the extension of the free cycle project and the decline of ebay.
> 
> There would also be a change in attitude towards implementing a resource based economy much on the lines presently being tackled by the ZM.  Our expectations in regards to countering the environmental damage caused by the continual growth of capitalism would also increase dramatically.
> 
> In effect we say the transistional period is taking place right now and gaining pace with every contradiction capitalism places in its path.  In Wales we already have free bus travel for the elderly and disabled, unfortunately it stops at the border.



But you also argue that the conditions for socialism already exist - yet here you are saying that we (or rather SPGB and the ZM) are in the _process_ of creating the conditions ("In effect we say the transistional period is taking place right now") - so which one is it?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 19, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> And remember nobody with a vested interest in continuing the present set up will be able to oppose the ballot. It's well intentioned day dreaming; it is also a dangerously blinkered, moth eaten, poorly taxidermied politics.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Louis many thanks for bringing such a point to my attention, despite the fact that wasn't your intention.  I notice you are quite apt at brushing your total ignorance under the carpet when it suits your haha mood.

In this instance, the post was in relation to when socialists constitute the majority.  And yes, "nobody with a vested interest in continuing the present set up will be able to oppose the ballot".  If you are of the opinion the opposite will occur is it possible for you to explain how they can do this?


----------



## dylans (May 19, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Nice one.  The suffragettes generally ignored the plight of the working class women, despite the fact they welcomed their support in gaining the vote for women with property.



The movement gave birth the class fighters too like Sylvia Pankhurst



> I wanted to rouse these women of the submerged masses to be, not merely the argument for more fortunate people, but to be fighters on their own account despising mere platitudes and catch cries, revolting against the hideous conditions about them, and demanding for themselves and their families a full share in the benefits of civilisation and progress." (Sylvia Pankhurst)


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 19, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Louis many thanks for bringing such a point to my attention, despite the fact that wasn't your intention.  I notice you are quite apt at brushing your total ignorance under the carpet when it suits your haha mood.
> 
> In this instance, the post was in relation to when socialists constitute the majority.  And yes, "nobody with a vested interest in continuing the present set up will be able to oppose the ballot".  If you are of the opinion the opposite will occur is it possible for you to explain how they can do this?



Louis can answer for himself but I would have thought that obvious. They could attempt to down the revolution in blood, could they not?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 19, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> But you also argue that the conditions for socialism already exist - yet here you are saying that we (or rather SPGB and the ZM) are in the _process_ of creating the conditions ("In effect we say the transistional period is taking place right now") - so which one is it?



The objective conditions exist in that an abundance is the reality.  However, at present we are not in the process of creating the conditions for socialism but planning for the transformation.  The actual creation of the conditions for socialism will take place when the workers are good and ready and satisfied the transformation will be as smooth has possible.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> The point being?



The point being that you approached class issues in terms of gender and you today applauding that approach. You bury class with an approach like that. You don't highlight it or emphasise its importance.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 19, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> The objective conditions exist in that an abundance is the reality.  However, at present we are not in the process of creating the conditions for socialism but planning for the transformation.  The actual creation of the conditions for socialism will take place when the workers are good and ready and satisfied the transformation will be as smooth has possible.



So what if the workers decide to crack on with the revolution before you and the Zeitgest Movement have finished your studies?


----------



## dylans (May 19, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Louis can answer for himself but I would have thought that obvious. They could attempt to down the revolution in blood, could they not?



Of course not, because the majority would want it. There is no historical example of the ruling class slamming down the iron fist on a movement that threatened its existance.

Oh, Pinochet.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 19, 2010)

dylans said:


> Of course not, because the majority would want it. There is no historical example of the ruling class slamming down the iron fist on a movement that threatened its existance.
> 
> Oh, Pinochet.



The events in Chile were not about socialism but about reforms.  This assertion don't quite fit the picture.  Try again.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2010)

What's it like to live outside of history?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 19, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> So what if the workers decide to crack on with the revolution before you and the Zeitgest Movement have finished your studies?



It wont just be us and the Zeitgeist Movement who will be planning for the transformation of political power, there will be groups in all walks of life who will be developing their ideas on how to make the revolutionary process as smoothly has possible.  So in effect they will be cracking on with the revolution.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 19, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Louis can answer for himself but I would have thought that obvious. They could attempt to down the revolution in blood, could they not?



Just let them try and they will soon find out they have taken on more than they can chew.


----------



## dylans (May 19, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Just let them try and they will soon find out they have taken on more than they can chew.



Only if we are prepared to hit back


----------



## dylans (May 19, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> The events in Chile were not about socialism but about reforms.  This assertion don't quite fit the picture.  Try again.



Chile showed what happens when entrenched class interests are seriously threatened.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 19, 2010)

dylans said:


> Only if we are prepared to hit back



I've already stated that socialists are not pacifists.  For myself I would welcome a reason for taking the bastards out.  And I know a lot more like me.  If they do decide to use violence under such circumstances I see no alternative other than to offer them conditions of surrender and if they persist with violence they will be made to suffer the bloody consequences.  Too right!

But I doubt, given my age if I will have the opportunity to vent my anger .  Also after giving it some thought IMO a violent reaction is going to be very small scale.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 19, 2010)

dylans said:


> Chile showed what happens when entrenched class interests are seriously threatened.



Quite true, but unlikely to happen when a socialist majority is on the cards.


----------



## dylans (May 19, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Quite true, but unlikely to happen when a socialist majority is on the cards.



Hey Gravediggers. Am I correct to assume that you guys hold up William Morris as an inspiration. ?
I came across him when I was a student a long time ago. Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't his thing about art in labour, that if something can't be made with joy and quality then it shouldn't be made? 
How do you square this idea (if it is indeed an idea held by the SPGB) with producing on a mass scale things that people want. 

I respect Morris but I never envisioned his ideas as anything but impossible on anything beyond a very small scale such as groups of craftsmen etc

Also doesn't the likes of Morris envisage people doing this now, I mean producing art in labour, setting up workshops and craft groups etc. Why dont the SPGB do this. (or do they?)


----------



## dannysp (May 19, 2010)

dylans said:


> I'm sure they were standing on the sidelines.
> 
> Speakers corner is their spot with their speaking platform. In their past they had  a rep for producing superb orators. Though I never see them these days.
> 
> ...



Then you need tour eyes tested! I,ll be there from around 10am till about 4pm,
Come and say hello.


----------



## dylans (May 19, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Then you need tour eyes tested! I,ll be there from around 10am till about 4pm,
> Come and say hello.



Not tested. I'm rarely in London that's all. But I assure  you next time i am in London i will take the opportunity to come and listen


----------



## Gravediggers (May 19, 2010)

dylans said:


> Not tested. I'm rarely in London that's all. But I assure  you next time i am in London i will take the opportunity to come and listen



Give him a PM and he will be sure to make an appearance, health permitting.


----------



## dylans (May 19, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Give him a PM and he will be sure to make an appearance, health permitting.



What about yourself. Do  you go in for a bit of oratory yourself?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 19, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Then you need tour eyes tested! I,ll be there from around 10am till about 4pm,
> Come and say hello.



Ah so you were the PPC for Vauxhall then?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 19, 2010)

dylans said:


> Hey Gravediggers. Am I correct to assume that you guys hold up William Morris as an inspiration. ?
> I came across him when I was a student a long time ago. Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't his thing about art in labour, that if something can't be made with joy and quality then it shouldn't be made?
> How do you square this idea (if it is indeed an idea held by the SPGB) with producing on a mass scale things that people want.
> 
> ...



William Morris gave over 500 talks in about a year and it left him exhausted and IME was a significant contribution to his early death.  So no in that respect we don't find him inspiring, but find it much more relaxing, enjoyable and interesting by taking a more leisurely pace so to speak.  Not that the other half would agree!

We admire Morris for what he had to say and how he put it in fact his, 'How we live and how we might live' provides an excellent analysis and explanation on what we've got and what we can get.  Copy from 52 Clapham High St. 

Yes Morris did envisage producing art in labour, not sure whether or not if he thought it possible in capitalism and it was made available for the workers.  Yes members of the SPGB have been known to be involved with art workshops and craft groups.  Not sure about now though.  I do know quite a few who are advice workers and support workers with the homeless, etc.  Which I use to do before I retired.


----------



## dylans (May 19, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> William Morris gave over 500 talks in about a year and it left him exhausted and IME was a significant contribution to his early death.  So no in that respect we don't find him inspiring, but find it much more relaxing, enjoyable and interesting by taking a more leisurely pace so to speak.  Not that the other half would agree!
> 
> We admire Morris for what he had to say and how he put it in fact his, 'How we live and how we might live' provides an excellent analysis and explanation on what we've got and what we can get.  Copy from 52 Clapham High St.
> 
> Yes Morris did envisage producing art in labour, not sure whether or not if he thought it possible in capitalism and it was made available for the workers.  Yes members of the SPGB have been known to be involved with art workshops and craft groups.  Not sure about now though.  I do know quite a few who are advice workers and support workers with the homeless, etc.  Which I use to do before I retired.



Morris is famous for his wall paper patterns of course but as I recall he produced furniture and stained glass windows etc too. I remember reading his novel news from nowhere. I liked his stuff and respect him as an artist


----------



## dannysp (May 19, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Ah so you were the PPC for Vauxhall then?



Yep, that was me, and so?


----------



## dylans (May 19, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Yep, that was me, and so?



No need to be so defensive DannyD.


----------



## dannysp (May 19, 2010)

dylans said:


> No need to be so defensive DannyD.



Defensive, moi!


----------



## dannysp (May 19, 2010)

sihhi said:


> This is excellent:- SPGB actively promote direct action in Greece.
> 
> In what way will the SPGB support those who might be imprisoned in Greece. How will it act in Britain?



We will support those workers in Greece by doing our best to bring the class struggle to a conclusion.
What will you be doing?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 19, 2010)

dylans said:


> Morris is famous for his wall paper patterns of course but as I recall he produced furniture and stained glass windows etc too. I remember reading his novel news from nowhere. I liked his stuff and respect him as an artist



His wallpaper and textiles cost a bomb.  Luckily I have a 4x6 ft of a print of his on my bed wall.  This symbolic representation does help when I have a restless night.


----------



## dylans (May 19, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> His wallpaper and textiles cost a bomb.  Luckily I have a 4x6 yd of a print of his on my bed wall.  This symbolic representation does help when I have a restless night.



I would expect nothing less


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 19, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Yep, that was me, and so?



Nah, just asking. Read your blog as it happens. Political differences aside, fair play for standing.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 19, 2010)

dylans said:


> What about yourself. Do  you go in for a bit of oratory yourself?



Naturally, time, health and interest permitting.  The last time I was down Speakers Corner was about 3 years ago.


----------



## dannysp (May 19, 2010)

dylans said:


> Gravediggers you guys are out there. almost monastic in outlook, abstract preaching about utopia.
> 
> Out of interest .When everyone makes an intellectual decision to live in a socialist stateless moneyless world society, and choose it through the ballot box, then we can have socialism. Until then all we can do is explain to people until they do.
> 
> ...



Hi Dylans
You have the bare bones there, but let's put some flesh on 'em. I doubt it'll be everyone, but it will have to be an overwhelming majority large enough to overwhelm capitalism, and only through making use of the the ballot can we demonstrate not only to the opposition but also to ourselves that we have the power of the majority with us, that way we are not going to risk taking over prematurely. With workers legitimately in control of the state, the coercive arms of the state cannot be used against us and can be used against those that might try to subvert with violence the democratic decision.
This "you guys" bit has got us all wrong, as the old Kraut said "The emancipation of the working class has to be the work of the working class itself" All we do in WSM is offer information, analysis, a proposition, and a democratic organisation that does its best to prefigure the kind of democracy needed in Socialist society, that treats all its members as equals.
As for abandoning money, producing solely to meet needs and from each according to ability to each according to need, well it's in our interests surely? All the work/toil need to reproduce capitalism day to day requires a huge amount of social effort, we have to have banking, insurance, taxation, advertising, money lending, debt collecting, the law, police, prisons, armed forces, a military industrial complex, stock exchanges, pensions, charities, weights and measures, customs and excise, trading standards, independent financial advisers and on and on. All of this effort essential to the running of capitalism produces not one gram of usable wealth, no food, clothing or shelter, no medicine, education, art, music, dance sport, drama, no literature, all it does is reproduce capitalism. William Morris said in his day that it was more expensive to sell something than it was to make, I reckon today it's four times more expensive but that's me. Anyway what this means irrefutably is that we are so busy taking care of business, and a parasitic class we don't have the time to take care of ourselves.
It has to be like this, before we can have Socialism we have to have socialists, humans who have figured out who they are and know what they want. Humans who are prepared to shoulder the duties and responsibilities needed to bring about the new society, maintain and develop it.
Simply, if nobody works, nobody lives, if we all work well, everybody lives well. It aint astrophysics is it?

I've had to dash this off a bit quick, hope you get the gist.


----------



## dannysp (May 19, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Give him a PM and he will be sure to make an appearance, health permitting.



It's weather permitting GD not me 'elf.


----------



## dannysp (May 19, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Nah, just asking. Read your blog as it happens. Political differences aside, fair play for standing.



Thanks PT.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (May 19, 2010)

> Yep, that was me, and so?





Sorry for being so harsh earlier, didn't agree with the way you put across stuff politically and don't think it did much for getting socialist ideas across to a wider audience but there was no need for some of the comments I made. If what you were saying is reflective of the SPGB I really don't get it though.



> Political differences aside, fair play for standing.



I agree with that.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 19, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Louis many thanks for bringing such a point to my attention, despite the fact that wasn't your intention.  I notice you are quite apt at brushing your total ignorance under the carpet when it suits your haha mood.
> 
> In this instance, the post was in relation to when socialists constitute the majority.  And yes, "nobody with a vested interest in continuing the present set up will be able to oppose the ballot".  If you are of the opinion the opposite will occur is it possible for you to explain how they can do this?



So when 51% of the population are convinced by the case for socialism then the other 49% will just go 'ok then you've won, let's give it a go'. You're lucky that this sort of ahistorical gets a 'haha mood' in response. 

Louis MacNeice


----------



## dannysp (May 19, 2010)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Sorry for being so harsh earlier, didn't agree with the way you put across stuff politically and don't think it did much for getting socialist ideas across to a wider audience but there was no need for some of the comments I made. If what you were saying is reflective of the SPGB I really don't get it though.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with that.



Under the bridge.


----------



## dannysp (May 19, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So when 51% of the population are convinced by the case for socialism then the other 49% will just go 'ok then you've won, let's give it a go'. You're lucky that this sort of ahistorical gets a 'haha mood' in response.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



"The chief advantage that would result from the establishment of Socialism is, undoubtedly, the fact that Socialism would relieve us from that sordid necessity of living for others which, in the present condition of things, presses so hardly upon almost everybody. In fact, scarcely any one at all escapes".

Oscar Wilde,  Soul of man under Socialism.


----------



## moon23 (May 19, 2010)

dannysp said:


> "The chief advantage that would result from the establishment of Socialism is, undoubtedly, the fact that Socialism would relieve us from that sordid necessity of living for others which, in the present condition of things, presses so hardly upon almost everybody. In fact, scarcely any one at all escapes".
> 
> Oscar Wilde,  Soul of man under Socialism.



The problem is that regulation of individuals will become dominated on bureaucratic power structures . Attempts to trade, harvest resources or partake in any meaningful economic activity will be restricted by a set of rules governing people. Either endless committees discussing everything whilst nothing is done or individuals seizing power under some collective authority for their own ends.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 19, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So when 51% of the population are convinced by the case for socialism then the other 49% will just go 'ok then you've won, let's give it a go'. You're lucky that this sort of ahistorical gets a 'haha mood' in response.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Louis I do not know how to thank you enough for you have made my day in posting one of my favourite questions to which I will give my best effort.

What composes the majority at the ballot box and in a socialist society, seems to be the question you are asking?  I doubt very much whether 51% of the vote is going to be a sufficient majority for socialists for they will not be making a fetish of the parliamentary process, but thinking ahead after the ballot has been counted.  

There are two primary reasons for this: 1. It is easy to say you support socialism by placing an X on the spot, but its far harder to come out of the closet and actually do something of a positive nature to make socialism actually work in practice.   2. Has I explained earlier socialist will be looking for the least line of resistance and planning to make the transformation as smooth has possible.  Part of this planning will consist of calculating the actual workforce required to produce the means of living, besides re-organising  the redundant workforce who were previously involved in buying and selling into productive activity.  A calculation will have to be made on the total workforce necessary to bring this revolutionary state of affairs about.

Once you have this figure then you will have a fair idea on what the majority will actually consist of.  Being a democratic and not know what the conditions and circumstances will be at the transformation from capitalism to socialism the actual decision on whether there is a sufficient majority - to make socialism work in practice - will be made by the workers themselves.  I'm sure they will make the right decision(s).


----------



## sihhi (May 19, 2010)

> The problem is that regulation of individuals will become dominated on bureaucratic power structures



That's capitalism and capitalist law.



> Attempts to trade, harvest resources or partake in any meaningful economic activity will be restricted by a set of rules governing people.



Those are the rules of state capitalism.

[/QUOTE]*Either endless committees discussing everything whilst nothing is done or individuals seizing power under some collective authority for their own ends.*[/QUOTE]

These are the committees for company boardrooms, parish meetings, council audit development committee consultation meetings all the way up to Parliament.

Business has already stolen power under its collective authority to "run the economy for the good of the nation".

Do you consider yourself a capitalist, moon23?


----------



## moon23 (May 19, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Louis I do not know how to thank you enough for you have made my day in posting one of my favourite questions to which I will give my best effort.
> 
> What composes the majority at the ballot box and in a socialist society, seems to be the question you are asking?  I doubt very much whether 51% of the vote is going to be a sufficient majority for socialists for they will not be making a fetish of the parliamentary process, but thinking ahead after the ballot has been counted.
> 
> ...



What is the means of living? It's not a static calculation as people indivdually have different needs and desires. How can you possibly say the number of workers needed?

How will workers themselves make decisions?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 19, 2010)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> If what you were saying is reflective of the SPGB I really don't get it though.



May I suggest you stay with this thread cos after 600+ posts its only now the questions and answers are starting to get really interesting and relative to how we see capitalism and socialism.


----------



## moon23 (May 19, 2010)

Sihhi


I think that people flourish without control, if you think a boardroom meeting is bad just imagine if every single one of the workers were sat around the table as well! You would never get anything done or made.


----------



## sihhi (May 19, 2010)

> I think that people flourish without control, if you think a boardroom meeting is bad just imagine if every single one of the workers were sat around the table as well! You would never get anything done or made.



Incredible straw-man there but answer the direct question please:

Do you consider yourself a capitalist?


----------



## moon23 (May 19, 2010)

sihhi said:


> Incredible straw-man there but answer the direct question please:
> 
> Do you consider yourself a capitalist?



I consider myself a Liberal, and think that free trade and ability to enrich yourself through meaningfull economic activity is no bad thing. I do still think there should be some safety net and welfare system provided by the state.


----------



## moon23 (May 19, 2010)

I just don't get how Socialism would work in practice, often it boils down to people saying things like "The workers would decide" but how? What are the actual mechanisms? If I have a spade and I want to trade it for some food how do I do that?


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I consider myself a Liberal, and think that free trade and ability to enrich yourself through *meaningfull* economic activity is no bad thing. I do still think there should be some safety net and welfare system provided by the state.



What an odd word to insert there. What do you mean by 'meaningful'? What are the conditions of meaning?


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I just don't get how Socialism would work in practice, often it boils down to people saying things like "The workers would decide" but how? What are the actual mechanisms? If I have a spade and I want to trade it for some food how do I do that?



Is this a true meaningful approximation of your current condition?


----------



## moon23 (May 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What an odd word to insert there. What do you mean by 'meaningful'? What are the conditions of meaning?



My conditions of economic activity being meaningful is that somebody desires the product or service being produced. Meaningless activity might be producing something that no one wants because you have been told or made to produce it.  

That's just how I define it.


----------



## sihhi (May 19, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I consider myself a Liberal, and think that free trade and ability to enrich yourself through meaningfull economic activity is no bad thing. I do still think there should be some safety net and welfare system provided by the state.



I'm not sure how those beliefs will be served by the new government.
They will purposefully immiserate many millions to keep the few rich.
They will create man-months and man-months of meaningless bureaucratic and managerial work.
They will weaken and wear down the 'safety net', they will privatise swathes of the welfare system.
They don't care about your principles and your ideals.

As a Liberal with a capital 'L' - did you support the Liberals before the emergence of the SDP?


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2010)

moon23 said:


> My conditions of economic activity being meaningful is that somebody desires the product or service being produced. Meaningless activity might be producing something that no one wants because you have been told or made to produce it.
> 
> That's just how I define it.



That's demonstrates the limit of your horizon then - economic man in all his glory. If it doesn't sell it means nothing.


----------



## moon23 (May 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Is this a true meaningful approximation of your current condition?



No it's a simplistic example of an economic transaction. I figured one of the first basis on which an economy would be founded is trade, so you would need some way to determine how you trade items. 

Otherwise you could say that no one owns anything, in which case what is to stop the strongest person from taking everything for themselves?


----------



## moon23 (May 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> That's demonstrates the limit of your horizon then - economic man in all his glory. If it doesn't sell it means nothing.



Selling something is not the only form of transaction, for instance if I produced a nice tune on my recorder you may desire it and repay me in kind, perhaps with help sowing my button on my shirt.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No it's a simplistic example of an economic transaction. I figured one of the first basis on which an economy would be founded is trade, so you would need some way to determine how you trade items.
> 
> Otherwise you could say that no one owns anything, in which case what is to stop the strongest person from taking everything for themselves?



Again revealing that your 'simplistic example' doesn't start from how can we provide for the community but what can i trade for myself.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 19, 2010)

moon23 said:


> What is the means of living? It's not a static calculation as people indivdually have different needs and desires. How can you possibly say the number of workers needed?
> 
> How will workers themselves make decisions?



What do you consider the means of living?  Perhaps its the take away around the corner, or the people who run our energy supplies, schools, hospitals, etc,etc?  Its all of these and more, the point is we don't own them a minority do - which means we do not live in a true democracy.

Of course its not a static calculation and I never suggested any such thing.   However, you need to be careful when you are talking about needs and desires in a socialist society because they wont be exactly the same needs and desires appertaining in the here and now in capitalist society.  Most of these needs and desires are consumer fed and have consequently led to a massive glut in commodities of every shape and size.  For even the charity shops are in competition with each other.  What does that say to you?

Yes of course needs and desires changes with the introduction of every new widget or the reality shows we have a chuckle over.  When socialists talk about human needs the main topics come under the heading of: *Food, shelter, clothing, care, education, health and leisure.*   We are presently in a position to supply and distribute these needs to every human on the planet, if they so wish.  Capitalism is incapable of even thinking about it, let alone doing it!


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Selling something is not the only form of transaction, for instance if I produced a nice tune on my recorder you may desire it and repay me in kind, perhaps with help sowing my button on my shirt.



Wow, just wow. Just me and you on our little island with no prior existing conditions or social relationships that we're born into.


----------



## moon23 (May 19, 2010)

sihhi said:


> I'm not sure how those beliefs will be served by the new government.
> They will purposefully immiserate many millions to keep the few rich.
> They will create man-months and man-months of meaningless bureaucratic and managerial work.
> They will weaken and wear down the 'safety net', they will privatise swathes of the welfare system.
> ...



I was too young to be involved in politics when the SDP emerged. What are man-months?

They will surley cut corporation tax and make it more profitable for companies to come and trade and partake in economic activity here, that will enrich people.


----------



## moon23 (May 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Wow, just wow. Just me and you on our little island with no prior existing conditions or social relationships that we're born into.



It's a happy thought.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's a happy thought.



It's a type of housekeeping model that was being laughed at by economists 200 years ago.


----------



## moon23 (May 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> It's a type of housekeeping model that was being laughed at by economists 200 years ago.



Yes I thought i'd start off with something simple, before asking for an explanation of how Socialist countries would trade with Capitalist ones.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 19, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I was too young to be involved in politics when the SDP emerged. What are man-months?
> 
> They will surley cut corporation tax and make it more profitable for companies to come and trade and partake in economic activity here, that will enrich people.



What is called the trickle down theory.  Lets face the facts shall we, for the only thing that has trickled down is a massive increase in those who work for 2 dollars a day or less.  In Britain this theory in practice has led to a widening of the income gap and 22% of children and 15% of the elderly residing in London living in poverty!  If you want the figures for the rest of the country they are easily available on the internet.

I take it you only read the news you want to read for hard facts like these can make you start thinking and questioning the kind of society we live in.

Its called a wake up call!


----------



## dannysp (May 19, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The problem is that regulation of individuals will become dominated on bureaucratic power structures . Attempts to trade, harvest resources or partake in any meaningful economic activity will be restricted by a set of rules governing people. Either endless committees discussing everything whilst nothing is done or individuals seizing power under some collective authority for their own ends.



That sounds dreadful, why would anyone want to do that? Free is cheaper.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 19, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes I thought i'd start off with something simple, before asking for an explanation of how Socialist countries would trade with Capitalist ones.



The establishment of a global socialist society will mean the end of trade, exchange, buying and selling.  We will have free access to the means of living, money will have no function - even playing the game of Monopoly will be meaningless - just like your thoughts which appear to be stuck in the mindset of capitalism.  No kid.


----------



## sihhi (May 19, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I was too young to be involved in politics when the SDP emerged. What are man-months?
> 
> They will surley cut corporation tax and make it more profitable for companies to come and trade and partake in economic activity here, that will enrich people.



A man-month is a person working 160 hours in a month - used in team working, software development etc.

If every country does what you suggest, there will be nothing left except companies trading.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2010)

You're simply the other side of this clown's abstract coin GD.


----------



## dannysp (May 19, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Sihhi
> 
> 
> I think that people flourish without control, if you think a boardroom meeting is bad just imagine if every single one of the workers were sat around the table as well! You would never get anything done or made.



Hi Moon
In a classless society of common ownership everyone would have the same relationship to the means of production, therefor all would share a common interest, so we could happily trust our fellows who had been delegated to take their turn at the administration of things.
As I put it earlier, if nobody works nobody lives, if we all work well everybody lives well.


----------



## moon23 (May 20, 2010)

sihhi said:


> A man-month is a person working 160 hours in a month - used in team working, software development etc.
> 
> If every country does what you suggest, there will be nothing left except companies trading.



Thanks.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 20, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You're simply the other side of this clown's abstract coin GD.



Butchers have you ever thought that abstractions are vital to the human species.  Without abstractions the world would be a very poor place and filled with people like yourself with no useful function in the discussion of: Ideas, concepts, notions, theories, possibilities, hypothesis and imagination.  What a dreary world we would live in if we followed your advice and ignored the ifs, buts, maybe's, howevers and could be's.  Do you ever, ever use your brain box without making an abstraction?  Very, very doubtful?


----------



## free spirit (May 20, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Wow, just wow. Just me and you on our little island with no prior existing conditions or social relationships that we're born into.


I reckon I'd give it about an hour before you'd be using moon23 as sharkbait.


----------



## dylans (May 20, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Butchers have you ever thought that abstractions are vital to the human species.  Without abstractions the world would be a very poor place and filled with people like yourself with no useful function in the discussion of: Ideas, concepts, notions, theories, possibilities, hypothesis and imagination.  What a dreary world we would live in if we followed your advice and ignored the ifs, buts, maybe's, howevers and could be's.  Do you ever, ever use your brain box without making an abstraction?  Very, very doubtful?



Many philosophers have interpreted the world,  Gravediggers.

The point however.

IS TO CHANGE IT


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 20, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Louis I do not know how to thank you enough for you have made my day in posting one of my favourite questions to which I will give my best effort....



Your delight in being able to regurgitate this awful stuff speaks volumes about your useless poltical modus operandi; now push those fingers back down your throat, I'm sure there's still plenty more to come.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## robbo203 (May 20, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I just don't get how Socialism would work in practice, often it boils down to people saying things like "The workers would decide" but how? What are the actual mechanisms? If I have a spade and I want to trade it for some food how do I do that?



Well, firstly ask yourself - why would you want to trade your spade for food when food and everything else that you might need is available free of charge at your local distribution point? You just go along and pick up your tin of baked beans or whatever as and when required.  Similarly, with work - you just go along to your local production unit - factory, farm, office or whatever - and put in whatever hours you want on a purely voluntary unpaid basis.  This is how socialism works. This is what socialism means. "From each according to ability to each according to need"

Absurd? Ridiculous? Naively utopian? Not at all. It is actually an eminently practical system and I guarantee if you stick with argument you will soon discover all the props of a  conventional ideological take on "reality" which you have taken for granted being knocked out one by one. Socialism is predicated on the possibility that we can produce enough to satisfy our needs.  That makes greed uneccesary - you dont take more water from a public fountain than you need just because its free, do you? More to the point there will be absolutely no status attached to accumulating wealth when all goods are free to everyone

The technological possiblity of material sufficiency is something that is constantly stifled by capitalism and, in point of fact, capitalism is a monumentally wasteful system for meeting human needs.  Here's a little exercise you can do. Make a list of all those occupations that are necessary within a capitalist economy but would have no purpose in a socialist society.  Everything to do with money would go for starters - pay departments, tax consultants, banks etc. Then there all those other occupations like armanents producers which only exist to satsify the demand for armaments to fight capitalist wars over things like resources, trade routes and markets.

The SPGB published a little pamphlet sometime ago called "Socialism as a practical alternative" which I am sure they still stock.  Why dont you download a copy form their site and check it out.? If I remember correctly it cites evidence to show that at least half of all work done today under capitalism would be unneccesary which means you will have twice the amount of manpower and resoruces for socially useful production.

One final thing - this business about decisionmaking. Look , forget any idea of some kind of monster bureaucracy calculating everything that needs to be done downm to the finest detail from some vast sprawling central headquarters. Central - or society wide - planning is about as far removed from socialism as it is possible to get. 

Of necessity, socialism will be a largely decentralised society.  There will obviously be some functions that require wider regional or even global cooperation - like the aviation industry - but most decisions will be local.  The principle of subsidiarity will apply.  Also, most decisionmaking need not be collectivelised or democratised but made automatically by people on the spot. Democracy is relevant where there is an important decision to be made that affects a lot of people.  You dont need a democratic vote on whether to order more cartridge ink for the office printer.

In this regard socialism will also be a largely self regulating system.  If you look at, say, how a supermarket operates today you can get some idea of the mechanism involved.  Stock levels are constantly monitored and where necessary replenished, with shortages automatically triggering signals to suppliers for fresh stock.  This system is called calculation in  kind.  Socialism will make abundant use of such a system but will dispense completely with monetary calculation.. It will be a much more streamlined efficient and environmentally friendly way of meeting human needs.

In short some of the clues as to how a socialist society would organise itself already exist under our very noses today


----------



## Gravediggers (May 20, 2010)

dylans said:


> Many philosophers have interpreted the world,  Gravediggers.
> 
> The point however.
> 
> IS TO CHANGE IT



QUITE TRUE.  And the reason why I'm no philosopher and butchers thinks he is.  His continual arguments to call a halt to the discussion do need replying to from time to time, otherwise he would be lost for words.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 20, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Your delight in being able to regurgitate this awful stuff speaks volumes about your useless poltical modus operandi; now push those fingers back down your throat, I'm sure there's still plenty more to come.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Nasty turn of phrase you are using there Louis.  I suspect I've rattled your cage by picking up when you unintentionally let your guard down by actually posing a question which related to the socialist case.  

Starting to feel quite vulnerable I guess when you are forced to resort to the poverty of advising self-harm.  You'll be telling me to cut my throat next.  What happened to your poor imitation of Julie Birchill, I'm sure she would be so shocked at your suggestion it would be off to the naughty corner for you?  But if the truth were only known, that is your comfort zone by all accounts.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 20, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> QUITE TRUE.  And the reason why I'm no philosopher and butchers thinks he is.  His continual arguments to call a halt to *the discussion* do need replying to from time to time, otherwise he would be lost for words.



You're confusing discussion, with your all too apparent need to vomit up day dreams of imagined yesterdays; now get those fingers back down your gullet and show us what you've got.  GD the SPGB as emetic performance art.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 20, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Nasty turn of phrase you are using there Louis.  I suspect I've rattled your cage by picking up when you unintentionally let your guard down by actually posing a question which related to the socialist case.
> 
> Starting to feel quite vulnerable I guess when you are forced to resort to the poverty of advising self-harm.  You'll be telling me to cut my throat next.  What happened to your poor imitation of Julie Birchill, I'm sure she would be so shocked at your suggestion it would be off to the naughty corner for you?  But if the truth were only known, that is your comfort zone by all accounts.



Vomiting is necessarily self harm? You'll be telling me next that the same is true of tattoos. Or perhaps you see such moral conservatism as part of your whole Edwardian schtick.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> QUITE TRUE.  And the reason why I'm no philosopher and butchers thinks he is.  His continual arguments to call a halt to the discussion do need replying to from time to time, otherwise he would be lost for words.



Come come, this is pure sex arrogance.


----------



## dylans (May 20, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> You're confusing discussion, with your all too apparent need to vomit up day dreams of imagined yesterdays; now get those fingers back down your gullet and show us what you've got.  GD the SPGB as emetic performance art.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



You have a very accurate turn of phrase Louis. I read your description and mutter "yes," under my breath. Performance art indeed. 

But I like them and I like this thread. The description of social relationships under socialism by robbo was beautiful to read and I understand what Michael Foot meant when he said "like milk" . On the whole I agree that, as a description of the world I want, it is excellent. Really first class. In fact I would go so far as to say it was one of the best's posts I have ever read on this site. 

It's the immediacy and intellectualisation of struggles, of the process of getting there that I find nuts. But I am enoying getting to know them. They are day dreamers but, so far, intriguing ones


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 20, 2010)

dylans said:


> The description of social relationships under socialism by robbo was beautiful to read and I understand what Michael Foot meant when he said "like milk" . On the whole I agree that, as a description of the world I want, it is excellent. Really first class. In fact I would go so far as to say it was one of the best's posts I have ever read on this site.
> 
> It's the immediacy and intellectualisation of struggles, of the process of getting there that I find nuts.



This.

I enjoyed the post a lot too. I just don't see any serious understanding of how we're meant to get there.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 20, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> This.
> 
> I enjoyed the post a lot too. I just don't see any serious understanding of how we're meant to get there.



They're not called impossibilists for no reason.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## likesfish (May 20, 2010)

there on target to have a workable majority by 2500ad


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 20, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> They're not called impossibilists for no reason.



Quite.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 20, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> This.
> 
> I enjoyed the post a lot too. I just don't see any serious understanding of how we're meant to get there.



How you get there is by convincing a majority of the workers that capitalism is not in their interest.  You can only achieve that by explaining the socialist case with consistency, integrity and honesty.  The simple fact of the matter is that without a majority you wont have socialism.  

Until a majority of the workers start identifying themselves with, "How we might live" (Wm Morris) and can see the advantages of supporting such a radical alternative we are stuck in the rut of capitalism.  Common ownership provides the means and the ends of getting out of that self-imposed rut.


----------



## dylans (May 20, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> How you get there is by convincing a majority of the workers that capitalism is not in their interest.  You can only achieve that by explaining the socialist case with consistency, integrity and honesty.  The simple fact of the matter is that without a majority you wont have socialism.
> 
> Until a majority of the workers start identifying themselves with, "How we might live" (Wm Morris) and can see the advantages of supporting such a radical alternative we are stuck in the rut of capitalism.  Common ownership provides the means and the ends of getting out of that self-imposed rut.



And at this point we part company. A majority yes but barricades too and that is just the beginning of building a different society. Socialism is the goal yes but it comes when the state whithers away, and that is a process.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 20, 2010)

dylans said:


> And at this point we part company. A majority yes but barricades too and that is just the beginning of building a different society. Socialism is the goal yes but it comes when the state whithers away, and that is a process.



In a nutshell.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 20, 2010)

dylans said:


> And at this point we part company. A majority yes but barricades too and that is just the beginning of building a different society. Socialism is the goal yes but it comes when the state whithers away, and that is a process.



Obviously, you think they day's of the barricades are not over and that the revolutionary process is inevitably going to be a bloody affair.  Have you ever thought that you could be denied the opportunity of passing the ammunition to spill the blood of a fellow worker?  I've explained previously that socialists will be seeking the least line of resistance and working towards ensuring the revolutionary transformation proceeds has smoothly has possible.

Which means in effect we wont be purposely looking for trouble but if the forces of repression do show their heads above the parapet and try to impose their rule by violence they will get what they deserve.  Who needs barricades when you are in the majority?

The state is not going to wither away like Engles hoped.  It is to entrenched and must be abolished and this will only occur when there is a majority.


----------



## frogwoman (May 20, 2010)

To be honest as there's not likely to be a revolution any time soon the idea that dylans will be refused the opportunity to spill the blood of a fellow worker  is fairly academic tbh.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 20, 2010)

likesfish said:


> there on target to have a workable majority by 2500ad



Only if you accept such nonsense.  What makes you think that the workers will accept the ever worsening oppression until then?  Classic example of a naive and unthinking assertion.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 20, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> To be honest as there's not likely to be a revolution any time soon the idea that dylans will be refused the opportunity to spill the blood of a fellow worker  is fairly academic tbh.



See my reply to likesfish.   The revolution will be when we the working class decide it to be.  Of course a revolution is not going to happen any time soon, but who knows what is around the corner?  There have been many examples where the working class have raised their consciousness through the events chucked up by capitalism.


----------



## free spirit (May 20, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Only if you accept such nonsense.  What makes you think that the workers will accept the ever worsening oppression until then?  Classic example of a naive and unthinking assertion.


what's your own assessment then?

socialism within our lifetime?

or is it to be a project handed down from father to son, mother to daughter (or vice versa) for several generations until it finally bears fruits, and if so, could you provide us with an estimate of how many generations it's going to take please.

I mean are we talking about the equivalent timescale of Islam spreading through the Arabian peninsula in pretty much one or maybe 2 generations, or Christianity spreading through and becoming the dominant force in the Roman Empire over a period of several centuries?

Your approach is more akin to that of the early christian martyrs, albeit without the all consuming zeal they showed, so I'm assuming you're looking at a timescale of several centuries or more, which probably explains why you're not overly concerned by your lack of progress in the first century or so of your organisations existence.


----------



## JWH (May 20, 2010)

free spirit said:


> I mean are we talking about the equivalent timescale of Islam spreading through the Arabian peninsula in pretty much one or maybe 2 generations


Or capitalism spreading through the Arabian peninsula in 1 or 2 generations...


----------



## free spirit (May 20, 2010)

JWH said:


> Or capitalism spreading through the Arabian peninsula in 1 or 2 generations...


yep. Not that it's spread was unassisted or anything, but yes. I'm happy to accept that things can change massively within a generation or less in the right circumstances, and with the right sort of leadership / campaign / action to help it along.

I'm just interested in the timescale the SPGB envisages their extremely slow and steady approach is likely to take to actually achieve their goals / anything.


----------



## dylans (May 20, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> To be honest as there's not likely to be a revolution any time soon the idea that dylans will be refused the opportunity to spill the blood of a fellow worker  is fairly academic tbh.



Oh I don't know. Obviously not the fellow worker bit but, I think we may well see class conflict rise sharply in many places around the world and revolutionary situations arise. It only takes one big industrial country to fall to a revolution and the world will be inspired as it was in 1917.If  Greece fell to a workers revolution or Spain things would change very quickly. 

The 20th century taught us to be wary of underestimating the speed and scale of change. The 21st is even more unpredictable.


----------



## dylans (May 20, 2010)

Gravediggers



> Obviously, you think they day's of the barricades are not over and that the revolutionary process is inevitably going to be a bloody affair.  Have you ever thought that you could be denied the opportunity of passing the ammunition to spill the blood of a fellow worker?  I've explained previously that socialists will be seeking the least line of resistance and working towards ensuring the revolutionary transformation proceeds has smoothly has possible.



I am more convinced than ever that capitalism will drive class struggle into violent revolution and civil war yes. 




> Which means in effect we wont be purposely looking for trouble but if the forces of repression do show their heads above the parapet and try to impose their rule by violence they will get what they deserve.  Who needs barricades when you are in the majority?



then you will be naked and unarmed when they crush your revolution and take you behind the chemical sheds to be shot




> The state is not going to wither away like Engles hoped.  It is to entrenched and must be abolished and this will only occur when there is a majority.


[/QUOTE]
It must be taken from them and controlled by us until it fades away.


----------



## Ffridd (May 20, 2010)

moon23 said:


> .... I figured one of the first basis on which an economy would be founded is trade, so you would need some way to determine how you trade items.



The basis of any economy is the expenditure of human labour (both mental and physical) to effect change in the world around us.

So it's *production *first. Exchange comes later -- and only in a society based on private or class  ownership does this exchange take the form of trade.



> Otherwise you could say that no one owns anything, in which case what is to stop the strongest person from taking everything for themselves?



In a society of free association and production directly for use what would be the point? The institution of private property requires means of enforcement. Not even the strongest person / persons could hold out against the will of the majority.


----------



## moon23 (May 20, 2010)

free spirit said:


> what's your own assessment then?
> 
> socialism within our lifetime?
> 
> ...



Never, it's an outdated political philosophy. Every year Socialism gets more and more irrelevant. People these days are highly individualised, they communicate with a global market and define themselves in terms of fashion, what hobbies they like and what purchases they make. 

People often have nothing in common with their fellow worker,  and as the working class communities that defined themselves through their work fades, so do political ideologies based around heavy industry and mass unions.


----------



## Blagsta (May 20, 2010)

communicate with a global market, lol


----------



## TremulousTetra (May 20, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Never, it's an outdated political philosophy. Every year Socialism gets more and more irrelevant. People these days are highly individualised, they communicate with a global market and define themselves in terms of fashion, what hobbies they like and what purchases they make.
> 
> People often have nothing in common with their fellow worker,  and as the working class communities that defined themselves through their work fades, so do political ideologies based around heavy industry and mass unions.


There is no " ideologies based around heavy industry and mass unions" mate.  When Marx wrote neither existed.  According to Marx class modle, teacher's are now working class.


----------



## frogwoman (May 20, 2010)

In a strict economic and marxist sense most middle class people are working class, probably. 

the world has definitely changed since marx wrote the communist manifesto, doesnt mean class is no longer relevant but what it is has changed. an owner of a shop or a small business still needs to sell their labour to survive for example. that however doesnt mean we live in a classless society or other liberal bollocks.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 20, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Never, it's an outdated political philosophy. *Every year Socialism gets more and more irrelevant.* People these days are highly individualised, they communicate with a global market and define themselves in terms of fashion, what hobbies they like and what purchases they make.
> 
> People often have nothing in common with their fellow worker,  and as the working class communities that defined themselves through their work fades, so do political ideologies based around heavy industry and mass unions.



explain demographics then. If socialism is about class politics then surely notions of class are re-enforced by demographers who use a precise classification scale to determine how and who to sell to. Interestingly it also ties both socio-cultural notions of class and economic class. To sell people shit.


----------



## robbo203 (May 20, 2010)

dylans said:


> But I like them and I like this thread. The description of social relationships under socialism by robbo was beautiful to read and I understand what Michael Foot meant when he said "like milk" . On the whole I agree that, as a description of the world I want, it is excellent. Really first class. In fact I would go so far as to say it was one of the best's posts I have ever read on this site.
> 
> It's the immediacy and intellectualisation of struggles, of the process of getting there that I find nuts. But I am enoying getting to know them. They are day dreamers but, so far, intriguing ones




Thank you for the compliment.  So its not the socialist goal you have problems with, its how to reach this destination.  OK, lets look at this.

Let me first of all say that while I am not a member of the SPGB - a strong sympathiser would describe my position - I do very much agree with them on the political means of achieving socialism.  Where I perhaps part company with the SPGB is in seeing the political aspect as only one aspect of a multi-dimensional approach to socialist revolution. I touched on this in my discussion with Gravediggers early on in the thread. Essentially, I see the political route to socialism being complemented by the emergence of grasssroots instititions that prefigure socialism in their endeavour to transcend the commodity relationship.

In my view, the traditional left wing idea which can be traced back to people like Engels and his Principles of Communism that there must be a transitional stage involving the state taking over and centralising  all capital , is utterly obsolete and dead.  There is absolutely no way forward to communism/socialism via state capitalism. Im convinced of that. We need to look elsewhere.

One thing the SPGB is absolutely correct to insist on is that there can be no socialism without workers en masse understanding and desiring it. They cant be socially engineered into socialism or have it imposed on them from above.  They have to want it and understand it because the very nature of the system requires their consent.   This perhaps explains the SPGB's penchant for tirelessly rational  explanation - abstract propaganda - rather than the politics of direct action.  My criticism of the SPGB model of revolution, if you like, is not that the SPGB is wrong to engage in "abstract propagandism" - on the contrary the job that the SPGB is doing is absolutely indispensable - but that it is going to take more than just abstract propagandism to get the revolution moving.  Which is where those grassroots initiatives come into the picture.

So I see a combination of this and SPGB style politics as the way forward.  I do not see the advocacy of so called transitional demands or state capitalism as the way to go at all.  That leads inevitably to the cul de sac of capitalist reformism and the proof of the pudding is in the eating.  The reformist Left is now in no position to attack the SPGB's approach as unappealing  in its refusal to compromise when the Left itself has gone into catastrophic decline Iin the elcetcion a reformist trotskyist from Workers Power was actually beaten by the SPGB candidate which really says it all.  So much for the theory of attracting workers to your cause by opportunistically outbidding the main capitalist parties in the ambitiousness of your reform programme.  It just doesn't work  like that and most workers understand full well the futility of it alll under capitalism.  They have a canny grasp of the principle that there's no such thing as a free lunch under capitalism.  Which is probably why weve got a Tory PM right now.

So we turn finally to your objections to the SPGB approach and its advocacy of electoralism.  If I read you correctly you think this is a non starter because the capitalist state will always crush the revolution by the time we have a majority. I think the exact opposite. By the time we are in a majority or even a significant minority it will be far too late for the powers-that-be to do anything about it.  Now is when the ccapitalist state should crush the socialist movement if they wanted. When the movement is weak and fragmented

I am happy to discuss this further but can I ask whether you read my previous post (537) dealing with the objections you raised?


----------



## FreddyB (May 20, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> communicate with a global market, lol



You think it's funny? He's starting to scare me


----------



## dylans (May 20, 2010)

Robbo tell us something about your view of human nature. How do you answer the charge that human nature and greed make socialism impossible (devil's advocate)


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 20, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> In the election a reformist trotskyist from Workers Power was actually beaten by the SPGB candidate which really says it all.



Oh come on, Robbo, you must know this is a poor example.

Danny and Jeremy Drinkall both got 0.4%, which is pretty much average for far left candidates in the GE, whether 'state-capitalist reformists' or SPGB purists. SPGB took a couple dozen more votes than WP but it proves nothing really - you are not taking account of Drinkall standing for one of the more obscure of the far left parties, for example, or that SPGB may well have picked up votes on the back of having socialist in their name, without the voter necessarily having any idea whatsoever of SPGB's political outlook. Anyway, it was pretty poor all round - not just in Vauxhall but across the UK. It is a very moot point.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 20, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> They're not called impossibilists for no reason.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Oh Louis you are so kind to provide not one but two posts in 24 hours that allow me to open up the discussion on the socialist case.  I know, sad innit when your intentions are to clearly smear the SPGB as much has possible, and they rebound with another home goal.  Thank you.

OK lets get down to business.  I've lost count of how many times, on this board and elsewhere we have been labeled the impossibilist.  The term 'impossibilists' is a form of verbal abuse and suggest we are dreamers, utopian and unrealistic. Basically, this type of labeling is to underline the argument, that we are asking for the impossible under capitalism.  

Is it at all possible for the two systems to exist side by side?  Of course its not possible for both systems are diametrically opposed to each other with one based on private ownership and the other on common ownership.  Co-existence therefore is out of the question.  It is a historical fact that globally capitalism is the dominant political economy and not only influences most of our everyday lives but it has also made commodity production the primary motivation for the capitalists and their political servants.

This is to say that capitalism is not confined in a cage like a wild beast who can be induced to perform whenever the keeper desires.  Capitalism sets its own pace, its own restrictions and contradiction, but above all it sets its own limitations on what the capitalist class and its political servants can and can not do.  What this means in practice economically, is the capitalist class can offer and promise to produce X amount of commodities.  However, what the capitalist don't say is that those commodities will only be delivered when there is a profit to be gained.  No profit and the commodities remain undelivered.

However, having dealt with the economics in practice what do they amount to when put into political practice?  For the politicians are in truth the political representatives of the capitalist class but ultimately like their masters they are the political servants of the capitalist system.   So what can the politicians do under the circumstances other than parrot the capitalist class and promise this and promise that so it serves the purpose of instilling in the working class the belief they are acting in their interests.  

The politicians loudly proclaim they are in a position to control the beast and that eventually after a bit of tinkering here and there with a reform here, and a reform there the benefits of capitalism will trickle down into the laps of the workers.  No effort needed the politicians loudly shout just put your X on the spot and I will do my damnedest to regulate the beast of capitalism and I promise you it will remain in the cage and do our bidding.  Believe me, they chorus it is totally _possible_ to ensure capitalism will ultimately be to the benefit of everyone - rich and poor alike.  Honest, all I ask is for you to put your trust in me and accept my leadership. 

In truth what actually occurs is that what the capitalists and the politicians find is that the production of commodities and the wages system has the final say on who it wants to devour, destroy, degrade, demolish and devastate.  And that in practice they have been attempting the _impossible! _

So why do the workers persistently support a system which is designed to exploit their labour power?  Is it because they are so dumb and stupid or they can't see the woods for the trees?  Well the assertion that they are stupid fails to stand up to examination for the workers operate the system from top to bottom, so collectively they are well aware of how the system operates to a 'T'. 

No my friends the reason why the workers persistently support a system which is designed to exploit their labour power is down to them believing every word of the empty promises dished out by the apologists of capitalism - the politicians.   The solution is simple, that is the workers have to get rid of commodity production and all the instruments of waged labour so that its class exploitation is abolished and replaced with a system of free association and common ownership of the means of living.


----------



## robbo203 (May 20, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Oh come on, Robbo, you must know this is a poor example.
> 
> Danny and Jeremy Drinkall both got 0.4%, which is pretty much average for far left candidates in the GE, whether 'state-capitalist reformists' or SPGB purists. SPGB took a couple dozen more votes than WP but it proves nothing really - you are not taking account of Drinkall standing for one of the more obscure of the far left parties, for example, or that SPGB may well have picked up votes on the back of having socialist in their name, without the voter necessarily having any idea whatsoever of SPGB's political outlook. Anyway, it was pretty poor all round - not just in Vauxhall but across the UK. It is a very moot point.




My point is simply that there is no apparent advantage  in advocating a reformist platform anyway so you might just as well stand on a straight socialist platform.  This is quite aside from the argument that advocating a reformist platfrom means necessarily shelviing a socialist one


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 20, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> My point is simply that there is no apparent advantage  in advocating a reformist platform anyway so you might just as well stand on a straight socialist platform.



And my point is that it doesn't come anywhere close to proving your point, and you know that.


----------



## moon23 (May 20, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> explain demographics then. If socialism is about class politics then surely notions of class are re-enforced by demographers who use a precise classification scale to determine how and who to sell to. Interestingly it also ties both socio-cultural notions of class and economic class. To sell people shit.



From what I understand about Marxism its definition of class is distinctively different then socio-cultural notions of class, the later being a way of group classifying people within parameters useful for a particular function (normally selling or service provision). Marx as of course an important and influential thinker, but Marxism from my perspective is falling in popularity.


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2010)

How do you understand it as different than that mess above?


----------



## moon23 (May 20, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> You think it's funny? He's starting to scare me



All it means is that thanks to modern technology you can go on-line and buy and sell in any international market. As individuals we are now highly plugged into global markets and we can pick and choose our fashions, trends and tastes from what they have to offer.

My vision for the future is a form of hyper-capitalism where the internet connects buyers and sellers more efficiently, as the market is opened up vested interests of monopolies will be undercut and producers in poorer countries will be able to sell directly to richer consumers and enrich themselves through that process.

Also what you have now with people like Craig Venter producing synthetic life with their company are new green methods of producing energy that could replace fossil fuels. Essentially capitalism could soon also save the planet as the market develops green technology.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 20, 2010)

moon23 said:


> All it means is that thanks to modern technology you can go on-line and buy and sell in any international market. As individuals we are now highly plugged into global markets and we can pick and choose our fashions, trends and tastes from what they have to offer.
> 
> My vision for the future is a form of hyper-capitalism where the internet connects buyers and sellers more efficiently, as the market is opened up vested interests of monopolies will be undercut and producers in poorer countries will be able to sell directly to richer consumers and enrich themselves through that process.
> 
> Also what you have now with people like Craig Venter producing synthetic life with their company are new green methods of producing energy that could replace fossil fuels. Essentially capitalism could soon also save the planet as the market develops green technology.



But in the bluntest terms, capitalism relies upon the exploitation of people and resources, to extract surplus labour and surplus value (profit), and which relies upon continued growth which is unsustainable, leading to crises as the economy contracts. How can you possibly believe a 'hyper-capitalist' model can resolve these systemic issues and provide your neo-liberal utopia?


----------



## moon23 (May 20, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> But in the bluntest terms, capitalism relies upon the exploitation of people and resources, to extract surplus labour and surplus value (profit), and which relies upon continued growth which is unsustainable, leading to crises as the economy contracts. How can you possibly believe a 'hyper-capitalist' model can resolve these systemic issues and provide your neo-liberal utopia?



By helping develop technology to such a state that we can unlock the full resources of the Universere so near unlimited growth becomes a possibilty. For instance creating synthetic life to produce new green fuels that can help provide people with the energy needed to escape poverty.


----------



## moon23 (May 20, 2010)

Anyway, I fear I may be side-tracking your discussion on Socalism with a discussion on Capitalism so i'll but out!


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 21, 2010)

moon23 said:


> By helping develop technology to such a state that we can unlock the full resources of the Universere so near unlimited growth becomes a possibilty. For instance creating synthetic life to produce new green fuels that can help provide people with the energy needed to escape poverty.



This is sci-fi. Unlimited growth? The only way there could ever be unlimited growth under globalised capitalism is if their was an unlimited resource of workers, natural resources and 'new markets' to exploit - unless your guff about the universe leads you to believe that we will soon be enslaving alien races and mining kryptonite from shafts in the Eumenides mountains of Mars then surely even you can grasp that it just isn't sustainable!

A system that fundamentally relies upon economic exploitation can never and will never provide milk and honey for all. The majority of capitalists realise this, they're just looking after their own interests - but you evangelical so-called libertarian Chicago loons are a different breed. How do you fool yourself into this crap?

Capitalism can develop all the green technology it likes, but it is capitalism itself driving the exploitation of natural resources for economic gain not need, so it won't make a blind bit of difference.

Capitalism can provide all the aid, and loans, and charity it likes, but it is capitalism itself which exploits these same poor people in order to extract surplus value, or profit. Capitalism is the cause of inequality and poverty; capitalism cannot resolve itself.

Forget the Hayek shit and get in the real world.


----------



## moon23 (May 21, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> This is sci-fi. Unlimited growth? The only way there could ever be unlimited growth under globalised capitalism is if their was an unlimited resource of workers, natural resources and 'new markets' to exploit - unless your guff about the universe leads you to believe that we will soon be enslaving alien races and mining kryptonite from shafts in the Eumenides mountains of Mars then surely even you can grasp that it just isn't sustainable!
> 
> A system that fundamentally relies upon economic exploitation can never and will never provide milk and honey for all. The majority of capitalists realise this, they're just looking after their own interests - but you evangelical so-called libertarian Chicago loons are a different breed. How do you fool yourself into this crap?
> 
> ...



You can have unlimited growth through recylcing as well, the same resources but the growth comes from constantly remaking and moulding them for new uses. We can allready travel in space, how long before we a mining the moon? It's not that far fetched, we get solar energy on space stations allready.

Of course Capital invests to make a profit, but it also focuses energy and resources into developing industry where there was none. Clothes, medicine and technology are all produced more cheaply for people so more people can gain access to them.


----------



## FreddyB (May 21, 2010)

moon23 said:


> All it means is that thanks to modern technology you can go on-line and buy and sell in any international market. As individuals we are now highly plugged into global markets and we can pick and choose our fashions, trends and tastes from what they have to offer.



Nobody makes anything and then sells the things they haven't made on Ebay? Scams like or we all start dealing in 70's clothes and Star Wars figures. Can we measure the new global currency in Storm Troopers and Luke Skywalkers?



moon23 said:


> My vision for the future is a form of hyper-capitalism where the internet connects buyers and sellers more efficiently, as the market is opened up vested interests of monopolies will be undercut and producers in poorer countries will be able to sell directly to richer consumers and enrich themselves through that process.



Space is ace. It's where Han Solo lives in the Millenium Falcon. I never had a Millenium Falcon although I did once get food poisoning after eating at Millenium Chicken but that isn't in space or on the internet but lots of places are. Ebaying Starwars figures and buying take away from web2.0 fast food joints in Uganda. It's the future.



moon23 said:


> Also what you have now with people like Craig Venter producing synthetic life with their company are new green methods of producing energy that could replace fossil fuels. Essentially capitalism could soon also save the planet as the market develops green technology.



Did Craig Venter come from space with his magic space market where profit isn't the motive for doing stuff but saving the world is? It's great if he has because otherwise if saving the world doesn't become profitable before it's too late to save the world then all the best ideas in the world won't be worth a Han Solo with original blaster.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 21, 2010)

dylans said:


> Robbo tell us something about your view of human nature. How do you answer the charge that human nature and greed make socialism impossible (devil's advocate)



What most people understand to by our human nature is that we are hard-wired to be aggressive, greedy, selfish, territorial, possessive, etc.  And they take these traits to present a barrier to obtaining socialism.  If this was indeed the case how do we explain the other side of the coin so to speak?  For there are plenty examples of humans being caring, co-operative, placid, sharing, etc.  Obviously, our human nature is not fixed to the extent to what is being suggested and further it makes no distinction between our nature and our behaviour.   

Depending on the circumstances we find ourselves in our behavioural responses are variable, flexible and adaptable to the specific situation.  For instance, a study was carried out in the USA where students were given the roles of prisoners and guards in a disused local prison.  Because of the harm the guards were inflicting on the prisoners the study had to be shut down early.  The guards had formed the impression that in order to control the prisoners continual repression was the only solution.

Need I say more?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 21, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You can have unlimited growth through recylcing as well, the same resources but the growth comes from constantly remaking and moulding them for new uses. We can allready travel in space, how long before we a mining the moon? It's not that far fetched, we get solar energy on space stations allready.
> 
> Of course Capital invests to make a profit, but it also focuses energy and resources into developing industry where there was none. Clothes, medicine and technology are all produced more cheaply for people so more people can gain access to them.



But you are ignoring the basic nature of capitalism - this is la la land stuff. Capitalism is all about making a profit, whether the means of making that profit is useful, beneficial or sustainable, or not. 

To use your example - clothes, medicine and technology are produced primarily to make a profit, not for their usefulness, which leads to pharmaceuticals jealously guarding their patents, leading to prices that are too expensive for the poorest people, who are denied access to treatment by their own economic conditions. The pharmaceuticals are just playing the game though; if profit is your primary motive then it makes perfect sense.

It's also the same reason so much labour, science and funding goes into developing cosmetics, when if profit were removed and judged objectively for social usefulness would be much better directed at finding cheap and plentiful medical treatments for the many diseases and conditions that kill millions of poor people every year.

Technology likewise is driven by the pursuit of profit; so those with the means of production put their research into making a smaller mobile phone - profitable, yes, but not the most socially useful of developments.

And clothing is produced so cheaply because it is made in sweat-shops by contractors to contractors to contractors to multinationals; and those workers are kept dirt-poor by undisguised wage-slavery.

This is fucking simple stuff. Saying capitalism can cure these ills is as silly as claiming we'll all be saved by scientology.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 21, 2010)

moon23 said:


> All it means is that thanks to modern technology you can go on-line and buy and sell in any international market. As individuals we are now highly plugged into global markets and we can pick and choose our fashions, trends and tastes from what they have to offer.



If this was indeed the case how do you explain the 2 billion people who are not plugged into your global market.  Those who live on less than $2 a day and are unable to afford a telephone call let alone a computer.  What about the people who have no alternative other than to live and work on the local landfill site where their only access to global market is when they hand over their measly pickings to the gang-master of the tip.



> My vision for the future is a form of hyper-capitalism where the internet connects buyers and sellers more efficiently, as the market is opened up vested interests of monopolies will be undercut and producers in poorer countries will be able to sell directly to richer consumers and enrich themselves through that process.



How you arrive at the conclusion that monopolies are going to allow themselves to be undercut takes the biscuit.  Monopolies by definition control the market on their specific product(s), they decide what is sold, how it is sold, where it is sold, how much is sold and who sells it.



> Also what you have now with people like Craig Venter producing synthetic life with their company are new green methods of producing energy that could replace fossil fuels. Essentially capitalism could soon also save the planet as the market develops green technology.


 
Lets not get carried away for this research is still in its early stages and has yet to be peer reviewed before we can reach any conclusion on its application.


----------



## free spirit (May 21, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Saying capitalism can cure these ills is as silly as claiming we'll all be saved by scientology.


just to clarify this statement... you're not tom cruise are you?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 21, 2010)

free spirit said:


> just to clarify this statement... you're not tom cruise are you?



Yes I am


----------



## Gravediggers (May 21, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yes I am



Can I have your autograph?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 21, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Can I have your autograph?



$100


----------



## Gravediggers (May 21, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> $100



Whats the exchange rate on that and will I get a signed picture of you along side a cut out of Ron Howard?  Smiling of course.


----------



## JWH (May 21, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> If this was indeed the case how do you explain the 2 billion people who are not plugged into your global market.  Those who live on less than $2 a day and are unable to afford a telephone call let alone a computer.  What about the people who have no alternative other than to live and work on the local landfill site where their only access to global market is when they hand over their measly pickings to the gang-master of the tip.



They're still part of the global market: where does the waste come from? What happens to the metal/paper/plastic collected? The number of people that genuinely exist outside global capitalist trade is statistically insignificant.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 21, 2010)

JWH said:


> They're still part of the global market: where does the waste come from? What happens to the metal/paper/plastic collected? The number of people that genuinely exist outside global capitalist trade is statistically insignificant.



Yes I agree they are part of the global market.  The recycling of the global waste is a huge business employing thousands in the sorting and breakdown of the various products.  And not without its obvious hazards regarding toxins and contamination.

The point I was making is that they have little access to the global market in the terms which moon23 stated.  Their pockets are just not deep enough to enable them to buy the commodities he mentioned.  In fact for all their efforts there are no guarantees they will get enough to eat alone a living wage.  When I see doco's of people living and working and even being born on the rubbish tips of the world it not only makes my stomach turn but also makes me more determined than ever that capitalism must go!


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 21, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> No my friends the reason why the workers persistently support a system which is designed to exploit their labour power is down to them believing every word of the empty promises dished out by the apologists of capitalism - the politicians.   The solution is simple, that is the workers have to get rid of commodity production and all the instruments of waged labour so that its class exploitation is abolished and replaced with a system of free association and common ownership of the means of living.



If only the so easily duped working class would listen to your words of wisdom; set us free GD, set us free! 

Louis MacNeice

p.s. While the glaring contradiction between your last two paragraphs, might be needed to hold together the impossibilist day dream, it doesn't cut it as a coherent argument.


----------



## robbo203 (May 21, 2010)

dylans said:


> Robbo tell us something about your view of human nature. How do you answer the charge that human nature and greed make socialism impossible (devil's advocate)




Well, for starters I suggest you read Marshall Sahlins Stone Age Economics. the original affluent society Sahlins makes the pertinent point that there are two ways to affluence - producing more and wanting less. Hunter gatherer societies achieved affluence, argues Sahlins, by opting for the latter.  All their needs were catered for with a mimnimum amount of labour  and much leisure. In fact the accumulation of wealth was looked down upon as positively dysfunctional to a nomadic way of life. By contrast, the industrial prole lives a life of impoverished insecurity which all the anxious pursuit of mod cons and the latest gadgets cannot ever erase.  Playing the catch-up  game (_keeping up with Jones' _) is futile in a society that not only bases itself upon , but celebrates,  material inequality.  Its a case of the snake trying to devour its own tail.  More wealth does not neceessarily bring more happiness.  It is our relationship to it that matters and this stems from our relationship to one another.  The kind of society we live in.

Capitalism needs workers to feel incomplete and constantly unsatisfied.  It is the whiplash that gets them not only to want to consume more (from which businesses profit) but also (as a consequence of having to pay for that increased consumption), to work harder and to put their noses  more firmly to the grind stone to pay off the debt. Its a soulless treadmill weve got ourselves onto.  In the early 20th century the US government sponsored large scale propaganda programmes urging people to consume more as a matter of "patriotic duty". The same thing is happening in China today.

Thorstein Veblen in his classic book The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899) argued that in different kinds of societies you have diffierent ways of expressing status.  In a hunter gatherer society it was the skill of the hunter or the environmental wisdom of the gatherer that attracted the esteem of others.  In industrial capitalism, Veblen argued, it was the conspicuous consumption of wealth that matters and this stemmed from the nature of capitalism itself  - its inner dynamic, its restless drive to expand without limit as a consequence of its economic competition.  Alexis de Tocqueville made a similar observation  in his Democracy in America  talking about the role of money  in democratic capitalist societies by comparison with old aristocratic societies of the ancien regime:

_Men living in democratic times have many passions but most of their passions either end in the love of riches or proceed from it...When all members of a community are independent of, or indifferent to, each other the co-operation of each of them can be obtained only by paying for it.  When the reverence  that belonged to what is old has vanished, birth, condition and profession no longer distinguish men or scarcely distinguish them; hardly anything but money remains to create strong marked differences between them and to raise some of them above the common level.  The distinction originating in wealth is increased by the disappearance or dimunation of all other distinctions.  Among aristocratic nations money reaches only to a few points on the vast circle of man's desires; in democracies it seems to lead to all _

So to get to the point of your question I dont think human nature is a barrier to socialism.  We havent much changed as a species since the time when we lived in small hunter gatherer groups (the vast bulk of humankind's existence).  Our human nature is essentially that of being social animals.  What has changed - dramatically - is the kind of society we live in.  As Ive tried to demonstrate, different societies have different norms of behaviour, different yardsticks by which they value the individual.

In socialism individuals will have completely free access to the goods and services they need - there wil be no monetary or barter transaction mediating their appropriation of these things - and they will freely and voluntarily cooperate to produce these things. This fundamental change in our basic economic relationships will, I am convinced, totally revolutionsie our whole attitude towards material wealth and make greed pointless and silly (like I said , you dont drink more water  than you need from a public tap just because its free and in abundant supply). The need to feel esteeemed and valued is a fundamental human need but in a socialist society when everyone has free access , the link between status and material consumption will be irretrievable severed.  It would simply not be possible to claim that you are a better person than someone else on the grounds that you possess a posh car and a fancy house.  The only way in which you can attract the esteem of your fellows is through your contribution to society , not what you take out of it.  

Grreed is a symptom of scarcity and scarcity is a function not only of demand  but also sipply.  We can alter our demand for material goods  by changing the meaning we attach to them  - by no longer seeing them as indicators of social status in the way I suggested above. .  But also we can increase the supply of useful material goods by _inter alia _eliminating the massive structural wastage of socially useless production that goes on in capitalism.  As I said before, the elimination of  money and all the kinds of occupations related to money will effectively mean far more resoruces, material and human,  will become available for socially useful prodiuction, for directly meeting human needs.

In short , socialism will be an affluent society in the way that capitalism can never be.  Capitalism requires us always  to feel relatively impoverished.  It can never permit us to feel that "enough is enough" since this would radically undermine the whole basis upon which its system of status diffenrentiation is based.  Socialism on the other will mean we can comfortably want less as well as enabling us to produce more of the uselful things in life - until an eqilibrium of sorts has been reached.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 21, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> They're not called impossibilists for no reason.Louis MacNeice


But not for the reasons you think.  According to Larry Gambone in his pamphlet _The Impossibilists_:


> The Impossibilists were not unique to Western Canada. (1) The Socialist Labor Party and its affiliates in Australia and Scotland held similar beliefs. So too, the Socialist Party of Great Britain. The left-wing factions of German and Dutch Social Democracy, like the Canadian Impossibilists, expressed a militant and resolutely anti-statist socialism. Then there was the Australian OBU, the IWW, the French CGT and a host of other revolutionary syndicalist unions. These groups, suppressed and pushed aside like their Canadian counterparts, represent a path not taken by the world’s labor movements.


Footnote 1 is interesting as it introduces some of our familiar friends here:


> 1. Outside of the English speaking world “Impossibilist” has a different meaning—those who were anti-parliamentary and in favor of a transitional program and a vanguard party—the future Communists.


----------



## moon23 (May 21, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Yes I agree they are part of the global market.  The recycling of the global waste is a huge business employing thousands in the sorting and breakdown of the various products.  And not without its obvious hazards regarding toxins and contamination.
> 
> The point I was making is that they have little access to the global market in the terms which moon23 stated.  Their pockets are just not deep enough to enable them to buy the commodities he mentioned.  In fact for all their efforts there are no guarantees they will get enough to eat alone a living wage.  When I see doco's of people living and working and even being born on the rubbish tips of the world it not only makes my stomach turn but also makes me more determined than ever that capitalism must go!



Yes there is poverty, mainly in developing countries where an industrial capitalist society is still emerging. If you think that poverty would be removed under a Socalist system you are mistaken, people have suffered and starved in Socialist countries all over the world.

The profit motive best drives new technology and ways of doing things that bring people out of poverty. Sadly untill we learn to better harvest resources and research new types of energy production there are going to be some shortages.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2010)

All of the above from the SPGB is religion, not politics. And  it's classical pre-marx utopian socialism. Utopian to the core. Posit a new Jerusalem and say that's what we want, abandoning the present for the future in a way that makes time stop dead 110 years ago. Without some sort of insertion in the modern world there is no politics here only a pretence at politics. With no roots in the ongoing struggles you cannot have any sense of the possibilities they open, or indeed the dangers they present (see your complacent attitude towards historical fascism).  I often think this is why the Socialist Standard features science so heavily, the SPGB sees no social forces capable of leading to the promised land so fall back on science proving their case. somehow

With no path from today to your mansion on the hill you're reduced to simply declaiming that _it's possible_ and that you have the sole right to declare _how_ it's possible. You don't, but what this does then allow you to do is to hide your apolticism behind ideas such as the transition to socialism must be democratic (a position not at all unique to the the SPGB no matter how often the suggestion is made) and (here's the really insulting bit) that it must be made by fully conscious workers - then you abrogate to yourself the role of both disseminator and judge of that consciousness. 

It's genius piece of self-preserving dogma (it'll be denied the SPGB see themselves in this role, but the hostility clause and following paragraph of the declaration of principles gives the lie to this). Of course, every group needs its racket - this just happens to be the SPGB's one. 

It's wrong though, it's quite clear from history - ongoing history, not history that stopped 100 years ago - that struggle transforms consciousness, there's no need to be 100% already formally signed up the SPGBs principles for your actions to help bring about change to both your social conditions and social understanding. The late Marty Glaberman put this best for me:



> It's essential to reject the idea that nothing can happen until white workers are no longer racist. I don't know what anybody thinks the Russian workers in 1917 were. They were sexist. They were nationalist. A lot of them were under the thumb of the church. But they made a goddamn revolution that began to change them. Whether there's a social explosion or not doesn't depend on any formal attitudes or supporting this particular organisation or that particular organisation.



So, with that central strut of the SPGB's particular case kicked away i do hope you now do the decent thing, shut down your operation and re-enter into the lists of real life. Off the merry-go-round comrades. Off the merry-go-round.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> But not for the reasons you think.  According to Larry Gambone in his pamphlet _The Impossibilists_:
> Footnote 1 is interesting as it introduces some of our familiar friends here:



What's the point being made here?


----------



## Blagsta (May 21, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes there is poverty, mainly in developing countries where an industrial capitalist society is still emerging. If you think that poverty would be removed under a Socalist system you are mistaken, people have suffered and starved in Socialist countries all over the world.
> 
> The profit motive best drives new technology and ways of doing things that bring people out of poverty. Sadly untill we learn to better harvest resources and research new types of energy production there are going to be some shortages.



No poverty in the UK is there.  Open your eyes mate.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 21, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What's the point being made here?




The points being to impose a particular definition of impossibilist and then co-opt supporters; it's not quite up there with the attempted 'dead Russians' trick tried earlier, by it has some of the same qualities.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## TremulousTetra (May 21, 2010)

moon23 said:


> By helping develop technology to such a state that we can unlock the full resources of the Universere so near unlimited growth becomes a possibilty. For instance creating synthetic life to produce new green fuels that can help provide people with the energy needed to escape poverty.


For profit.... What is profit??? Understand what profit is, you will understand the impossibillity of the above.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 21, 2010)

More from Larry Gambone:



> Why should the Impossibilists matter today? Why should anyone wish to read an anthology of their writings culled from moldy eighty-year old newspapers? One of the most striking events of the Twentieth Century, an era not lacking in dramatic occurrences, has been the complete collapse of both Stalinist Communism and “socialism” in all its forms. But what has been thrown in history’s famous and overflowing dustbin is not Impossibilist socialism, but state capitalism. For several generations labor and “progressive intellectuals” put their faith in the state as a means to solve social problems. Few people now look to statism for solutions and therefore the “left” is in chaos.
> 
> The Impossibilists represented something different—they never endorsed “state socialism”, rather recoiling from it in horror. Socialism meant democratic control and ownership of production by the producers—the original “co-operative production” of Marx, Proudhon and Owen. Nor did they endorse another evil of the Twentieth Century, the notion of the “vanguard party”. For them socialism had to be the work of the vast majority of the population or not at all. Socialism was inseparable from democracy, and was in their eyes, its full realization. The role of socialists was to educate and not lead.
> 
> Sneered at as “out of date” by the snottily superior Bolshevik fellow-travelers and dismissed as simple-minded millenarians by labor bureaucrats, (and their academic apologists) the Impossibilist’s often libertarian message is more likely to be welcomed today than leftist demands for nationalization and state control. No doubt, the SPC and the OBU’s ever-present rhetoric of class war will be annoying to most contemporary readers, but it is necessary to keep in mind just how brutal the times were. Talk of class war was not a lot of hot air, in the mines and lumber camps a protracted and sometimes violent struggle ensued between workers and employers.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2010)

You know Gambone is a proudhonist style mutualist, an individualist don't you? Careful how you read him. And you do know the groups he was referring to above were not the SPGB but those who rejected the SPGB's style purism - despite LG's attempt to run them together?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 21, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You know Gambone is a proudhonist style mutualist, an individualist don't you? Careful how you read him. And you do know the groups he was referring to above were not the SPGB but those who rejected the SPGB's style purism - despite LG's attempt to rum together?



There is also the small matter of the historic specificity which Gambone touches on in the last paragraph; as far as I remember Clapham has lost its mines and lumber camps.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## JWH (May 21, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I often think this is why the Socialist Standard features science so heavily, the SPGB sees no social forces capable of leading to the promised land so fall back on science proving their case. somehow
> 
> With no path from today to your mansion on the hill you're reduced to simply declaiming that _it's possible_



It's the mirror image of this stuff, then:


> we can unlock the full resources of the Universere so near unlimited growth becomes a possibilty. For instance creating synthetic life to produce new green fuels that can help provide people with the energy needed to escape poverty.


isn't it?


----------



## dannysp (May 21, 2010)

The late Marty Glaberman put this best for me:


Quote:
It's essential to reject the idea that nothing can happen until white workers are no longer racist. I don't know what anybody thinks the Russian workers in 1917 were. They were sexist. They were nationalist. A lot of them were under the thumb of the church. But they made a goddamn revolution that began to change them. Whether there's a social explosion or not doesn't depend on any formal attitudes or supporting this particular organisation or that particular organisation.


That one worked out realy well didn't it Butch?


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2010)

You miss the point entirely - the changes that people brought about in terms of their own individual consciousness, social consciousness and social conditions. Those changes were brought about by self-activity and could have been defended and extended by further struggle (by aggressive defence of organs of w/c control and associated production). They didn't require people to be signed up SPGB members to take place. You can see the same process at work in the anti-poll tax campaign. 

You really do need to crawl out of the wreckage of 1917 - the Bolsheviks aren't coming.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2010)

JWH said:


> It's the mirror image of this stuff, then:
> 
> isn't it?



Spot on -  i said a few days ago that it's the flip side of that very same coin.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2010)

JWH said:


> It's the mirror image of this stuff, then:
> 
> isn't it?



Turns out he was in the SPGB  - how perfect  

edit: scrub that, he was confused about which party he applied to join, paid subs too and took part in the activities of.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 21, 2010)

OK, if you don't like Gambone try this article from Peter Campbell.

This is how wikipedia defines "impossibilism":



> Impossibilism is an interpretation of Marxism. It emphasizes the limited value of reforms in overturning capitalism and insists on revolutionary political action as the only reliable method of bringing about socialism.
> The concept - though not the specific term - was introduced and heavily influenced by the American Marxist thinker Daniel De Leon, on the basis of theory that De Leon generated before his interest in syndicalism began (see De Leonism). It came to be focused especially on the question of whether socialists should take part in government under capitalism. At the Paris Congress of the Second International, in 1900, those who favoured entry into government, with all the implied compromises, called themselves Possibilists, while those who opposed participation became known as Impossibilists.
> Impossibilism was particularly popular in British Columbia in the early 20th century, through the influence of E.T. Kingsley. Several members of Kingsley's Socialist Party of Canada were elected to the British Columbia legislature between 1901 and 1910. It is also the basis of the theory and practice of the oldest British Marxist party, the Socialist Party of Great Britain, which was founded in 1904.


And its opposite "possibilism":


> The Possibilists was a trend in the French socialist movement led by Paul Brousse, Benoît Malon and others who brought about a split in the French Workers' Party in 1882. Its leaders proclaimed what was essentially a reformist principle of achieving only what is 'possible', which they claimed was not the workers revolution


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2010)

I know all this - so does Loius, it might be new toy you but i still don't see what point you're trying to make.


----------



## dannysp (May 21, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You miss the point entirely - the changes that people brought about in terms of their own individual consciousness, social consciousness and social conditions. Those changes were brought about by self-activity and could have been defended and extended by further struggle (by aggressive defence of organs of w/c control and associated production). They didn't require people to be signed up SPGB members to take place. You can see the same process at work in the anti-poll tax campaign.
> 
> You really do need to crawl out of the wreckage of 1917 - the Bolsheviks





Those changes led to the red fascism of Stalin. The point I/we are trying to make is that you need socialists to make Socialism, the means must equal the end, the power must fit the purpose.

The SPGB recognises that knowledge is power, so the more we working people know about the social situation we find ourselves in and its contradictions, become aware of the fact that as workers we have all the power of society embodied in us as a class, the more we understand about the Socialist alternative to capitalism,, the more potential/power we can apply to the process of revolution.

As we see it there are three absolutely essential prerequisites needed before we can acheive Socialism 1) production developed to the level that could end poverty, 2) communication at the level whereby production can be co-ordinated to meet the needs of society, and importantly to enable democracy to function, 3) consciousness, the understanding, awarenes of what Socialism is and the social will to share the duties and responsibilities to bring it into existance, maintain and develope it.

There wasn't much of 1 2 and 3 in 1917 Russia which promted the article in a 1918 Socialist Standard explaining why Socialism was not on the cards there. I wish it had suceeded because if so I would have lived and be living with Socialism, but it didn't, am I'm not. If we fail to learn from our history we are likely to repeat it. If we are to have a revolution ffs let's get it right, playing fast and loose with the future just aint on.

Let me remind you of that natural therefore unbreakable law of socialial responsibility I refered to in an earlier post, which the only acknowledgement of was a "ho ho ho" from PT.

The only responsible way to deal with social responsibility is to share it, any thing else is irresponsible. 

Now if that stands up the last thing anyone can call the SPGB is irresponsible.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Those changes led to the red fascism of Stalin. The point I/we are trying to make is that you need socialists to make Socialism, the means must equal the end, the power must fit the purpose.



No, those changes did not lead to that - inadequate defence of workers organisation amongst other factors lead to that outcome. To say that those changes led to that is the crudest interpretation of 1917 i've ever read.  To argue that 1917 failed because the workers had not been signed up to the SPGB platform...it's beyond not being marxism...it's...

I'll read the rest and see if laughter is the best response or not later.


----------



## dannysp (May 21, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No, those changes did not lead to that - inadequate defence of workers organisation amongst other factors lead to that outcome. To say that those changes led to that is the crudest interpretation of 1917 i've ever read.  To argue that 1917 failed because the workers had not been signed up to the SPGB platform...it's beyond not being marxism...it's...
> 
> I'll read the rest and see if laughter is the best response or not later.




I pointed out that the prerequisites needed for Socialism were not in existance in 1917 Russia and so could not be acheived.

Surely history can only be understood as a process of cause and effect, so the question beged is, what were the reasons for the decent into the horrors of stalinism?


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2010)

I pointed out that the perquisites listed are a self-serving preservation complex and not at all political. Irrelevant in fact and in life.


----------



## dannysp (May 21, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I pointed out that the perquisites listed are a self-serving preservation complex and not at all political. Irrelevant in fact and in life.



The above are assertions, if I/we are wrong on this can you provide reasons why?


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2010)

I did earlier today.


----------



## dannysp (May 21, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I did earlier today.



What number post was that?

Butch, if you can demolish the claimed law of social responsibility then you have us beat, and with that I'll hand in my resignation from the SPGB immediately. Its a promise.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2010)

# 739

Why do i need demolish it? It's self evidently true, regardless of wanky jargon.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 21, 2010)

dannysp said:


> three absolutely essential prerequisites needed before we can acheive Socialism 1) production developed to the level that could end poverty, 2) communication at the level whereby production can be co-ordinated to meet the needs of society, and importantly to enable democracy to function, 3) consciousness, the understanding, awarenes of what Socialism is and the social will to share the duties and responsibilities to bring it into existance, maintain and develope it.
> There wasn't much of 1 2 and 3 in 1917 Russia


I would have thought that this was the ABC of Marxism and not just a laughable SPGB theory. In fact even Lenin tactitly recognised this towards the end of his life when he wrote in 1923:


> Our opponents told us repeatedly that we were rash in undertaking to implant socialism in an insuffisantly cultured country. But they were misled by our having started from the end opposite to that prescribed by theory (the theory of pedants of all kinds), because in our country the political and social revolution preceded the cultural revolution, that very cultural revolution which nevertheless now confronts us. This cultural revolution would now suffice to make our country a completely socialist country; but it presents immense difficulties of a purely cultural (for we are illiterate) and material character (for to be cultured we must achieve a certain degree of the material means of production, must have a certain material base)


And:


> You say that civilisation is necessary for the building of socialism. Very good. But why could we not first create such prerequisites of civilisation in our country as the expulsion of the landowners and the Russian capitalists? Where, in what books, have you read that such variations of the customary historical order of events are impermissable or impossible?


Where? Everywhere in the writings of Marx. Lenin of course failed to establish socialism in Russia, and laid the foundations for the state capitalist dictatorship of Stalin.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2010)

You're quoting lenin at me? Why? Are you a leninist?


----------



## moon23 (May 21, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Turns out he was in the SPGB  - how perfect
> 
> edit: scrub that, he was confused about which party he applied to join, paid subs too and took part in the activities of.



I just assumed the SPGB was the Socialist Party, but I was wrong there it is a different minor and irrelevant sect of socalism. It will probably be called the Workers Socalist Party or Workers of Great Britian Socialist Party next week anyway.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 21, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I just assumed the SPGB was the Socialist Party, but I was wrong there it is a different minor and irrelevant sect of socalism. It will probably be called the Workers Socalist Party or Workers of Great Britian Socialist Party next week anyway.



I doubt that. They've been called the squeegees since 1904, whereas your lot like to refresh your name every couple of decades, keep it fresh and so people don't realise you're the same old Whigs


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 21, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Now if that stands up the last thing anyone can call the SPGB is irresponsible.



The SPGB would be irresponsible if they weren't irrelevant.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 21, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I just assumed the SPGB was the Socialist Party, but I was wrong there it is a different minor and irrelevant sect of socalism. It will probably be called the Workers Socalist Party or Workers of Great Britian Socialist Party next week anyway.



More ignorance on display; is there anything you actually know something about?

Louis MacNeice

p.s. you do know what assumption is?


----------



## dannysp (May 21, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> # 739
> 
> Why do i need demolish it? It's self evidently true, regardless of wanky jargon.




Well Butch, if that's the case, then it must be irresponsible for the workers to hand over their social power to a vangaurd who will decide how, when, where and to what purpose that power is put.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 21, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Well Butch, if that's the case, then it must be irresponsible for the workers to hand over their social power to a vangaurd who will decide how, when, where and to what purpose that power is put.



What is it with you and JL trying to paint posters into some imagined leninist corner? If your argument's  so weak as to need that sort of dishonesty, then the working class are doomed. Shame on you Edwardians.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Well Butch, if that's the case, then it must be irresponsible for the workers to hand over their social power to a vangaurd who will decide how, when, where and to what purpose that power is put.



Well spotted! What a blinding insight! Now, back to the points...


----------



## dannysp (May 21, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> What is it with you and JL trying to paint posters into some imagined leninist corner? If your argument's  so weak as to need that sort of dishonesty, then the working class are doomed. Shame on you Edwardians.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



You can't paint someone into a corner, they have to do that themselves.

The charge of dishonesty demands the proof of its validity.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2010)

It's quite simple to paint someone else into a corner - there's exchange after exchange on this thread alone in which the SPGB vanguardists have had just that done to them. Louis just pointed out your failure to do the same to me and others.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 21, 2010)

dannysp said:


> *You can't paint someone into a corner, they have to do that themselves.*
> 
> The charge of dishonesty demands the proof of its validity.



Twit, of course you can do it to someone else; the dishonesty is in the action itself.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## dannysp (May 21, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> It's quite simple to paint someone else into a corner - there's exchange after exchange on this thread alone in which the SPGB vanguardists have had just that done to them. Louis just pointed out your failure to do the same to me and others.



"SPGB vanguardist" that sounds like someone surrounded by wet paint.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 21, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> If only the so easily duped working class would listen to your words of wisdom; set us free GD, set us free!
> 
> Louis MacNeice
> 
> p.s. While the glaring contradiction between your last two paragraphs, might be needed to hold together the impossibilist day dream, it doesn't cut it as a coherent argument.



All done and sorted.   Thanks for spotting the contradiction Louis I'm sure you'll cast your beady eye over the corrections to ensure it meets your strict standards of political coherence and correctness.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 22, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes there is poverty, mainly in developing countries where an industrial capitalist society is still emerging. If you think that poverty would be removed under a Socalist system you are mistaken, people have suffered and starved in Socialist countries all over the world.
> 
> The profit motive best drives new technology and ways of doing things that bring people out of poverty. Sadly untill we learn to better harvest resources and research new types of energy production there are going to be some shortages.



Many of the posters on this thread have accepted that a socialist society will be: stateless, classless, moneyless, borderless, democratic, common ownership of the means of living, free access, resource based economy, production for use and calculation in kind to meet the needs of humanity.   We also agree that no such society has ever been tried.  Therefore, your assumption that poverty would exist in a socialist society does not stand up to examination.   However, given the above framework it would be safe to assume that poverty in a socialist society would rapidly be eliminated.


----------



## robbo203 (May 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No, those changes did not lead to that - inadequate defence of workers organisation amongst other factors lead to that outcome. To say that those changes led to that is the crudest interpretation of 1917 i've ever read.  To argue that 1917 failed because the workers had not been signed up to the SPGB platform...it's beyond not being marxism...it's...
> 
> I'll read the rest and see if laughter is the best response or not later.



Failed in what respect, Butch? It certainly failed to establish socialism in the sense that we are talking about here.  And it failed in this sense for two main reasons 1) the material conditions were nowhere near ripe for socialism 2) there was no widespread mass understanding and desire for  socialism in the sense we have been talking about.  Are you disputing this?


----------



## moon23 (May 22, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Many of the posters on this thread have accepted that a socialist society will be: stateless, classless, moneyless, borderless, democratic, common ownership of the means of living, free access, resource based economy, production for use and calculation in kind to meet the needs of humanity.   We also agree that no such society has never been tried.  Therefore, your assumption that poverty would exist in a socialist society does not stand up to examination.   However, given the above framework it would be safe to assume that poverty in a socialist society would rapidly be eliminated.



My "assumption" is based on actual reailty, not a fantasy. Such a society has been tried plenty of time before, the problems with it is that it's actually impossible to 'calculate' production for us to meet the needs of humanity.

What you end up with is a load of theorists arguing about whether someone is a Lenist Stalinist, or a Marxist progressive whilst complaining about how out of touch other Lenisist/Stalinist marxist progressives are with the "working Class".

If for some freak of nature you actually manage to gain power, someone far more ruthless simply says "all the same nice fluffly shit" but takes everything for themselves. Only to leave the likes of you complaining to anyone who will listen about how the true path of socialism hasn't been followed.


----------



## moon23 (May 22, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I doubt that. They've been called the squeegees since 1904, whereas your lot like to refresh your name every couple of decades, keep it fresh and so people don't realise you're the same old Whigs



Wow we've jumped into a parallel universe where the twenty or so various small socialist parties don’t exist and comrades are able to agree what side to butter their own bread.


----------



## FreddyB (May 22, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The profit motive best drives new technology and ways of doing things that bring people out of poverty. Sadly untill we learn to better harvest resources and research new types of energy production there are going to be some shortages.



The profit motive doesn't bring people out of poverty and it doesn't drive new technology. Everything from nuclear energy to the processor in your pc are not products of the profit motive or the market they are products of state planning. That the states that planned them claim to support the free market is neither here nor there.


----------



## JimW (May 22, 2010)

There's that quote from US business historian Alfred Chandler in that long piece on economics the IWCA put out last year that also puts a lie to the idea of a classic liberal free market:





> modern business enterprise took the place of market mechanisms in coordinating the activities of the economy and allocating its resources. In many sectors of the economy the visible hand of management replaced what Adam Smith referred to as the invisible hand of market forces. The market remained the generator of demand for goods and services, but modern business enterprise took over the functions of coordinating flows of goods through existing processes of production and distribution, and of allocating funds and personnel for future production and distribution. As modern business enterprise acquired functions hitherto carried out by the market, it became the most powerful institution in the American economy and its managers the most influential group of economic decision makers


----------



## robbo203 (May 22, 2010)

moon23 said:


> My "assumption" is based on actual reailty, not a fantasy. Such a society has been tried plenty of time before, the problems with it is that it's actually impossible to 'calculate' production for us to meet the needs of humanity..



If this is an allusion to the Misesian calculation argument perhaps you might care to substantiate this claim.  

In my view there is no basis to this claim whatsover (nor your assertion that socialism has been tried "plenty of times before" when the indispensable  preconditions for it to be successfully implemented have not yet materialised anywhere to date - most notably, the mass understanding and desire for genuine socialism) . But the economic calculation argument has been comprehensively deolished anyway and if you are interested in finding out how, I would be happy to take you through the counter arguments one by one.

The SPGB incidentally have initiated a discussion forum http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ecaworkinggroup/?yguid=90109900 precisely to discuss the issue of calculation in a socialist economy


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 22, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> All done and sorted.   Thanks for spotting the contradiction Louis I'm sure you'll cast your beady eye over the corrections to ensure it meets your strict standards of political coherence and correctness.



The contradiction persists; as it has to if you're going to peddle this rubbish.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## scrappy1 (May 22, 2010)

dannysp said:


> "SPGB vanguardist" that sounds like someone surrounded by wet paint.



If the SPGB is vanguardist, then how does that square with clause 5 of our Declaration of Principles which states: "That this emancipation must be the work of the working class itself"?


----------



## FreddyB (May 22, 2010)

scrappy1 said:


> If the SPGB is vanguardist, then how does that square with clause 5 of our Declaration of Principles which states: "That this emancipation must be the work of the working class itself"?


and that can only happn when the working class agree with you


----------



## scrappy1 (May 22, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> and that can only happn when the working class agree with you



No argument there. However, we aren't "waiting for the working class to catch up", we're doing our best to convince workers of the need to establish socialism.


----------



## butchersapron (May 22, 2010)

scrappy1 said:


> If the SPGB is vanguardist, then how does that square with clause 5 of our Declaration of Principles which states: "That this emancipation must be the work of the working class itself"?



The left that you criticise so often make exactly the same declaration (and without the stupidity of the hostility clause to undermine it). The Soviet Union declared itself 'socialist' - was it? The GDR called itself 'democratic' - was it?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The left that you criticise so often make exactly the same declaration (and without the stupidity of the hostility clause to undermine it). The Soviet Union declared itself 'socialist' - was it? The GDR called itself 'democratic' - was it?



Butchers I'm getting sicked off with your continual accusations of calling the SPGB a vanguard party.  How you come to such a view beats me but you may well have your own criteria of definition if so post it up so we can all look at what the fuck you are on about and decide for ourselves whether or not its applicable to the SPGB.


----------



## FreddyB (May 22, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Butchers I'm getting sicked off with your continual accusations of calling the SPGB a vanguard party.  How you come to such a view beats me but you may well have your own criteria of definition if so post it up so we can all look at what the fuck you are on about and decide for ourselves whether or not its applicable to the SPGB.



You are a vanguard party by any definition of the word I understand. You have the truth, you know the path that the working class need to take. Like Jesus without the miracles


----------



## Gravediggers (May 22, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> You are a vanguard party by any definition of the word I understand. You have the truth, you know the path that the working class need to take. Like Jesus without the miracles



Just like butchers.  And just like butchers provide a criteria or definition. Are you related?


----------



## scrappy1 (May 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The left that you criticise so often make exactly the same declaration (and without the stupidity of the hostility clause to undermine it). The Soviet Union declared itself 'socialist' - was it? The GDR called itself 'democratic' - was it?



If your argument is that words cease to have meaning in the political context, then you have a problem, and there is no purpose in having a discussion on any subject. None of these states you mention were socialist. If they were, then we aren't socialists!

It's up to you to investigate the SPGB's definition of socialism, and see if it is something that appeals to you.

Our hostility clause states that we are opposed to all other political parties (in this country), "whether avowedly capitalist or alleged labour". The latter makes it clear that we don't consider these organisations socialist, or otherwise acting in the interest of the working class. How the clause undermines our position I fail to understand. Many of these allegedly socialist parties will do deals with each other to further their reformist non-socialist aims. How many of them are prepared to give a clear definition of socialism?


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 22, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> You are a vanguard party by any definition of the word I understand. You have the truth, you know the path that the working class need to take.


The reason why Gravediggers and others are getting upset by being called "vanguardists" is that they and you are using different definitions of the term "vanguard party". On your definition any propagandist or educational group or any group that wanted to convince others of their point of view would be a "vanguard party". In fact insofar as you want to convince anybody you would be a one-person vanguard party,

But this is not the sense in which the term has been used in leftwing political circles. Here it goes back to Lenin who introduced the idea into the working class movement. He held that, because workers left to themselves were not capable of developing a socialist consciousness (ie working out socialism for themselves) but only of developing a "trade-unionist" consciousness, they needed to be led to socialism by an enlightened minority, an intellectual elite organised as a centralised and highly disciplined party. 

All Leninist and Trotskyist groups are organised on this top-down basis and all set out to lead the working class. For instance, see this from a Trotskyist vanguard party group:



> The revolutionary party, based on the Leninist concept of the vanguard party and composed of the class conscious vanguard fighters of the working class, is the sole historical organ of revolutionary consciousness. This conscious strategy and vanguard instrument for the preparation and leadership of the socialist revolution can only mean the recreation of Trotsky’s world party of the workers’ socialist revolution, the Fourth International.
> 
> The Russian Revolution of October 1917 meant simultaneously the victory of the Leninist concept of the revolutionary vanguard party and the smashing defeat of the Menshevik theory of the broad “Marxist” party. The Mensheviks held that the working class “spontaneously” develops towards revolutionary consciousness and that therefore the task of Marxists was to organise a party that would reflect this development. By relying on spontaneous militancy for the development of revolutionary consciousness, the Mensheviks delegated the historical tasks of the revolutionary vanguard onto the spontaneous historical process and inevitably built an opportunist party that eventually betrayed the socialist revolution. By contrast, Lenin, understanding that revolutionary consciousness did not develop “spontaneously” but had to be constantly fought for, set out to build a vanguard party capable of fighting for the Marxist program and transforming the revolutionary potential of spontaneous militancy into revolutionary consciousness.
> 
> ...


No wonder people get upset when such elitist views are attributed to them!


----------



## dannysp (May 22, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> You are a vanguard party by any definition of the word I understand. You have the truth, you know the path that the working class need to take. Like Jesus without the miracles




Ok Freddy, it seems that you think you have the truth about the SPGB, and we'll tell you different, so to give you something to consider and criticise here's the object and principles of The Socialist Party.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/gbodop.html


----------



## scrappy1 (May 22, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Just like butchers.  And just like butchers provide a criteria or definition. Are you related?



If you belong to any organisation that expouses particular ideas, then you act as if those ideas are correct. You also constantly re-examine those ideas for weaknesses and modify your behaviour accordingly, if necessary.

If you always keep an "open mind", then you will never make any decisions. You'll go through life weighing up the pros and cons of courses of action to take, and not take them any of them.


----------



## scrappy1 (May 22, 2010)

scrappy1 said:


> If you belong to any organisation that expouses particular ideas, then you act as if those ideas are correct. You also constantly re-examine those ideas for weaknesses and modify your behaviour accordingly, if necessary.
> 
> If you always keep an "open mind", then you will never make any decisions. You'll go through life weighing up the pros and cons of courses of action to take, and not take them any of them.



Apologies for the sloppy proof-reading!


----------



## butchersapron (May 22, 2010)

scrappy1 said:


> If your argument is that words cease to have meaning in the political context, then you have a problem, and there is no purpose in having a discussion on any subject. None of these states you mention were socialist. If they were, then we aren't socialists!
> 
> It's up to you to investigate the SPGB's definition of socialism, and see if it is something that appeals to you.
> 
> Our hostility clause states that we are opposed to all other political parties (in this country), "whether avowedly capitalist or alleged labour". The latter makes it clear that we don't consider these organisations socialist, or otherwise acting in the interest of the working class. How the clause undermines our position I fail to understand. Many of these allegedly socialist parties will do deals with each other to further their reformist non-socialist aims. How many of them are prepared to give a clear definition of socialism?



No, i have no problem at all.  The argument is simple - it's easy to say that you're not vanguardist. The claim doesn't make it so - and you recognise this yourself by criticising the left as not actually believing that the emancipation of the working class must be their own work, despite saying they do. Form can and often does contradict content - as i believe it does in the case of the SPGB. 

Your anti-vanguardism is based on a disguised vanguardism - you already have the truth in advance of the w/c who refuse to think about their social conditions and the social relationships they take part in. That you refuse to consistently follow through this sort of vanguardism on the political level because you can recognise how damaging its proven to w/c self-emancipation over the last 100+ years is just another internal expression of 
an internal contradiction - and an incoherence that is fed by your refusal to enage in class struggle - it would be exposed sharpish by the real struggle by real people - as has happened to the case when presented here on an unimportant bulletin board, never mind real life.

I have investigated the SPGB and no, i'm not interested in you as an organisation preciesly because of your vanguardism. I find your decriptions of the working of the wider aspects of capital fine, as is your understanding of what communism is - but they're dead if you remove them from real life by this aggressive quiestist vanguardism.

The hostility clause and the following one undermine the argument that you are anti-vanguardist by outlining in the clearest possible terms your messianic vanguardism. It's naked and it doesn't, hasn't and won't stand up to real life. It's laughable frankly.




			
				SPGB said:
			
		

> That as all political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the interest of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all sections of all sections of the the master class, the party seeking working class emancipation must be hostile to every other party.


----------



## butchersapron (May 22, 2010)

scrappy1 said:


> If you belong to any organisation that expouses particular ideas, then you act as if those ideas are correct. You also constantly re-examine those ideas for weaknesses and modify your behaviour accordingly, if necessary.
> 
> If you always keep an "open mind", then you will never make any decisions. You'll go through life weighing up the pros and cons of courses of action to take, and not take them any of them.



What you don't do is declare your grpoups ideas to be correct and all others wrong _because_ they've been propounded by a particular group. That's circular, sloppy arrogant vanguardism that leads (and has led in fact) to a situation in which the correctness or usefulness of an idea, an approach or an analysis depends entirely on whose articulated it - not its coherence or its correspondence to real social conditions. It's unbelievably crude - it's modern day lysenkoism - and again, when tested in the real world, it falls apart - which then makes it handy that part of the dogma is not to test it in the real word. It's genius!


----------



## butchersapron (May 22, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> The reason why Gravediggers and others are getting upset by being called "vanguardists" is that they and you are using different definitions of the term "vanguard party". On your definition any propagandist or educational group or any group that wanted to convince others of their point of view would be a "vanguard party". In fact insofar as you want to convince anybody you would be a one-person vanguard party,
> 
> But this is not the sense in which the term has been used in leftwing political circles. Here it goes back to Lenin who introduced the idea into the working class movement. He held that, because workers left to themselves were not capable of developing a socialist consciousness (ie working out socialism for themselves) but only of developing a "trade-unionist" consciousness, they needed to be led to socialism by an enlightened minority, an intellectual elite organised as a centralised and highly disciplined party.
> 
> ...



I'm using it in this sense as i've made clear over many many posts on this issue. And your outline of classical leninism above, whilst historically inaccurate, does have the virtue of making it very clear where and what the similarities with the SPGB are.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I'm using it in this sense as i've made clear over many many posts on this issue. And your outline of classical leninism above, whilst historically inaccurate, does have the virtue of making it very clear where and what the similarities with the SPGB are.



But you have not made yourself clear have you?  I asked you for a criteria or definition and you have failed to provide either.   Granted you have accepted Leninism has the definitive description of vanguardism but bemoan its inaccuracy.  So we are not going to go anywhere on that one I presume.  But we have got a comparison where we can compare like with like.

So OK butchers if you see  a similarity between Lenism and the SPGB how do you explain the following: The SPGB have no leaders; the revolutionary process is not about building the party but making socialists; the SPGB are not involved in the political system but are involved in the political process; once the revolutionary process is completed the SPGB acknowledges that their purpose and function will have been fulfilled and they will be disbanded; the SPGB see themselves as a vehicle for self-emancipation to used by the working class as they see fit.


----------



## butchersapron (May 22, 2010)

Is this really the level of your self-analysis? *Why aren't you *** despite these similarities*? _Because we say we're not._ *But what about *** & ***?* _But we say that we're not. Why else would we say we're not other than if we're not?_

Come on. This is childs talk.


----------



## scrappy1 (May 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What you don't do is declare your grpoups ideas to be correct and all others wrong _because_ they've been propounded by a particular group. That's circular, sloppy arrogant vanguardism that leads (and has led in fact) to a situation in which the correctness or usefulness of an idea, an approach or an analysis depends entirely on whose articulated it - not its coherence or its correspondence to real social conditions. It's unbelievably crude - it's modern day lysenkoism - and again, when tested in the real world, it falls apart - which then makes it handy that part of the dogma is not to test it in the real word. It's genius!



I wasn't saying that the SPGB was correct, just that any organisation assumes its ideas to be correct, and then proceeds on that basis, otherwise there'd be no point in joining anything.

Are you opposed to socialism as we define it--or our methods? If so, why do you concern yourself with us?

Where are our ideas (what you call "dogma") not tested against the "real world"?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Is this really the level of your self-analysis? *Why aren't you *** despite these similarities*? _Because we say we're not._ *But what about *** & ***?* _But we say that we're not. Why else would we say we're not other than if we're not?_
> 
> Come on. This is childs talk.



No butchers you are being the big kid by kidding yourself you do not have to provide a viable explanation for the lack of comparison between the SPGB and Leninism.  Your reply above is a confirmation that you find it impossible to make that comparison and can only resort to assertions.  Robbo is correct you are an agent provocateur.  But I much prefer shit stirrer.


----------



## butchersapron (May 22, 2010)

scrappy1 said:


> I wasn't saying that the SPGB was correct, just that any organisation assumes its ideas to be correct, and then proceeds on that basis, otherwise there'd be no point in joining anything.
> 
> Are you opposed to socialism as we define it--or our methods? If so, why do you concern yourself with us?
> 
> Where are our ideas (what you call "dogma") not tested against the "real world"?



The reasons why you reach the conclusion those ideas are correct is centrally importnat. The SPGB appear to think they're correct by virtue of being expunded by the SPGB - a theme you share in common with classical vanguardism. And that's without even going into what 'correct' means in political terms - does it mean that your parties needs supercede those of the wider class? If not, why not? That your interpretations of social reality take precedence over those of the wider class? If not, why not?

I'll debate with who i want about what i want thanks, but surely _you_ as the great educators should be concerned about me - shouldn't you?

The ideas are tested primarily in the tiny little sphere of public life called debate in which equality is presumed (in line with the bourgeois myths about freedom of speech and so on) in which you present 'the case for socialism' - everything else is condemned  - by definition, as it's not the SPGB and it's not debate -  as reformism. Of course, that's everything except this mythical pure class struggle you habitually pay obeisance to without ever showing any understanding of the various messy contradictory forms it takes - beyond, of course, condemning it precisely for being messy.


----------



## robbo203 (May 22, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> You are a vanguard party by any definition of the word I understand. You have the truth, you know the path that the working class need to take. Like Jesus without the miracles



No, thats not the definition of a vanguard in the political sense.  Vanguardism means the emancipation of some larger group being dependent on some smaller group.  The SPGB is clearly saying it cannot , and will not even attempt, to emancipate the working class or act on its behlaf.  The working class has to emancipate itself.  

As to how that might happen  - the "path that the working class need to take" - yes, the SPGB has a particular view which it obviously holds to be correct.  Dont we all believe that the views that we happen to hold are necessarily correct (or why would we hold them)?  However, holding a particular view about something and believing it to be right does not make you a vanguardist.  A dogmatist maybe if you are not willing to at least consider other points of view but a dogmatist is not the same thing as a  vanguadist at all.  Some people here seem to be very confused about these terms...


The point is that having a view about the path that workers need to take is neither here nor there unless and until the workers themselves do take it.  The SPGB does not propose to take that path for or on behalf the workers so clearly cannot be considered vanguardist.


----------



## butchersapron (May 22, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> No butchers you are being the big kid by kidding yourself you do not have to provide a viable explanation for the lack of comparison between the SPGB and Leninism.  Your reply above is a confirmation that you find it impossible to make that comparison and can only resort to assertions.  Robbo is correct you are an agent provocateur.  But I much prefer shit stirrer.



Your fellow traveler thinks i'm an 'agent provocateur'* - wtf?  And you agree! Seriously, get off the magic roundabout.

I've outlined above and also on the plaid cymru thread why i see the SPGB as vanguardist - your only response is the same as the stalinist who insists the USSR was communist _because it said so in the 1936 constitution._

*_agent provocateur - a person employed by the police or other entity to act undercover to entice or provoke another person to commit an illegal act. More generally, the term may refer to a person or group that seeks to discredit or harm another by provoking them to commit a wrong or rash action._

You've done enough harm to yourself these last weeks without my prompting.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I find your decriptions of the working of the wider aspects of capital fine, as is your understanding of what communism is -


I'm sure the SPGB will reciprocate by agreeing with your criticism of the intervention of the Leninist vanguard party, the SWP, in the trade union negotaitions over the BA cabin crew dispute.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (May 22, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Some people here seem to be very confused about these terms...



Indeed.


----------



## scrappy1 (May 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I'll debate with who i want about what i want thanks, but surely _you_ as the great educators should be concerned about me - shouldn't you?



We are not the "great educators" you accuse us of being. We are workers who have come to an analysis of society, which we see as not benefiting our class. We propound and debate our ideas because we want to see a better society. Of course, we may be wrong.

What is your reason for debating?


----------



## dannysp (May 22, 2010)

[?

The ideas are tested primarily in the tiny little sphere of public life called debate in which equality is presumed (in line with the bourgeois myths about freedom of speech and so on) in which you present 'the case for socialism' - everything else is condemned  - by definition, as it's not the SPGB and it's not debate -  as reformism. Of course, that's everything except this mythical pure class struggle you habitually pay obeisance to without ever showing any understanding of the various messy contradictory forms it takes - beyond, of course, condemning it precisely for being messy.[/QUOTE]


I'd like to discuss your understanding of the various messy contradictory forms class struggle takes. What are these messy forms?


----------



## scrappy1 (May 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I've outlined above and also on the plaid cymru thread why i see the SPGB as vanguardist - your only response is the same as the stalinist who insists the USSR was communist _because it said so in the 1936 constitution._



For the benefit of a newbie could you reiterate what you said on the Plaid Cymru thread, or direct me to the link?


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2010)

dannysp said:


> I'd like to discuss your understanding of the various messy contradictory forms class struggle takes. What are these messy forms?



I don't think you would as it goes - i think you'd like a) me to list some of them and then b)you condemn them for being 'reformist', for propping up capital, for not aiming at a pure socialism (i.e one defined and authorised by your good selfs) - entirely in line with what i've suggested above, and entirely in line with a century of parlour-games in which everyone else knows what's coming next. 

Far far too obvious.


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2010)

scrappy1 said:


> For the benefit of a newbie could you reiterate what you said on the Plaid Cymru thread, or direct me to the link?



Here is the thread.


----------



## scrappy1 (May 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I don't think you would as it goes - i think you'd like a) me to list some of them and then b)you condemn them for being 'reformist', for propping up capital, for not aiming at a pure socialism (i.e one defined and authorised by your good selfs) - entirely in line with what i've suggested above, and entirely in line with a century of parlour-games in which everyone else knows what's coming next.
> 
> Far far too obvious.



I suggest you criticise our ideas rather than how you think we defend them, i.e. dogmatically and self-righteously. Holding views dogmatically doesn't necessarily make them wrong.

Come on, tell us where you disagree with the socialist proposition of a society of production for use instead of profit, to be established by democratic means.


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2010)

Don't tell me what aspect of your approach to criticise - how dare you demand that comments only touch on areas that you feel confident enough on. The idea that we're only allowed to talk abut the actual proposition of a socialist society - nothing else about the SPGB  -demonstrates exactly the sort of necessary retreat from reality into a passive vanguardism your approach entails - and that's what i'm highlighting and attacking. To no substantive response beyond _look at the 1936 constitution, the USSR is socialist, its says so right there._


----------



## Gravediggers (May 23, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes there is poverty, mainly in developing countries where an industrial capitalist society is still emerging. If you think that poverty would be removed under a Socalist system you are mistaken, people have suffered and starved in Socialist countries all over the world.
> 
> The profit motive best drives new technology and ways of doing things that bring people out of poverty. Sadly untill we learn to better harvest resources and research new types of energy production there are going to be some shortages.



Further to my previous reply you last paragraph above contains a glaring ignorance regarding how capitalism actually operates.  You assume (again) that the profit motive is the solution to all our problems specifically in regards to the introduction of new technology bringing people out of poverty.  This assumption ignores the facts that the introduction of new technology can in many instances put people into poverty. 

New technology is only introduced when there is a profit to be made.  For example, the massive dam projects in Brasil, China, India and elsewhere are essential to the global economy in that they provide the resources to manufacture old and new technology.  However, damming on such a scale - by its very nature - also involves the displacement of thousands of people where little provision is made for providing alternative means of living.  If such administration costs were to be factored into the total cost the rate of profit would decrease proportionally.

The consequences of such maladministration results in many of the urban poor moving to the cities and finding themselves directly under the thumb of wage slavery and officially classified by the UN has living under 'extreme poverty'.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 23, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> The profit motive doesn't bring people out of poverty and it doesn't drive new technology. Everything from nuclear energy to the processor in your pc are not products of the profit motive or the market they are products of state planning. That the states that planned them claim to support the free market is neither here nor there.



You are way off beam here for profit does indeed motivate the introduction of new technology, if it didn't there would no introduction of new technology - full stop.  Also if the market depended purely on 'state planning' to buy new technology this totally ignores the fact that the state machinery is the servant of market forces not the master.


----------



## JWH (May 23, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> You are way off beam here for profit does indeed motivate the introduction of new technology, if it didn't there would no introduction of new technology - full stop.


I agree that profit is the main driver of _adoption and spread_ of technology, and for most of technology development, but there are still forms of technology that are not developed for profit, surely - open source software, mad old duffers tinkering in sheds and all the rest?


----------



## two sheds (May 23, 2010)

A question that has been asked before but I don't think you've really answered. Assuming that you get the socialist majority that you're after, do you really feel that the rich are going to say "ok fair do's you win here's all our wealth and power"? They're going to make a last stand, aren't they. 

So on the one side we're going to have the socialist majority with right on their side and on the other we're going to have the army, navy, airforce, fighter bombers, helicopter gunships, tanks, missiles, teargas, drones and all the exotic weapons our governments have been working on for just such a contingency. Good fucking luck on the barricades.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 23, 2010)

two sheds said:


> A question that has been asked before but I don't think you've really answered. Assuming that you get the socialist majority that you're after, do you really feel that the rich are going to say "ok fair do's you win here's all our wealth and power"? They're going to make a last stand, aren't they.
> 
> So on the one side we're going to have the socialist majority with right on their side and on the other we're going to have the army, navy, airforce, fighter bombers, helicopter gunships, tanks, missiles, teargas, drones and all the exotic weapons our governments have been working on for just such a contingency. Good fucking luck on the barricades.


Engels answered this point over a hundred years ago:


> How often has the bourgeoisie expected us to stop using revolutionary means under all circumstances and to remain within the law now that the emergency law has fallen and common law has been reestablished for everybody—even for the socialists? Unfortunately,  we are not in a position to do these gentlemen that favor. But for the moment it is not we who are "breaking the law." On the contrary, it is working so well in our favor that we would be fools to go against it as long as things stay like this. The question is rather whether it is the bourgeoisie and its government who are breaking the law in order to crush us? We will wait and see. In the meantime, "Gentlemen of the bourgeoisie, it is up to you to fire the first shot."
> 
> No doubt about it, they will shoot first. One beautiful morning the German bourgeoisie and its government will find that they have grown tired of looking on with folded arms as the spring tide of socialism washes over everything; they will have to turn to lawlessness and violence. But what good will it do them? Force can at best suppress a small group in a corner of the country, but that power has yet to be invented that is able to wipe out a party with more than two or three million members, spread over an entire empire. Counterrevolutionary superiority may perhaps delay the triumph of socialism by a few years, but  only in such a way that it will then be all the more complete and final
> 
> - Engels, Socialism in Germany, in Marx, Engels, Bebel and Others, German Socialism in the Nineteenth Century, ed. By Frank Mecklenburg and Manfred Stassen, Continuum, New York, 1990.


----------



## scrappy1 (May 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Don't tell me what aspect of your approach to criticise - how dare you demand that comments only touch on areas that you feel confident enough on. The idea that we're only allowed to talk abut the actual proposition of a socialist society - nothing else about the SPGB  -demonstrates exactly the sort of necessary retreat from reality into a passive vanguardism your approach entails - and that's what i'm highlighting and attacking. To no substantive response beyond _look at the 1936 constitution, the USSR is socialist, its says so right there._



As you refuse to engage in a productive debate, there is no point in continuing this discussion. Therefore I consider this correspondence closed.


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2010)

You mean you're going to ignore my points and cry off when i point this out. I'm not interested in your 'proposition of a socialist society' - i'm interested in your vanguardism and what it entails. If you feel unable to discuss that then fine, there's no obligation. As gravediggers, i think it was, pointed out very helpfully to another poster recently, it's very easy to refuse to deal with things that seem to challenge your whole way of looking at things, that seem to challenge who you are and what you believe. But unlike GD i don't believe that you're unthinking sheeple as a result.


----------



## two sheds (May 23, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> Engels answered this point over a hundred years ago:



I don't think he did. He gives a nice piece of rhetoric but - even if he was right then - a lot has happened in a hundred years. 

On a tactical level: it's a few months before the grand election where it's finally clear there will be a socialist majority. The tv stations, radio and papers will be pumping out the message that the socialists are going to crash the economy and steal all peoples' possessions. The police and armed forces will be properly briefed about what's going on and what they need to do about it.

The state is first going to round up all the real activists and opinion formers (including in the police and armed forces) one night and shoot them or if they're feeling generous just lock them away. The election will be postponed for some pressing reason and the state can get on with suppressing any dissent that shows itself using all the weapons they fancy until conditions are right for a proper election when it's business as usual.  

So, what are you going to do about that when you're dead or in prison? As I said, good fucking luck on the barricades.


----------



## The39thStep (May 23, 2010)

scrappy1 said:


> As you refuse to engage in a productive debate, there is no point in continuing this discussion. Therefore I consider this correspondence closed.



That's the spirit


----------



## Gravediggers (May 23, 2010)

JWH said:


> I agree that profit is the main driver of _adoption and spread_ of technology, and for most of technology development, but there are still forms of technology that are not developed for profit, surely - open source software, mad old duffers tinkering in sheds and all the rest?



There are always exception to the rule, and thankfully open source software is one.  Socialist welcome the ethos of those who persist in developing OSS despite the odds of the profit system.  However, lets not ignore how OSS has been adapted by those who have no qualms on using it to turn a fast and massive buck.  Bill Gates and the introduction of Windows being a case in point.

One of the mad old duffers was Dyson who found to his cost that he had to patent everything or his inventions would have been stolen from under his nose.  All fair game with capitalism.  But just imagine how new technology would be employed in a socialist society of free access, with a resource based economy and calculation in kind?   Then you understand how capitalism is holding up human progress.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 23, 2010)

two sheds said:


> The state is first going to round up all the real activists and opinion formers (including in the police and armed forces) one night and shoot them or if they're feeling generous just lock them away.


I'm trying to work out where you are coming from. 

Are you saying that a democratic classless society (call it socialism) is an impossible dream because the ruling class will never allow it to be  estasblished?

Or are you saying that because violent resistance from them is inevitable those who want socialism should be preparing themselves for armed struggle against the state and civil war?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 23, 2010)

It's good to see the advanced workers of the SPGB in such fine form.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## scrappy1 (May 23, 2010)

two sheds said:


> I don't think he did. He gives a nice piece of rhetoric but - even if he was right then - a lot has happened in a hundred years.
> 
> On a tactical level: it's a few months before the grand election where it's finally clear there will be a socialist majority. The tv stations, radio and papers will be pumping out the message that the socialists are going to crash the economy and steal all peoples' possessions. The police and armed forces will be properly briefed about what's going on and what they need to do about it.
> 
> ...



I would take your comments about your prophesy of our failure more seriously if you hadn't finished expressing them with such downright glee in your last sentence.

If the media were to be pumping out anti-socialist lies, don't forget that the majority will have come over to socialism as you imply and they will able to ignore them. The media will include members of the socialist majority, so why would they also be putting out anti-socialist ideas? The same applies to the armed forces and police. 

There may be parts of the world where the capitalist class would resist to the end and try to use force against workers, but they would have to rely on workers to do their dirty work. Let's imagine some tinpot dictator who refuses to allow election to take place. OK, capitalism will continue in that particular country, but with socialism surrounding them what do they do? They will still need to do business with the former capitalist countries, but these won't be willing to co-operate on that basis.

Perhaps there may be a mad general with his finger on the button... We would have to take that chance.

And we have no intention of mounting the barricades.


----------



## two sheds (May 23, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> I'm trying to work out where you are coming from.
> 
> Are you saying that a democratic classless society (call it socialism) is an impossible dream because the ruling class will never allow it to be  estasblished?



The one the SPG is suggesting, then yes I don't think it could be established. In their terms (i think, I know not of these transitional demands) there have been no transitional demands and no concessions so you're taking on capitalism as strong as it can be.  And it's clear that it's either 'them or us' so they are going to throw everything at 'us' so pardon me if i disappear for a few months while they do it. 

The original Plaid Cymru thread had a list of policies that were eminently sensible but would be seen as transitional demands by the SPG. I'd be a lot happier with something like that, getting to a society that is fairer. It would then be a shorter step towards the 'ideal' society whatever that turned out to be. 

I wasn't really thinking in the abstract though, just in terms of where we are now to where the SPG and other left wingers want to go. How are you going to fight against tanks and helicopter gunships in practice? 



> Or are you saying that because violent resistance from them is inevitable those who want socialism should be preparing themselves for armed struggle against the state and civil war?


Well that's the problem I'd have thought - and the only way to get round it would be to move to a fairer society in the meantime wherever we can. The important thing for me is that people live in as good conditions as we can, not whether or not there is money for example. 

I've realised i can't really call myself a socialist by the way because  i've never read Marx et al and have no real desire to. I'm more  environmentalist in that i see us as one species among many so within those limitations how can we best use resources for people to be as  happy/fulfilled given the circumstances we all find ourselves in.


----------



## The39thStep (May 23, 2010)

To be fair to the SPGB how would you like it if you invented socialism and some Trots nick the name off you


----------



## Gravediggers (May 23, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> It's good to see the advanced workers of the SPGB in such fine form.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Louis its so good to see you blindly attempting to use a sprat to catch a mackerel.  If by "advanced workers" you mean we are ahead with our thinking on a socialist framework, you of all people would expect nothing less from an organisation which has had 106 years to figure out the broad outlines of the society we propose without resorting to drawing up a blueprint.

On the other hand, if by "advanced workers" you are referring to the vanguard I have to say shame on you Louis.   Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do assume you have read the posts appertaining to the implications of self-emancipation by the working class?   If not one can only assume you are a bit of a Slack Alice on times.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 23, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> To be fair to the SPGB how would you like it if you invented socialism and some Trots nick the name off you



The SPGB never invented socialism.  Indeed, our aim of socialism was in existence long before 1904.  And we deliberately have no copyright on our aim or name.


----------



## two sheds (May 23, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Louis its so good to see you blindly attempting to use a sprat to catch a mackerel.  If by "advanced workers" you mean we are ahead with our thinking on a socialist framework, you of all people would expect nothing less from an organisation which has had 106 years to figure out the broad outlines of the society we propose without resorting to drawing up a blueprint.
> 
> On the other hand, if by "advanced workers" you are referring to the vanguard I have to say shame on you Louis.   Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do assume you have read the posts appertaining to the implications of self-emancipation by the working class?   If not one can only assume you are a bit of a Slack Alice on times.



I think he was taking the piss, actually  .


----------



## Gravediggers (May 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You mean you're going to ignore my points and cry off when i point this out. I'm not interested in your 'proposition of a socialist society' - i'm interested in your vanguardism and what it entails. If you feel unable to discuss that then fine, there's no obligation. As gravediggers, i think it was, pointed out very helpfully to another poster recently, it's very easy to refuse to deal with things that seem to challenge your whole way of looking at things, that seem to challenge who you are and what you believe. But unlike GD i don't believe that you're unthinking sheeple as a result.



Butchers I can assure you I'm not unthinking and I am aware how being in denial works on the psyche at an individual level and at a social level.  Indeed, your proposition of the SPGB being a vanguardist party intrigues me and if you can convince me that your hypothesis is true I can assure you I would leave the SPGB tomorrow.  No qualms whatsoever.  And I doubt very much if I would be on my own for socialists have no intention of staying with a vanguardist party. 

No doubt you are aware that such a crucial hypothesis must be put to an examination and to this end I requested from you a criteria and a definition so we - and others - can jointly put them to the test on whether or not they do actually apply to the SPGB.  I see no sign of a coherent criteria being developed just a hotch pot of disjointed assertions.  And has for a definition of vanguardism you agreed on the Leninist description posted by Jean-Luc but dismissed it as being inaccurate.  Nevertheless, despite this dismissal I persisted in questioning your hypothesis but all to no avail.

Until you come forward with a coherent criteria and an agreeable definition I see no way on this discussion moving forward, or even going any further and me staying with the SPGB.  The proof is in the eating of the pudding.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 23, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> And I doubt very much if I would be on my own for socialists have no intention of stay with a vanguardist party.



And a few posts back you said 'socialists welcome'.

Who appointed you spokesman for Authentic Socialism TM?

Socialists must not steal
Socialists shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour

I think you are more messianic than vangaurdist tbh


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 23, 2010)

Socialists shall not shave


----------



## Gravediggers (May 23, 2010)

two sheds said:


> I think he was taking the piss, actually  .



No he or she was trying to take the piss - and failed - by using the assertion of "advanced workers" has bait to serve the impression (if it was unanswered) that we agreed with the implication contained in such a phrase/term e.g. we are a vanguard party.  Louis is well known for serving his/her agenda in this way, its called black propaganda and used by MI5/MI6 very effectively to uphold the status quo.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 23, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Louis its so good to see you blindly attempting to use a sprat to catch a mackerel.  If by "advanced workers" you mean we are ahead with our thinking on a socialist framework, you of all people would expect nothing less from an organisation which has had 106 years to figure out the broad outlines of the society we propose without resorting to drawing up a blueprint.
> 
> On the other hand, if by "advanced workers" you are referring to the vanguard I have to say shame on you Louis.   Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do assume you have read the posts appertaining to the implications of self-emancipation by the working class?   If not one can only assume you are a bit of a Slack Alice on times.



You are exactly the sort of advanced workers that Leninists posit as the necessary material of the vanguard party; as you have been telling us all, you're the most class conscious section of the class. 

Indeed your constitution makes it clear that anybody else claiming to be such advanced workers (grouped together in any organised way), by the mere fact of their absence from the mass ranks of the SPGB, is an enemy of socialism, an enemy of the working class. 

You are superb vanguardists, demanding that all submit to the tyranny of the party line (ineffectual and cobwebbed as it is), or face being cast for ever into the darkness of capitalism's left wing. 

Such is your uber-vanguardism, that even an organisation with the self same constitution is dismissed in a few terse lines (and the odd appeal to the capitalist legal system). 

This is a level chutzpah that even most Leninists draw the line at; at least they have the decency to tweak their rules to at least give the appearance of not being faith based groups. 

But not you. Hallelujah GD. Preach the word (sorry the 'case') and take us to the promised land, one tract at a time.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## two sheds (May 23, 2010)

scrappy1 said:


> I would take your comments about your prophesy of our failure more seriously if you hadn't finished expressing them with such downright glee in your last sentence.



For a party that is opposed to all other parties (Gravediggers: "Unlike the left wing we find no need to lie, be deceitful, manipulate or  condescending.  We state our case and let think it out for themselves.") you're a bit fucking precious when people have a go back. I'd take no 'glee' in seeing people die on barricades - it's the sort of thing I think we should above all else be avoiding.  



> If the media were to be pumping out anti-socialist lies, don't forget that the majority will have come over to socialism as you imply and they will able to ignore them. The media will include members of the socialist majority, so why would they also be putting out anti-socialist ideas? The same applies to the armed forces and police.


Even if the majority have come over to capitalism, the media (or at least any form of media like the one we have now) will not include members of the socialist majority because they wouldn't be reporters. The media is owned by people with money. The armed forces and police will be doing what the government of the time tells them to do, which is generally what people with money tells it is best for the long term good of the country. 

You seem to be saying that you need a perfect society (so media doesn't  put across 'anti-socialist lies', armed forces go for mass disobedience  etc etc ) before you can have your perfect society.

Again, any self respecting evil capitalist cabal will be taking out the leaders/opinion formers as a first action. You seem to be adopting a bloodless takeover as a statement of faith. I don't think it would be, and I think the result would be very one sided. 



> There may be parts of the world where the capitalist class would resist to the end and try to use force against workers, but they would have to rely on workers to do their dirty work. Let's imagine some tinpot dictator who refuses to allow election to take place. OK, capitalism will continue in that particular country, but with socialism surrounding them what do they do? They will still need to do business with the former capitalist countries, but these won't be willing to co-operate on that basis.
> 
> Perhaps there may be a mad general with his finger on the button... We would have to take that chance.
> 
> And we have no intention of mounting the barricades.


You've got to a world dominated by socialism before the first country has fallen. It's not the last tinpot dictator i'd be concerned about - it would be the first one. If what you say about capitalists is true, the first sniff of a true socialist revolution somewhere would be bombed to shit by the US and UK governments if no others.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 23, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> No he or she was trying to take the piss - and failed - by using the assertion of "advanced workers" has bait to serve the impression (if it was unanswered) that we agreed with the implication contained in such a phrase/term e.g. we are a vanguard party.  Louis is well known for serving his/her agenda in this way, its called black propaganda and used by MI5/MI6 very effectively to uphold the status quo.  It knows one to tell one shall we say?



Should I show my handler this?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## scrappy1 (May 23, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> And a few posts back you said 'socialists welcome'.
> 
> Who appointed you spokesman for Authentic Socialism TM?
> 
> ...



I have no idea what you are trying to say.


----------



## dannysp (May 23, 2010)

two sheds said:


> A question that has been asked before but I don't think you've really answered. Assuming that you get the socialist majority that you're after, do you really feel that the rich are going to say "ok fair do's you win here's all our wealth and power"? They're going to make a last stand, aren't they.
> 
> So on the one side we're going to have the socialist majority with right on their side and on the other we're going to have the army, navy, airforce, fighter bombers, helicopter gunships, tanks, missiles, teargas, drones and all the exotic weapons our governments have been working on for just such a contingency. Good fucking luck on the barricades.






So we have a state that would unleash terror on its'own' people if its power over them was challenged. I would have thought that woud be a prime motivation  to eliminate this institution. Or are we better off meekly submitting saying "sorry the world and all of us on it are yours guvner, what must we have been thinking".

What the capitalist know and in the main workers don't is where all the power lies in society, it is embodied, all of it in us the working class, because we do all the work in reproducing society day to day, and we have to be kept on-side, we have to see capitalism as being legitamate. We are told that we live in a democtatic society and we've used the democratic process and have voted for capitalism therefore giving it its precious legitamacy.

What if in the future an organisation of workers commited to peaceful democratic revolution gathered enough mass, enough momentum to trouble the ruling class, and of course this idea would naturaly be known by the working class by this time, it would have its social currency. What could the ruling class do? If it was an organisation like the WSM it couldn't corrupt or imprison its leaders because there wouldn't be any. If it took out prominant members of the organisation, suspended democracy or any other steps to deny it its voice, the state would be seen by workers clearly as the ruling class's intsrument of oppression, see it for exactly what it is. And so the state, and the class it serves would loose this essential legitamacy. Buggerd if they do and buggerd if they don't.

What of these humans who you reckon will be ready to impose this terror upon us? The armed forces, the police etc, are workers in uniform, wage slaves like the rest of us. I just can't imagine these workers in uniform obeying any order that has them brutalising a peaceful democratic organisation  made up of people they might know or people like those they know and identify with.

It's worth considering that at the time of the Tianmen Square confrontation the local troops were not used, soldiers from a rural province the other side of China who spoke a completely different language were brought in to do the states dirty work.

I thank you for your wishes of good luck on the barricades but why have barricades in the first place? If you have an opponent and we do, the best place to attack is where they are weakest. If we try to overpower with force of arms we attak where they strongest, which exactly where they want us to strike. Democracy is their soft underbelly exposed at times of elections, we figure we should strike there.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 23, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Butchers I can assure you I'm not unthinking and I am aware how being in denial works on the psyche at an individual level and at a social level.  Indeed, your proposition of the SPGB being a vanguardist party intrigues me and if you can convince me that your hypothesis is true I can assure you I would leave the SPGB tomorrow.  No qualms whatsoever.  And I doubt very much if I would be on my own for socialists have no intention of staying with a vanguardist party.
> 
> No doubt you are aware that such a crucial hypothesis must be put to an examination and to this end I requested from you a criteria and a definition so we - and others - can jointly put them to the test on whether or not they do actually apply to the SPGB.  I see no sign of a coherent criteria being developed just a hotch pot of disjointed assertions.  And has for a definition of vanguardism you agreed on the Leninist description posted by Jean-Luc but dismissed it as being inaccurate.  Nevertheless, despite this dismissal I persisted in questioning your hypothesis but all to no avail.
> 
> Until you come forward with a coherent criteria and an agreeable definition *I see no way on this discussion moving forward, or even going any further and me staying with the SPGB*.  The proof is in the eating of the pudding.



You see there is a way out even in the darkest hour; even in the depths of denial there can be a glimmer of self awareness. Grasp the moment.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 23, 2010)

scrappy1 said:


> I have no idea what you are trying to say.



Socialists should do this, socialists should not do that, socialists welcome this, socialists support that.

Speak for yourself or speak for your party. You clearly believe you are the one true socialists, so I suppose at least GD is being unintentionally frank.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 23, 2010)

scrappy1 said:


> I have no idea what you are trying to say.



Funny, as I'd have thought it was very straight forward. 

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2010)

Note well how this society of awakened men will only talk about the future awakened society.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 23, 2010)

two sheds said:


> In their terms (i think, I know not of these transitional demands) there have been no transitional demands and no concessions so you're taking on capitalism as strong as it can be.


Fair enough. I can see where you are coming from now. What you are not taking into account is that the growth of a mass movement for a democratic classless society employing open, democratic and non-violent tactics will of itself both extract concessions from the ruling class you seem to want and lessen the chances of a violent confrontation you are (rightly) afraid of. In fact the more people that come to want want a democratic classless society the weaker (not the stronger) become the ruling class and its state. 

William Morris put the situation rather well in 1890:



> My readers will understand that in saying this I am speaking for those who are complete Socialists - or let us call them Communists. I say for us to make Socialists is the business at present, and at present I do not think we can have any other useful business. Those who are not really Socialists - who are Trades' Unionists, disturbance-breeders, or what not - will do what they are impelled to do, and we cannot help it. At the worst there will be some good in what they do; but we need not and cannot heartily work with them, when we know that their methods are beside the right way.
> 
> Our business, I repeat, is the making of Socialists, i.e., convincing people that Socialism is good for them and is possible. When we have enough people of that way of thinking, they will find out what action is necessary for putting their principles in practice. Until we have that mass of opinion, action for a general change that will benefit the whole people is impossible. Have we that body of opinion of any thing like it? Surely not. If we look outside that glamour, that charmed atmosphere of party warfare in which we necessarily move, we shall see this clearly: that though there are a great many who believe it possible to compel their masters by some means or another to behave better to them, and though they are prepared to compel them (by so-called peaceful means, strikes and the like), all but a very small minority are not prepared to do without masters. They do not believe in their own capacity to undertake the management of affairs, and to be responsible for their life in this world. When they are so prepared, then Socialism will be realised; but nothing can push it on a day in advance of that time.
> 
> Therefore, I say, make Socialists. We Socialists can do nothing else that is useful, and preaching and teaching is not out of date for that purpose; but rather for those who, like myself, do not believe in State Socialism, it is the only rational means of attaining to the New Order of Things.


----------



## two sheds (May 23, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> No he or she was trying to take the piss - and failed -



Made me laugh  



> by using the assertion of "advanced workers" has bait to serve the impression (if it was unanswered) that we agreed with the implication contained in such a phrase/term e.g. we are a vanguard party.  Louis is well known for serving his/her agenda in this way, its called black propaganda and used by MI5/MI6 very effectively to uphold the status quo.  It knows one to tell one shall we say?


So butchers and louis you'd say would be first up against the wall come the revolution as agent provocateurs and MI5/MI6 black propagandists?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 23, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> No he or she was trying to take the piss - and failed - by using the assertion of "advanced workers" has bait to serve the impression (if it was unanswered) that we agreed with the implication contained in such a phrase/term e.g. we are a vanguard party.  Louis is well known for serving his/her agenda in this way, its called black propaganda and used by MI5/MI6 very effectively to uphold the status quo.



Just because it didn't make you smile, doesn't mean it wasn't funny. Or are you now the arbiter of humour as well as socialism?

Louis Macneice


----------



## scrappy1 (May 23, 2010)

two sheds said:


> The original Plaid Cymru thread had a list of policies that were eminently sensible but would be seen as transitional demands by the SPG. I'd be a lot happier with something like that, getting to a society that is fairer. It would then be a shorter step towards the 'ideal' society whatever that turned out to be.



I'd be interested in hearing how you would reach the "fairer" society, which is short of socialism. We hear a lot from supporters of capitalism that it should be made fairer but never any explanation of how to bring it about.


----------



## TremulousTetra (May 23, 2010)

Gravediggers;10677133]No my friends the reason why the workers persistently support a system which is designed to exploit their labour power is down to them believing every word of the empty promises dished out by the apologists of capitalism - the politicians. The solution is simple said:


> If only the so easily duped working class would listen to your words of wisdom; set us free GD, set us free!
> 
> Louis MacNeice
> 
> p.s. While the glaring contradiction between your last two paragraphs, might be needed to hold together the impossibilist day dream, it doesn't cut it as a coherent argument.


[/QUOTE]So what does Louis.  What is your coherent analysis as to "why the workers persistently support a system which is designed to exploit their labour power "?  For example, why do something like a third of working class people people who vote, vote Tory?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 23, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> So what does Louis.  What is your coherent analysis as to "why the workers persistently support a system which is designed to exploit their labour power "?  For example, why do something like a third of working class people people who vote, vote Tory?



Have you read GD's paragraph that preceded the one in the quote? That is where the contradiction is.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## TremulousTetra (May 23, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Have you read GD's paragraph that preceded the one in the quote? That is where the contradiction is.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


I'm more interested in yours, as I understand his position. 

So, what is your coherent analysis as to "why the workers persistently support a system which is designed to exploit their labour power "? For example, why do something like a third of working class people people who vote, vote Tory?





> If only the so easily duped working class would listen to your words of wisdom; set us free GD, set us free!
> 
> Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 23, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I'm more interested in yours, as I understand his position.
> 
> So, what is your coherent analysis as to "why the workers persistently support a system which is designed to exploit their labour power "? For example, why do something like a third of working class people people who vote, vote Tory?



RMP3 it would help if you read what I was actually responding to; which you obviously haven't done, or you would see that the point you're labouring isn't the one I was making

To make things clear for you: the preceding paragraph states that:

...the assertion that they [the working class] are stupid fails to stand up to examination for the workers operate the system from top to bottom, so collectively they are well aware of how the system operates to a 'T'.​
and yet this self same working class, only  moments later is quite stupid enough to be:

believing every word of the empty promises dished out by the apologists of capitalism - the politicians​
So GD has at one and the same time a working class sharp enough to understand the operation of capitalism, and dumb enough to to completely fall for the actions of one of it component parts. GD is dealing in old, dusty, and thoroughly abstracted categorizations, not with real people;  in doing so he is tying himself in knots and I find that amusing (especially given his arrogant certainty)

And just to keep you happy; why do some working class people vote Tory? Because in my estimation they have, for a whole variety of reasons, not recognised their best long term class interests. This can raise some very real problems of a pretty fundamental character for vanguardists from the SWP and SPGB traditions (and obviously not just them). 

Fortunately I don't want to re-enact either 1904 or 1917.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Gravediggers (May 23, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> You are exactly the sort of advanced workers that Leninists posit as the necessary material of the vanguard party; as you have been telling us all, you're the most class conscious section of the class.



Louis you do suprise me, for after 1600 combined posts (on this thread and the previous one), at long last you come forward with a decent response.  I sincerely hope you continue in this vein, but only time will tell.  In the meantime let me deal with your attempt above to equate the SPGB with Leninism.

I agree that the SPGB membership consists of the most class conscious section of the working class.  And also I agree that of course such a claim could in many respects be perceived as elitists and vanguardist if such a claim were to be taken at face value. Nevertheless, our aim includes a very important caveat: We have no intention of remaining a small organisation and to this end are committed and determined to instill a majority of the working class with the level of political class consciousness we have attained.  

In effect this means we are serious and determined into sharing our knowledge of how capitalism works to the benefit of a wealthy minority, and an understanding of how we can attain socialism through the majority using  the ballot box.  Our prime aim is to make socialists not party members as such, and if these socialists decide to join the party that to us is a bonus.



> Indeed your constitution makes it clear that anybody else claiming to be such advanced workers (grouped together in any organised way), by the mere fact of their absence from the mass ranks of the SPGB, is an enemy of socialism, an enemy of the working class.



The hostility clause in our Declaration of Principles specifically mentions "political parties" which means those who use the political system to retain the status quo of capitalism.  On the other hand we might have disagreements with other "_*organisations"*_ who have similar aims as ourselves but are totally at odds in harmonizing the means with the ends.  We can live with that and accept it as a point for further discussion.

No our enemy are those who profess to be socialists but in actual fact are state capitalists and those apologists for capitalism who insist that capitalism can be made to work in the interest of all - rich and poor alike.  They are the real enemy of socialism and of the working class



> You are superb vanguardists, demanding that all submit to the tyranny of the party line (ineffectual and cobwebbed as it is), or face being cast for ever into the darkness of capitalism's left wing.



We are not "demanding" anything from the working class by placing a set of proposals, options or choices they can accept or reject.  To date they have rejected them but that is no reason why we should stop offering them.  And to be fair very few of the working class have come across our case.  But going by the viewing figures on this thread some of them are finding it very interesting in what we have to say.



> Such is your uber-vanguardism, that even an organisation with the self same constitution is dismissed in a few terse lines (and the odd appeal to the capitalist legal system).
> 
> This is a level chutzpah that even most Leninists draw the line at; at least they have the decency to tweak their rules to at least give the appearance of not being faith based groups.
> 
> ...



I take it you are referring to the Socialist Studies Group who have held secret meetings to which members of the SPGB were barred.  Despite the fact they are welcome like any member of the public to attend all of our meetings.  Plainly, whilst we are democratic in respect of all our activity is open to public scrutiny they have been found to be wanting.  Socialists have nothing to hide, so ask yourself what have they to hide?

The implication that we treat socialism as a religious objective or a faith does not hold water, for we also accept that socialism is not inevitable.   And if it was we could all sit down in front of the TV and wait for it to happen, no sweat.  There are no ten commandments in socialism just dogged determination and commitment to pursue the class struggle.


----------



## two sheds (May 23, 2010)

scrappy1 said:


> I'd be interested in hearing how you would reach the "fairer" society, which is short of socialism. We hear a lot from supporters of capitalism that it should be made fairer but never any explanation of how to bring it about.



Ooo supporter of capitalism now am I? You can be cutting. Well, to find out how you could reach the "fairer" society you need look no further than the Plaid Cymru thread which I actually referred to in my post. I don't think you actually *are* interested in hearing about it, though, because then you might have looked at the first post on that thread which included: 

_



			It was Plaid Cymru  that led the attempt to impeach Tony Blair over the invasion of Iraq.  It opposed the conflict in Afghanistan from the outset. It wants to  scrap Trident and cancel the aircraft carrier and Eurofighter contracts.  It would break up the banks, ban short selling, tax foreign exchange  transactions, raise capital gains tax, raise income tax for the rich  while reducing it for the poor. It would set a maximum wage and give  workers seats on corporate boards.

It seeks to renationalise the railways and curb the power of the  supermarkets. It wants a living pension for everyone over 80, to raise  benefits in line with average earnings and to scrap tuition fees. It  would abandon ID cards, stop detaining asylum seekers and shift  sentencing away from prison and towards restorative justice.

Such policies are widely held to make parties in England unelectable.  But in Wales they are considered mainstream, and not just among Plaid supporters.
		
Click to expand...

_Throw in the green party's Community Ground Rent, where people would pay to the government instead of paying to private landlords, and I think those would be a start.


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2010)

Game over:




			
				SPGB said:
			
		

> Nevertheless, our aim includes a very important caveat: We have no intention of remaining a small organisation and to this end are committed and determined to instill a majority of the working class with the level of political class consciousness we have attained.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 23, 2010)

Of course you're not like all the others GD; even though all of them claim to be not like all the others too. So the glimmer fades and the moment is lost.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## two sheds (May 23, 2010)

dannysp said:


> So we have a state that would unleash terror on its'own' people if its power over them was challenged. I would have thought that woud be a prime motivation  to eliminate this institution. Or are we better off meekly submitting saying "sorry the world and all of us on it are yours guvner, what must we have been thinking".



Well they wouldn't be unleashing terror, they'd be putting down a nasty communist plot to take power and steal everybody's wealth from them. No right thinking person would oppose them and the media would unite in praising the government.  



> What the capitalist know and in the main workers don't is where all the power lies in society, it is embodied, all of it in us the working class, because we do all the work in reproducing society day to day, and we have to be kept on-side, we have to see capitalism as being legitamate. We are told that we live in a democtatic society and we've used the democratic process and have voted for capitalism therefore giving it its precious legitamacy.
> 
> What if in the future an organisation of workers commited to peaceful democratic revolution gathered enough mass, enough momentum to trouble the ruling class, and of course this idea would naturaly be known by the working class by this time, it would have its social currency. What could the ruling class do? If it was an organisation like the WSM it couldn't corrupt or imprison its leaders because there wouldn't be any. If it took out prominant members of the organisation, suspended democracy or any other steps to deny it its voice, the state would be seen by workers clearly as the ruling class's intsrument of oppression, see it for exactly what it is. And so the state, and the class it serves would loose this essential legitamacy. Buggerd if they do and buggerd if they don't.


Again, you're assuming that you reach a perfect society - so "the state would be seen by workers clearly as the ruling class's  intsrument of oppression, see it for exactly what it is. " before you actually get to your perfect society. It's faith, like Christians have faith in the Kindom of Heaven. 



> What of these humans who you reckon will be ready to impose this terror upon us? The armed forces, the police etc, are workers in uniform, wage slaves like the rest of us. I just can't imagine these workers in uniform obeying any order that has them brutalising a peaceful democratic organisation  made up of people they might know or people like those they know and identify with.


If you had your perfect society of workers then yes, but see above. And I can quite see workers in uniform brutalising peaceful democratic organisations. You may not have noticed but they've done it before in a few places. 



> I thank you for your wishes of good luck on the barricades but why have barricades in the first place? If you have an opponent and we do, the best place to attack is where they are weakest. If we try to overpower with force of arms we attak where they strongest, which exactly where they want us to strike. Democracy is their soft underbelly exposed at times of elections, we figure we should strike there.


Yes, but then we're back to three months before the election and it becomes clear the true socialists are going to get in. The ringleaders and opinion formers will be shot/locked up and any dissent will be stamped on. You can argue the toss with the tank drivers about transitional demands but i know where my money will be. 

I'm not trying to be a supporter of capitalism here, I'm just saying this is what I think the reality will be.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 23, 2010)

two sheds said:


> So butchers and louis you'd say would be first up against the wall come the revolution as agent provocateurs and MI5/MI6 black propagandists?



Naw, why bother it would serve no useful purpose whatsoever.  More than prob we would just put them in the same room together where they can snarl at each other, 'It should never have happened, bloody SPGB how dare they interfere with my cozy view of the world'. 'We've got fuck all to criticise and moan about now'!


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 23, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Socialists have nothing to hide.



The Gospel of True Socialism.

Thankfully we have the shamans of socialism here on earth to tell us what we should or should not be doing and thinking, bless you oh wise ones.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 23, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> 'It should never have happened, bloody SPGB how dare they interfere with my cozy view of the world'. 'We've got fuck all to criticise and moan about now'!



So you will be leading the revolution then, comrades?


----------



## TremulousTetra (May 23, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> And just to keep you happy; why do some working class people vote Tory? Because in my estimation they have, for a whole variety of reasons, not recognised their best long term class interests.
> Louis MacNeice


 your analysis of the problem, "They have, for a whole variety of reasons, not recognised their best long term class interests, but Louis MacNeice has", doesn't seem any different from the 'van guardist'  GD.  You may have different 'solutions' to GD, BUT you're still basically saying "If only the so easily duped working class would listen" are you not?

I am trying to understand how your analysis of the problem, is any different to GD's.


ETA
"They have, for a whole variety of reasons, not recognised their best long term class interests, but Louis MacNeice has". So Louis you are an advanced workers?


----------



## robbo203 (May 23, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> RMP3 it would help if you read what I was actually responding to; which you obviously haven't done, or you would see that the point you're labouring isn't the one I was making
> 
> To make things clear for you: the preceding paragraph states that:
> 
> ...



On  this question of the alleged stupidity of the working class in supporting capitalism I think you are missing the point.  Stupidity is an attribute of intellectual capacity or potential or rather the relative lack of it.  I dont think GD is contradicting himself in the way you suggest by saying that workers run society from top to bottom and yet fall for the glib promises of politicians.  The fallacy in your argument lies in the way you interpret GDs as meaning that workers are stupid because they fall for the promises of  the politicians.  

But this doesnt follow at all.  The fact that workers support capitalism by putting their trust in capitalist politicians *does not make them stupid*.  Some of the most intelligent and articulate workers support capitalism.  Its not a question of intellectual capacity at all.  Its is a question of ideology, habitus (to use Bourdieu's term) and cooption.  Intellectual capacity doesnt come into the picture at all.  Even the most fervant supporters of capitalism are fully capable of understanding the case for socialism.  They dont try to or reject that case if they do - for reasons quite other than intellectual capacity or "stupidity"

You seem to have a tendency to run together two quite different things.  This shows also in your claim that the SPGB is vanguardist.  It is absolutely not because the SPGB vehemently does *not *propose to do anything for or on behalf of the working class.  It is the most systematically *anti vanguardist *political organisation I know of - even to the point of saying to voters "if you dont understand or want socialism please dont vote for us".  Your problem is you dont really understand what is meant by vanguardism 

You cannot even call the SPGB elitist depsite the fact that it will only admit convinced socialists into its ranks  (and as you know I think its membership requirements are a bit too strict at least as far as its policy on religious ideas is concerned) .  But the SPGB emphatically does not want to be socially exclusive in the sense of a self perpetuating small elite.  It clearly wants to become a mass party, to be socially inclusive rather than exclusive but *only *on terms that do not compromise the socialist nature of the organisation.  Thus, admitting non socialists into the organisation would, it argues, soon enough turn the organisation into a non socialist organisation.  I think the SPGB is correct in thinking this despite my criticism of  its entry requirements being overstrict.  

You and other critics or the SPGB need to take a more sophisticated nuanced approach when criticising the organisation.  It is not at all the kind of organisation you are naively painting it to be.


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2010)

Or rather, you have an impoverished understanding of what constitutes vanguardism, being only able to recognise it in it's full Leninist flowering.


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2010)

Lenin quoting Kautsky approvingly in that dread document What is to be Done




			
				Lenin/Kautsky said:
			
		

> ...the task of Social-Democracy is to imbue the proletariat with the consciousness of its position and the consciousness of its task. There would be no need for this if consciousness arose of itself from the class struggle.






			
				GD/SPGB said:
			
		

> We have no intention of remaining a small organisation and to this end are committed and determined to instill a majority of the working class with the level of political class consciousness we have attained.


----------



## TremulousTetra (May 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Or rather, you have an impoverished understanding of what constitutes vanguardism, being only able to recognise it in it's full Leninist flowering.


So give us your less impoverished understanding of what constitutes vanguardism!


----------



## TremulousTetra (May 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Lenin quoting Kautsky approvingly in that dread document What is to be Done


So do you accept 





> Originally Posted by Louis MacNeice
> And just to keep you happy; why do some working class people vote Tory? Because in my estimation they have, for a whole variety of reasons, not recognised their best long term class interests.
> Louis MacNeice


Do you know the working classes best long term class interests?  If yes, wanting to promote your understanding makes you van guardist??????????


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 23, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> van guardist



Dutch or Afrikans?


----------



## two sheds (May 23, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Dutch or Afrikans?



Volkswagen wheel clamp.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 23, 2010)

Armand Van Guardist


----------



## Gravediggers (May 23, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> RMP3 it would help if you read what I was actually responding to; which you obviously haven't done, or you would see that the point you're labouring isn't the one I was making
> 
> To make things clear for you: the preceding paragraph states that:
> 
> ...



Louis I must say nice try you've missed again.  My original statement could have been misconstrued as making the workers in all instances has stupid.  But luckily you pointed out it contained a contradiction, which I promptly corrected.  The text now reads:

"So why do the workers persistently support a system which is designed to exploit their labour power? Is it because they are so dumb and stupid or they can't see the woods for the trees? Well the assertion that they are stupid fails to stand up to examination for the workers operate the system from top to bottom, so collectively they are well aware of how the system operates to a 'T'.

No my friends the reason why the workers persistently support a system which is designed to exploit their labour power is down to them believing every word of the empty promises dished out by the apologists of capitalism - the politicians. The solution is simple, that is the workers have to get rid of commodity production and all the instruments of waged labour so that its class exploitation is abolished and replaced with a system of free association and common ownership of the means of living."

Clearly, I used the term, "..... or they can't see the woods for the trees?" to express a state of confusion amongst the workers.  I then amplified this state of confusion in the following paragraph where I stated, "...... is down to them believing every word of the empty promises dished out by the apologists of capitalism - the politicians."

After all what the exploited producers have manufactured, designed, invented, administered, taught, shared and expressed I would be last person standing to call them stupid.  I even hesitate to call them ignorant but confused over what their interests are as a class, this IME is the case.  And I suspect it is also yours.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 23, 2010)

two sheds said:


> Well, to find out how you could reach the "fairer" society you need look no further than the Plaid Cymru thread which I actually referred to in my post. I don't think you actually *are* interested in hearing about it, though, because then you might have looked at the first post on that thread which included:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's one thing to promise these things, but another to be able to implement them. Why do you think they've not been implemented up to now? Is it because the politicians who've been in charge of the government are dishonest or incompetent or not determined enough? Or could it be that capitalism cannot be reformed into a "fairer" system?

Why are pensions, benefits, etc under threat? Is it because the politicians are bastards who want to make things worse for people? Or is it because improvements in these would have to be paid for out of taxes on profits which, since profit-seeking and profit-making are what makes the wheels of capitalism go round, would risk provoking an economic crisis if implemented?

Why did the Labour Party which set out to gradually change capitalism gradually change into an alternative management team for Great Britain PLC? Could be because governments can't make capitalism into a fairer society even though they might want to? And that any party which takes on the responsibility of governing capitalism -- which Plaid or the Greens would have to do to implement their programme -- has no alternative but to govern on capitalism's terms and give priority to profit-making over all other considerations?

Derek Wall, who was the Green Party candidate in Windsor in the recent election (and one of their "spokespersons" before they decided to have a Leader), once wrote what would happen if a Green Party government was elected to run capitalism on a programme like yours:



> A Green government will be controlled by the economy rather than being in control. On coming to office through coalition or more absolute success, it would be met by an instant collapse of sterling as ’hot money’ and entrepreneurial capital went elsewhere. The exchange rate would fall and industrialists would move their factories to countries with more relaxed environmental controls and workplace regulation. Sources of finance would dry up as unemployment rocketed, slashing the revenue from taxation and pushing up the social security bills. The money for ecological reconstruction—the building of railways, the closing of motorways, the construction of a proper sewage system—would run out (_Getting There: Steps to a Green Society_, 1990)."


 Spot on.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 23, 2010)

two sheds said:


> I've realised i can't really call myself a socialist by the way because  i've never read Marx et al and have no real desire to. I'm more  environmentalist in that i see us as one species among many so within those limitations how can we best use resources for people to be as  happy/fulfilled given the circumstances we all find ourselves in.



Hey steady on you don't have to read Marx et al to call yourself a socialist.  I know of quite a few socialists who have no intention of reading any of the writings of Charlie Marx, or Engles for that matter.  Indeed, I joined the SPGB before I had read a word of Marx  - and it is not included on our membership application.   

In regards to your concerns on the environment just ask yourself this: Does capitalism respect the environment?  Now ask yourself this: Does socialism has defined by the SPGB provide a framework where humanity understands that we are as much dependent on the environment as the environment is dependent on us?


----------



## two sheds (May 23, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> In regards to your concerns on the environment just ask yourself this: Does capitalism respect the environment?  Now ask yourself this: Does socialism has defined by the SPGB provide a framework where humanity understands that we are as much dependent on the environment as the environment is dependent on us?



Yes I was pleased to see the environmental awareness put across for the SPGB. How long has that been part of the policy?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 23, 2010)

two sheds said:


> Yes I was pleased to see the environmental awareness put across for the SPGB. How long has that been part of the policy?



Right from the start in September 1904 when we published the Socialist Standard.  There have been several pamphlets on ecology and the environment and many, many articles dealing with different aspects of environmental concern, wrote a few myself.  The latest pamphlet deals with climate change and can be found here:


www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/

Have a browse for we would appreciate your opinion.


----------



## robbo203 (May 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Or rather, you have an impoverished understanding of what constitutes vanguardism, being only able to recognise it in it's full Leninist flowering.



Not at all.  You quote Lenin from What is to be Done Some of his views appear to be in line with the Marxian principle that the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself which is a thoroughgoing rejection of vanguardism and is the view of the SPGB.  But Lenin also said other things which were clearly vanguardist.  More to the point, the actual praxis of the Bolsheviks was vanguardist.

Here's one or two examples...


In a speech to the Congress of Peasants’ Soviets on 27 November, 1917 lenin contended:

_*If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years...The Socialist political party - this is the vanguard of the working class; it must not allow itself to be halted by the lack of education of the mass average, but it must lead the masses, using the Soviets as organs of revolutionary initiative*_… (Quoted in John Reed's Ten Days that Shook the World , Modern Library edition, 1960, p.15)   

Moreover, once the vanguard had seized power it was this vanguard alone which should govern, not the wider working class in whose name it had seized power:

_*But the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of that class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts (by imperialism in some countries) that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard that has absorbed the revolutionary energy of the class. The whole is like an arrangement of cogwheels*_.(http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm)

This a good illustration of what is properly meant by vanguardism - the notion that the emancipation of some larger group e.g working class can and must be carried out by  some smaller group e.g. the vanguard party.

Your claim that a smaller group merely by disseminating ideas among the larger group makes it  somehow "vanguardist" is complete nonsense and utterly obscures what is the real essence of vanguardism


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (May 23, 2010)

_If you’re not sure if you suffer from anti-intellectualism, answer this simple question: Do you label all intellectualism as elitist?_ - Vee Levine


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 23, 2010)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> Vee Levine



Any relation to Van Guard?


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Game over:


And the score? SPGB 3 (goals over nature of socialism, transitional program and vanguard party). Trotskyists United 1 (SPGB own goal).


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 23, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> And the score? SPGB 3 (goals over nature of socialism, transitional program and vanguard party). Trotskyists United 1 (SPGB own goal).



lol


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (May 23, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Your claim that a smaller group merely by disseminating ideas among the larger group makes it  somehow "vanguardist" is complete nonsense and utterly obscures what is the real essence of vanguardism



Good call Robbo.

BA, for all his merits, champions the crude communism of degraded intellectualism as the _annulled_ form of vanguardism. Therefore, he is a vanguardist in its most egoist form. Therefore, BA is the pinnacle of vanguardism himself.


----------



## dannysp (May 24, 2010)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> _If you’re not sure if you suffer from anti-intellectualism, answer this simple question: Do you label all intellectualism as elitist?_ - Vee Levine



 Intellectual def

 Of or relating to the intellect.

 Rational rather than emotional.

 Appealing to or engaging the intellect: an intellectual book; an intellectual  
 problem.

 Having or showing intellect, especially to a high degree

 Given to activities or pursuits that require exercise of the intellect.

If you mean the above, of course not.


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Not at all.  You quote Lenin from What is to be Done Some of his views appear to be in line with the Marxian principle that the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself which is a thoroughgoing rejection of vanguardism and is the view of the SPGB.  But Lenin also said other things which were clearly vanguardist.  More to the point, the actual praxis of the Bolsheviks was vanguardist.
> 
> Here's one or two examples...
> 
> ...



You've just demonstrated exactly what i claimed - that you can only recognise vanguardism in it's full leninist flowering. Not before.  Which means you have only a crude and partial understanding of both its roots and its various manifestations.

Not useful.


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2010)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> Good call Robbo.
> 
> BA, for all his merits, champions the crude communism of degraded intellectualism as the _annulled_ form of vanguardism. Therefore, he is a vanguardist in its most egoist form. Therefore, BA is the pinnacle of vanguardism himself.



Attention seeking loon waffle. You're not clever enough to do that sort of dialectical inversion - not without turning it into said loon waffle.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (May 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Attention seeking loon waffle. You're not clever enough to do that sort of dialectical inversion - not without turning it into said loon waffle.



You're not able to proceed to your conclusion without beginning from it. A perfectly egoistic private exercise.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (May 24, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Any relation to Van Guard?



Lol no. She's a comedian form Yellow Springs who I <3


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (May 24, 2010)

_


----------



## JimW (May 24, 2010)

He's not wrong about the loon waffle, is he?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> your analysis of the problem, "They have, for a whole variety of reasons, not recognised their best long term class interests, but Louis MacNeice has", doesn't seem any different from the 'van guardist'  GD.  You may have different 'solutions' to GD, BUT you're still basically saying "If only the so easily duped working class would listen" are you not?
> 
> I am trying to understand how your analysis of the problem, is any different to GD's.
> 
> ...



I'm not an 'advanced workers'; more to the point I'm not a political party, let alone one which claims to be the only one capable of bringing the working class up to a level of consciouness needed, and has an entry exam to make sure it keeps out the ignorant masses.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2010)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> _



Yes, that _was_ a particularly embarrassing example of faux intellectual loon waffle wasn't it? Good choice to remove it.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> You and other critics or the SPGB need to take a more sophisticated nuanced approach when criticising the organisation.



When poking fun at the SPGB's various idiocies - including a vanguardist streak of such vast proportions that it would embarass many self proclaimed leninists - I'd rather not be forced to view the wrold through their own cracked and dusty Edwardian spectacles, which is all that your true politicians appeal for a 'more sophisticated and nuanced appeal' amounts too. 

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (May 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, that _was_ a particularly embarrassing example of faux intellectual loon waffle wasn't it? Good choice to remove it.



Not at all, but I don't want to derail the thread and I won't have time to respond.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> ..is down to them believing every word of the empty promises dished out by the apologists of capitalism - the politicians...



You are Humpty Dumpty aren't you GD?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Stupidity is an attribute of intellectual capacity or potential or rather the relative lack of it.



Not unless you are trying to say that you can attach intellectual capacity to classes; which is not a line of reasoning I would subscribe to. GD says that the working class has worked out how capitalism operates and simultaneously that they believe every word of the promises made on behalf of capitalism by polticians; it's two sides of an idealist view of the working class (neither sophisticated or nuanced). And in the sense that it is confused and inaccurate, it is a stupid view, whatever GD's intellectual capacity or lack thereof may be.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Gravediggers (May 24, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> You are Humpty Dumpty aren't you GD?
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Only if you think I'm a politician Louis.  I find it strange that you have arrived at that conclusion for in no sense am I seeking political office.  And even if I were the label of politician would still not be applicable for its very doubtful that I would be elected.  Local elections next year innit?  Hmmm,


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2010)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> I won't have time to respond today. That's why.



Or, because it was meaningless drivel that made no sense and that no one could or would have responded to - like almost all of your midnight ramblings - many of which found themselves deleted the next morning.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Only if you think I'm a politician Louis.  I find it strange that you have arrived at that conclusion for in no sense am I seeking political office.  And even if I were the label of politician would still not be applicable for its very doubtful that I would be elected.  Local elections next year innit?  Hmmm,



You don't get the illusion do you? It's not about you being a poltician; it's about your attitude to language.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (May 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> ...



anyway, SPGB and your organisation are about the same so I'm not sure where your criticism is coming from

note: the 'party' don't actually seek power. but they don't say that openly.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 24, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Not unless you are trying to say that you can attach intellectual capacity to classes; which is not a line of reasoning I would subscribe to. GD says that the working class has worked out how capitalism operates and simultaneously that they believe every word of the promises made on behalf of capitalism by polticians; it's two sides of an idealist view of the working class (neither sophisticated or nuanced). And in the sense that it is confused and inaccurate, it is a stupid view, whatever GD's intellectual capacity or lack thereof may be.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



You sound a bit confused again Louis with your initial allegation of me making a contradiction and then here accusing me of being an idealist.  I suspect you are after the penny and the bun?  

A very useful tactic for avoiding the question of why in your opinion do the workers continue to support capitalism?   Possible afraid to reveal your level of political opinion and being called a politician, or perhaps you are a worker who has indeed believed every word of the empty promises made on behalf of capitalism by politicians?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 24, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> You don't get the illusion do you? It's not about you being a poltician; it's about your attitude to language.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



So you don't think I'm a politician, thank fuck for that.  But now I'm a Humpty Dumpty with the way I use language.  Louis I'm well aware that you are trying your best to make me look stupid but come on - you are so well known for your use of H&D language when it suits your agenda.  And please don't take that as an admission that I use H&D language intentionally.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You've just demonstrated exactly what i claimed - that you can only recognise vanguardism in it's full leninist flowering. Not before.  Which means you have only a crude and partial understanding of both its roots and its various manifestations.
> 
> Not useful.



Butchers would the Anarchist Federation fit your description above 'of both its roots and its various manifestations'?  For clearly, according to your use of the word vanguard, they are also telling the workers what to think and do.


----------



## TremulousTetra (May 24, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I'm not an 'advanced workers';
> Louis MacNeice





Louis MacNeice said:


> And just to keep you happy; why do some working class people vote Tory? Because in my estimation they have, for a whole variety of reasons, not recognised their best long term class interests.
> Louis MacNeice


So you are not advanced, because you too " have, for a whole variety of reasons, not recognised their best long term class interests."???? 

I know you think, just like GD you know their [the working classes] best long term class interests.  So why aren't your more advanced to an understanding of their best long term class interests, than say ie the 99.999% of people who don't vote for the IWCA?

ps. I don't agree with GD, but at least he is consistently coherent.


----------



## TremulousTetra (May 24, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Butchers would the Anarchist Federation fit your description above 'of both its roots and its various manifestations'?  For clearly, according to your use of the word vanguard, they are also telling the workers what to think and do.


Several people are now agrseeing that butch's louis's position is vanguardist, according to their definition.  Yes he and louis are not part of party [IWCA?], but  aren't they even worse, a vanguard of one?

ps. I don't agree with GD, proper tidy, on a lot of things, but at least their position is consistently coherent, if you give them the chance to explain it.  Louis and Butchers position on contradictory levels of consciousness, makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## scrappy1 (May 24, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I'm not an 'advanced workers'; more to the point I'm not a political party, let alone one which claims to be the only one capable of bringing the working class up to a level of consciouness needed, and has an entry exam to make sure it keeps out the ignorant masses.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Surely whether we claim or you believe us to claim, that we are the only political party "capable of bringing the working class up to a level of consciousness needed" is irrelevant. Do you consider our case for socialism to be valid or not?

Feel free to shop around for another organisation which either holds the same views as us, but not smugly as you claim, or one that has different views about improving the world or establishing socialism, whatever definition you wish to attach to the latter.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 24, 2010)

scrappy1 said:


> Feel free to shop around for another organisation which either holds the same views as us, but not smugly as you claim



Which organisations would those be? Surely your hostility cause suggests - in fact explicitly states - that you and you alone have the answers?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 24, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Which organisations would those be? Surely your hostility cause suggests - in fact explicitly states - that you and you alone have the answers?



The hostility clause specifically refers to 'political parties', and surely the onus is on Louis to name any 'organisations' which have similar aims to ourselves.  We are aware who they are but does Louis?  scrappy1 is trying to tweek an opinion in this respect.  

The ball is firmly in Louis's court, so lets leave it there for now.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> You sound a bit confused again Louis with your initial allegation of me making a contradiction and then here accusing me of being an idealist.  I suspect you are after the penny and the bun?
> 
> A very useful tactic for avoiding the question of why in your opinion do the workers continue to support capitalism?   Possible afraid to reveal your level of political opinion and being called a politician, or perhaps you are a worker who has indeed believed every word of the empty promises made on behalf of capitalism by politicians?



No confusion GD (well not on my part at least); you used two idealised takes on the working class that contradicted each other.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> So you are not advanced, because you too " have, for a whole variety of reasons, not recognised their best long term class interests."????
> 
> I know you think, just like GD you know their [the working classes] best long term class interests.  So why aren't your more advanced to an understanding of their best long term class interests, than say ie the 99.999% of people who don't vote for the IWCA?
> 
> ps. I don't agree with GD, but at least he is consistently coherent.



Firstly, I'm not several people; go and re-read what I responding to (I directly quoted you).

Secondly, you can't see the difference between an individual opinion which is open to change, and a grand truth claim, enshrined in a party constitution for over a century.

This is the sort of sillines which results when you try too hard; just relax a bit more and react a bit less.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Gravediggers (May 24, 2010)

Just spotted this from another thread.  Highly suggestive that butchersapron has been finally rumbled. 

vote labour
Last edited by butchersapron; 17-05-2010 at 19:22.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> The hostility clause specifically refers to 'political parties', and surely the onus is on Louis to name any 'organisations' which have similar aims to ourselves.  We are aware who they are but does Louis?  scrappy1 is trying to tweek an opinion in this respect.
> 
> The ball is firmly in Louis's court, so lets leave it there for now.



GD you could usefully take acouple of steps back - scrappy has taken one small one but apprently isn't able to go any further - distance would lend a much needed perspective to your current tunnel vision. 

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> So you don't think I'm a politician, thank fuck for that.  But now I'm a Humpty Dumpty with the way I use language.  Louis I'm well aware that you are trying your best to make me look stupid but come on - you are so well known for your use of H&D language when it suits your agenda.  And please don't take that as an admission that I use H&D language intentionally.




Of course you're a politician GD; you're  'actively involved in politics, especially party politics'.  As you yourself have stated, it's why you're on these boards. It is a bonus that your post also supplies yet another example of your Humpty Dumpty take on language; `when I use a word...it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' 

Vanguard
Majority
Politician
Socialism

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 24, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> The hostility clause specifically refers to 'political parties'



But you're a political party.

So all political parties are to be treated as hostile because inherently the SPGB believe anybody not in their party are therefore not the most conscious workers and not true socialists.

Basically, organisations that are not political parties are okay - because they don't threaten your hegemony in your self-contained bubble of true socialism.

That is what it looks like.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> But you're a political party.
> 
> So all political parties are to be treated as hostile because inherently the SPGB believe anybody not in their party are therefore not the most conscious workers and not true socialists.
> 
> ...



To be fair it has proved to be a very effective strategy in maintaining a tiny, marginal left wing group, in a highly competitive market place; they've got a good 'USP'. What it's not so hot on is the achievement of socialism.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 24, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Several people are now agrseeing that butch's louis's position is vanguardist, according to their definition.  Yes he and louis are not part of party [IWCA?],


 IWCA? Are they these people? Who contest elections promising to do something for people and even succeeded in getting a couple of local councillors elected one time and who are registered with the Electoral Commission as a political party.
Are you sure you're right about this, Resistance?


----------



## JWH (May 24, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> they've got a good 'USP'



You need a good USP if you're going to come and "advertise socialism" on the U75 boards, right?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2010)

JWH said:


> You need a good USP if you're going to come and "advertise socialism" on the U75 boards, right?



Is that definite article singular socialism, indefinitie article possibly plural socialisms, or simply a group with the word socialist in its title?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Gravediggers (May 24, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> IWCA? Are they these people? Who contest elections promising to do something for people and even succeeded in getting a couple of local councillors elected one time and who are registered with the Electoral Commission as a political party.
> Are you sure you're right about this, Resistance?



Yep that's them.  What a shame they are by their own definition politicians and vanguardist to boot.  Lol


----------



## TremulousTetra (May 24, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Secondly, you can't see the difference between an individual opinion which is open to change, and a grand truth claim, enshrined in a party constitution for over a century.
> 
> 
> Louis MacNeice


I'll come back to that, but that still doesn't explain your "individual opinion".  You seem to be denying the fucking obvious, and I cannot understand why.  So simple question.  Yes or no?

Louis MacNeice has more of an awareness of the best long term class interests of the working class, than ie a Tory voter doesn't?  True or false Louis?


----------



## moon23 (May 24, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Further to my previous reply you last paragraph above contains a glaring ignorance regarding how capitalism actually operates.  You assume (again) that the profit motive is the solution to all our problems specifically in regards to the introduction of new technology bringing people out of poverty.  This assumption ignores the facts that the introduction of new technology can in many instances put people into poverty.
> 
> New technology is only introduced when there is a profit to be made.  For example, the massive dam projects in Brasil, China, India and elsewhere are essential to the global economy in that they provide the resources to manufacture old and new technology.  However, damming on such a scale - by its very nature - also involves the displacement of thousands of people where little provision is made for providing alternative means of living.  If such administration costs were to be factored into the total cost the rate of profit would decrease proportionally.
> 
> The consequences of such maladministration results in many of the urban poor moving to the cities and finding themselves directly under the thumb of wage slavery and officially classified by the UN has living under 'extreme poverty'.



A Capitalist State would legally protect the property of those displaced by a Dam so compensation could be paid. In China it's the power of the state that allows for such brutal evictions, that wouldn't happen in a more fully developed Capitalist society like the UK.

The Economies of places with Hydro-electic power will propser as a result in the long-one as a result of the reduced cost of power. That power will enrich people's lifes.


----------



## TremulousTetra (May 24, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> IWCA? Are they these people? Who contest elections promising to do something for people and even succeeded in getting a couple of local councillors elected one time and who are registered with the Electoral Commission as a political party.
> Are you sure you're right about this, Resistance?



I  think so.  I am positive at one time Louis supported them, and I'm pretty certain Butchers did.  But I did put [IWCA?] So perhaps for once they might actually give a straight answer to were questioned to clarify their views.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I'll come back to that, but that still doesn't explain your "individual opinion".  You seem to be denying the fucking obvious, and I cannot understand why.  So simple question.  Yes or no?
> 
> Louis MacNeice has more of an awareness of the best long term class interests of the working class, that ie a Tory voter doesn't?  True or false Louis?



RMP3, you've had my answer:

Because in my estimation they have, for a whole variety of reasons, not recognised their best long term class interests.​
Deep breaths, slow down and relax RMP3, or you'll do yourself a mischief.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## moon23 (May 24, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> But you are ignoring the basic nature of capitalism - this is la la land stuff. Capitalism is all about making a profit, whether the means of making that profit is useful, beneficial or sustainable, or not.
> 
> To use your example - clothes, medicine and technology are produced primarily to make a profit, not for their usefulness, which leads to pharmaceuticals jealously guarding their patents, leading to prices that are too expensive for the poorest people, who are denied access to treatment by their own economic conditions. The pharmaceuticals are just playing the game though; if profit is your primary motive then it makes perfect sense.
> 
> ...



On some occasions making a profit maybe in the short-term detriment of particular individuals . What is profitable is determined by what people desire, if people desires sustainable goods then it will become profitable to produce them, if people need medicine then it will become profitable for people to develop and research more medicine.

The beauty is that Capitalism is an adaptive system that responds to societies needs. Yes there are problems with Capitalism, because their are problems with society. For instance the reason you get sweat shops is because people continue to purchase goods from places that employ sweat shop labour.


----------



## TremulousTetra (May 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> A Capitalist State would legally protect the property of those displaced by a Dam so compensation could be paid. In China it's the power of the state that allows for such brutal evictions, that wouldn't happen in a more fully developed Capitalist society like the UK.
> 
> The Economies of places with Hydro-electic power will propser as a result in the long-one as a result of the reduced cost of power. That power will enrich people's lifes.



OK look at the way pharmaceutical companies got the use of generic drugs made illegal in Africa costing millions of lives.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The beauty is that Capitalism is an adaptive system that responds to societies needs


No, it doesn't. It only responds to paying needs, ie needs needs backed up by money to pay for the means to satisfy them. The trouble is that under capitalism the amount of money most people have is rationed by the size of their pay packet (or salary cheque) and that this is always less than the value of what they produce -- otherwise where would the profits of the capitalist firms that employ them come from? No, the economic law under capitalism is "can't pay, can't have".


----------



## TremulousTetra (May 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> On some occasions making a profit maybe in the short-term detriment of particular individuals . What is profitable is determined by what people desire, if people desires sustainable goods then it will become profitable to produce them, if people need medicine then it will become profitable for people to develop and research more medicine.
> 
> The beauty is that Capitalism is an adaptive system that responds to societies needs. Yes there are problems with Capitalism, because their are problems with society. For instance the reason you get sweat shops is because people continue to purchase goods from places that employ sweat shop labour.


 I think the current state of the environment, and this book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_(book) explain why there isn't necessarily a natural congruence between the needs of humanity as a whole, and the needs of individual capitalists.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> A Capitalist State would legally protect the property of those displaced by a Dam so compensation could be paid. In China it's the power of the state that allows for such brutal evictions, that wouldn't happen in a more fully developed Capitalist society like the UK.
> 
> The Economies of places with Hydro-electic power will propser as a result in the long-one as a result of the reduced cost of power. That power will enrich people's lifes.



We are not just talking about economic values but also community values where communities would have a direct say on their relocation.  The cost of power may well be reduced in the future but there are no guarantees that all will be in a position to afford energy even at a lower rate.  Much what happens here in the UK.

You are assuming much to much from capitalism.


----------



## The39thStep (May 24, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Butchers would the Anarchist Federation fit your description above 'of both its roots and its various manifestations'?  For clearly, according to your use of the word vanguard, they are also telling the workers what to think and do.



Fuck Afed


----------



## TremulousTetra (May 24, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> RMP3, you've had my answer:
> [/INDENT]
> 
> Louis MacNeice


yes I've had A answer, and that was unusually illuminating of you.  However;

Louis MacNeice has more of an awareness of the best long term class interests of the working class, than ie a working class Tory voter? True or false Louis?


It is truly fascinating why you were so scared to discuss your 'politics'/"individual opinion".


----------



## TremulousTetra (May 24, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Of course you're a politician GD; you're  'actively involved in politics, especially party politics'.  As you yourself have stated, it's why you're on these boards. It is a bonus that your post also supplies yet another example of your Humpty Dumpty take on language; `when I use a word...it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
> 
> Vanguard
> Majority
> ...



So are you still in the IWCA?


----------



## JWH (May 24, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Is that definite article singular socialism, indefinitie article possibly plural socialisms, or simply a group with the word socialist in its title?



Socialism (TM)


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> So are you still in the IWCA?



I still give the IWCA a regular monthly contribution; beyond that I haven't done anything for them for a good couple of years now. This is down to opportunity and my congenital laziness. Why?

Louis MacNeice

p.s. I'd leave it up to the active members to decide if they counted me as a supporter or a member; although I suspect they have better things to do.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> yes I've had A answer, and that was unusually illuminating of you.  However;
> 
> Louis MacNeice has more of an awareness of the best long term class interests of the working class, than ie a working class Tory voter? True or false Louis?
> 
> ...



Why did you ask for the answer again when I had already given it some pages previously? Why do you take my refusal to discuss politics with you on your own terms as a sign of fear? As with GD, danny et al. I'm mostly laughing and pointing.

However, you're right I do fear; I'm scared that you're drifting off into one of your incoherent flights of fancy.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 24, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> Fuck Afed


Why? What have they done wrong?


----------



## scrappy1 (May 24, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Which organisations would those be? Surely your hostility cause suggests - in fact explicitly states - that you and you alone have the answers?



But you imply we don't, so illuminate us. I want you to show me that I don't have "the answers".


----------



## TremulousTetra (May 24, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Why did you ask for the answer again when I had already given it some pages previously?
> Louis MacNeice


Because I am interested in understanding your position.
This>


Louis MacNeice said:


> And just to keep you happy; why do some working class people vote Tory? Because in my estimation they have, for a whole variety of reasons, not recognised their best long term class interests.
> Louis MacNeice


 doesn't answer this question>
Louis MacNeice has more of an awareness of the best long term class interests of the working class, than ie a working class Tory voter? True or false Louis?

We both know Louis Mac individual opinion is true.  So why will you not just state it, and move the conversation on







> Why do you take my refusal to discuss politics with you on your own terms as a sign of fear?


Well why won't you discuss your politics, in any way you wan't?


----------



## scrappy1 (May 24, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Of course you're a politician GD; you're  'actively involved in politics, especially party politics'.  As you yourself have stated, it's why you're on these boards. It is a bonus that your post also supplies yet another example of your Humpty Dumpty take on language; `when I use a word...it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
> 
> Vanguard
> Majority
> ...






Suggestion: you tell us what you mean by, for example socialism, vanguardism, revolution and capitalism, and we'll carry the debate forward from there.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Louis MacNeice has more of an awareness of the best long term class interests of the working class, than ie a working class Tory voter? True or false Louis?
> 
> Well why won't you discuss your politics, in any way you wan't?



1. In terms of their choice of candidate at the general election, I would say my Green vote in Brighton was more progressive than their Tory one. From this, it doesn't follow that all my opinions will be more progressive than theirs; i.e. my opinions aren't truths (like the case for socialism or the leading role of the vanguard party).

2. I am.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 24, 2010)

scrappy1 said:


> Suggestion: you tell us what you mean by, for example socialism, vanguardism, revolution and capitalism, and we'll carry the debate forward from there.



I'm not party building; I'm mostly ridiculing the ridiculous. 

You Edwardians can carry the debate whither thou wouldst; I look forward to more comedy pratfalls.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## TremulousTetra (May 24, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> 2. I am.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


No, your veering off to answer a question not asked, nothing to do with your politics.

There is no need to be frightened.  I wouldn't nitpick it.  It would just be nice to make sense of what you say.  I would simply do what I did with proper tidy.


----------



## scrappy1 (May 24, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I'm not party building; I'm mostly ridiculing the ridiculous.
> 
> You Edwardians can carry the debate whither thou wouldst; I look forward to more comedy pratfalls.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Obviously another time-waster. I shall file you along with butchersapron in the closed file.

Correspondence ended.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 24, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> 1. In terms of their choice of candidate at the general election, I would say my Green vote in Brighton was more progressive than their Tory one. From this, it doesn't follow that all my opinions will be more progressive than theirs; i.e. my opinions aren't truths (like the case for socialism or the leading role of the vanguard party).
> 
> 2. I am.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Under what terms do you mean, 'progressive' for it has so many meanings under a different context.   For example even Joe Stalin was considered to be progressive for the purges and the relocation of the kulaks.  I find it very confusing when you make a comparison between the Greens and the Tories when both support capitalism.  

That is exactly the same as running on the treadmill, or enjoying your ride on the magic roundabout of capitalism.  So you are one of those who accepted the empty promises of the apologists for capitalism - the politicians.  Its no wonder I rattled your cage - gotcha!


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The beauty is that Capitalism is an adaptive system that responds to societies needs. Yes there are problems with Capitalism, because their are problems with society.



Capitalism doesn't respond to societies needs - that would be socialism. Capitalism responds to capitals' needs - hence why it is called capitalism. The system only adapts to the needs and wants of those with capital.

You can't possibly say that the problems with capitalism are down to society, as if these are two separate things that can be looked at in the abstract. Society, as we know it, is a direct product of capitalism. The societies of the past, from communal to absolute monarchies to feudalism - were very different to society today, and the societies of the future will be of an entirely different composition depending on the entire economic structure. It is the relationship between labour and capital which has created nation-states and class structures, you cannot abdicate capitalism from responsibility.

If I were you I'd lay off the ideological polemics and read up on the actual nuts and bolts, the analysis, because you are expounding a theory, developed from Adam Smith to Hayek, Friedman and Rands, that you appear to know fuck all about.

Capitalism will never, ever, provide the solution to its own systemic consequences.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 24, 2010)

scrappy1 said:


> But you imply we don't, so illuminate us. I want you to show me that I don't have "the answers".



Perhaps you should read through the threads and draw your own conclusions, instead of jumping in late and expecting everybody else to summarise criticisms that have already been made. It is very lazy, you know.

Although a more perceptive, or indeed literate, person may have noticed that what I was implying was not that I had some wisdom I needed to impart, but that your own parties' messianic and oft-trumpeted claims to anti-vangaurdism and political pluralism was a pile of shite. The very fact that you have your hostility clause - which isn't even applied on a case by case basis, but to all organisations which lay claim to being political parties - is proof that you believe you already possess all the correct answers, and that it is just a case of propagandising and waiting until the mass of the workers catch up and attain your superiour levels of class consciousness.

You are hostile to all others because you already know the true path; you just need to convince enough others to walk that path with you.

Then you have the audacity to dismiss all Leninists of every hue as potential perpetrators of future terrible crimes for being vanguard parties, yet amongst Leninists there is at least a conscious understanding of what is meant, an underpinning theory, and the chance of honest, open debate about it - whereas you lot are either in denial or dishonest when you fail to recognise that you are also vanguardist, albeit a more basic and only half-conscious example of.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 24, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Its no wonder I rattled your cage - gotcha!



You're a ridiculous man, GD


----------



## Gravediggers (May 24, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You're a ridiculous man, GD



How is it being ridiculous for getting you to admit that you voted for Plaid and Louis to admit s/he voted for the Greens.  You have both been short changed and you know it.  It exemplifies you are willing to compromise with capitalism and have indefinitely deferred any serious challenge with commitment and determination by voting for the enemy.  

But you and Louis are in good company for you are both the enemy in my books.  When I was on the picket line whilst the other pickets used to chant, 'scabs, scabs, scabs' I would shout loudly, 'Whose side are you on?'

Why should the posters take any of your arguments seriously when it has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt that both of you are disingenuous to say the least.


----------



## two sheds (May 24, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Right from the start in September 1904 when we published the Socialist Standard.  There have been several pamphlets on ecology and the environment and many, many articles dealing with different aspects of environmental concern, wrote a few myself.  The latest pamphlet deals with climate change and can be found here:
> 
> 
> www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/
> ...



Errm i got half way through but the article seems to have been moved since yesterday.

What was actually said in 1904? The christian churches now talk about the bible approving of environmentalism because of the idea of us being 'stewards' of the world but they've actually come to it all very late because it's a bit trendy.


----------



## two sheds (May 24, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> How is it being ridiculous for getting you to admit that you voted for Plaid and Louis to admit s/he voted for the Greens.  You have both been short changed and you know it.  It exemplifies you are willing to compromise with capitalism and have indefinitely deferred any serious challenge with commitment and determination by voting for the enemy.
> 
> But you and Louis are in good company for you are both the enemy in my books.  When I was on the picket line whilst the other pickets used to chant, 'scabs, scabs, scabs' I would shout loudly, 'Whose side are you on?'
> 
> Why should the posters take any of your arguments seriously when it has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt that both of you are disingenuous to say the least.



What party got in where you voted GD?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 24, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> How is it being ridiculous for getting you to admit that you voted for Plaid and Louis to admit s/he voted for the Greens.  You have both been short changed and you know it.  It exemplifies you are willing to compromise with capitalism and have indefinitely deferred any serious challenge with commitment and determination by voting for the enemy.
> 
> But you and Louis are in good company for you are both the enemy in my books.  When I was on the picket line whilst the other pickets used to chant, 'scabs, scabs, scabs' I would shout loudly, 'Whose side are you on?'
> 
> Why should the posters take any of your arguments seriously when it has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt that both of you are disingenuous to say the least.



I was referring more to your pulp fiction style Raymond Chandler-lite way of writing, GD.

Out of interest, when on the picket line, did you tell your fellow workers that 
 it was pointless and that they couldn't win?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 24, 2010)

two sheds said:


> Errm i got half way through but the article seems to have been moved since yesterday.
> 
> What was actually said in 1904? The christian churches now talk about the bible approving of environmentalism because of the idea of us being 'stewards' of the world but they've actually come to it all very late because it's a bit trendy.



My fault I tried placing a 'here' link and failed, so here it is again:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/ECO.html

Like I said we would appreciate your opinion on the pamphlet.  Whilst you are in the pamphlet section have a search for the, 'Production for use' or 'From Capitalism to Socialism' pamphlets for they both to my recollection mention the environment, and could be useful to you.  Derek Pepper, in his book, 'Eco-Socialism' 1993 also mentions us extensively.

Not sure what was actually said in 1904 and I could well be wrong on the actual month.  But whilst I'm in London this weekend I shall go through the achieves and see what I can pick out.  The SPGB do not see the environment as a trendy issue and once the back issues of the _*Socialist Standard *_ are fully digitalised you will see we have been at it for a very long time, even before the Greens.


----------



## two sheds (May 24, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> It's one thing to promise these things, but another to be able to implement them. Why do you think they've not been implemented up to now? Is it because the politicians who've been in charge of the government are dishonest or incompetent or not determined enough? Or could it be that capitalism cannot be reformed into a "fairer" system?
> 
> Why are pensions, benefits, etc under threat? Is it because the politicians are bastards who want to make things worse for people? Or is it because improvements in these would have to be paid for out of taxes on profits which, since profit-seeking and profit-making are what makes the wheels of capitalism go round, would risk provoking an economic crisis if implemented?
> 
> Why did the Labour Party which set out to gradually change capitalism gradually change into an alternative management team for Great Britain PLC? Could be because governments can't make capitalism into a fairer society even though they might want to? And that any party which takes on the responsibility of governing capitalism -- which Plaid or the Greens would have to do to implement their programme -- has no alternative but to govern on capitalism's terms and give priority to profit-making over all other considerations?



I could give the same reasons for why you'll never get the version of socialism you want. It's one thing to promise these things, but another to be able to  implement them. Why do you think they've not been implemented up to now? .... etc etc. 

The policies set out by Plaid would lead to a fairer society, which is what scrappy said the 'supporters of capitalism' never explained. They are explained, it's just that he's so blinkered that he can't see the explanation. 



> Derek Wall, who was the Green Party candidate in Windsor in the recent election (and one of their "spokespersons" before they decided to have a Leader), once wrote what would happen if a Green Party government was elected to run capitalism on a programme like yours:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well we'd only go for an environmentalist government when a majority of people wanted it. So, what you are not taking into account is that the growth of a mass  movement for a democratic classless society employing open, democratic  and non-violent tactics will of itself both extract concessions from the  ruling class you seem to want and lessen the chances of a confrontation you are afraid of. In fact the more people that  come to want want a democratic classless society the weaker (not the  stronger) become the ruling class and its state. 

That argument's a bit of shit when you actually look at it, isn't it. I took it from your reply to me earlier in the thread as to why there wouldn't be violent reaction to a real socialist victory  . So you gleefully point out why there couldn't be a successful environmental government but can't see that the same reasons would mean you couldn't have the socialist victory that you want.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 24, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I was referring more to your pulp fiction style Raymond Chandler-lite way of writing, GD.
> 
> Out of interest, when on the picket line, did you tell your fellow workers that
> it was pointless and that they couldn't win?



Not having read Chandler I have no idea what his style of writing was.  Mine is valley's born and valley's bred where a spade is a spade.

When on the picket line I always told my fellow workers what the class struggle consisted of, and I have to say whilst the left was treated with suspicion and in many cases told to fuck off I had no problems in expressing my support.  Or in explaining that capitalism is not in our interest, which unsurprisingly many of them agreed with.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 24, 2010)

two sheds said:


> What party got in where you voted GD?



Labour, and I did not have the chance to vote with my time taken up with this thread and domestic issues.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 24, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Labour, and I did not have the chance to vote with my time taken up with this thread and domestic issues.



Who would you have voted for, had you been able to tear yourself away from this thread?


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 24, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I still give the IWCA a regular monthly contribution; beyond that I haven't done anything for them for a good couple of years now. This is down to opportunity and my congenital laziness. Why?
> 
> Louis MacNeice
> 
> p.s. I'd leave it up to the active members to decide if they counted me as a supporter or a member; although I suspect they have better things to do.


I can't believe it! So the persistent critic of one political party as being vanguardist, prescriptive, etc, etc. for having a programme it puts before workers turns out to be a member/supporter of another political party! 

I imagine that, as a political party, IWCA is opposed to the other political parties, especially when it contests elections eg when it stood against Lindsey Germain of Respect in the 2004 elections for London mayor. I think it's opposed too to Leninism and the concept of the vanguard party. So that's something else that the IWCA and the SPGB would seem to have in common.

Found this observation on another thread which may or may not be appropriate here:


Nigel Irritable said:


> You are right that the IWCA seemed to have a disproportionately high number of passive internet cheerleaders as compared to people actively involved in their projects. But to me that particular phenomenon seems to be quite easy to explain by looking at the demographic involved.
> The internet supporters seem to be heavily biased towards an older crowd who have been around the left at some point in their youth, who have long dropped out of organised political activity, and who are a bit cynical.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 24, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Who would you have voted for, had you been able to tear yourself away from this thread?



To be quite frank I would have wrote, "None of you fucking bastards - World Socialism" across my ballot paper. Although you may disagree, I do not agree it was wasted when my socialist principles, integrity, honesty, determination and seriousness are on the line.  For I will not compromise with capitalism when given the opportunity to express my support for socialism.  

I've voted Labour and Plaid in the past and got kicked in the teeth for all my efforts.  And is one of the reasons why I became a socialist.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 24, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> I imagine that, as a political party, IWCA is opposed to the other political parties, especially when it contests elections eg when it stood against Lindsey Germain of Respect in the 2004 elections for London mayor. I think it's opposed too to Leninism and the concept of the vanguard party. So that's something else that the IWCA and the SPGB would seem to have in common.



The difference being, I should imagine, that the decision as to whether they are hostile to another political formation or not is taken on an individual basis, rather than arrogantly stating that you already have it right, applying a blanket ban to all other parties, and ploughing that lonely furrow for a century


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 24, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> integrity, honesty, determination and seriousness are on the line.  For I will not compromise with capitalism when given the opportunity to express my support for socialism.



Lol. Do you have a cape?



Gravediggers said:


> I've voted Labour and Plaid in the past and got kicked in the teeth for all my efforts.  And is one of the reasons why I became a socialist.



Well of course you've voted Plaid in the past. you were a member weren't you? Out of interest, do you recognise the differences in capitalist parties? That some will kick you in the teeth harder than others, for instance?


----------



## two sheds (May 24, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> How is it being ridiculous for getting you to admit that you voted for Plaid and Louis to admit s/he voted for the Greens.  You have both been short changed and you know it.  It exemplifies you are willing to compromise with capitalism and have indefinitely deferred any serious challenge with commitment and determination by voting for the enemy.



 Haha so your inaction helped let Labour in. You have been short changed and you know it.  It exemplifies you  are willing to compromise with capitalism and have indefinitely deferred  any serious challenge with commitment and determination by letting in the enemy.

That aside, the environmental piece was mainly a fair analysis, not a lot i'd disagree with. Not sure i'd want to live with nuclear power whoever was in charge of it though. 

SPGB is still never a party i'd want to join. The only answer to my question about what happens when the capitalists fight back is a touching belief that they wouldn't have the chance. That and your contempt and hatred of all other parties, particularly the other left wing ones, is too much for me. You're too dogmatic, too sure of your own beliefs and too reliant on The Faith in a way that fundamentalist christians are. The SPGB seems to be the Jehovah's Witnesses of the left wing parties, really.


----------



## scrappy1 (May 24, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Although a more perceptive, or indeed literate, person may have noticed that what I was implying was not that I had some wisdom I needed to impart, but that your own parties' messianic and oft-trumpeted claims to anti-vangaurdism and political pluralism was a pile of shite. The very fact that you have your hostility clause - which isn't even applied on a case by case basis, but to all organisations which lay claim to being political parties - is proof that you believe you already possess all the correct answers, and that it is just a case of propagandising and waiting until the mass of the workers catch up and attain your superiour levels of class consciousness.
> 
> .



Can you tell us when our hostility clause has not been applied?
All other political parties support capitalism by word or deed, despite what some may say to the contrary. That's why we oppose them.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 24, 2010)

scrappy1 said:


> Can you tell us when our hostility clause has not been applied?



Whut?



> All other political parties support capitalism by word or deed, despite what some may say to the contrary. That's why we oppose them.



You chose to oppose all other political organisations a century ago. You do not review each party. You are hostile to everybody else - just as you would be hostile to any other party daft enough to worship at the same alter of abstract utopianism as you, by the dint of them being a political party.

You are placing yourselves as the one and only socialist vanguard. You have the magic path, and now it is the waiting game until everybody else realises, eh?


----------



## two sheds (May 24, 2010)

scrappy1 said:


> All other political parties support capitalism by word or deed, despite what some may say to the contrary. That's why we oppose them.



So do you, by inaction. You let the tories in as much as people who voted for them. 

I have actually been wondering whether the party was originally set up by capitalists. An image comes to mind of a group of old men sitting in their leather armchairs with their brandies and cigars: 

"I know, why don't we set up a 'socialist' party that opposes all the other left wing parties?" "Haha yes and they can refuse to do anything against us because that is the only way that the 'workers' will see the real weaknesses of the capitalist system" "And they can sit round having meetings to develop  a really comprehensive definition of socialism before doing anything" "No, no, they'll need to produce pamphlets and possibly a phonographic record to explain their views to the masses"


----------



## Gravediggers (May 24, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Well of course you've voted Plaid in the past. you were a member weren't you? Out of interest, do you recognise the differences in capitalist parties? That some will kick you in the teeth harder than others, for instance?



The only noticeable difference I find is that some advocate state capitalism and others a mixed economy with state capitalism and private capitalism.  There's plenty of room for compromise amongst that lot.  As for any difference in a 'hard kick in the teeth' on balance capitalism is capitalism as proven with Kronstadt, Hungary, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 24, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> The only noticeable difference I find is that some advocate state capitalism and others a mixed economy with state capitalism and private capitalism.  There's plenty of room for compromise amongst that lot.  As for any difference in a 'hard kick in the teeth' on balance capitalism is capitalism as proven with Kronstadt, Hungary, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.



So there is no difference, and has never been any difference, between a Tory or a Labour government?

No difference between Pinochet's Chile and Olof Palme's Sweden?

Fuck me, you really are trapped in a bubble of abstraction aren't you?


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 24, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> The difference being, I should imagine, that the decision as to whether they are hostile to another political formation or not is taken on an individual basis,


I wouldn't be so sure. Perhaps we should leave it to the IWCA's "passive internet cheerleaders" to explain whether or not the party they support is hostile to all Leninist vanguard parties as well as to all openly pro-capitalist parties. 

Anyway, I thought that all Trotskyist groups had the following implicit principle:


> "That, as the [Revolutionary/Workers/Socialist/Communist/International/League/Party/Tendency(delete as appropriate)] is the one true descendent of the Fourth International founded by LeonTrotsky in 1938, it is hostile to all other groups claiming to be Trotskyist".


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 24, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> I wouldn't be so sure. Perhaps we should leave it to the IWCA's "passive internet cheerleaders" to explain whether or not the party they support is hostile to all Leninist vanguard parties as well as to all openly pro-capitalist parties.



But that would still be hostility on a point of ideological importance, wouldn't it? As opposed to being hostile in advance to any other organisation if it happens to be a political party.

You can say 'we oppose all other parties because they are capitalist' until you are blue in the face, but that is a sham - your hostility clause doesn't offer any debate on new political formations, you simply dismiss all others as capitalist _because they are not the SPGB_.



> Anyway, I thought that all Trotskyist groups had the following implicit principle:



Well you thought wrong, didn't you, or else how would any Trotskyist parties have been able to enter into platforms with one another and with others?

Applied Marxism, Jean Luc.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 24, 2010)

two sheds said:


> I have actually been wondering whether the party was originally set up by capitalists. An image comes to mind of a group of old men sitting in their leather armchairs with their brandies and cigar"


More like the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists (in their Sunday best), I would have thought.


----------



## scrappy1 (May 24, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Whut?
> 
> 
> 
> You chose to oppose all other political organisations a century ago. You do not review each party. You are hostile to everybody else - just as you would be hostile to any other party daft enough to worship at the same alter of abstract utopianism as you, by the dint of them being a political party.



What is your evidence that we don't review our hostility clause regarding new parties? What makes you think they aren't hostile to us, just because it's not enshrined in their constitution?


----------



## scrappy1 (May 24, 2010)

two sheds said:


> So do you, by inaction. You let the tories in as much as people who voted for them.



So, what you're saying is that if we vote for the SPGB or spoil our ballot paper we are letting in the Tories? 

That's like saying that in a war situation there is no point in registering as a consciousness objector because by being one you are in effect giving the "enemy" an extra soldier.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 24, 2010)

scrappy1 said:


> What is your evidence that we don't review our hostility clause regarding new parties?



Because it isn't in your constitution.



scrappy1 said:


> What makes you think they aren't hostile to us, just because it's not enshrined in their constitution?



My dad's bigger than you dad, for fucks sake. How would you know anyway, you've never given another party the chance.

Louis is right; the hostility clause is perfect for maintaining a small and insular sect. It is next to useless at winning support, defending the working class or bringing about socialism, however.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 24, 2010)

two sheds said:


> Haha so your inaction helped let Labour in. You have been short changed and you know it.  It exemplifies you  are willing to compromise with capitalism and have indefinitely deferred  any serious challenge with commitment and determination by letting in the enemy.



How did my inaction let Labour in?  And my willingness to spoil my ballot paper a compromise with capitalism?  Such an illogical conclusion is impossible to take seriously.



> That aside, the environmental piece was mainly a fair analysis, not a lot i'd disagree with. Not sure i'd want to live with nuclear power whoever was in charge of it though.
> 
> SPGB is still never a party i'd want to join. The only answer to my question about what happens when the capitalists fight back is a touching belief that they wouldn't have the chance. That and your contempt and hatred of all other parties, particularly the other left wing ones, is too much for me. You're too dogmatic, too sure of your own beliefs and too reliant on The Faith in a way that fundamentalist christians are. The SPGB seems to be the Jehovah's Witnesses of the left wing parties, really.



If you care to look over previous postings I've dealt with the issue on the possibility of the capitalists using violence to impose their rule.  Basically, they would not stand a chance when there are a majority of socialists near gaining political power.  For by definition the workers are the strongest army in the world, both politically and military.  The pity is the working class do not understand its own strengths.

If by chance we are denied participation in the political process the legitimacy of representative democracy is shown to be a sham and would in effect provide ammunition for socialism.  I dread to think of the consequences and I suspect many of the capitalist class would also be thinking along the same lines.  The creation of such a division is just not worth the effort.  For they are admitting the game is up.  The more astute capitalists would rather take their chances at the ballot box with a program of massive reforms in an attempt to delay the inevitable.


----------



## two sheds (May 24, 2010)

scrappy1 said:


> So, what you're saying is that if we vote for the SPGB or spoil our ballot paper we are letting in the Tories?
> 
> That's like saying that in a war situation there is no point in registering as a consciousness objector because by being one you are in effect giving the "enemy" an extra soldier.



No, I don't believe that, it was a bit of an insult  . It is however as logical as Gravedigger's post that i was replying to that voting for Plaid or the Greens means they are "willing to compromise with capitalism and have indefinitely deferred  any serious challenge with commitment and determination by voting for  the enemy".


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 24, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> How did my inaction let Labour in?  And my willingness to spoil my ballot paper a compromise with capitalism?



Just typical of your abstraction and abstentionism, GD


----------



## scrappy1 (May 24, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Because it isn't in your constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm sure our insular sectness will make you very happy. After all, you wouldn't want us to succeed. I'm going off the air as far as you are concerned. Another case closed.

Correspondence closed. Bye bye.


----------



## The39thStep (May 24, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> Why? What have they done wrong?



what have they done right? Actually Freedom has published the new AFA book so they have gone up a notch imv.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 24, 2010)

scrappy1 said:


> I'm sure our insular sectness will make you very happy. After all, you wouldn't want us to succeed. I'm going off the air as far as you are concerned. Another case closed.
> 
> Correspondence closed. Bye bye.



I'd love you to succeed, but you never, ever will. That is the point.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 24, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Well you thought wrong, didn't you, or else how would any Trotskyist parties have been able to enter into platforms with one another and with others?


The better to outmanoeuvre, stab in the back and try to poach each others members. I don't know when you joined SPEW but there's a long history of rivalry with the SWP for control of such organisations as the Socialist Alliance. And look at the thread on the election of UNISON gen sec, each has their own candidate going hammer and tongs at each other. This is only par for the course since, in Trotskyist theory, there can only be one Vanguard Party, only one correct leader-party of the working class. All the others must be wrong.


Proper Tidy said:


> Applied Marxism, Jean Luc.


I think it used to be called "dialectics, comrade".


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 24, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> The better to outmanoeuvre, stab in the back and try to poach each others members. I don't know when you joined SPEW but there's a long history of rivalry with the SWP for control of such organisations as the Socialist Alliance. And look at the thread on the election of UNISON gen sec, each has their own candidate going hammer and tongs at each other. This is only par for the course since, in Trotskyist theory, there can only be one Vanguard Party, only one correct leader-party of the working class. All the others must be wrong.



Now you're just smearing. Of course party a will have disagreements with party b, or they wouldn't be in separate parties. However, only SPGB and the SLP display the breathtaking elitism of believing themselves to be the one true path, despite all the evidence to the contrary of course.

Btw, there isn't an SP candidate and an SWP candidate in the Unison elections. There is Roger Bannister, an SP supporter and the most prominent left candidate in the past couple of elections, and Paul Holmes, of the... Labour Party. SP and SWP are backing different candidates, not both standing their own candidates.



> I think it used to be called "dialectics, comrade".



You should try it, make a refreshing change from endlessly quoting a dead textile designer.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 24, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Just typical of your abstraction and abstentionism, GD



And this is typical of your assertions.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 24, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You should try it, make a refreshing change from endlessly quoting a dead textile designer.



There you go running down one of the most outstanding champions of the working class.  We do not endlessly quote William Morris but when we do happen to quote him he destroys your arguments that state capitalism is an improvement for the working class.

Give me Morris any day than Trotsky, at least he was genuine and honest and understood what the implications of self-emancipation meant.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 24, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> And this is typical of your assertions.



How is it not completely abstract and divorced from the real world, GD? It is a wholly symbolic act which achieves nothing and effectively rolls out the red carpet to be fucked over by the most viciously neo-liberal politicians. How does that either advance the interests of the working class or help bring about socialism? Abstract bollocks.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 24, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> There you go running down one of the most outstanding champions of the working class.  We do not endlessly quote William Morris but when we do happen to quote him he destroys your arguments that state capitalism is an improvement for the working class.
> 
> Give me Morris any day than Trotsky, at least he was genuine and honest and understood what the implications of self-emancipation meant.



Did a nice line in wallpaper too


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 24, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> what have they done right? Actually Freedom has published the new AFA book so they have gone up a notch imv.


I don't think that Afed and Freedom have anything to do with each other, have they? Aren't they rivals, Afed being "class-struggle anarchists" and Freedom reformist anarchists like the late Colin Ward?

I see by their declaration of principles that they too are out to convince workers that they are right:



> Unlike other so-called socialists or communists we do not want power or control for our organisation. We recognise that the revolution can only be carried out directly by the working class. However, the revolution must be preceded by organisations able to convince people of the anarchist communist alternative and method.


Note the reference to "other so-called socialists or communists". Rather SPGBish!


----------



## Gravediggers (May 24, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> So there is no difference, and has never been any difference, between a Tory or a Labour government?
> 
> No difference between Pinochet's Chile and Olof Palme's Sweden?
> 
> Fuck me, you really are trapped in a bubble of abstraction aren't you?



No ProperTidy you are stuck in the bubble by trying your best to twist my words to suit your agenda.  Lest not forget you voted for Plaid for you thought they were the lesser of two evils.  Of course there is a difference between political regimes I never implied there wasn't I was merely underlining the differences in political economy.

Obviously, I would much prefer being a socialist in Sweden than in Chile but regardless of the dullness of Swedish politics and the harshness of Chile under a dictator I like all socialists would still be confronted with the problem of propagating the case for socialism to the best of our ability.


----------



## The39thStep (May 24, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> I don't think that Afed and Freedom have anything to do with each other, have they? Aren't they rivals, Afed being "class-struggle anarchists" and Freedom reformist anarchists like the late Colin Ward?
> 
> I see by their declaration of principles that they too are out to convince workers that they are right:
> 
> Note the reference to "other so-called socialists or communists". Rather SPGBish!



In that case I take back the coment I made about them going up a notch in my estimation


----------



## Gravediggers (May 24, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Did a nice line in wallpaper too



Besides writing a lot more interesting tracts than Trotsky ever done.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 24, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> How is it not completely abstract and divorced from the real world, GD? It is a wholly symbolic act which achieves nothing and effectively rolls out the red carpet to be fucked over by the most viciously neo-liberal politicians. How does that either advance the interests of the working class or help bring about socialism? Abstract bollocks.



Of course its abstract politics to someone like yourself who has no political principles whatsoever and plainly sees the world has a battle between good and evil, where anything goes including even supporting the enemy as and when it suits your political agenda.  

Consistency to you means resorting to the politics of the enemy where back stabbing is rife, political assassination par for the course, manipulation is necessary, arm twisting an exercise in conformity, and a kick in the teeth is common practice.  

Whilst I have no need to resort to such tactics for Mr Angry finds it quite sufficient to throw your proposals for state capitalism back in your face so it continues to rattle your cage.  Been there done that and it left a very bitter taste in my mouth.

You are in truth the best recruiting agent for true socialism I have come across.  Keep up the good work.  If I ever happen to visit Wrexham I shall drop a free copy of the Socialist Standard through you letterbox has a sign of gratitude.


----------



## dannysp (May 25, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Whut?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If there were another Party that agreed with Object and Principles of the SPGB on discovering such the two parties would immediately amalgamate, as has happened with the companion Parties of the WSM.

We see the WSM on analysing the evidence as the only Socialist organisation available to the working class, if we didn't we wouldn't be part of it.

I do not regard you as a Socialist PT because regrettably you support a party that puts forward a proposition that's state capitalism, so therefore it logically follows that you would not consider us with the SPGB as Socialists. So the question we need to ask you is, what Party or Parties would you see as Socialist?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 25, 2010)

dannysp said:


> If there were another Party that agreed with Object and Principles of the SPGB on discovering such the two parties would immediately amalgamate, as has happened with the companion Parties of the WSM.
> 
> We see the WSM on analysing the evidence as the only Socialist organisation available to the working class, if we didn't we wouldn't be part of it.
> 
> I do not regard you as a Socialist PT because regrettably you support a party that puts forward a proposition that's state capitalism, so therefore it logically follows that you would not consider us with the SPGB as Socialists. So the question we need to ask you is, what Party or Parties would you see as Socialist?



*ProperTidy* having agreed with the object of the SPGB - many posts ago - and unable to produce or provide a definition of socialism from SPEW it surely logically follows that the only party you see has socialist is in fact the SPGB?  If you reject such a logical conclusion IME this leaves your position very vulnerable, inconsistent and more importantly in contradistinction to your political beliefs that state capitalism is necessary before we have socialism.


----------



## JWH (May 25, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Not having read Chandler I have no idea what his style of writing was.


You missed out. It's good stuff. Don't start with _Goodbye, My Lovely_.


----------



## robbo203 (May 25, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> *ProperTidy* having agreed with the object of the SPGB - many posts ago - and unable to produce or provide a definition of socialism from SPEW it surely logically follows that the only party you see has socialist is in fact the SPGB?  If you reject such a logical conclusion IME this leaves your position very vulnerable, inconsistent and more importantly in contradistinction to your political beliefs that state capitalism is necessary before we have socialism.




Yes this is quite true and it reminds me that Proper Tidy claimed way back on this thread that SPEW did actually make reference to socialism as a "moneyless wageless stateless commonwealth"  Not once but frequently in its publications.  I challenged PT to provide a  single instance of this and he went all coy on me and dropped the subject.

So come one PT lets have your evidence now - or an admission that you were wrong. And an acknowlegement that SPEW does not advocate genuine socialism


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 25, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> I can't believe it! So the persistent critic of one political party as being vanguardist, prescriptive, etc, etc. for having a programme it puts before workers turns out to be a member/supporter of another political party!
> 
> I imagine that, as a political party, IWCA is opposed to the other political parties, especially when it contests elections eg when it stood against Lindsey Germain of Respect in the 2004 elections for London mayor. I think it's opposed too to Leninism and the concept of the vanguard party. So that's something else that the IWCA and the SPGB would seem to have in common.
> 
> Found this observation on another thread which may or may not be appropriate here:



It's a sunny day in a local park. First man is walking along the path by the duck pond; he takes a swig from a bottle of Becks. Second man is slumped next to a bench cradling a nearly empty two litre bottle of White Lightening. Seeing the first man, he tries to sit up straight, points an accusing finger and shouts 'pisshead!'

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 25, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Obviously, I would much prefer being a socialist in Sweden than in Chile ...



And would happily free ride on the efforts of others that had been expended over decades to create that difference, all the while telling them how wrong they had been and how they had wasted their time. 

Louis MacNeice


----------



## two sheds (May 25, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> If you care to look over previous postings I've dealt with the issue on the possibility of the capitalists using violence to impose their rule.  Basically, they would not stand a chance when there are a majority of socialists near gaining political power.  For by definition the workers are the strongest army in the world, both politically and military.  The pity is the working class do not understand its own strengths.



I did care to look at your previous postings and no, they didn't address  it. They just regurgitated hopeful statements. Say for example by some miracle you  gained a 'majority of socialists near gaining political power' in Iraq.  You're saying that the US army/navy/airforce 'would not stand a chance'  against the Iraqi workers (part of are the 'strongest army in the world,  both politically and military' remember).  I suggest to the honorable member that  he has his head up his arse. 



> If by chance we are denied participation in the political process the legitimacy of representative democracy is shown to be a sham and would in effect provide ammunition for socialism.  I dread to think of the consequences and I suspect many of the capitalist class would also be thinking along the same lines.  The creation of such a division is just not worth the effort.  For they are admitting the game is up.  The more astute capitalists would rather take their chances at the ballot box with a program of massive reforms in an attempt to delay the inevitable.


This is just hopeful toss. You're using phrases like 'I dread to think of the consequences' and 'For they are admitting the game is up' as a substitute for critical thought. If the capitalists are the evil people you say they are they will stamp on any mass movement to socialism very early on. They've got helicopter gunships and tanks remember, you can wave your pamphlets at them and dream of your socialist majority all you like.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 25, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Yes this is quite true and it reminds me that Proper Tidy claimed way back on this thread that SPEW did actually make reference to socialism as a "moneyless wageless stateless commonwealth"  Not once but frequently in its publications.  I challenged PT to provide a  single instance of this and he went all coy on me and dropped the subject.
> 
> So come one PT lets have your evidence now - or an admission that you were wrong. And an acknowlegement that SPEW does not advocate *genuine socialism*



The SPGB as trading standards officers.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 25, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> If you care to look over previous postings I've dealt with the issue on the possibility of the capitalists using violence to impose their rule.



That is the same quality of assertion as the one made by your candidate re. poverty being the cause of domestic violence; i.e. one driven by an ossified and partial ideology rather than by observation and analysis of everyday life. 

Keep them coming GD. Make that case; remember you're winning hearts and minds her.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 25, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> It's a sunny day in a local park. First man is walking along the path by the duck pond; he takes a swig from a bottle of Becks. Second man is slumped next to a bench cradling a nearly empty two litre bottle of White Lightening. Seeing the first man, he tries to sit up straight, points an accusing finger and shouts 'pisshead!'
> 
> Louis MacNeice


Nice little story but hardly worthy of the original Louis Macneice. I take it that, as the accuser, he's the man on the bench.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 25, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> Nice little story but hardly worthy of the original Louis Macneice. I take it that, as the accuser, he's the man on the bench.



No, there is no man on the bench.  Read it again.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## The39thStep (May 25, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> I can't believe it! So the persistent critic of one political party as being vanguardist, prescriptive, etc, etc. for having a programme it puts before workers turns out to be a member/supporter of another political party!
> 
> I imagine that, as a political party, IWCA is opposed to the other political parties, especially when it contests elections eg when it stood against Lindsey Germain of Respect in the 2004 elections for London mayor. I think it's opposed too to Leninism and the concept of the vanguard party. So that's something else that the IWCA and the SPGB would seem to have in common.
> 
> Found this observation on another thread which may or may not be appropriate here:



Probably the first time anyone has quoted Nigel Irritable as a source of anything appropriate other than as a collector of Trotskyist artifacts and perspectives.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 25, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Yes this is quite true and it reminds me that Proper Tidy claimed way back on this thread that SPEW did actually make reference to socialism as a "moneyless wageless stateless commonwealth"  Not once but frequently in its publications.  I challenged PT to provide a  single instance of this and he went all coy on me and dropped the subject.
> 
> So come one PT lets have your evidence now - or an admission that you were wrong. And an acknowlegement that SPEW does not advocate genuine socialism



Although he disliked the use of olde language, which prompted him and others to post alternative wording to bring it up to date, he actually agreed with the object .


----------



## dannysp (May 25, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> That is the same quality of assertion as the one made by your candidate re. poverty being the cause of domestic violence; i.e. one driven by and ossified and partial ideology rather than by observation and analysis of everyday life.
> 
> Keep them coming GD. Make that case; remember you're winning hearts and minds her.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


What I said  was was part of an analysis of the problem of domestic violence if it was reported as merely the bald assertion, poverty = domestic violence, then that says more about the reporters than it says about me.

This is like the politicians who when having to counter the idea that poverty causes crime, leap heroically to the the defence of the of the poor, but really the system, by saying some thing like, the the majority of the poor in the country/their constituency are decent, hardworking and law abiding people. 

So poverty has nothing to do with domestic violence because most poor people don't beat up their partners. So what is the cause?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 25, 2010)

dannysp said:


> What I said  was was part of an analysis of the problem of domestic violence if it was reported as merely the bald assertion, poverty = domestic violence, then that says more about the reporters than it says about me.
> 
> This is like the politicians who when having to counter the idea that poverty causes crime, leap heroically to the the defence of the of the poor, but really the system, by saying some thing like, the the majority of the poor in the country/their constituency are decent, hardworking and law abiding people.
> 
> *So poverty has nothing to do with domestic violence* because most poor people don't beat up their partners. So what is the cause?



That's the politician in you showing Danny; nobody has said this, but you really wish they had.

Give GD an oar and get about your business.

Louis MacNeice

p.s. I'd missed your first politician's stock reply - 'I was quoted out of context' - three times as it happens, and all to the same effect. You should get a refund on those public speaking lessons.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 25, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> And would happily free ride on the efforts of others that had been expended over decades to create that difference, all the while telling them how wrong they had been and how they had wasted their time.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Louis I think you posed much the same argument many posts ago.  Socialists are not free riders when it comes to struggling for democracy and recognise a democratic framework is essential to the struggle for socialism.  And we would most certainly not tell the workers how wrong they had been and it was all a waste of time.

We would however, be explaining to the workers, that they need to raise themselves up off their knees and look beyond the limitations of representative democracy under capitalism.  In short, understanding the concept and workings of democracy is all to the good but there is a far larger struggle taking place which they need to understand and participate in - socialism.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 25, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Louis I think you posed much the same argument many posts ago.  Socialists are not free riders when it comes to struggling for democracy and recognise a democratic framework is essential to the struggle for socialism.  And *we would most certainly not tell the workers how wrong they had been* and it was all a waste of time.
> 
> We would however, be explaining to the workers, *that they need to raise themselves up off their knees* and look beyond the limitations of representative democracy under capitalism.  In short, understanding the concept and workings of democracy is all to the good but there is a far larger struggle taking place which they need to understand and participate in - socialism.



What even when they said they'd campaigned and voted social democrat; you little fibber.

Raise them up GD; heal them and let them walk again. 

In the meantime Danny needs some help; you'd better get on the other oar because at the moment he's just going round in circles.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 25, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> How is it not completely abstract and divorced from the real world, GD? It is a wholly symbolic act which achieves nothing and effectively rolls out the red carpet to be fucked over by the most viciously neo-liberal politicians. How does that either advance the interests of the working class or help bring about socialism? Abstract bollocks.


Tell that to the Anarchist Federation.


Proper Tidy said:


> Btw, there isn't an SP candidate and an SWP candidate in the Unison elections. There is Roger Bannister, an SP supporter and the most prominent left candidate in the past couple of elections, and Paul Holmes, of the... Labour Party. SP and SWP are backing different candidates, not both standing their own candidates.


Thanks for the clarification but it still remains true that SPEW and SWP are at each others throats as rival would-be Trotskyist leaders of the working class. I haven't gone into the details but I imagine the SWP has refused to back Bannister because he's too close to SPEW. Having said that, if I was in Unison, I think I'd vote for Holmes. As a non-Trotskyist he wouldn't be beholden to some vanguard party outside the union.


----------



## two sheds (May 25, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> it still remains true that SPEW and SWP are at each others throats as rival would-be Trotskyist leaders of the working class.



Don't you see this as a problem? If the SP, SWP and SWGB are all at each others' throats then what hope do you have for any form of socialism? It's a bit fucking pointless if you can't even find common ground and get on amongst yourselves.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 25, 2010)

two sheds said:


> Don't you see this as a problem? If the SP, SWP and SWGB are all at each others' throats then what hope do you have for any form of socialism? It's a bit fucking pointless if you can't even find common ground and get on amongst yourselves.


Yes I do and can see how this must look to people looking in from the outside, but I can't see what can be done about it. 

All the groups calling themselves "socialist" are never going to be able to get together either because they are not agreed on what socialism is or, if they do, on how to get there or because some want to be leaders. If one group wants to stick to the original meaning of the word socialism then, as this thread shows, they get a bollocking for being sectarian, arrogant, vanguardist and I don't know what.

I think all we can do is let a thousand flowers bloom and hope that an understanding of what needs to be done emerges. In any event, none of the groups calling themselves socialist can establish a free society of common ownership, democratic control and production for use not profit. Only the majority of currently non-political people can when, and if, they want it.


----------



## dannysp (May 25, 2010)

two sheds said:


> Don't you see this as a problem? If the SP, SWP and SWGB are all at each others' throats then what hope do you have for any form of socialism? It's a bit fucking pointless if you can't even find common ground and get on amongst yourselves.



Here's the "common ground" the WSM offers.

                                             OBJECT

The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interests of the whole  community.


What the left have  problems with is common ownership, they would much prefer state ownership and rather than democratic control, state control.


----------



## moon23 (May 25, 2010)

Ok, so can anybody tell me what the Socialist Party of Great Britians' USP (Unique Selling Point)? A couple sentances as to why it's better than the other socialists parties and groups.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Ok, so can anybody tell me what the Socialist Party of Great Britians' USP (Unique Selling Point)? A couple sentances as to why it's better than the other socialists parties and groups.



I'm sure someone will be along soon.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## moon23 (May 25, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> No, it doesn't. It only responds to paying needs, ie needs needs backed up by money to pay for the means to satisfy them. The trouble is that under capitalism the amount of money most people have is rationed by the size of their pay packet (or salary cheque) and that this is always less than the value of what they produce -- otherwise where would the profits of the capitalist firms that employ them come from? No, the economic law under capitalism is "can't pay, can't have".



Capitalism is the freedom for people to respond to needs how they like, there are plenty of indivduals and buisness that respond to needs through charity or giving away things for free.

Capitalism is not forcing all goods to be exchanged for profit, it is the freedom for people to choose themselves what agreements for trade to come to. 

If people don't provide for the poor, it's because they are too selfish which is societies fault.


----------



## Blagsta (May 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> *Capitalism is the freedom for people to respond to needs how they like, *there are plenty of indivduals and buisness that respond to needs through charity or giving away things for free.
> 
> Capitalism is not forcing all goods to be exchanged for profit, it is the freedom for people to choose themselves what agreements for trade to come to.
> 
> If people don't provide for the poor, it's because they are too selfish which is societies fault.



It's not though is it.  It's the freedom of people who own/control resources to respond how they like.  It's a poor sort of freedom that excludes the majority of the population.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> If people don't provide for the poor, it's because they are too selfish which is societies fault.


Did you mean to say "isnt"? Anyway, what do you think is the origin of profit? And has capitalism in your sense ever existed?


----------



## two sheds (May 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Capitalism is not forcing all goods to be exchanged for profit, it is the freedom for people to choose themselves what agreements for trade to come to.



Ooooo nice i hadn't realised that

[heads off to Dixons to agree to buy a 10 Mpixel camera for 5p]


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 25, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> Thanks for the clarification but it still remains true that SPEW and SWP are at each others throats as rival would-be Trotskyist leaders of the working class. I haven't gone into the details but I imagine the SWP has refused to back Bannister because he's too close to SPEW.



I have no idea. Perhaps you should ask an SWP supporter in Unison.



Jean-Luc said:


> said that, if I was in Unison, I think I'd vote for Holmes. As a non-Trotskyist he wouldn't be beholden to some vanguard party outside the union.



No, he would be beholden to the LP instead. Your trotphobia takes you to some odd places, doesn't it JL?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 25, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Although he disliked the use of olde language, which prompted him and others to post alternative wording to bring it up to date, he actually agreed with the object .



Communists agree with communism shocker.

The problem, as the squeegees may recall, is getting to that point.

Your approach seems to come down to crossing your fingers, clipping your heels together twice and saying William Morris three times into a mirror.

You blatantly ignore the need for the working class to take control of the means of production, of government, and of the military, before the majority get drowned in their own blood - and anybody else who takes such flippancies like reality into account are guilty of the heresy of state-capitalism.

You're an odd bunch.


----------



## scrappy1 (May 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Ok, so can anybody tell me what the Socialist Party of Great Britians' USP (Unique Selling Point)? A couple sentances as to why it's better than the other socialists parties and groups.



That's a "have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife?" question. 

The others aren't socialist parties, so that makes us better because we favour a world of social equality--the others favour state capitalism, some including repression of the former capitalist class. Of course, if you don't like the idea of socialism as defined by the SPGB, then it won't be a selling point.


----------



## dannysp (May 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Capitalism is the freedom for people to respond to needs how they like, there are plenty of indivduals and buisness that respond to needs through charity or giving away things for free.
> 
> Capitalism is not forcing all goods to be exchanged for profit, it is the freedom for people to choose themselves what agreements for trade to come to.
> 
> If people don't provide for the poor, it's because they are too selfish which is societies fault.



Yes I agree! Society is at fault but what kind of society might this be?

Do you agree with the son of god when he is reported to have said "the poor will always be with us", so not interested in why humans are poor. We in the WSM are, and ask the subversive question why are there poor people? What we conclude is the poor are poor because they don't own the  means of production, the rich are rich because they do.

We've discovered that the productive technology we have today has been developed socially and collectively by all humans throughout our history so we figure they should be socially and collectively owned and controlled.

We say that therefore the natural and industrial resources of our world are the common heritage of all humans, but that's not the case is it? So some have something they're not entitled to.

With common ownership we can provide for ourselves a society without the poverty that denies us our potential.

Or are hardwired to be always greedy? 

Or does having humans poorer than you make you feel rich?


----------



## dannysp (May 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> ok, so can anybody tell me what the socialist party of great britians' usp (unique selling point)? A couple sentances as to why it's better than the other socialists parties and groups.



Democracy


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 25, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Your trotphobia takes you to some odd places, doesn't it?


You're right. Knowing how they operate (secret caucus meetings, etc) I wouldn't trust any member of a Trotskyist organisation to behave democratically or not to put the interests of their organisation before that of the membership of a trade union. But if it's any consolation, if Holmes hadn't been a candidate, I'd probably decide to vote for Bannister just to show Prentis & Co that there was a militant minority in the union. In fact, come to think of it (given that Prentis is going to win), there's probably no harm in him being opposed by 2 militant candidates as their combined vote will be higher than if there was just one of them.


----------



## dannysp (May 25, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Communists agree with communism shocker.
> 
> The problem, as the squeegees may recall, is getting to that point.
> 
> ...





Nowhere near as odd as you PT


WSM declaration of principles

Clause 6

# That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working class must organize consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 25, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> secret caucus meetings



They're not secret, you know. No magic keys or secret passwords.

Though if you vote for a Labour man, won't that bring you in to contradiction with your authoritarian executive? GD tells me voting for a capitalist even when there are no Socialist (TM) options is enough to get a comrade booted out of oasis on Clapham High Street. You'd best just scrawl some obscenities on the ballot sheet instead.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 25, 2010)

dannysp said:


> That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working class must organize consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic.



But how, Daniel? By reaching some magical point of critical mass when the majority will naturally overwhelm the minority, even if the minority has all the guns, money and power?

'Randolph, by midday tomorrow we'll be sipping Pims in Central Berlin, in a moneyless, wageless, stateless society...'

You're utopians, and extremely arrogant utopians at that.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 25, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Democracy



Oops! First the domestic violence gaffe, now this. Go and check with scrappy what the right answer is (although even they nearly stumbled, blinking into the real world).

Louis MacNeice


----------



## two sheds (May 25, 2010)

dannysp said:


> The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interests of the whole  community.



Now that sounds fair enough to me. Still s a bit wordy, though, always worth cutting out redundant words: 

"A society based upon the common ownership  and democratic control for producing and  distributing wealth in the interests of the whole  community."

That doesn't actually include the bits about no money and no state, which again sounds fair enough if money was just treated as a form of exchange. The problem comes when the rich can just live off their capital (which is what I'd thought the definition of capitalism was). Then they get to be idle which isn't healthy. 

Isn't that sort of common ground? I'd have thought the greens could live with that, too - making businesses into co-operatives for example. 

Then the SPG could push for money and state to be abolished and the SP could push for whatever they wanted to push for and everybody would be happy. See, problem solved  

--- Next week: how to build a box girder bridge and how to reconcile the Russians and the Chinese. ---


----------



## Gravediggers (May 25, 2010)

two sheds said:


> I did care to look at your previous postings and no, they didn't address  it. They just regurgitated hopeful statements. Say for example by some miracle you  gained a 'majority of socialists near gaining political power' in Iraq.  You're saying that the US army/navy/airforce 'would not stand a chance'  against the Iraqi workers (part of are the 'strongest army in the world,  both politically and military' remember).  I suggest to the honorable member that  he has his head up his arse.
> 
> This is just hopeful toss. You're using phrases like 'I dread to think of the consequences' and 'For they are admitting the game is up' as a substitute for critical thought. If the capitalists are the evil people you say they are they will stamp on any mass movement to socialism very early on. They've got helicopter gunships and tanks remember, you can wave your pamphlets at them and dream of your socialist majority all you like.



Sorry to hear that my previous postings failed to satisfy your curiosity.   After going through your posts it appears you are pinpointing one particular scenario where socialists are near to attaining a majority and the capitalist class as a whole are assuming this poses a threat to their rule and ruthlessly suppresses them very early on.  Like I said in my previous post to take such action the capitalists would have to suspend representative democracy and suffer the consequences.  

But how early is early?  Why wait until the socialist movement can be countered in the thousands, or even hundred thousands?  Why not strangle it at birth or even now when the movement is very small?  Such action would also mean all socialist publications, all socialist text on the internet, all mention of socialism, etc, would have to be destroyed as well.  But it is very unlikely that such drastic action would finish of socialism.  

The simple truth is that socialism is not yet perceived as a threat to warrant such action.  And even such action were to be taken it would be ineffective and counter productive, because the idea of socialism would still remain. For the truth is that so long as capitalism exists there will always be the alternative of socialism available. That is the dynamics of class struggle and social evolution.  So the facts of the matter is the capitalists have no reason to fret over losing control of the means of living - just yet - far from it.

But lets go back to the scenario you envisage and see if we can develop it a bit more.  The struggle for socialism is about the battle for ideas and the idea of socialism is part of a wider global struggle.  And it is impossible to envisage the idea of socialism as we understand it developing in isolation of the rest of the global community.  Therefore, the workers in Iraq, or any where else for that matter, would be planning ahead for the eventual transformation and also for any likely hood of any attempt to violently suppress the socialist movement.  We can assume therefore that contingency plans will be in place to ensure that in the event of violent suppression the rest of the global socialist movement will respond accordingly.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 25, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> They're not secret, you know. No magic keys or secret passwords.


I see you must be only a candidate member of your Trotskyist group. You don't know much about the history of your group either, do you? Have you never heard of "entryism"? Wait until you've proved yourself fit to be a full member (after you've sold your full quota of papers for six months) and then they'll tell you about these..


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 25, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> I see you must be only a candidate member of your Trotskyist group. You don't know much about the history of your group either, do you? Have you never heard of "entryism"? Wait until you've proved yourself fit to be a full member (after you've sold your full quota of papers for six months) and then they'll tell you about these..



Yeah nice bit of attempted condescension there Jean.

Another clear example of your sturdy political debate eh?

Also, we don't have 'candidate members'. Is that an SPGB thing?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 25, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Sorry to hear that my previous postings failed to satisfy your curiosity.   After going through your posts it appears you are pinpointing one particular scenario where socialists are near to attaining a majority and the capitalist class as a whole are assuming this poses a threat to their rule and ruthlessly suppresses them very early on.  Like I said in my previous post to take such action the capitalists would have to suspend representative democracy and suffer the consequences.
> 
> But how early is early?  Why wait until the socialist movement can be countered in the thousands, or even hundred thousands?  Why not strangle it at birth or even now when the movement is very small?  Such action would also mean all socialist publications, all socialist text on the internet, all mention of socialism, etc, would have to be destroyed as well.  But it is very unlikely that such drastic action would finish of socialism.
> 
> ...



So what do you do if one state or a small number of states go and do a revolution but the majority of the world is nowhere near?

Crush the revolution? Abolish money and borders and the state then sit back and watch the disaster? Go 'state-capitalist'? Or do nothing at all?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 25, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> So what do you do if one state or a small number of states go and do a revolution but the majority of the world is nowhere near?
> 
> Crush the revolution? Abolish money and borders and the state then sit back and watch the disaster? Go 'state-capitalist'? Or do nothing at all?



Your first sentence can be responded to, but the second sentence does not follow through.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 25, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Your first sentence can be responded to, but the second sentence does not follow through.



Well answer the first point then.

Awaits more abstract daydreams and self-aggrandising...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 25, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Sorry to hear that my previous postings failed to satisfy your curiosity.   After going through your posts it appears you are pinpointing one particular scenario where socialists are near to attaining a majority and the capitalist class as a whole are assuming this poses a threat to their rule and ruthlessly suppresses them very early on.  Like I said in my previous post to take such action the capitalists would have to suspend representative democracy and suffer the consequences.
> 
> But how early is early?  Why wait until the socialist movement can be countered in the thousands, or even hundred thousands?  Why not strangle it at birth or even now when the movement is very small?  Such action would also mean all socialist publications, all socialist text on the internet, all mention of socialism, etc, would have to be destroyed as well.  But it is very unlikely that such drastic action would finish of socialism.
> 
> ...



GD good for you, you're back in your comfort zone; dreaming abut the future. A bit like Danny and his day dream where domestic violence vanishes as poverty is done away with. You boys really do enjoy your flights of fancy; maybe you shouldn't have accepted JL's offer to share his libation.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 25, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Also, we don't have 'candidate members'.


I'm prepared to be believe you and will withdraw my comment if you can refer me to the constitution and rulebook of SPEW (which I couldn't find on the internet). Maybe I've confused your group with another one or maybe my information is out of date.

Anyway, here's part of the constiution of another Trotskyist group (AWL):


> Members will normally be admitted as candidates, to go through at least three months of education, training and disciplined activity before being admitted as full activists.


I understood this to be a general practice amongst Trotskyist groups. It certainly used to be. There should be enough ex-Trotskyists here to confirm or refute this.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 25, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You blatantly ignore the need for the working class to take control of the means of production, of government, and of the military, before the majority get drowned in their own blood - and anybody else who takes such flippancies like reality into account are guilty of the heresy of state-capitalism.
> 
> You're an odd bunch.



No PT its you have ignored what we have to say and deliberately so.  We have consistently stated that a majority of the working class must take control of the state machinery including the armed forces, so a violent minority are not in a position to suppress the transformation to a socialist society.  On the contrary to what you state such a situation will enable the majority to ensure its only the violent minority who will be drowning in their own blood.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 25, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> So what do you do if one state or a small number of states go and do a revolution but the majority of the world is nowhere near?



Whatever makes you think that socialism will be developing throughout the globe unevenly?  Its not hard to imagine that if one state or a small number of states had established a socialist society the very same circumstances would also be taking place elsewhere.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 25, 2010)

two sheds said:


> Now that sounds fair enough to me. Still s a bit wordy, though, always worth cutting out redundant words:
> 
> "A society based upon the common ownership  and democratic control for producing and  distributing wealth in the interests of the whole  community."
> 
> ...



The key term is 'common ownership' how can you have common ownership of the means of exchange?  This actually begs the question is it at all possible for the working class to exploit itself?  No, so why bother to try?  The socialist object implies there will be free access and a moneyless economy, with production for use.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 25, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> I'm prepared to be believe you and will withdraw my comment if you can refer me to the constitution and rulebook of SPEW (which I couldn't find on the internet). Maybe I've confused your group with another one or maybe my information is out of date.



Believe me or don't. We don't have 'candidate members'. If you're paying subs and attending meetings, you're a member.



Jean-Luc said:


> Anyway, here's part of the constiution of another Trotskyist group (AWL):
> I understood this to be a general practice amongst Trotskyist groups. It certainly used to be. There should be enough ex-Trotskyists here to confirm or refute this.



Blimey, if I'm going to be held accountable for the actions of the ultra-bizarro AWL then it will be a long night.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 25, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Whatever makes you think that socialism will be developing throughout the globe unevenly?  Its not hard to imagine that if one state or a small number of states had established a socialist society the very same circumstances would also be taking place elsewhere.



I asked what the SPGB would advocate if socialism did develop unevenly, with is likely. So how about you give your answer?


----------



## dannysp (May 25, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> But how, Daniel? By reaching some magical point of critical mass when the majority will naturally overwhelm the minority, even if the minority has all the guns, money and power?
> 
> 'Randolph, by midday tomorrow we'll be sipping Pims in Central Berlin, in a moneyless, wageless, stateless society...'
> 
> You're utopians, and extremely arrogant utopians at that.





Leave the bunker PT the workers have all the power.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 25, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Leave the bunker PT the workers have all the power.



Yes, that is why every revolution has been bloodless, isn't it Danny?


----------



## dannysp (May 25, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Oops! First the domestic violence gaffe, now this. Go and check with scrappy what the right answer is (although even they nearly stumbled, blinking into the real world).
> 
> Louis MacNeice




I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me why I'm wrong, why it's a gaffe.

Anyone???


----------



## dannysp (May 25, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yes, that is why every revolution has been bloodless, isn't it Danny?





There's never been a Socialist revolution has there PT?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 25, 2010)

dannysp said:


> There's never been a Socialist revolution has there PT?



But the actual act of rising up Danny - it makes no odds what the underpinning ideology is. There have been plenty of revolutions by the majority against the minority - mostly very bloody too.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 25, 2010)

dannysp said:


> I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me why I'm wrong, why it's a gaffe.
> 
> Anyone???



Really?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 25, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I asked what the SPGB would advocate if socialism did develop unevenly, with is likely. So how about you give your answer?



No its very unlikely that socialism will develop unevenly.  If there were any signs of the uneven development of socialism this would suggest that the battle of democracy had yet to be won and the importance of combining the struggle for socialism with democracy.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 25, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> No its very unlikely that socialism will develop unevenly.  If there were any signs of the uneven development of socialism this would suggest that the battle of democracy had yet to be won and the importance of combining the struggle for socialism with democracy.



Pure utopianism.

GD - what would you do if there was a socialist revolution in only one global region? What would you advocate, given the abolition of money, wages and state would be equivalent to writing your own suicide note?


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 25, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Believe me or don't. We don't have 'candidate members'. If you're paying subs and attending meetings, you're a member.
> Blimey, if I'm going to be held accountable for the actions of the ultra-bizarro AWL then it will be a long night.


Not having much success in finding evidence on the internet that all Trotskyist organisations impose a period of candidate membership on applicants to join. So far, only found this (but then I suppose you will say, with some justification, that Workers Power is also an "ultra-bizarro" group):


> To be a party member there are three requirements, as the Bolsheviks insisted: agreement with the party programme, the party statutes and its general line; disciplined activity in a branch or cell; payment of a regular sum to the party treasury. There should be a period prior to full membership of training, education and selection. Comrades who wish to join the party should usually pass through periods as a supporter and as a candidate member (with all rights except the right to a decisive vote).


And this from here, about the IMG in the 1980s:


> the candidate system operated for a purpose, which was to determine an applicant’s degree of political commitment and suitability for membership of a revolutionary organisation.
> To become a candidate member was in itself a conscious decision, and the term had specific meaning. To use the phrase we used at the time, candidate membership conferred ‘all of the duties but none of the rights’ enjoyed by full members.
> Yes, you had to sell the paper. Yes, you had to pay a fair chunk of your income in dues. And yes, you had to go to endless bloody meetings, even though you got only an indicative vote.


But this about the SWP:


> The SWP is extremely easy to join. Many people who join do not stay long, but the party considers that this is the best way to test people's interest and determination, rather than going through an initial period of 'candidate membership', involving education and induction, as other revolutionary groups have been known to set up (for example Lutte Ouvrière in France).


So, from what you say, I assume that SPEW follows the SWP example and doesn't have "candidate members". In which I have to withdraw my comment.


----------



## dannysp (May 25, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> But the actual act of rising up Danny - it makes no odds what the underpinning ideology is. There have been plenty of revolutions by the majority against the minority - mostly very bloody too.




The majority led by a minority, is that what you have in mind PT?

So what if the workers as a majority refused to confront the armed might of the state, carried on doing all the essential work producing and distributing the means of life, but again refused to do any work involving finance or armaments, what would the state do then?

I can't help inferring from your tone on this subject, that it's not so much capitalism you despise, but the capitalist class.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 25, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Pure utopianism.
> 
> GD - what would you do if there was a socialist revolution in only one global region? What would you advocate, given the abolition of money, wages and state would be equivalent to writing your own suicide note?



Your response suggests that you do envisage the uneven development of socialism.  Could you give your reasons?

If the socialist revolution were to take off in the western industrial countries there is every reason to expect that the rest of the globe would soon follow suit.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 25, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> Not having much success in finding evidence on the internet that all Trotskyist organisations impose a period of candidate membership on applicants to join. So far, only found this (but then I suppose you will say, with some justification, that Workers Power is also an "ultra-bizarro" group):
> And this from here, about the IMG in the 1980s:
> But this about the SWP:
> So, from what you say, I assume that SPEW follows the SWP example and doesn't have "candidate members". In which I have to withdraw my comment.



Not sure whether SP 'followed the SWP example' but you are right that you are wrong.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 25, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Your response suggests that you do envisage the uneven development of socialism.  Could you give your reasons?
> 
> If the socialist revolution were to take off in the western industrial countries there is every reason to expect that the rest of the globe would soon follow suit.



This is like Paxman. Will you answer the question, GD? All I read are fantasies about some gentle transition.


----------



## dannysp (May 25, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> But the actual act of rising up Danny - it makes no odds what the underpinning ideology is. There have been plenty of revolutions by the majority against the minority - mostly very bloody too.



While we're here PT, according to you if a peaceful workers organisation threatened the hegemony of the cap' class the state would counter by unleashing terror on them. Is this scenario explicit in your Party's propaganda?
If you beleive this shouldn't you be telling the workers?

If you got up off your knees the state wouldn't look so big.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 25, 2010)

dannysp said:


> The majority led by a minority, is that what you have in mind PT?
> 
> So what if the workers as a majority refused to confront the armed might of the state, carried on doing all the essential work producing and distributing the means of life, but again refused to do any work involving finance or armaments, what would the state do then?
> 
> I can't help inferring from your tone on this subject, that it's not so much capitalism you despise, but the capitalist class.



Kill them, torture them, chuck them in prison - there are lots of things, really. Have you ever heard of a place called Latin America? You might find some good case studies about how a small capitalist class can keep the proles in their place.

I don't know where you get the idea for your last remark from. I'm just in the vast majority of socialists in recognising that transforming society is not going to a) happen instantaneously, or b) without significant resistance from the ruling class. 

You may as well believe in goblins and elves, for all the difference it makes.


----------



## dannysp (May 25, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> This is like Paxman. Will you answer the question, GD? All I read are fantasies about some gentle transition.



Thanks for that PT, not, because when I read your post from now on I'll picture you as Michael Howard.


----------



## dannysp (May 25, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Kill them, torture them, chuck them in prison - there are lots of things, really. Have you ever heard of a place called Latin America? You might find some good case studies about how a small capitalist class can keep the proles in their place.
> 
> I don't know where you get the idea for your last remark from. I'm just in the vast majority of socialists in recognising that transforming society is not going to a) happen instantaneously, or b) without significant resistance from the ruling class.
> 
> You may as well believe in goblins and elves, for all the difference it makes.




Ever heard of a place used to be called the DDR?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 25, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Ever heard of a place used to be called the DDR?



Yes. What point are you making?


----------



## dannysp (May 25, 2010)

Originally Posted by dannysp  View Post
Ever heard of a place used to be called the DDR?




Proper Tidy said:


> Yes. What point are you making?





The Berlin wall wasn't as I recall spattered with workers blood.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 25, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> This is like Paxman. Will you answer the question, GD? All I read are fantasies about some gentle transition.



I have answered your question by suggesting the western industrial countries as a region where a socialist revolution could be successful.  What the fuck more do you want?  Perhaps Outer Mongolia would fit your if's, buts, and maybes better?

What about the questions you have failed to answer: 1. If the workers were satisfied with state capitalism and refused to complete the revolutionary process what would be the response of SPEW?  2. Could you please identify/name a socialist party?  3. Provide the reasons why you think socialism will develop unevenly?  Is that enough for now or do you want me to do a search of this thread?

Once you have put your thinking cap on and start responding to the above questions I shall then reply to your posts,.   Until then you can go and try bullying someone else on another thread, for I do not tolerate bullying in any shape or form.


----------



## robbo203 (May 25, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Communists agree with communism shocker.
> 
> The problem, as the squeegees may recall, is getting to that point.
> 
> ...




Youre an odd one.  You claim to know so much about the SPGB yet dont seem to be aware  that it states quite clearly in its Declaration of Principles that it seeks to democratically capture the power of the state in order to abolish capitalism (and the state).  Your should research your subject a little more.  And talking of research - how are you getting on trying to track down that mysterious reference in one your SPEW publications about the need for a "moneyless wageless stateless commonwealth"  which you claimed is frequently made by your party.  Here I am waiting patiently for a link from you but still, after all this time, nothing is forthcoming. Whats the matter?  Have you given up (re)searching?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 25, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Youre an odd one.  You claim to know so much about the SPGB yet dont seem to be aware  that it states quite clearly in its Declaration of Principles that it seeks to democratically capture the power of the state in order to abolish capitalism (and the state).  Your should research your subject a little more.  And talking of research - how are you getting on trying to track down that mysterious reference in one your SPEW publications about the need for a "moneyless wageless stateless commonwealth"  which you claimed is frequently made by your party.  Here I am waiting patiently for a link from you but still, after all this time, nothing is forthcoming. Whats the matter?  Have you given up (re)searching?



I think it is pretty obvious you are asking a bit too much there robbo.  He's got enough mud on his face as it is and it looks to me he will be leaving this thread shortly with his theories on state capitalism in tatters, his understanding of the revolutionary process reduced to utter confusion, his knowledge on the implications of self-emancipation shown to be non-existent and his support for the enemies of the workers remaining intact.

Good bloody riddance.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 25, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I think it is pretty obvious you are asking a bit too much there robbo.  He's got enough mud on his face as it is and it looks to me he will be leaving this thread shortly with his theories on state capitalism in tatters, his understanding of the revolutionary process reduced to utter confusion, his knowledge on the implications of self-emancipation shown to be non-existent and his support for the enemies of the workers remaining intact.
> 
> Good bloody riddance.



Lol. You really are a strange little fantasist GD.

Robbo - keep chasing the straw men if you like. What I referenced was the SP statement on socialism, which appears in every issue of every publication. Clearly, you want SP to replicate your little motto verbatim or something.


----------



## The39thStep (May 25, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> Not having much success in finding evidence on the internet that all Trotskyist organisations impose a period of candidate membership on applicants to join. So far, only found this (but then I suppose you will say, with some justification, that Workers Power is also an "ultra-bizarro" group):
> And this from here, about the IMG in the 1980s:
> But this about the SWP:
> So, from what you say, I assume that SPEW follows the SWP example and doesn't have "candidate members". In which I have to withdraw my comment.



good googling


----------



## robbo203 (May 25, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Lol. You really are a strange little fantasist GD.
> 
> Robbo - keep chasing the straw men if you like. What I referenced was the SP statement on socialism, which appears in every issue of every publication. Clearly, you want SP to replicate your little motto verbatim or something.



Now, now,  now, PT - stop telling porkies!  You said it refers to "socialism".  Yes I dont disagree it uses the word socialism but the point is what does it *mean *by that word?  You know as well as I do that is does *not *mean by socialism a "moneyless wageless stateless commonwealth".  It actually uses the word socialism in a way that means state capitalism.  It envisages a minimum wage in socialism, high pensions and state ownership of the commanding heights of industry etc etc etc. All the usual reformist stuff.

If you disagree with this then show me one explicit reference in any SPEW publication to the idea that socialism would involve the abolition of money and wage labour.  Just one.  That cant be that difficult can it? Afterall , you said SPEW mentioned this frequently.  Are you now recanting?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 25, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Now, now,  now, PT - stop telling porkies!  You said it refers to "socialism".  Yes I dont disagree it uses the word socialism but the point is what does it *mean *by that word?  You know as well as I do that is does *not *mean by socialism a "moneyless wageless stateless commonwealth".  It actually uses the word socialism in a way that means state capitalism.  It envisages a minimum wage in socialism, high pensions and state ownership of the commanding heights of industry etc etc etc. All the usual reformist stuff.



No Robbo, it doesn't. Shall we look at it again?



> The Socialist Party fights for socialist change - a democratic society run for the needs of all and not the profits of a few. We also fight, in our day-to-day campaigning, for every possible improvement for working-class people.



Now, we've been through this before. Do you see what they do there?

I'll give you a clue. Also.


----------



## robbo203 (May 25, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> No Robbo, it doesn't. Shall we look at it again?
> .



Indeed ive looked at it again.  I still cant see anything about the abolition of money and wage labour.  Can you PT? Are you sure youve got your reading glasses on, mate - cos bugger me! - Ive just had mine changed and if you are now saying that, included in the sentence you gave , are the words "abolition of money and wage labour", I shall be pretty miffed becuase Im dammed if I can see them and Im sorely releuctant to trudge all the way back to opticians again.    All I could see was some reference to raising the minimum wage and taxing the rich.  That dont sound much to me like getting rid of wage labour and money but then maybe its me wonky specs wot is to blame.  

At any rate it doesnt seem to say much for the "socialist" vision of SPEW that it should restrict itself to such blatantly reformist demands as wanting to raise the mimum wage and tax the rich.  If anything, its a bit shortsighted, if you ask me. It far more difficult these days to pull the wool over the eyes of workers with such opportunist peddling.


----------



## fraz (May 25, 2010)

"The Socialist Party fights for socialist change - a democratic society run for the needs of all and not the profits of a few. We also fight, in our day-to-day campaigning, for every possible improvement for working-class people."

What does this mean, PT? For 'socialist change' & the 'for needs of all not the profits of a few'? What is this 'socialist change' and will there still be 'profits'?


----------



## two sheds (May 26, 2010)

fraz said:


> "The Socialist Party fights for socialist change - a democratic society run for the needs of all and not the profits of a few. We also fight, in our day-to-day campaigning, for every possible improvement for working-class people."
> 
> What does this mean, PT? For 'socialist change' & the 'for needs of all not the profits of a few'? What is this 'socialist change' and will there still be 'profits'?



Hello fraz  .


----------



## two sheds (May 26, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> The key term is 'common ownership' how can you have common ownership of the means of exchange?



The original was: "A society based upon the common ownership  and  democratic control for  producing and  distributing wealth in the interests of the whole   community."

it doesn't mention common ownership of the means of exchange - just  production and distribution. It would seem to me to allow money as a  form of exchange, as I say. 



> This actually begs the question is it at all possible for the working class to exploit itself?  No, so why bother to try?  The socialist object implies there will be free access and a moneyless economy, with production for use.


I don't understand this 'begging the question'. I wasn't asking whether it was possible for the working class to exploit itself, so i don't understand how i can be already assuming that they are. Did you mean 'suggests the question'? 

The socialist object may imply moneyless economy to you but why does it have to for all socialists? You seem to be defining socialists as being in favour of a moneyless economy and then criticising people as being capitalists if they don't agree. That indeed seems to be 'begging the question' of whether someone is a socialist or not. You can't just demand that everyone accepts your definition of a  socialist because that's what you say it is. 

You can surely have money without capitalism - the ability to live off capital.


----------



## JWH (May 26, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> If the socialist revolution were to take off in the western industrial countries there is every reason to expect that the rest of the globe would soon follow suit.


Phew, well that solves everything, then!


----------



## dannysp (May 26, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Kill them, torture them, chuck them in prison - there are lots of things, really. Have you ever heard of a place called Latin America? You might find some good case studies about how a small capitalist class can keep the proles in their place.
> 
> I don't know where you get the idea for your last remark from. I'm just in the vast majority of socialists in recognising that transforming society is not going to a) happen instantaneously, or b) without significant resistance from the ruling class.
> 
> You may as well believe in goblins and elves, for all the difference it makes.



Is the cap' class is going to do all that by themselves? That nice Mr Branson, the Duke of Westminster and Paul McCartney are really murderers, torturers and turnkeys! Thanks for the warning PT thanks.

So how do you see it going off then? Will they not see the revolution you have in mind as any threat?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 26, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Indeed ive looked at it again.  I still cant see anything about the abolition of money and wage labour.  Can you PT? Are you sure youve got your reading glasses on, mate - cos bugger me! - Ive just had mine changed and if you are now saying that, included in the sentence you gave , are the words "abolition of money and wage labour", I shall be pretty miffed becuase Im dammed if I can see them and Im sorely releuctant to trudge all the way back to opticians again.    All I could see was some reference to raising the minimum wage and taxing the rich.



Funny, because there is no reference to either the minimum wage or taxing the rich in the quote I provided. Perhaps you should read it again, and use the clue I gave you.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 26, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Is the cap' class is going to do all that by themselves? That nice Mr Branson, the Duke of Westminster and Paul McCartney are really murderers, torturers and turnkeys! Thanks for the warning PT thanks.
> 
> So how do you see it going off then? Will they not see the revolution you have in mind as any threat?



You know, there was a chap called Karl Marx, had some good ideas on this very subject. He wasn't renowned for his wallpaper though, I'm afraid.


----------



## two sheds (May 26, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Indeed ive looked at it again.  I still cant see anything about the abolition of money and wage labour.  Can you PT? Are you sure youve got your reading glasses on, mate - cos bugger me! - Ive just had mine changed and if you are now saying that, included in the sentence you gave , are the words "abolition of money and wage labour", I shall be pretty miffed becuase Im dammed if I can see them and Im sorely releuctant to trudge all the way back to opticians again.    All I could see was some reference to raising the minimum wage and taxing the rich.  That dont sound much to me like getting rid of wage labour and money but then maybe its me wonky specs wot is to blame.
> 
> At any rate it doesnt seem to say much for the "socialist" vision  of SPEW that it should restrict itself to such blatantly reformist  demands as wanting to raise the mimum wage and tax the rich.  If  anything, its a bit shortsighted, if you ask me. It far more difficult  these days to pull the wool over the eyes of workers with such  opportunist peddling.



you lot do like rhetoric don't you, even when it gets in the way of what you're trying to say. Perhaps *especially* when it gets in the way... 

One thing, though, if the SP are for raising the minimum wage and taxing the rich then at least workers will be getting something out of the policy. With the SPGB they get nothing apart from jam tomorrow. Always assuming the workers aren't wiped out as soon as the intentions become clear and they start getting a bit of support. In which case they'll have been all that time getting nothing with the bonus of a messy death at the end. 

Now that's what I'd *call*pulling the wool over the eyes of workers with opportunist peddling. You're willing to play with their lives just because you're convinced that there won't be a fight back by nasty capitalists who have all the money and all the power and all the weapons (by definition, since the SPGB is against taking any of that away from them). That seems breathtaking arrogance, really.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 26, 2010)

fraz said:


> "The Socialist Party fights for socialist change - a democratic society run for the needs of all and not the profits of a few. We also fight, in our day-to-day campaigning, for every possible improvement for working-class people."
> 
> What does this mean, PT? For 'socialist change' & the 'for needs of all not the profits of a few'? What is this 'socialist change' and will there still be 'profits'?



It means the transformation of society from capitalism to socialism.

No profits, no. Why should anybody take a cut from the labour of others?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 26, 2010)

JWH said:


> Phew, well that solves everything, then!



The example I gave solves nothing it was just a possibility as you well know.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 26, 2010)

> two sheds said:
> 
> 
> > The original was: "A society based upon the common ownership  and  democratic control for  producing and  distributing wealth in the interests of the whole   community."
> ...


----------



## JWH (May 26, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> The example I gave solves nothing it was just a possibility as you well know.



Fingers crossed, though, eh?


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 26, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> show me one explicit reference in any SPEW publication to the idea that socialism would involve the abolition of money and wage labour.


Found something about this on their site here. It's a long passage from Lenin's _State and Revolution_ in which he first introduced his false distinction (now Leninist dogma) between "socialism" and "communism", where socialism is state capitalism (where, as he puts it, "All citizens are transformed into hired employees of the state") and where communism is the stateless, moneyless, wageless commonwealth that till then had been called "socialism" or "communism" interchangeably. 

Incidentally, reading through the theoretical part of their stuff makes it quite clear that they are dyed-in-the-wool Bolshevik-Leninists not Marxists. They even think that Russia under Stalin because it had a "planned economy" was better than capitalism elsewhere including Sweden (so now we know their answer to the question: would you prefer to live in totalitarian Russia or democratic Sweden?).

According to Lenin, Trotsky and Trotskyists, money, wages, the state, etc must exist for a long time after the vanguard party seizes power, in a so-called "transitional society" called "socialism", and would only disappear in the dim and distant future in "communism". 

But why do we have to pass through the purgatory of state capitalism (mislabelled "socialism") to get to socialism/communism?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 26, 2010)

dannysp said:


> I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me why I'm wrong, why it's a gaffe.
> 
> Anyone???



I have no wish to go off topic but Louis since when have the SPGB ever asserted that domestic violence is the result of poverty - need I remind you that there plenty of capitalist bastards that beat the crap out their wives and children?​
Take it up with GD; I'm taking as read that you'll dismiss any criticism coming from outside the ranks of the elect SPBG.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## robbo203 (May 26, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Funny, because there is no reference to either the minimum wage or taxing the rich in the quote I provided. Perhaps you should read it again, and use the clue I gave you.




Er..look again.  In the "what we stand for" link you clearly talk about taxing the rich and raising the minium wage to £8.  Now how is this compatible with advocating the abolition of wage labour and money, eh? Where have you *explicitly argued for the latter*.  Where? where? where?  You said your organisation has said frequently it wants a moneyless wageless stateless commonwealth.  I want direct evidence of this, not weasel words

Oh and dont tell me yet again that it is evident from the fact that you want a society not run for the profit of a few.  My retort is that you evidently dont understand what you are talking about in arguing for such a society since you fail to connect it with the idea that such a society must be a society in which there is no longer any wage labour or money.  You dont make this connection  (and indeed to the contrary argue for the retention of wage labour and money in the form of a minmimum wage etc) which means  that in effect that, for all your talk about a society not run for profit of a few, this  is about as revolutionary as the programme of the young liberals.  In other words it means bugger all.  Its mere tokenism.  Nice sounding fluffy words to hide a basically opportunist reformist programme of state capitalism


----------



## robbo203 (May 26, 2010)

two sheds said:


> Now that's what I'd *call*pulling the wool over the eyes of workers with opportunist peddling. You're willing to play with their lives just because you're convinced that there won't be a fight back by nasty capitalists who have all the money and all the power and all the weapons (by definition, since the SPGB is against taking any of that away from them). That seems breathtaking arrogance, really.



Two sheds

Sorry but this is a bit clueless.  Do a bit of research and I think you will find that the SPGB position is quite the opposite to what you imagine it to be.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 26, 2010)

Some SPGB certainties: bloodless revolutions, the end of domestic violence, the even development of socialism.

...a man who applies the measure of genuine, immutable, final and ultimate truth to knowledge which, by its very nature, must either remain relative for many generations and be completed only step by step, or which, as in cosmogony, geology and the history of mankind, must always contain gaps and be incomplete because of the inadequacy of the historical material — such a man only proves thereby his own ignorance and perversity...​
Unless of course the SPGB is claiming to have filled in the gaps?

Louis MacNeice

p.s. the quote doesn't clinch the argument (quotes don't do that), it is however a relevant, informed and interesting point of view.


----------



## two sheds (May 26, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> It doesn't have to mention a means of exchange for there wont be a means of exchange in a socialist society.  With free access to the means of living and production for use what is the point of having a means of exchange?


Yes but that is again just your group's definition of socialism. You're demanding that people agree with your definition of socialism and then criticising them for not being being socialist when they don't agree. 



> Much the same if I used the word "suggests".  No problem.


Nope, fraid not. 'Begging the question' is a specific phrase meaning to assume in the original statement what you are actually trying to prove. With the meaning 'suggests the question' then your statement is actually a dishonest argument: You said: 

 "is it at  all possible for the working class to exploit itself?  No, so why bother  to try?" 

Money does not itself mean exploitation - it's only when one side enforces an unfair contract, and you don't need money for that to happen. Quoting Marx at me isn't actually going to help because I don't accept the prophet Marx apart from things like I wouldn't want to join any group that would have me as a member. 



> The money form is the instrument and means of exploitation that is its only function. ...  Yet when Stalin died they found his desk drawers were full of unopened wage packets.


Exploitation is the only function of money? That's bullshit, sorry. It is a means of exchange, as I say it's the enforcement of an unfair or one-sided contract that is the exploitation, and that doesn't need money. 

And having desk drawers full of unopened wage packets is hardly the worst thing Stalin ever did and doesn't forward your argument at all. He could have worn pink underwear it wouldn't make me think any worse of him. 



> When capitalism eventually goes everything that goes with it must also go and not just money.



Yes that's where we part company then. I'd like to see a fair society in which everyone was as happy and fulfilled as possible given their own circumstances. That would mean looking at research which pointed to the most favourable conditions for that to happen. That may or may not involve the complete destruction of capitalism. You just want to tear the system down and replace it with something that hasn't be tested because that's your dogma and you think you know best. 




robbo203 said:


> Two sheds Sorry but this is a bit clueless.  Do a bit of research and I think you will find that the SPGB position is quite the opposite to what you imagine it to be.



Well that's what I'm picking up from this thread - the SPGB will have no part of improving conditions for people under the present system - so it's just 'jam tomorrow'. You have a touching faith that the workers will rise up and the capitalists with all their weapons and money and power will hold up their hands and say 'fair enough guv take everything i have it's a fair cop'. It's ludicrous, and no amount of Gravediggers' saying 'there is every reason to expect' that this will happen will make it happen. 

If workers listen to you lot they'll have suffered unaided under full blown capitalism until they try to rise up and then they will most likely just be wiped out.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (May 26, 2010)

two sheds said:


> He could have worn pink underwear it wouldn't make me think any worse of him.



I think it was one of his police chiefs, Genrikh Yagoda, who was into collecting women's undies.


----------



## dannysp (May 26, 2010)

Now that's what I'd *call*pulling the wool over the eyes of workers with opportunist peddling. You're willing to play with their lives just because you're convinced that there won't be a fight back by nasty capitalists who have all the money and all the power and all the weapons (by definition, since the SPGB is against taking any of that away from them). That seems breathtaking arrogance, really.[/QUOTE]

All the capitalists have is money. The workers have all the power, all the weapons. You won't find any capitalists on the front line in warfare, only workers in uniform.

So what happens then if  an organisation in the future like SPEW looks likely to win power?


----------



## two sheds (May 26, 2010)

dannysp said:


> All the capitalists have is money. The workers have all the power, all the weapons. You won't find any capitalists on the front line in warfare, only workers in uniform.



That's a bit fucking naive - it's the people at the top who give the orders. Soldiers carry  them out or - in times of national emergency like we're talking about  here - get shot for disobeying orders. 



> So what happens then if  an organisation in the future like SPEW looks likely to win power?


Pretty much the same as if you looked likely to win power, I'd say, although I'm not sure why you're asking me the question.


----------



## JWH (May 26, 2010)

Captain Hurrah said:


> I think it was one of his police chiefs, Genrikh Yagoda, who was into collecting women's undies.



Was it Yagoda or Yezhov that was a paedophile? Wikipedia doesn't mention either but it seems to be Yezhov that's more associated with sexual deviance.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 26, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> Found something about this on their site here. It's a long passage from Lenin's _State and Revolution_ in which he first introduced his false distinction (now Leninist dogma) between "socialism" and "communism", where socialism is state capitalism (where, as he puts it, "All citizens are transformed into hired employees of the state") and where communism is the stateless, moneyless, wageless commonwealth that till then had been called "socialism" or "communism" interchangeably.
> 
> Incidentally, reading through the theoretical part of their stuff makes it quite clear that they are dyed-in-the-wool Bolshevik-Leninists not Marxists. They even think that Russia under Stalin because it had a "planned economy" was better than capitalism elsewhere including Sweden (so now we know their answer to the question: would you prefer to live in totalitarian Russia or democratic Sweden?).
> 
> ...




What do you make of The Critique of the Gotha Programme, with regard to the way it distinguishes between  different phases in the development of communism?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 26, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Er..look again.  In the "what we stand for" link you clearly talk about taxing the rich and raising the minium wage to £8.  Now how is this compatible with advocating the abolition of wage labour and money, eh? Where have you *explicitly argued for the latter*.  Where? where? where?  You said your organisation has said frequently it wants a moneyless wageless stateless commonwealth.  I want direct evidence of this, not weasel words
> 
> Oh and dont tell me yet again that it is evident from the fact that you want a society not run for the profit of a few.  My retort is that you evidently dont understand what you are talking about in arguing for such a society since you fail to connect it with the idea that such a society must be a society in which there is no longer any wage labour or money.  You dont make this connection  (and indeed to the contrary argue for the retention of wage labour and money in the form of a minmimum wage etc) which means  that in effect that, for all your talk about a society not run for profit of a few, this  is about as revolutionary as the programme of the young liberals.  In other words it means bugger all.  Its mere tokenism.  Nice sounding fluffy words to hide a basically opportunist reformist programme of state capitalism



Robbo - read the quote I provided, not the link from a hundred odd posts back. Remember the clue. Good luck with your voyage.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 26, 2010)

two sheds said:


> Yes but that is again just your group's definition of socialism. You're demanding that people agree with your definition of socialism and then criticising them for not being being socialist when they don't agree.
> 
> Nope, fraid not. 'Begging the question' is a specific phrase meaning to assume in the original statement what you are actually trying to prove. With the meaning 'suggests the question' then your statement is actually a dishonest argument: You said:
> 
> ...



It appears from what you are arguing for is the old fanny of, 'a fair days pay for a fair days work' is applicable and possible in a socialist society but not in a capitalist society?


----------



## FreddyB (May 26, 2010)

Has anyone got a link pointing to something that the SPGB are doing in the here and now?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 26, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Some SPGB certainties: bloodless revolutions, the end of domestic violence, the even development of socialism.
> 
> ...a man who applies the measure of genuine, immutable, final and ultimate truth to knowledge which, by its very nature, must either remain relative for many generations and be completed only step by step, or which, as in cosmogony, geology and the history of mankind, must always contain gaps and be incomplete because of the inadequacy of the historical material — such a man only proves thereby his own ignorance and perversity...​
> Unless of course the SPGB is claiming to have filled in the gaps?
> ...



Bob on. The absolute conviction that the future will be mapped out along the exact path the SPGB forecast is more like the rapture than socialism.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 26, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> Has anyone got a link pointing to something that the SPGB are doing in the here and now?



They are currently propagandising the cause of Authentic Socialism (TM) on a forum comprised of heathens called urban75.


----------



## two sheds (May 26, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> It appears from what you are arguing for is the old fanny of, 'a fair days pay for a fair days work' is applicable and possible in a socialist society but not in a capitalist society?



Yep good old fanny. I think it's possible both in socialist and capitalist societies, it depends on the people who set up the contract.


----------



## two sheds (May 26, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> Has anyone got a link pointing to something that the SPGB are doing in the here and now?



We certainly do: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10568753&postcount=188



> "In the last ten years we've published the _Socialist Standard_ on a  monthly basis, besides publishing pamphlets on climate change,  religion, genetics and human behaviour, parliamentarism (to name but a  few), held numerous meetings and debates, attended demonstrations,  distributed thousands of leaflets, made a DVD, contested elections,  letters to the press, attended meetings held by our opponents, set up  blogs and forums on the internet and made ourselves known on threads  like this, made contact with the Zeitgeist Movement, etc.  Given our  limited resources we do what we can when we can.
> 
> What we have done to help people globally is to explain a basic fact of  life i.e. capitalism does not work in the interest of the majority.  On a  local level socialist are involved in all manner of community affairs  on a voluntary basis providing advice on numerous subjects from school  boards to benefit advice.


So, 'bugger all' i think would cover what the SPGB does


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 26, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> Incidentally, reading through the theoretical part of their stuff makes it quite clear that they are dyed-in-the-wool Bolshevik-Leninists not Marxists. They even think that Russia under Stalin because it had a "planned economy" was better than capitalism elsewhere including Sweden (so now we know their answer to the question: would you prefer to live in totalitarian Russia or democratic Sweden?)



Where do we say the USSR was 'better' than Sweden? Are we crypto-stalinists now?

You do like to take a very black and white view, JL, but credit some of us with a bit more, err, nuance. This state good, this state bad is a pretty stupid way of looking at things. We recognise that the USSR had a planned economy, albeit lacking the democratic structures we would advocate. We do not subscribe to the idea of 'state-capitalism'. Neither does our recognition of the USSR's planned economy suggest avocation of the authoritarian, brutal, anti-democratic and bureaucratic nature of Stalinism. This isn't to say that country a was 'better' than country b, nor that we would regard Stalinist states as socialist.

For the record, I'd have preferred to have lived in Sweden. I can't speak for anybody else - although I could make an educated guess - as we don't have a policy on where we would hypothetically liked to have lived in the past. Sorry about that.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 26, 2010)

two sheds said:


> Yep good old fanny. I think it's possible both in socialist and capitalist societies, it depends on the people who set up the contract.



OK at last we can agree on what you think is possible in both capitalism and socialism. i.e. 'a fair days work for a fair days pay'.  That being the case the onus is on you to explain how this can be achieved through the enforcement of a "fair contract for the sale of labour power".  Away you go then for I look forward to your comments on this subject with interest.


----------



## FreddyB (May 26, 2010)

two sheds said:


> We certainly do: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10568753&postcount=188
> 
> So, 'bugger all' i think would cover what the SPGB does



Bugger all is a bit harsh. Talking about the SPGB is what the SPGB does. We're lucky to have em


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 26, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> Has anyone got a link pointing to something that the SPGB are doing in the here and now?



Well GD and Danny are trying to get their story straight on what causes domestic violence. Danny prefers the simplistic it's all down to poverty line, while GD, in a rare show of insight, seems to think there may be other factors to be taken into account. 

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Gravediggers (May 26, 2010)

two sheds said:


> We certainly do: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10568753&postcount=188
> 
> So, 'bugger all' i think would cover what the SPGB does



A bland dismissal like this suggests the only political activity you recognise as positive is that which makes a determined effort to convince the workers a period of state capitalism is in their long term interests for the benefits of democracy under a dictatorship are all too apparent in gaining a class consciousness.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 26, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> A bland dismissal like this suggests the only political activity you recognise as positive is that which makes a determined effort to convince the workers a period of state capitalism is in their long term interests for the benefits of democracy under a dictatorship are all too apparent in gaining a class consciousness.



No, it suggest that you do very very little.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Gravediggers (May 26, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> Bugger all is a bit harsh. Talking about the SPGB is what the SPGB does. We're lucky to have em



What gives you the impression that all the SPGB do is talk about its self?  If you seriously think that is the case you obviously have just skimmed through the posts on this thread for your only interest is to remain non-constructive and non-committed to the issues and problems which concern our class.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 26, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> What gives you the impression that all the SPGB do is talk about its self?  If you seriously think that is the case you obviously have just skimmed through the posts on this thread for your only interest is to remain non-constructive and non-committed to *the issues and problems which concern our class*.



What like some or all of the causes of domestic violence? Come on GD stop running away; or is it taking this long to trawl back through all those copies of Socialist Standard to find a relevant sermon?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## FreddyB (May 26, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> What gives you the impression that all the SPGB do is talk about its self?  If you seriously think that is the case you obviously have just skimmed through the posts on this thread for your only interest is to remain non-constructive and non-committed to the issues and problems which concern our class.



So what do you do? Give me a link to some SPGB activity.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 26, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> What do you make of The Critique of the Gotha Programme, with regard to the way it distinguishes between  different phases in the development of communism?


Might have made some sort of sense in 1875 but we're now living in 2010 -- what? 135 years or 4 or 5 generations later. In the meantime there's been electricity, the internal combustion engine, radio, plastics, electronics, etc, etc etc. In Marx's day transport was by steam train or horse carriage and there was only gas or whale oil lighting! So I can't see the first phase of "communist society", ie of socialism, needing to last very long. 

Anyway, it was the first phase of socialist/communist society, ie the same sort of society as would exist in the higher phase, ie a classless, stateless society in which there'd be no need for money, wages, banks, etc. as there'd be production directly for use not sale and profit,  the only difference between the two phases being that in the first the full application of the principle "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" would not be possible.

I would have thought, given the enormous development of the productive forces since 1875, being able to implement this principle shouldn't take long once the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production had been established. What do you think?


----------



## fractionMan (May 26, 2010)

What the world needs is more pamphlets.

Good work boys!


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 26, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> Might have made some sort of sense in 1875 but we're now living in 2010 -- what? 135 years or 4 or 5 generations later. In the meantime there's been electricity, the internal combustion engine, radio, plastics, electronics, etc, etc etc. In Marx's day transport was by steam train or horse carriage and there was only gas or whale oil lighting! So I can't see the first phase of "communist society", ie of socialism, needing to last very long.
> 
> Anyway, it was the first phase of socialist/communist society, ie the same sort of society as would exist in the higher phase, ie a classless, stateless society in which there'd be no need for money, wages, banks, etc. as there'd be production directly for use not sale and profit,  the only difference between the two phases being that in the first the full application of the principle "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" would not be possible.
> 
> I would have thought, given the enormous development of the productive forces since 1875, being able to implement this principle shouldn't take long once the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production had been established. What do you think?



I like the irony of someone who stalwartly defends a 1904 constitution, dismissing something written only three decades earlier as being outdated. You're also missing a big component of what Marx thought would have to be overcome. Go back and have another look.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 26, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> Might have made some sort of sense in 1875 but we're now living in 2010 -- what? 135 years or 4 or 5 generations later. In the meantime there's been electricity, the internal combustion engine, radio, plastics, electronics, etc, etc etc. In Marx's day transport was by steam train or horse carriage and there was only gas or whale oil lighting! So I can't see the first phase of "communist society", ie of socialism, needing to last very long.
> 
> Anyway, it was the first phase of socialist/communist society, ie the same sort of society as would exist in the higher phase, ie a classless, stateless society in which there'd be no need for money, wages, banks, etc. as *there'd be production directly for use* not sale and profit,  the only difference between the two phases being that in the first the full application of the principle "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" would not be possible.
> 
> I would have thought, given the enormous development of the productive forces since 1875, being able to implement this principle shouldn't take long once the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production had been established. What do you think?



Not according to Marx; production would be liable to taxation and exchange:

He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost.​
Louis MacNeice


----------



## two sheds (May 26, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Not according to Marx; production would be liable to taxation and exchange:He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost.​Louis MacNeice



Oooo - 'money' as it might be called. 

It's also getting clearer that the SPGB just wants to make a leap of faith into the dark by sweeping aside everything we've got and replacing it by something unknown and untested. They're just like all the other political parties but worse. No hint of an evidence based approach. 

If you want to 'improve a system' you look where you are now, look where you want to go, and make the minimum changes that get you from here to there. But that'd be too 'transitional' i suppose, far better to just close your eyes and jump.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 26, 2010)

two sheds said:


> Oooo - 'money' as it might be called.
> 
> It's also getting clearer that the SPGB just wants to make a leap of faith into the dark by sweeping aside everything we've got and replacing it by something unknown and untested. They're just like all the other political parties but worse. No hint of an evidence based approach.
> 
> If you want to 'improve a system' you look where you are now, look where you want to go, and make the minimum changes that get you from here to there. But that'd be too 'transitional' i suppose, far better to just close your eyes and jump.



I don't even think it is that deep. They just like to talk about their happy place. They could be forecasting a future with chocolate waterfalls and cognac moats for all it matters.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 26, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> Might have made some sort of sense in 1875 but we're now living in 2010 -- what? 135 years or 4 or 5 generations later. In the meantime there's been electricity, the internal combustion engine, radio, plastics, electronics, etc, etc etc. In Marx's day transport was by steam train or horse carriage and there was only gas or whale oil lighting! So I can't see the first phase of "communist society", ie of socialism, needing to last very long.
> 
> Anyway, it was the first phase of socialist/communist society, ie the same sort of society as would exist in the higher phase, ie a classless, *stateless* society in which there'd be no need for money, wages, banks, etc. as there'd be production directly for use not sale and profit,  the only difference between the two phases being that in the first the full application of the principle "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" would not be possible.
> 
> I would have thought, given the enormous development of the productive forces since 1875, being able to implement this principle shouldn't take long once the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production had been established. What do you think?



Who measures the labour, issues and collects the certificates, deducts the 'taxes' and administers the distribution of resources in exchange for the certificates?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## whichfinder (May 26, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> So what do you do? Give me a link to some SPGB activity.




http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/


----------



## two sheds (May 26, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> They just like to talk about their happy place. They could be forecasting a future with chocolate waterfalls and cognac moats for all it matters.



Now you're tempting me to sit the entrance test.


----------



## two sheds (May 26, 2010)

whichfinder said:


> http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/



Nope, nothing on the home page, nearest would be: "The Socialist Party is contesting both the general election and local elections in London.." What would you do if you got in again?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 26, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> What like some or all of the causes of domestic violence? Come on GD stop running away; or is it taking this long to trawl back through all those copies of Socialist Standard to find a relevant sermon?
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Louis I find your repetitive nonsense so tiresome on times, especially when you are fully aware to whats occurred with the misquoting of danny's talk.  The reason I have not replied to your posts is because I think its down to danny to put you in the picture to what really happened at the hustings and not some wild accusation made by somebody from the opposition.  There are two sides to every story, has you keep reminding me Louis.

Has to the causes of domestic violence, I have to say your question reminds me so much of my counselling days when the only people coming through the door were members of the working class.  Especially, when I recall the domestic scene during the miners strike and there was an initial upsurge of domestic violence occurring with the miners outing their frustration on the family members and themselves.  And in truth it was exactly what my colleagues and I expected.

However, that picture soon changed once it was realised we were in for the long haul and the women became directly involved with the struggle over pit closures.  Suddenly, the abuser role changed with some of the women discovering empowerment to such a degree it provided the opportunity of getting some of your own back, so to say.  Sadly, some of them went OTT and drove their male spouses to commiting suicide once the pit closures started in earnest.

So yes given the circumstances domestic violence can be caused through poverty.  But poverty is not the sole cause of violence within the family, despite the fact that 90% of family disputes are over finances or the allocation of money - like who gets what, "and my salary/wage is my affair and fuck all to do with you, you bitch, and where's my fucking dinner?"   

And there are so many factors, issues and problems involved it is pointless trying to pin the cause(s) down just to class or even capitalism.   Family upbringing can be a central factor if there is a family history of violence within the family, but not necessarily so, because there are so many instances of people coming out the other end determined in not to follow the same route.  Long-term mental health problems can be another central factor if the illness remains undiagnosed, or even when it is diagnosed and the person are in denial of the problem.

I could of course go on and on, but I'm sure you have read enough to get the picture.  Obviously, the central concern of the posters and viewers of this thread would be: To what degree will the incident of domestic violence occur in a socialist society - has defined by the SPGB?  The supposition being it will continue regardless of the type of mode of production in place.  We would be foolish to accept that socialism would be unproblematic. And who on earth desires a world where we would be all lovey-dovey?

Having said that, one thing is for certain, the incidents of family disputes over finances would disappear overnight.  Another possibility is neither the abuser or the abused would feel trapped within their particular environment for both could take advantage of what free access provides regarding alternative accommodation, etc.  And I don't just mean refuge for either sex.  Most of all when we talk of socialism we are stipulating not only a society of equals but also of free association. I could go on but I'm sure you and others will figure out what the possibilities are in socialism to lessen the incident of domestic violence occurring.

In my expectation, for what its worth, the framework of socialism would provide sufficient scope for people to settle disputes of a domestic nature without having to resort to being abused or being the abuser.  And now you've got me crying because its brought so many memories flooding back to what happened during the miners strike.


----------



## whichfinder (May 26, 2010)

two sheds said:


> Nope, nothing on the home page, nearest would be: "The Socialist Party is contesting both the general election and local elections in London.." What would you do if you got in again?




What about the other pages?  For example:-

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/meets.html


----------



## two sheds (May 26, 2010)

Top post, Gravediggers.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 26, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> The reason I have not replied to your posts is because I think its down to danny to put you in the picture to what really happened at the hustings and not some wild accusation made by somebody from the opposition.



I cited three reports of Danny's nonsense; only one came from an opposing candidate. Of course all three are undoubtedly apologist for capitalism or worse.

The rest of your post comes across as an attempt at an emotional smokescreen, blown to hide the contradictions between you and Danny; I hope he appreciates all the effort you've put in. 

It's just a shame you had to disappear the 'plenty of capitalist bastards that beat the crap out their wives and children'; but that's the sort of thing that happens when there are party interests to be defended. 


Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 26, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Obviously, the central concern of the posters and viewers of this thread would be: To what degree will the incident of domestic violence occur in a socialist society - has defined by the SPGB?  *The supposition being it will continue regardless of the type of mode of production in place.*  We would be foolish to accept that socialism would be unproblematic. And who on earth desires a world where we would be all lovey-dovey?
> 
> Having said that, one thing is for certain, the incidents of family disputes over finances would disappear overnight.  Another possibility is neither the abuser or the abused would feel trapped within their particular environment for both could take advantage of what free access provides regarding alternative accommodation, etc.  And I don't just mean refuge for either sex.  Most of all when we talk of socialism we are stipulating not only a society of equals but also of free association. I could go on but I'm sure you and others will figure out what the possibilities are in socialism to lessen the incident of domestic violence occurring.
> 
> *In my expectation, for what its worth, the framework of socialism would provide sufficient scope for people to settle disputes of a domestic nature without having to resort to being abused or being the abuser.  *And now you've got me crying because its brought so many memories flooding back to what happened during the miners strike.



The first piece in bold is just a reiteration of Danny's failed attempt to put these words in other people's mouths: 'so poverty has nothing to do with domestic violence'. It was a cheap shot when he did it and it remains one.

The second piece is just yet another example of your stock in trade day dreaming; it might give you a warm glow, but it doesn't make a convincing case for anything.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Gravediggers (May 26, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I cited three reports of Danny's nonsense; only one came from an opposing candidate. Of course all three are undoubtedly apologist for capitalism or worse.
> 
> The rest of your post comes across as an attempt at an emotional smokescreen, blown to hide the contradictions between you and Danny; I hope he appreciates all the effort you've put in.
> 
> ...



You take the biscuit you honestly do.  First of all you accuse me of shying away from the domestic violence issue and then when I do reply to this accusation you then accuse me of, "an attempt at an emotional smokescreen, blown to hide the contradictions between you and Danny".  I can assure you that no such thing was intended or made.  You asked and I delivered to the best of my ability and from my own experiences.

As for the reason why I did not include, 'plenty of capitalist bastards that beat the crap out their wives and children' is because I had already made reference to the non-issue of class in a previous post like you say.  And so no reason to repeat myself any further in this regard, but did see a reason to expand on the issue by mentioning, ".... it is pointless trying to pin the cause(s) down just to class or even capitalism."


----------



## robbo203 (May 26, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Robbo - read the quote I provided, not the link from a hundred odd posts back. Remember the clue. Good luck with your voyage.



Sigh.  Obviously you are resistant to the request Ive made countless times so let me put it another way . Does the quote you provided imply the abolition of wage labour and money and, if so. why when you specifically advocate things like a minimum wage in your "what we stand for" peice


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 26, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Sigh.  Obviously you are resistant to the request Ive made countless times so let me put it another way . Does the quote you provided imply the abolition of wage labour and money and, if so. why when you specifically advocate things like a minimum wage in your "what we stand for" peice



Am I writing in a different language? Dear me Robbo. Perhaps you should actually go back and read the introduction I helpfully provided for you as a quote a page back. I have suggested doing this three times now, yet you appear to have failed to do so. You might find that it answers your question.

<something about horses and water>


----------



## Gravediggers (May 26, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> The first piece in bold is just a reiteration of Danny's failed attempt to put these words in other people's mouths: 'so poverty has nothing to do with domestic violence'. It was a cheap shot when he did it and it remains one.
> 
> The second piece is just yet another example of your stock in trade day dreaming; it might give you a warm glow, but it doesn't make a convincing case for anything.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Louis we are well aware that anything I write gives you a warm glow and provides you with an opportunity to vent your spleen and vehement objections, or dare I say it, complete rejection of the socialist case.  But how can we take you seriously after you admitted to voting for the Greens and by default gave support for capitalism?   And then there is your weasely attempt at calling the SPGB a vanguard party.  

It seems you are scraping the barrel yet again in an attempt that seems very close to becoming an apology for capitalism where the first line of defence is, 'If you don't like the message kill the messenger'.


----------



## robbo203 (May 26, 2010)

two sheds said:


> Well that's what I'm picking up from this thread - the SPGB will have no part of improving conditions for people under the present system - so it's just 'jam tomorrow'. You have a touching faith that the workers will rise up and the capitalists with all their weapons and money and power will hold up their hands and say 'fair enough guv take everything i have it's a fair cop'. It's ludicrous, and no amount of Gravediggers' saying 'there is every reason to expect' that this will happen will make it happen.
> 
> If workers listen to you lot they'll have suffered unaided under full blown capitalism until they try to rise up and then they will most likely just be wiped out.




I think the point that you miss here is that the SPGB is only a political party, it is not *everything*.  I am not a member but to be fair to the SPGB it does urge militant trade union action in the economic field and many of its members are, or have been, active and even prominent trade unionists.  

In the political field we have a different situation.  The advocacy of jam tommorow in the form of reforms enacted by the state (i.e reformism) is a I think a big mistake and ultimately a waste of time.  Its not that reforms will never benefit the workers - the SPGB does not say that - it just that by advocating reforms your are stepping onto a treadmill that is never really going to get you anywhere.  Capitalism cannot be run in the interests of the workers and I think in this respect the SPGB analysis has proven substantially correct


----------



## Gravediggers (May 26, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Am I writing in a different language? Dear me Robbo. Perhaps you should actually go back and read the introduction I helpfully provided for you as a quote a page back. I have suggested doing this three times now, yet you appear to have failed to do so. You might find that it answers your question.
> 
> <something about horses and water>



Here is what he is on about.  All this to'in and fro'in over one frigging word is getting on my toot.

Quote:
The Socialist Party fights for socialist change - a democratic society run for the needs of all and not the profits of a few. *We also fight, in our day-to-day campaigning, for every possible improvement for working-class people.*
Now, we've been through this before. Do you see what they do there?

I'll give you a clue. Also.
Reply With Quote


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 26, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> I think the point that you miss here is that the SPGB is only a political party, it is not *everything*.  I am not a member but to be fair to the SPGB it does urge militant trade union action in the economic field and many of its members are, or have been, active and even prominent trade unionists.



Hasn't always been the case, has it? You were in fact hostile to trade unionism in your past. Even now, you still take the viewpoint that trade unionism and industrial action is essentially pointless. I fail to see how that is conducive to militant trade unionism.



robbo203 said:


> In the political field we have a different situation.  The advocacy of jam tommorow in the form of reforms enacted by the state (i.e reformism) is a I think a big mistake and ultimately a waste of time.  Its not that reforms will never benefit the workers - the SPGB does not say that - it just that by advocating reforms your are stepping onto a treadmill that is never really going to get you anywhere.  Capitalism cannot be run in the interests of the workers and I think in this respect the SPGB analysis has proven substantially correct



But nobody is disagreeing that the aim is the abolition of capitalism. You are waiting for a perfect revolution that will never happen - that it will be peaceful, swift, and will encompass the whole of the world, or at least the west, at an even pace.


----------



## robbo203 (May 26, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Hasn't always been the case, has it? You were in fact hostile to trade unionism in your past. Even now, you still take the viewpoint that trade unionism and industrial action is essentially pointless. I fail to see how that is conducive to militant trade unionism..




Where did you get this idea from?  The position of the SPGB as far as I am aware has always been that the industrial organisation of workers into trade unions is a necessary but essentially defensive requirement under capitalism - to resist the downward pressure extered by capital on pay and conditions.  As a political party the SPGB does not get directly involved in trade struggles but its members do.  It is sheer nonsense to say that the SPGB sees "trade unionism and industrial action" as  "essentially pointless".  I think you are confusing the SPGB's general standpoint with the observations by SPGBers that *certain *industrial actions might be pointless because the economic situation may not be conducive to workers achieving what they want.  This is particularly so at a time of recession.  The most effective strike is the one that is short sharp and solidly supported, prolonged industrial action almost invariably fails because the workers are in a weakened postion.  Sometimes it is better to be prudent, cut your losses and live to fight another day.




Proper Tidy said:


> But nobody is disagreeing that the aim is the abolition of capitalism. You are waiting for a perfect revolution that will never happen - that it will be peaceful, swift, and will encompass the whole of the world, or at least the west, at an even pace.




Nobody is disagreeing that the aim is the abolition of capitalism, you say.*  Its just that they are not at all interested in promnoting that aim!*  This is certainly the case with SPEW. The SPGB doesnt say that revolution will be necessarily compeletly peaceful but it does say that you cannot possibly have a revolution unless workers understand and want socialism. It cannot be imposed from above.  Understanding socialism means knowing what it entails - knowing, for example, that we are talking about a quite different kind of society in which there will be no money, no wage labour , no economic classes, no state.  Does the SPEW say anything about this? No it does not. What it stands for is clear.  It stands for a society in which there is still money and wage labour and no matter how much you might duck and dive you know this is the case even if you cannot bring yourself to admit.  Its all there in the "what we stand for" section of your website.  I suggest you read it and see for yourself that what it is advocating is nothing more than state capitalist reformism


----------



## robbo203 (May 26, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Am I writing in a different language? Dear me Robbo. Perhaps you should actually go back and read the introduction I helpfully provided for you as a quote a page back. I have suggested doing this three times now, yet you appear to have failed to do so. You might find that it answers your question.
> 
> <something about horses and water>



I know what you said about  having a society not run for the profit of a few.  Ive read that several times, thank you very much, so it is quite unnecesary for you to tell me to read it again.  But the argument has moved on and  you are *still *stuck in  the same rut.  

My point is what does it *mean *to have a society not run for the profit of a few.  What are the practical and logical consequences that flow from this. SPEW doesnt say anything.  It does not say that it will be a society without money and wage labour , does it now? It doesnt say it seeks the abolition of wage labour, does it now? On the contrary it talks about retaining the wages system by virtue of the fact that it calls for a mimumum wage.

See , this is what I am getting at - not that you dont say that you want a "society not run for the profit of a few" but that you, or SPEW, dont know or care what this means.  It all up in the air, a woolly cuddly sentiment that could just as easily be expressed by the young Liberals.  And as someone has already pointed out, just because you dont want a society run for the profit of a few *does not necessarily mean you want to get rid of capitalism*.  You could for example want a capitalist society in which there is widespread profit sharing.  Which is why I said youve got to spell out what you mean by this and frankly SPEW dont


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 26, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Where did you get this idea from?  The position of the SPGB as far as I am aware has always been that the industrial organisation of workers into trade unions is a necessary but essentially defensive requirement under capitalism - to resist the downward pressure extered by capital on pay and conditions.



Then you are not aware enough...



> At the second conference of the party, a resolution was passed forbidding members from holding office in trade unions - although this was overturned by the EC as ultra vires and contrary to the declaration of principles. E. J. B. Allen continued to write articles attacking trade unions and supporting De Leonist style Socialist Industrial Unions. Such arguments were ultimately rejected, on the grounds that a socialist union would have a tiny number of members so long as socialists remained in a minority; but when socialists attained a majority all unions would become socialist unions by having socialists members.
> 
> The agreed position, then, was to work within trade unions, but to also accept that they had different interests to political parties and to not try and take them over. Later, disputes arose as to whether trade union struggle could result in positive gains for the working class, or whether their role was purely defensive - the former view being taken by some members of the Ashbourne Court Group.
> 
> In the 1980s, the issue of trade unionism was at the heart of the decision to support Solidarity in Poland in their party's literature. Likewise, during the Miner's Strike of 1984-5, the party walked a line between supporting the miners whilst simultaneously suggesting that they couldn't and wouldn't win


.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2010)

I've never seen such pride in impotence before. Never seen the elevation of irrelevancy to a principle before. And I had met the spgb before - these are surely false prophets


----------



## dannysp (May 26, 2010)

two sheds said:


> That's a bit fucking naive - it's the people at the top who give the orders. Soldiers carry  them out or - in times of national emergency like we're talking about  here - get shot for disobeying orders.
> 
> Pretty much the same as if you looked likely to win power, I'd say, although I'm not sure why you're asking me the question.[/QUOTE
> 
> So we have a capitalist class that would murder workers if they refused to serve them, and wanted to live their lives for themselves. What do you figure we should do about that two sheds?


----------



## Geri (May 26, 2010)

The capitalist class won't murder you for not doing what they want you fantasist.

edit:butchers posting


----------



## Gravediggers (May 26, 2010)

Geri said:


> The capitalist class won't murder you for not doing what they want you fantasist.



If this is really the case how do you explain the casualties of wars? Have they not been murdered by their fellow workers who have taken sides in capitalist conflicts?   Or am I also a fantasist?  Duh!!!


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2010)

I really really do not need to explain how the people killed in WW1 and WW2 were killed by the capitalists because they were doing what the capitalists didn't want them to. I think the burden for that idiocy lies with you alone. Dud indeed.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I really really do not need to explain how the people killed in WW1 and WW2 were killed by the capitalists because they were doing what the capitalists didn't want them to. I think the burden for that idiocy lies with you alone. Dud indeed.



Butchers aka Geri as usual found dead in the water!   Cause of death - one too many attempts at defending the indefensible.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2010)

Did you mean doing *what they wanted them to?* I think you did didn't you? Which makes it a  really shit example of the capitalists killing people for *not doing what they want.*


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 26, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Butchers aka Geri



Are you suggesting they are the same person?


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Butchers aka Geri as usual found dead in the water!   Cause of death - one too many attempts at defending the indefensible.



This is just a bizarre thing to post btw


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 26, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Who measures the labour, issues and collects the certificates, deducts the 'taxes' and administers the distribution of resources in exchange for the certificates?


I don't know. I imagine Marx had in mind some democratic central administration which wouldn't be a "state", ie an organ of coercion controlled by a social class (as of course in a society not divided into classes there'd be no need for a state). Having said this, I don't think that "labour-time vouchers" was a good idea or would have worked for long even in 1875. There were other ways of dealing with temporary shortages, eg equal sharing (as suggested by Kropotkin who wrote a good criticism of them at the time) or various points systems according to need.

I think I can see what you're trying to say and don't want to engage in a battle of quotes (but of course will). I don't think Marx regarded "labour-time vouchers" as money, but rather as  ration tickets or like tickets to a show. There's this passage in the Critique of the Gotha Programme:


> Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers *do not exchange their products*.


 And this from Capital Vol I:


> *Owen's 'labour money', for instance, is no more 'money' than a theatre ticket is.* Owen presupposes directly socialized labour, a form of production diametrically opposed to the production of commodities. [ie of articles produced for sale -- JL] The certificate of labour is merely evidence of the part taken by the individual in the common labour, and of his claim to a certain portion of the common product which has been set aside for consumption.


 And Volume II:


> In the case of socialised production the money-capital is eliminated. Society distributes labour-power and means of production to the different branches of production. The producers may, for all it matters, receive paper vouchers entitling them to withdraw from the social supplies of consumer goods a quantity corresponding to their labour-time. *These vouchers are not money. They do not circulate*.


So, Marx was envisaging even the first phase of socialist/communist society as moneyless as well as classless and so stateless.

But, as I said, this is all rather academic as we're living in 2010 not 1875 and things have moved on a lot since then. For those who are interested there's a good discussion of this whole issue here (where trolls don't normally frequent).,


----------



## Gravediggers (May 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I really really do not need to explain how the people killed in WW1 and WW2 were killed by the capitalists because they were doing what the capitalists didn't want them to. I think the burden for that idiocy lies with you alone. Dud indeed.



Butchers as usual found dead in the water!   Cause of death - one too many attempts at defending the indefensible.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 26, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Are you suggesting they are the same person?



No just they are related.  And my apologies for the bump ups.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> But, as I said, this is all rather academic as we're living in 2010 not 1875 and things have moved on a lot since then.



Who says they don't do humour. Great stuff.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Great stuff.


Thanks.


----------



## robbo203 (May 27, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Then you are not aware enough...
> 
> 
> _At the second conference of the party, a resolution was passed forbidding members from holding office in trade unions - although this was overturned by the EC as ultra vires and contrary to the declaration of principles. E. J. B. Allen continued to write articles attacking trade unions and supporting De Leonist style Socialist Industrial Unions. Such arguments were ultimately rejected, on the grounds that a socialist union would have a tiny number of members so long as socialists remained in a minority; but when socialists attained a majority all unions would become socialist unions by having socialists members.
> ...



This doesnt sound to me like hostitliy to trade unionism, let alone suggest the pointlessness  of industrial action as you claimed.  Even the most hardline members of the SPGB who came to form the breakway organisation , the Socialist Studies Group, would not have argued that there was no point in taking industrial action or forming trade uniuons.  That is pure fantasy on your part. What the SPGB has quite rightly cautioned against is the idea that trade unions could solve the problems of workers under capitalism.  Saying that they cannot does not mean arguing against the need for trade unions for defensive purposes.


The allusion above to the Party's early flirtation with industrial unionism does not help your argument one bit either since this was in part a dispute within the party about the most effective way to organise on the industrial field to counter the downward pressure from capital.  It  was not about rejecting the need to organise as such.  Either way, the weapon of industrial action would be regarded as crucial.  As it happens the SPGB rejected the idea of socialist industrial unions precisely becuase they would be necessarily much smaller and hence less effective in the industrial struggle.  That in itrself speaks volumes

It appears that once again you have been misreadiong the position of the SPGB. Incidentally, it would be useful if you could provide a link to the above quotation


----------



## JWH (May 27, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> as to the causes of domestic violence, I have to say your question reminds me so much of my counselling days when the only people coming through the door were members of the working class.  Especially, when I recall the domestic scene during the miners strike and there was an initial upsurge of domestic violence occurring with the miners outing their frustration on the family members and themselves.  And in truth it was exactly what my colleagues and I expected.


I think your politics are a bit rubbish but I "thank you for your service"* to the public.

* as, apparently, we're supposed to say to soldiers now...


----------



## moon23 (May 27, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Yes I agree! Society is at fault but what kind of society might this be?
> 
> Do you agree with the son of god when he is reported to have said "the poor will always be with us", so not interested in why humans are poor. We in the WSM are, and ask the subversive question why are there poor people? What we conclude is the poor are poor because they don't own the  means of production, the rich are rich because they do.



It's a free capitalist society, if people wanted to live like Socialists they could do. Personally I advocate cooperative movements and giving time freely for the social good. Mostly though people can't even agree over basic things like who ate the cheese in a shared house, let alone distributing a Nations Wealth. 

You can own the means of production and still be poor or not own any means of production and still be rich. 



> We've discovered that the productive technology we have today has been developed socially and collectively by all humans throughout our history so we figure they should be socially and collectively owned and controlled.



It's not all developed collectively though, the British didn't collectively develop the V2 flying bomb.



> We say that therefore the natural and industrial resources of our world are the common heritage of all humans, but that's not the case is it? So some have something they're not entitled to.



 It's natural for some life-forms to have things other's don't. If one Lion is born in a field with plenty to hunt and another in a desert you woudn't argue that was unfair just the way the cookie crumbles.



> with common ownership we can provide for ourselves a society without the poverty that denies us our potential.



But societies with common ownership have had poverty, rich people are free to re-distribute their wealth if they so wish but they choose not too. Why would people choose to accept common ownership?



> Or are hardwired to be always greedy?



We have evolved to be greedy, but evolution is an ongoing process.




> Or does having humans poorer than you make you feel rich?


 Wealth is often comparative, but I generally feel the most rich when I think about my friendships and experinces.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 27, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> This doesnt sound to me like hostitliy to trade unionism, let alone suggest the pointlessness  of industrial action as you claimed.



Whut?



> At the second conference of the party, a resolution was passed forbidding members from holding office in trade unions... E. J. B. Allen continued to write articles attacking trade unions...





> Likewise, during the Miner's Strike of 1984-5, the party walked a line between supporting the miners whilst simultaneously suggesting that they couldn't and wouldn't win


----------



## moon23 (May 27, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> It's not though is it.  It's the freedom of people who own/control resources to respond how they like.  It's a poor sort of freedom that excludes the majority of the population.



Your confusing freedom to act in an existential manner with having the means and resources to carry out every action. You can be hungry and free just as you can be a satiated prisoner.

If people will not give up their physical wealth to those which are poor when there are no restrictions on doing so then Socialism does not (yet) work.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 27, 2010)

JWH said:


> I think your politics are a bit rubbish but I "thank you for your service"* to the public.
> 
> * as, apparently, we're supposed to say to soldiers now...



I know it doesn't show but actually I happen to thrive on struggle, its all I've ever known from childhood.


----------



## FreddyB (May 27, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Your confusing freedom to act in an existential manner with having the means and resources to carry out every action. You can be hungry and free just as you can be a satiated prisoner.
> 
> If people will not give up their physical wealth to those which are poor when there are no restrictions on doing so then Socialism does not (yet) work.



You're absolutely nuts.



moon23 said:


> It's natural for some life-forms to have things other's don't. If one Lion is born in a field with plenty to hunt and another in a desert you woudn't argue that was unfair just the way the cookie crumbles.



A cunt




moon23 said:


> Wealth is often comparative, but I generally feel the most rich when I think about my friendships and experinces.



And utterly clueless


----------



## Captain Hurrah (May 27, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's natural for some life-forms to have things other's don't. If one Lion is born in a field with plenty to hunt and another in a desert you woudn't argue that was unfair just the way the cookie crumbles.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 27, 2010)

> moon23 said:
> 
> 
> > It's natural for some life-forms to have things other's don't. If one Lion is born in a field with plenty to hunt and another in a desert you woudn't argue that was unfair just the way the cookie crumbles.
> ...


----------



## dannysp (May 27, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I cited three reports of Danny's nonsense; only one came from an opposing candidate. Of course all three are undoubtedly apologist for capitalism or worse.
> 
> The rest of your post comes across as an attempt at an emotional smokescreen, blown to hide the contradictions between you and Danny; I hope he appreciates all the effort you've put in.
> 
> ...



The SPGB is made up of workers who agree with its Object and Declaration of Principles, that does not mean that there unanimity on all issues that arise in society, or within the Party, there are differences of opinion which are openly held and discussed, and that has to be healthy. If GD disagrees with this posting I expect him to express that disagreement here on urban75.


When the hustings meeting in question was reported on various websites it was typical red top journalism "Tosser SPGB candidate claims reason for domestic violence is poverty". No mention of the admittedly time constrained reasoning I gave. When I asked the question here: if poverty isn't the cause of domestic violence, what is? Not a peep, just more snide remarks from those that think it's sophisticated to be snippy. Is this topic a bit of a Pandora's box with the likelihood of a scalding spud inside that no one wants to handle?

I would contend that all violence is the result of poverty, baring in mind that  poverty presents us with all sorts of symptoms. Take war for example; all modern wars are fought over the access to raw materials, trade routes, spheres of economic interests, the possibility of control over a regions labour power. The capitalist class have us engage in war so they can stay rich or get richer, and as being rich is the only way in capitalism to avoid the dreaded life of the poor,  workers are persuaded that it's in their interests to fight, kill and be killed to save their masters from poverty.

The violence that's just gone down in Thailand, and what's going off in Jamaica, do you think this would happen if all humans were seen to embody  equal humanity and so deserving real human conditions?


Think about it this way, in the kind of society we in the SPGB are doing our level best to bring into being this scenario could never occur: the child gets born into the working class, a servant class, goes to school to get trained, conditioned, programed to do as they are told and take on what's needed to to be profitable to their future employers, (users exploiters) humbled so to accept the servility necessary to parasitized. 

In our vision all children of this world society of ours would embody our human future and so would find themselves at the centre of attention, the centre of effort. We will have recognized and a acknowledged the meaning of human life, our reason to be, simple but not simplistic, to secure their future. A future where we will have recognised who we are, and as sharing the same genes the same ancestors be true to ourselves as all part of the one human family, living as a family must if it is to be functional "from each according to   ability to each according to needs". We will know as the old humanist pointed out "the condition for the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all".

We will have a society where production will be dedicated solely to meet human needs wherein we will give freely of our social creativity and take freely from the common treasury as the wallpaper designer imagined, as when everything and everyone has no price attached then everything and every one is free. Real human freedom can only be a human life without price.

What we need to  know, and it's the absence of this knowledge which is preventing us achieving this life, is our common interests and more importantly as I see it, our common identity, we all share one and it doesn't take too much finding as we are, all of us irrefutably family. With that common identity we'll find that it is impossible to coerce, oppress, exploit of abuse in any way those that we identify with. When the global case of mistaken identity is cleared up what will follow naturally is global social cooperation.

Capitalism on the other hand sees humans a means to an end, not an end in themselves, to be exploited when profitable, discarded and ignored when not. The means of life are distributed not on the basis of common humanity but on the contents of share portfolios and bank accounts. According to the market that dominates the lives of humans: the more you have the more you've been able to take the more you are, the less you have the less you are, got nothing then you're nobody as evidenced by millions on millions of poor humans dieing every year for being nobodies, deserted by capitalism for the crime of being unprofitable. That' us, that's something of how we live in capitalism.

It's a sado masochistic way of living, you must have heard the joke, life is like a shit sandwich, the more bread you have the less shit you have to eat. 

Is it little wonder then if some humans having to live their lives for others with  the frustrations, insecurity, bullying at work while toiling at something useless and all the time the pressure to conform to a social and economic ideal that's an impossibility, with no real understanding of who they are and why they're having to take all this shit lash out, with their own shit not at those who've been shoving it down their throats, but at those nearest to them. What speaks reams about humans inherent sociability is that in this dog eat dog, war of all against all society, so few of us resort to violence.

For instance,take a group of wild normally social animals, confine them in overcrowded conditions, deny them the opportunity to follow their nature as wild animals, deny them a sufficiency of the means of life and you will have violence, without cheap readily available alcohol.

As for domestic violence among capitalists, capitalism is all about violence, capitalists are violent people. Living life as a parasite is not conducive to the formation of a caring, gentle and loving personality.

It can't be claimed that the will be no violence with the Socialism the WSM envisages, but the causes of violence unavoidable with capitalism will have disappeared.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 27, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Louis we are well aware that anything I write gives you a warm glow and provides you with an opportunity to vent your spleen and vehement objections, or dare I say it, *complete rejection of the socialist case*.  But how can we take you seriously after you admitted to voting for the Greens and *by default gave support for capitalism*?   *And then there is your weasely attempt at calling the SPGB a vanguard party*.
> 
> It seems you are scraping the barrel yet again in an attempt that seems very close to becoming an apology for capitalism where the first line of defence is, 'If you don't like the message kill the messenger'.



1. A case for a form of socialism; insertion of the definite article doesn't convince.

2. I could have abstained, left the field clear for the the 'apologists of capitalism' and so by 'default gave support for capitalism'; now they really are weasel words, your weasel words. Which brings us on to...

3. The SPGB is a vanguard party; it is not a Leninist party. Here we're back with your Humpty Dumpty approach to language.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 27, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> I think I can see what you're trying to say and don't want to engage in a battle of quotes (but of course will). I don't think Marx regarded "labour-time vouchers" as money...



Not my point at all.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's a free capitalist society, if people wanted to live like Socialists they could do. Personally I advocate cooperative movements and giving time freely for the social good. Mostly though people can't even agree over basic things like who ate the cheese in a shared house, let alone distributing a Nations Wealth.
> 
> You can own the means of production and still be poor or not own any means of production and still be rich.
> 
> ...



Libertarian psycho evolving before our eyes.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 27, 2010)

dannysp said:


> The SPGB is made up of workers who agree with its Object and Declaration of Principles, that does not mean that there unanimity on all issues that arise in society, or within the Party, there are differences of opinion which are openly held and discussed, and that has to be healthy. If GD disagrees with this posting I expect him to express that disagreement here on urban75.
> 
> 
> When the hustings meeting in question was reported on various websites it was typical red top journalism "*Tosser SPGB candidate claims reason for domestic violence is poverty*". No mention of the admittedly time constrained reasoning I gave. When I asked the question here: if poverty isn't the cause of domestic violence, what is? Not a peep, just more snide remarks from those that think it's sophisticated to be snippy. Is this topic a bit of a Pandora's box with the likelihood of a scalding spud inside that no one wants to handle?
> ...



1. People can read the reports for themselves; I can understand why you might choose to misrepresent them.

2. So the SPGB's socialism won't eradicate poverty; given that violence may well still exist in your day dream. It's a poor case for socialism that can't even sustain itself over one post on an internet bulletin board.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## JWH (May 27, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> internet bulleting board



Freudian


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 27, 2010)

JWH said:


> Freudian



Fish in a barrel?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## moon23 (May 27, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> > To even make a comparison between the human species and other life forms illustrates your level of intelligence is very low indeed.   But I suspect the reality is you have run out of trolling ideas and here for a giggle.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## JimW (May 27, 2010)

moon23 said:


> <blah>
> Capitalism does not dictate how people interact with goods and services, there are groups living in collectivist or socialist lifestyles, there is nothing to stop people forming clubs and societies to take control of the means of production.



Of course it does you knob-end - commodity capitalism is about the most totalising social relationship possible.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 27, 2010)

moon23;10697919][QUOTE=Gravediggers said:


> I’m just arguing the power that would be needed to ensure an equal distribution would create inefficient authoritarian or bureaucratic systems that would result in less wealth being created and more poverty over all.



I have my disagreements with GD, but even I know he's not arguing for an equal distribution of wealth.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## moon23 (May 27, 2010)

Louis MacNeice;10698003][QUOTE=moon23 said:


> I have my disagreements with GD, but even I know he's not arguing for an equal distribution of wealth.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



 I state that i'm arguing against attempts to equally distrubtue wealth, that does not equate or imply that GD is arguing for it.


----------



## moon23 (May 27, 2010)

JimW said:


> Of course it does you knob-end - commodity capitalism is about the most totalising social relationship possible.



I don't think allowing people to pay what they like for commodities is a totalising social relationship.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 27, 2010)

moon23;10698191][QUOTE=Louis MacNeice said:


> I state that i'm arguing against attempts to equally distrubtue wealth, that does not equate or imply that GD is arguing for it.



So why include an objection to a proposition that GD has never made, when replying to him? Next you'll be on the U2 appreciation thread telling everyone that you don't like oranges.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 27, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I don't think allowing people to pay what they like for commodities is a totalising social relationship.



We aren't allowed to pay what we like; at least not last time I went shopping.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Gravediggers (May 27, 2010)

> =moon23;10697919]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## moon23 (May 27, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> We aren't allowed to pay what we like; at least not last time I went shopping.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



You have the freedom for buyer and seller to agree a price. You can for instance haggle, or choose not to buy it at a price and shop around for a good deal.


----------



## FreddyB (May 27, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It just illustrates you can’t make an appeal to nature to argue for a common ownership of natural resources, in which case the argument to be made is about how society should organize itself. You have to argue there is something ethically immoral about an unequal distribution of wealth, and then show that the alternative manner of distribution would equate to ensuring people don’t live in poverty.



What has nature or morality got to do with anything being discussed on this thread?  Try thinking about the material conditions that people experience and how that experience influences what they do instead of thinking about what makes you feel warm inside.


----------



## FreddyB (May 27, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You have the freedom for buyer and seller to agree a price. You can for instance haggle, or choose not to buy it at a price and shop around for a good deal.


They must fucking love you in Tesco


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 27, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You have the freedom for buyer and seller to agree a price. You can for instance haggle, or choose not to buy it at a price and shop around for a good deal.



You can't pay what you like; that's what you said and it's nonsense.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 27, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> They must fucking love you in Tesco



It all went wrong long before that when they tried haggling with the bus driver.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## moon23 (May 27, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> You can't pay what you like; that's what you said and it's nonsense.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Yes I should have qualified it more, what I meant was you can choose whether or not to buy something at a price or agree a price with the seller.


----------



## moon23 (May 27, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> It all went wrong long before that when they tried haggling with the bus driver.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



It's a cultural thing if people don't want to haggle and prefer instead shopping around for the lowest price at places with fixed prices then that's fine. You could set-up a workers co-op car club or bus company if you wished.


----------



## moon23 (May 27, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> What has nature or morality got to do with anything being discussed on this thread?  Try thinking about the material conditions that people experience and how that experience influences what they do instead of thinking about what makes you feel warm inside.



We are discussing how we as people should economically organize ourselves, that is a moral question. We are saying becuase this is the case, e.g. problems with capitalism,  things ought to be different e.g. more socialist.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 27, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's a cultural thing if people don't want to haggle and prefer instead shopping around for the lowest price at places with fixed prices then that's fine. You could set-up a workers co-op car club or bus company if you wished.



I don't refrain from haggling with the bus driver because of cultural mores. 

I couldn't set up a car club or bus company as I don't have the capital needed to buy or lease the vehicles.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 27, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes I should have qualified it more, what I meant was you can choose whether or not to buy something at a price or agree a price with the seller.



Yes you should. It would be a start; we are constrained, we cannot do what we like or choose what we want. We are bound about by 'qualifications'; not at all the freely choosing individuals your particular day dream demands.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## FreddyB (May 27, 2010)

moon23 said:


> We are discussing how we as people should economically organize ourselves, that is a moral question. We are saying becuase this is the case, e.g. problems with capitalism,  things ought to be different e.g. more socialist.



It's nothing at all to do with morality. Nothing


----------



## dannysp (May 27, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> 1. People can read the reports for themselves; I can understand why you might choose to misrepresent them.
> 
> 2. So the SPGB's socialism won't eradicate poverty; given that violence may well still exist in your day dream. It's a poor case for socialism that can't even sustain itself over one post on an internet bulletin board.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



The last sentence wash rushed, I was being bollocked by an an extremely pissed off partner  for being up so late arguing with a "bunch of egotistical wallys". She reads our stuff.


So without the above harassment with more time and thought.

"It can't be claimed that the will be no violence with the Socialism the WSM envisages, but the causes of violence unavoidable with capitalism will have disappeared".

Would have looked more like this.

It can't be claimed that their will be no violence during the start of the Socialist society the WSM envisages with us still carrying some of the psychological baggage of capitalism, but the social causes of this violence unavoidable with it will have disappeared.

I could be wrong  about this, but at least I'm prepared to come out in the open and discuss the issue of violence, domestic or otherwise, that disfigures society and be proved wrong. 

I've asked the question here: if poverty isn't the cause of domestic violence what is? Is this subject of violence taboo? Is it unique in the universe being an effect without a cause? 

Come on guys, put the sniper rifles down, come out of the bushes and let's discuss this crucial issue.

We could start with the state, the public power of coercion, the monopoly of violence. Would an institution that maintains control over those subject to it with violence, or the threat of violence engender a peaceful harmonious society?      Discuss.


----------



## Blagsta (May 27, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Your confusing freedom to act in an existential manner with having the means and resources to carry out every action. You can be hungry and free just as you can be a satiated prisoner.
> 
> If people will not give up their physical wealth to those which are poor when there are no restrictions on doing so then Socialism does not (yet) work.


Have you had a bang on the head or something?


----------



## Blagsta (May 27, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes I should have qualified it more, what I meant was you can choose whether or not to buy something at a price or agree a price with the seller.


This is just abstract nonsense. You don't choose whether to eat or not, or how much rent to pay. Choice is not some abstract concept it's contingent on circumstance.


----------



## JimW (May 27, 2010)

Jaysus moon23, think on. Do you imagine there's free choice in a world entirely shaped by the commodity relationships of capital? You reckon free agreements between individuals can stand up against a world made in capital's image in any but the most trivial or marginalised of spheres? Your level playing field has the mountain of capital at the one end and jumpers for goalposts at the other. Utter fantasy.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 27, 2010)

dannysp said:


> The last sentence wash rushed, I was being bollocked by an an extremely pissed off partner  for being up so late arguing with a "bunch of egotistical wallys". She reads our stuff.
> 
> 
> So without the above harassment with more time and thought.
> ...



1. It's no better; it still presupposes what you you're trying to prove i.e. 'the social causes of this violence'.

2. Again you're prejudging the result; your question asks for a singular answer (unsurprising given your one club politics). 

Your hopes for the perfect future sound more suited to a kindly Sunday school teacher than the serious socialist propagandist you aspire to be.

Louis MacNeice

p.s. You haven't even addressed GD's question.


----------



## robbo203 (May 28, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> 3. The SPGB is a vanguard party; it is not a Leninist party. Here we're back with your Humpty Dumpty approach to language.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Here we go again.... 

The only way in which you could possibily sustain this particular construction is by interpreting the word "vanguard" is the sense of some advanced section of the working class i.e. one imbued with a communist/socialist outlook.  But this is not really what "vanguardism" as such is about, is it?  Vanguardism is really a political model of transformation which quite definitely entails a small minority emancipating the majority by leading the later, not yet imbued with this outlook, into a new form of society.  It involves the capture of state power by the small minority with the intent to run this new form of society on behalf of the majority. 

Clearly, the SPGB cannot possibly be called vanguardist in this sense and you surely would not disagree with this.  If you are using "vanguardist" in the sense of just a small minority per se then this is a somewhat trite usage isnt it? Every small party could then be called vanguardist.  No scrub that -  *every *party would be vanguardist since no political party represents or embodies the views of the majority of workers.  You are thus using the term "vanguardist" in a rather meaningless way

The SPGB makes it abundantly clear that socialism /communism crucially depends on the working class become revoutionary-minded.  It refuses even to attempt to lead the workers into socialism/communism because such a society cannot possibly be achieved in this way. The majority must understand and want it before it can be achieved

And when the majority do understand and want it then by defintion there is no more vanguard in the sense of a "small group of advanced workers". Most workers will be thinking along the same lines.  The vanguard will simply have disappeared into the pages of history


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2010)

Every single one of the leftist parties you condemn makes exactly the same noises about the central role of the w/c in any socialist transformation. Lenin and Trotsky themselves banged on about the cultural backwardness of the w/c in a way scarily similar to you above. You're the same as them, but you just say 'we really mean it, we really do, look it says so in our declaration of principles. 

So crude, did Marx teach you nothing?


----------



## robbo203 (May 28, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Every single one of the leftist parties you condemn makes exactly the same noises about the central role of the w/c in any socialist transformation. Lenin and Trotsky themselves banged on about the cultural backwardness of the w/c in a way scarily similar to you above. You're the same as them, but you just say 'we really mean it, we really do, look it says so in our declaration of principles.
> 
> So crude, did Marx teach you nothing?



You are talking bollocks, Butchers.  Or let me put it another way - while Lenin &  co certainly did make noises about, and paid lipservice to, the central role of the working class, they also clearly and unmistakably subscribed to the political model of vanguardism I outlined above.  The SPGB clearly and categorically rejects this model.

You can hardly deny this. Here are some of the things Lenin said on the matter which proves the point.

One of Lenin's most  most explicit statements on the subject is to be found in his Theses on Fundamental Tasks of The Second Congress Of The Communist International published in 1920

_On the other hand, the idea, common among the old parties and the old leaders of the Second International, that the majority of the exploited toilers can achieve complete clarity of socialist consciousness and firm socialist convictions and character under capitalist slavery, under the yoke of the bourgeoisie (which assumes an infinite variety of forms that become more subtle and at the same time more brutal and ruthless the higher the cultural level in a given capitalist country) is also idealisation of capitalism and of bourgeois democracy, as well as deception of the workers. In fact, it is only after the vanguard of the proletariat, supported by the whole or the majority of this, the only revolutionary class, overthrows the exploiters, suppresses them, emancipates the exploited from their state of slavery and-immediately improves their conditions of life at the expense of the expropriated capitalists—it is only after this, and only in the actual process of an acute class struggle, that the masses of the toilers and exploited can be educated, trained and organised around the proletariat under whose influence and guidance, they can get rid of the selfishness, disunity, vices and weaknesses engendered by private property; only then will they be converted into a free union of free workers. 
(_http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/lenin/works/1920/jul/04.htm)


Did you notice that, Butchers? Lenin said that only AFTER the exploiters have been overthrown can the workers begin to be educated.  The SPGB insist it must happen BEFORE

Lenin was adamant that this vanguard should not restrained from seizing power because of  the lack of socialist consciousness. In a speech to the Congress of Peasants’ Soviets on 27 November, 1917 he contended:

"_If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years...The Socialist political party - this is the vanguard of the working class; it must not allow itself to be halted by the lack of education of the mass average, but it must lead the masses, using the Soviets as organs of revolutionary initiative…"_ (Quoted in John Reed's Ten Days that Shook the World , Modern Library edition, 1960, p.15)   

Moreover, once the vanguard had seized power it was this vanguard alone which should govern, not the wider working class in whose name it had seized power:

_But the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of that class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts (by imperialism in some countries) that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard that has absorbed the revolutionary energy of the class. The whole is like an arrangement of cogwheels_.(http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm)


Clearly, there is a huge gulf separating the SPGB's approach to revolution and Lenin's vanguardism and it is silly to deny this


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 28, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Here we go again....
> 
> The only way in which you could possibily sustain this particular construction is by interpreting the word "vanguard" is the sense of some advanced section of the working class i.e. one imbued with a communist/socialist outlook.  But this is not really what "vanguardism" as such is about, is it?  Vanguardism is really a political model of transformation which quite definitely entails a small minority emancipating the majority by leading the later, not yet imbued with this outlook, into a new form of society.  It involves the capture of state power by the small minority with the intent to run this new form of society on behalf of the majority.
> 
> ...



Robbo you can try all you like to limit debate by imposing your preferred definition of what constitutes a vanguard; I can see why you'd want to do so. To expect people to roll over and just accept it because you say so is rather silly.

1. The SPGB refuses no such thing; it demands that the working class follow its educational lead because this is the only way that society can be transformed, and the SPGB is the only party up to the task.

2. When the mass catch up with the SPGB it will all be alright; that's the whole approach in a nutshell. 

The problems associated with being a vanguard aren't militated against by denying it your rhetoric but enshrining it in your constitution; at least the Leninists don't indulge in that particular bit of political dishonesty.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2010)

Why the hell would i wish to deny the vanguardist nature of the leninists and trotskyists? Do you honestly think that i'm arguing that they weren't? My point rests entirely on their being so, and that the SPGB's approach is a cowards version of their vanguardism - hence the similarities in your outdated language 'advanced workers' vs culturally backwards workers - you/them. It's your problem if you are to politically cowardly or dishonest to draw the political conclusions that the bolsheviks did - neverthess you both start from the same substantive position - a group of self-selected advanced types who can see further and longer than anyone else by simple virtue of the groups existence, and who have divined the path the w/c MUST follow to emancipation - all other routes being crap (reformism, hostility clause etc). 

In fact, the bolsheviks are a lot more honest than you as they repeatedly hammered home their conception of this whereas you deny it by saying we can't be like them, look at our declaration of principles - a trick so crude that it staggers me that a group so sophisticated and advanced would try it on.

Please educate me some more on Lenin as well - you are talking to ignorant half-wits remember.


----------



## robbo203 (May 28, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Robbo you can try all you like to limit debate by imposing your preferred definition of what constitutes a vanguard; I can see why you'd want to do so. To expect people to roll over and just accept it because you say so is rather silly.



You are missing the point, arent you? I am not talking about what constitutes a "vanguard".  If you listened carefully to what I said you would have seen that i dont actually have a problem with your definition of a vanguard in the descriptive sense of a small section of the population holding a particular set of views which are considered to be advanced or at the cutting edge of social development.  What I am talking about is the *political theory of vanguardism as a model of social transformation* i.e. the idea that a minority can somehow emancipate the majority.

Now clearly you know, as well as I, that this is NOT the view of the SPGB. It is the view of Lenin and Leninism as a I demonstrated in my response to Burtchers but not the SPGB. The SPGB is crystal clear on this score. Socialism can only come if and when a majority understand and want it.  The purpose of the SPGB is essentially to promote that understanding.

Thus, when you say the SPGB is a "vanguardist party" this clearly means something different to saying SPGB members constitute a vanguard in the above sense. If it was not your intention to conflate the SPGB theory of revolution with the Leninist theory of revolution then you should have made this clear.  Unfortunately you did not.



Louis MacNeice said:


> 1. The SPGB refuses no such thing; it demands that the working class follow its educational lead because this is the only way that society can be transformed, and the SPGB is the only party up to the task..




This is a rather silly way of putting things.  The SPGB does not "demand" anything.  What on earth are you talking about? The SPGB has a point of view - Im not a member but I think. in the main, what the party is saying is absolutely correct - but it is not "demanding" that you accept this viewpoint.  It is simply urging you to consider it.  Urging is not the same thing as demanding.

Does the party believe its ideas are the way forward? Of course. Everybody , you included, must surely believe that the view they hold are correct otherwise why on earth hold them?  This is a rather specious argument frankly and cuts no ice.  But even going along with this argument it is still nevertheless the case that the SPGB believes that unless a majority of workers accept "it's" ideas which it has been assidously promoting,  socialism is not remotely possible and that it - the SPGB - will not even attempt to introduce socialism unless and until the majority hold a similar socialist outlook. 



Louis MacNeice said:


> 2. When the mass catch up with the SPGB it will all be alright; that's the whole approach in a nutshell.



Not quite.  The SPGB is saying rather more than your simplistic account would suggest.  It saying that unless and until the majority becoime socialists you cannot have socialism and there is absolutely no point in seizing political power prior to the attainment of mass socialist consciousness (something Leninists support) for the simple reason that you would then be forced to administer a capitalist society by default.  I recall articles in the Socialist Standard making this very point - that if,  by some freak accident, the SPGB were to be democratically voted into power but without there being the necessary mass socialist consciousness to introduce socialism. the Party would no more  be able to run capitalism in the interest of workers than any other party. The SPGB is I think a highly principled organisation in this respect.  I can't think of any other oragisation that says "look if you dont understand what we are on about or if you are not in agreeement with us, please dont vote for us".  Credit where credit is due



Louis MacNeice said:


> The problems associated with being a vanguard aren't militated against by denying it your rhetoric but enshrining it in your constitution; at least the Leninists don't indulge in that particular bit of political dishonesty.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



No .  I think it is you who is being a slightly dishonest here by running together two quite separate and distinct ideas.  The SPGB does not deny it is at present a small minority - that would be daft anyway - but it does emphatically deny that *as a small minority *it can emancipate the working class by encouraging the latter to place its trust in it


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 28, 2010)

Seven paragraphs of semantics and no substance. Must be some sort of record.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 28, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> The SPGB does not deny it is at present a small minority - that would be daft anyway - but it does emphatically deny that *as a small minority *it can emancipate the working class by encouraging the latter to place its trust in it



Not it doesn't ask for trust,. It demands assimilation to SPGB thought.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## scrappy1 (May 29, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> The SPGB makes it abundantly clear that socialism /communism crucially depends on the working class become revoutionary-minded.  It refuses even to attempt to lead the workers into socialism/communism because such a society cannot possibly be achieved in this way. The majority must understand and want it before it can be achieved
> 
> And when the majority do understand and want it then by defintion there is no more vanguard in the sense of a "small group of advanced workers". Most workers will be thinking along the same lines.  The vanguard will simply have disappeared into the pages of history



I think you're wasting your time with these people, Robbo. Whatever you say, they are only interested in coming back with their rebuttals. At least we offer a solution to the problems that capitalism throws up; perhaps we're wrong but what do they offer? Nothing but nitpicking criticisms. Perhaps they can tell us their ideas on making this world a better place to live in. Even if it's still within the confines of capitalism, let's hear about it.


----------



## robbo203 (May 29, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Not it doesn't ask for trust,. It demands assimilation to SPGB thought.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Why do you use terms like "demand", eh?  Trying to be tendentious? You have a point of view which you have expressed on this forum.  If I said you were "demanding" from others here, their complete assimilation into the thought of Louis MacNeice how would you feel?

Of course everyone believes their point of view is the correct one as Ive explained many times before.  Urging others to consider it does not make one a "vanguardist" even if the point of view is one held only by a small minority - a vanguard if you like.  Seemingly, you still dont understand the difference


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 29, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Why do you use terms like "demand", eh?  Trying to be tendentious? You have a point of view which you have expressed on this forum.  If I said you were "demanding" from others here, their complete assimilation into the thought of Louis MacNeice how would you feel?
> 
> Of course everyone believes their point of view is the correct one as Ive explained many times before.  Urging others to consider it does not make one a "vanguardist" even if the point of view is one held only by a small minority - a vanguard if you like.  Seemingly, you still dont understand the difference



I'm not the one stating that I am the only socialist party. 

I'm not the one stating that socialism can only be achieved through a majority for me.

I am not the one stating that all other parties, whatever they may claim, are opposed to my truth.

I'm not the one stating that I'm the most advanced section of the working class.

The SPGB not only demands that its members accept this nonsense, but it also demands that, in the interest of the socialist revolution, a majority of the working class must submit to this demand. If they don't, then it is ample evidence of their backwardness.

The SPGB is a vanguard party; they'd be better off attempting to militate against the effects of this uncomfortable truth, than wasting time and energy trying to deny it.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 29, 2010)

scrappy1 said:


> I think you're wasting your time with these people, Robbo. Whatever you say, they are only interested in coming back with their rebuttals. At least we offer a solution to the problems that capitalism throws up; perhaps we're wrong but what do they offer? Nothing but *nitpicking criticisms*. Perhaps they can tell us their ideas on making this world a better place to live in. Even if it's still within the confines of capitalism, let's hear about it.



That you have no realistic means to realise your Edwardian day dream isn't nitpicking;  fundamentally awkward very probably, but not nitpicking.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 29, 2010)

I am not convinced by the arguments put forward to suggest that the SPGB is 'vanguardist' in the way that the SWP is and happily admits to being. However I remember some years ago reading a thread by the famous 'nomoney' who was the first speegeeb to post on Urban where he/she (I never worked it out) said that to be a member you had to take a test. Vanguardist they possibly are not, but by that account certainly elitist.


----------



## JWH (May 29, 2010)

Hocus Eye. said:


> a thread by the famous 'nomoney'


Well remembered! I had been trying to recall...


----------



## robbo203 (May 29, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I'm not the one stating that I am the only socialist party.
> 
> I'm not the one stating that socialism can only be achieved through a majority for me.
> 
> ...



Oh come now this is nonsense and you know it.  Of course you are not the one stating that you are the "only socialist party" because - duh - you are only an individual.  But your *attitude *towards your own beliefs are no different from the attitude of the SPGB towards its beliefs - namely you both necessarily believe you are correct.  If you didnt believe this why on earth are you here defending your arguments?


Actually, on the the question of the SPGB considering itself to be the only socialist party in the sense of being the only party advocating genuine socialism, I think you are technically incorrect.  In the early years of the SPGB there was I believe - someone correct me if I am wrong - an attempt from within the SPGB itself to seek a union with the De Leonist  SLP on the grounds that it too was a socialist party having the same objective as the SPGB.  There was an article I recall from the Socialist Standard some years ago calling the SLP our "political cousoins", although I think that was a reference to the American SLP

You still dont understand the difference between being in the *vanguard *of public opinion and being a *vanguardist* party i.e.subscribing to a particular model of revolution which entails capturing power *before *the the majority have attained revolutiuonary consciousness.  I am frankly getting a bit weary of trying to explain the difference to you.  Your stubborn refusal even to acknowlege or discuss such a difference smacks of narrow minded dogmatism,  a stubborn determination to trot out the same old stuff without engaging with the arguments put to you by others.


----------



## butchersapron (May 29, 2010)

_I grow weary of your refusal to agree with the SPGB - i can only put it down to your cultural backwardness._


----------



## whichfinder (May 29, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> _I grow weary of your refusal to agree with the SPGB - i can only put it down to your cultural backwardness._



Actually, you've got a good point there!


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 29, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Oh come now this is nonsense and you know it.  Of course you are not the one stating that you are the "only socialist party" because - duh - you are only an individual.  But your *attitude *towards your own beliefs are no different from the attitude of the SPGB towards its beliefs - namely you both necessarily believe you are correct.  If you didnt believe this why on earth are you here defending your arguments?
> 
> 
> Actually, on the the question of the SPGB considering itself to be the only socialist party in the sense of being the only party advocating genuine socialism, I think you are technically incorrect.  In the early years of the SPGB there was I believe - someone correct me if I am wrong - an attempt from within the SPGB itself to seek a union with the De Leonist  SLP on the grounds that it too was a socialist party having the same objective as the SPGB.  There was an article I recall from the Socialist Standard some years ago calling the SLP our "political cousoins", although I think that was a reference to the American SLP
> ...



You're the one not grasping it Robbo.

You say the SPGB don't want to lead anybody; that the working class must be convinced of socialism but not necessarily the SPGB. You use this as a rebuttal to all criticisms. Yet the SPGB are hostile to all other political parties as a matter of policy not study, and that shows the lie to your claims - the SPGB want a monopoly as a political party (within the realms of Socialism TM). You want to lead the revolution.

You may not be vanguardist in the Leninist sense - yours is a much cruder and disguised sense - but it is plainly obvious that you are vanguardist.

And trying to draw a distinction between being a vanguard and being vanguardist is pathetic btw.


----------



## robbo203 (May 29, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You're the one not grasping it Robbo.
> 
> You say the SPGB don't want to lead anybody; that the working class must be convinced of socialism but not necessarily the SPGB. You use this as a rebuttal to all criticisms. Yet the SPGB are hostile to all other political parties as a matter of policy not study, and that shows the lie to your claims - the SPGB want a monopoly as a political party (within the realms of Socialism TM). You want to lead the revolution.
> 
> ...




Lets look at this argument shall we? 

Lets look first of all at this claim of yours that the "SPGB are hostile to all other political parties as a matter of policy not study". As usual you supply no evidence for this claim but insofar as I can grasp your meaning you seem to be saying that the SPGB rejects every other political party calling itself socialist simply because and for no better reason than that it is another political party separate from the SPGB.  Well this is not true at all, is it? Anybody who knows anything about the SPGB - and you evidently know precious little judging by your previous remarks - will know that it invariably approaches other parties from a standpoint of *studying what they stand for*.  

They look at your political party - SPEW - for example, and reject it not out of some perverse intent to monopolise the market in socialist politics, if I might put it like that,  but because any serious study of SPEW reveals quite clearly that it does not stand for socialism despite its name.  It stand for the reform of capitalism and calls for the nationalisation (state capitalism) of  parts of industry.  Nowehere does SPEW call for the abolition of the wage system.  Absolutely nowhere.  But if you knew anything about socialism you will understand that this is the litmus test of revolutionary socialism - the abolition of the wages system.

So the SPGB quite rightly rejects SPEW as a mere reformist , state capitalist outfit that , far from promoting spocialism stands in the way of that goal.  But what is there was another political party that stood for the real thing -revolutionary socialism? What would  be the attitude of the SPGB to such a party? 

I am not a member of the SPGB (which you seem to keep on forgetting) and am somewhat critical of its  blanket application of its it hostility clause (though Grave Diggers tells me this is changing) but, in fairness, I dont the SPGB would behave in the way you surmise.  To the contrary I think it would actually be delighted to discover another organisation thinking along the same lines as itself.  As I said in an early post there was I believe an initiative from within the SPGB to reach out and join forces with that other manifestation of the impossibilitst tradition - the SLP.  I am also pleased to hear that the SPGB these days is taking a much more relaxed apprach to other organisations within the non market anti-statist sector such as some anarchist groups with whom it has held discussions

In any event, your assertion that the SPGB wants  to "lead the revolution" is absurd.  In what sense might I ask do think this is the case?  Plainly the SPGB has no intention to act on behalf of the working class and sees itself as merely an instrument through which the workers will capture state power to abolish capitalism and install socialism. But after that the SPGB goes out of existence. It is, in fact, the only political party that paradoxically is working towards a situation in which it can abolish itself.  There will be no need for an SPGB when we have socialism

Then finally there is your remark that "trying to draw a distinction between being a vanguard and being vanguardist is pathetic". Really?  You yourself agree that the SPGB is not vanguardist in the Leninist sense so what, pray, is the non leninist version of vanguardism you have in mind? What does it consist in? A vanguard by definition is a small section of the population.  I have no problem with this defintion or with seeing the SPGB as a vanguard in this sense.  But what does it mean to be a vanguard*ist*. 

Does it mean striving to act on behalf of, or represent, the majority while remaining a small minority.  Well that doesnt fit the description of the SPGB does it now?  Does it mean striving to ensure one remains forever a small minority whose thinking is more advanced that the rest of the population - a self perpetuating elite.  Well that too does not fit the description of the SPGB since it clearly actively seeks membership growth and the propagation of its ideas.   I agree its membership criteria might be a little too strict - I think its prohibition on religious ideas within the party, for example, is unnecessary and restrictive - but by and large it clearly wants workers to become members.  It clearly wants to become a mass party

See, the problem with critics of the SPGB like you, Louis and Butchers is that, when it comes down to it, all your critcisms amount to weasel words.  You havent really worked out clearly what it is you object to about the SPGB which is why all you can do is chuck around a few rather vague and absract insults that indulge your sense of hostility (ironically, Ive seen more hostility from some of its critics than I have ever seen from the SPGB, notwithstanding the latters hostility clause).  When pushed to explain yourself in simple concrete terms you are lost for words and seek refuge in banalities


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 29, 2010)

This is utter bollocks man.



robbo203 said:


> Lets look at this argument shall we?
> 
> Lets look first of all at this claim of yours that the "SPGB are hostile to all other political parties as a matter of policy not study". As usual you supply no evidence for this claim but insofar as I can grasp your meaning you seem to be saying that the SPGB rejects every other political party calling itself socialist simply because and for no better reason than that it is another political party separate from the SPGB.  Well this is not true at all, is it? Anybody who knows anything about the SPGB - and you evidently know precious little judging by your previous remarks - will know that it invariably approaches other parties from a standpoint of *studying what they stand for*.



The evidence is the SPGB's own fucking hostility clause! The hostility clause states that you are hostile to all other organisations that are also political parties.

You're lying when you say the SPGB 'study what they stand for' - it may well be the case that the squeegees study retrospectively, but you are, and this is crucial Robbo, automatically hostile to any and every other political body.



> They look at your political party - SPEW - for example, and reject it not out of some perverse intent to monopolise the market in socialist politics, if I might put it like that,  but because any serious study of SPEW reveals quite clearly that it does not stand for socialism despite its name.  It stand for the reform of capitalism and calls for the nationalisation (state capitalism) of  parts of industry.  Nowehere does SPEW call for the abolition of the wage system.  Absolutely nowhere.  But if you knew anything about socialism you will understand that this is the litmus test of revolutionary socialism - the abolition of the wages system.



This is fucking rhetoric. I'm not interested in hearing your sermon Robbo.



> So the SPGB quite rightly rejects SPEW as a mere reformist , state capitalist outfit that , far from promoting spocialism stands in the way of that goal.  But what is there was another political party that stood for the real thing -revolutionary socialism? What would  be the attitude of the SPGB to such a party?



But this is retrospective. You are hostile as a matter of course.

Guilty until proved innocent, that is how it works isn't it?



> I am not a member of the SPGB (which you seem to keep on forgetting) and am somewhat critical of its  blanket application of its it hostility clause (though Grave Diggers tells me this is changing) but, in fairness, I dont the SPGB would behave in the way you surmise.  To the contrary I think it would actually be delighted to discover another organisation thinking along the same lines as itself.  As I said in an early post there was I believe an initiative from within the SPGB to reach out and join forces with that other manifestation of the impossibilitst tradition - the SLP.  I am also pleased to hear that the SPGB these days is taking a much more relaxed apprach to other organisations within the non market anti-statist sector such as some anarchist groups with whom it has held discussions



The Squeegees will hold discussions with anybody and everybody - they debated with the NF in 2006 I believe. That some squeegees have debated with some anarchists doesn't prove a lot. I should imagine a more truthful portrayal of the squeegees can be found in the reaction of its supporters - of which you are one, whether you pay subs or not - to anybody and everybody outside of their little bubble. 



> In any event, your assertion that the SPGB wants  to "lead the revolution" is absurd.  In what sense might I ask do think this is the case?  Plainly the SPGB has no intention to act on behalf of the working class and sees itself as merely an instrument through which the workers will capture state power to abolish capitalism and install socialism. But after that the SPGB goes out of existence. It is, in fact, the only political party that paradoxically is working towards a situation in which it can abolish itself.  There will be no need for an SPGB when we have socialism



Utter drivel. You keep asserting that the SPGB "has no intention to act on behalf of the working class" but this is contradicted by the hostility cause! This is why you have the hostility clause - to maintain a monopoly as political representatives of your pure vision of socialism!



> Then finally there is your remark that "trying to draw a distinction between being a vanguard and being vanguardist is pathetic". Really?  You yourself agree that the SPGB is not vanguardist in the Leninist sense so what, pray, is the non leninist version of vanguardism you have in mind? What does it consist in? A vanguard by definition is a small section of the population.  I have no problem with this defintion or with seeing the SPGB as a vanguard in this sense.  But what does it mean to be a vanguard*ist*.



Now you're just playing silly buggers with semantics to find your way out.

The form of vanguardism you subscribe to is as has been laid out above - in your own comments. Yes this differs from Leninism - in as much as you obscure and deny this aspect of your politics, and in its crudeness - but just because an apple isn't an orange doesn't make it a pear.

You are still struggling to obscure and deny this - nobody means vanguard in the sense of a minority alone, but in the sense of a political vanguard; a political body that sees itself as the most enlightened section of the working class, that aspires to be the political representatives of their class.



> Does it mean striving to act on behalf of, or represent, the majority while remaining a small minority.  Well that doesnt fit the description of the SPGB does it now?  Does it mean striving to ensure one remains forever a small minority whose thinking is more advanced that the rest of the population - a self perpetuating elite.  Well that too does not fit the description of the SPGB since it clearly actively seeks membership growth and the propagation of its ideas.   I agree its membership criteria might be a little too strict - I think its prohibition on religious ideas within the party, for example, is unnecessary and restrictive - but by and large it clearly wants workers to become members.  It clearly wants to become a mass party



You'll be wanting a long time. You are clearly unable - or unwilling - to perceive of vanguardism in any other context than Leninism. Your loss, because you are failing to grasp what your party are all about.



> See, the problem with critics of the SPGB like you, Louis and Butchers is that, when it comes down to it, all your critcisms amount to weasel words.  You havent really worked out clearly what it is you object to about the SPGB which is why all you can do is chuck around a few rather vague and absract insults that indulge your sense of hostility (ironically, Ive seen more hostility from some of its critics than I have ever seen from the SPGB, notwithstanding the latters hostility clause).  When pushed to explain yourself in simple concrete terms you are lost for words and seek refuge in banalities



You're the one chucking about 'vague and abstract insults' as the paragraph above clearly demonstrates - no substance to it whatsoever. The criticisms you have faced have been coherent and precise, albeit you have been unable to overcome then. Yet you are so clouded by blind loyalty you cannot see. You're not a socialist, you're a partisan and a sectarian. Your loyalty should lie with your politics and with your class interests, as should all socialists, not blindly tethered to one political body come what may. And you have the cheek to lecture others on 'what is socialism'! You don't have the first clue, and I suspect you never will.


----------



## robbo203 (May 29, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> .
> The evidence is the SPGB's own fucking hostility clause! The hostility clause states that you are hostile to all other organisations that are also political parties.
> 
> You're lying when you say the SPGB 'study what they stand for' - it may well be the case that the squeegees study retrospectively, but you are, and this is crucial Robbo, automatically hostile to any and every other political body.
> .



Nope. The application of the  "hostility clause comes from an understanding that the organisation in question stands for something other than socialism.  You dont know what you are talking about here. You are just dreaming up a imaginary causal sequence of events which fits in with your preconceived notions.  One thing the SPGB is very good at is explaining why it cannot support a given organisation and it always gives reasons for why it opposes political parties even those - like SPEW - that claim to stand for socialism





Proper Tidy said:


> .
> The Squeegees will hold discussions with anybody and everybody - they debated with the NF in 2006 I believe. That some squeegees have debated with some anarchists doesn't prove a lot. I should imagine a more truthful portrayal of the squeegees can be found in the reaction of its supporters - of which you are one, whether you pay subs or not - to anybody and everybody outside of their little bubble. .



You dont know much about the SPGB do you PT? And incidentally I find more hostility oozing from you than ever I do from the SPGB.  You miss the point also which I picked up from Gravediggers - that the attitude of the SPGB is now thankfully markedly different to folk on more or less the same wavelength as it than it is to capitalist political parties . So it doesnt "debate against" the anarchist groups in question but shares a forum with them.  A small thing maybe but deeply symbolic I suggest.  I note also that it has made tentative moves in the direction of cooperative ventures with others in the "thin red line" of non market anti-statist socialism.  Thats good and I applaud it




Proper Tidy said:


> .
> Utter drivel. You keep asserting that the SPGB "has no intention to act on behalf of the working class" but this is contradicted by the hostility cause! This is why you have the hostility clause - to maintain a monopoly as political representatives of your pure vision of socialism!.



This is incoherent.  There is no logical connection between "has no intention to act on behalf of the working class" and the application of the hostility clause.  The hostility clause merely signifies political opposition to non socialist political parties.  Thats all.  Its got nothing to do with intending or not intending to "act on behalf of the working class".  I think you have got somewhat carried away in your enthusiasm to vent your spleen and overlooked that that was referring to a quite different argument (about vanguardism)

I have no evidence whatsoever that the hostility clause is there "to maintain a monopoly as political representatives of your pure vision of socialism".  The acid test of this would be if another organisation came along that stood for exactly the same goal as the SPGB and advocated the same means of achieving it.  Would the SPGB apply the hostility clause in that case?  The historical evidence says no.  If you have any contrary evidence lets hear it.  Otherwise you are just talking through your hat - as usual.





Proper Tidy said:


> .
> Now you're just playing silly buggers with semantics to find your way out.
> 
> The form of vanguardism you subscribe to is as has been laid out above - in your own comments. Yes this differs from Leninism - in as much as you obscure and deny this aspect of your politics, and in its crudeness - but just because an apple isn't an orange doesn't make it a pear.
> ...



But that is precisely the point - the SPGB does NOT aspire to be the "political representative of their class".  So finally after all this , having pushed and pushed you to provide me with a clear defintion of what you mean by a non leninist definition of vanguardism you come up with a ...leninist definition of vanguardism which you have agreed the SPGB does not confrom to! 

See what I mean. At the end of the day you dont really have a clearly thought out critique of the SPGB at all.  You are simply SPEWing out the same old visceral and dogmatic prejudice, imposing your own interpetation of what the organisation without having had any prior experience or knowlege of what you are talking about.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 29, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Nope. The application of the  "hostility clause comes from an understanding that the organisation in question stands for something other than socialism.  You dont know what you are talking about here. You are just dreaming up a imaginary causal sequence of events which fits in with your preconceived notions.  One thing the SPGB is very good at is explaining why it cannot support a given organisation and it always gives reasons for why it opposes political parties even those - like SPEW - that claim to stand for socialism
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fuck me, for a non-member you're a right partisan.

Robbo, what is the point in debating with somebody who will obscure the facts, fib, distort the words of others and purposefully fail to grasp any point which is uncomfortable?

I don't know, so I'm out. You've convinced nobody btw.


----------



## robbo203 (May 29, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Robbo, what is the point in debating with somebody who will obscure the facts, fib, distort the words of others and purposefully fail to grasp any point which is uncomfortable?.



Odd that. Cos thats exactly what I was thinking about you


----------



## Gravediggers (May 29, 2010)

scrappy1 said:


> I think you're wasting your time with these people, Robbo. Whatever you say, they are only interested in coming back with their rebuttals. At least we offer a solution to the problems that capitalism throws up; perhaps we're wrong but what do they offer? Nothing but nitpicking criticisms. Perhaps they can tell us their ideas on making this world a better place to live in. Even if it's still within the confines of capitalism, let's hear about it.



Given that ProperTidy is refusing to reply to the questions I put to him in post number 1057 reproduced below, its pretty obvious that if he were to broaden the discussion along the lines implied below its very likely he would find himself in with even more mud on his face.

"I have answered your question by suggesting the western industrial countries as a region where a socialist revolution could be successful. What the fuck more do you want? Perhaps Outer Mongolia would fit your if's, buts, and maybes better?

What about the questions you have failed to answer: *1. If the workers were satisfied with state capitalism and refused to complete the revolutionary process what would be the response of SPEW? 2. Could you please identify/name a socialist party? 3. Provide the reasons why you think socialism will develop unevenly?* (My emphasis). Is that enough for now or do you want me to do a search of this thread?

Once you have put your thinking cap on and start responding to the above questions I shall then reply to your posts,. Until then you can go and try bullying someone else on another thread, for I do not tolerate bullying in any shape or form."


----------



## Tim19 (May 29, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Fuck me, for a non-member you're a right partisan.
> 
> Robbo, what is the point in debating with somebody who will obscure the facts, fib, distort the words of others and purposefully fail to grasp any point which is uncomfortable?
> 
> I don't know, so I'm out. You've convinced nobody btw.



Well, as a 'non-partisan', I've been reading this thread and have to say that this comment pretty well sums up your contribution.  You have done nothing but misrepresent and distort the SPGB position and insult its defenders.


----------



## JimW (May 29, 2010)

Tim19 said:


> Well, as a 'non-partisan', I've been reading this thread and have to say that this comment pretty well sums up your contribution.  You have done nothing but misrepresent and distort the SPGB position and insult its defenders.



You signed up to say that? Oh aye


----------



## two sheds (May 29, 2010)

JimW said:


> You signed up to say that? Oh aye



Nah, he's a 'non-partisan', i'm convinced. ProperTidy i'm ashamed at you.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 29, 2010)

*If poverty isn't the cause of domestic violence what is?*

The short answer to this question is that poverty is not the sole cause of domestic violence.  Is it safe to arrive at such a conclusion when there are so many instances of domestic violence occurring against the backdrop of poverty? Yes it is safe to arrive at such a conclusion, and most certainly so because there is very strong evidence which suggests that domestic violence takes place in families where poverty is  a non-issue, or even the cause for domestic violence to occur. 

This is not to say that the fear of ending up in a state of poverty could be the spark which light the fuse for domestic violence to kick off in families where poverty is not an issue.  And this is not as unproblematic has it may seem, for there is strong evidence which suggests that such cases can and do occur.  But such cases or circumstances is not the issue here.

The ultimate litmus test would be to apply the question to a future socialist society where the issues and problems associated with poverty would no longer appertain.  By socialism I mean a society where there is free access to the means of living, production for use, classless, moneyless and stateless.  Is is safe then to say that domestic violence would still occur under such circumstances?  The answer to this question would have to be a qualified yes.  

So what are the causes for domestic violence if its not poverty?  Firstly, there is no single cause for domestic violence, because its brought about by any number of multiple factors and none.  This is not to say that poverty is not a contributory factor for in many instances it is.  However, although poverty may be present there have to be other factors involved and in place before domestic violence will occur.  

Family upbringing coinciding with a 'normalised behaviour pattern' is one factor that could be involved.  There are also cultural factors to be taken on board where the norms and values of a particular society or locality include a variety of domestic violence as acceptable behaviour.  Mental health issues and problems, along with substance abuse could also be a cause of domestic violence.

But what about a definition of "domestic violence" is it purely bloody noses, broken arms, rape, burns and scalding, mutilation, etc, we are talking about?  Well no for the fact of the matter is there are many cases where actual violence, or even the threat of violence, does no even arise.  For there are many incidents where domestic violence *only* takes the form of constant and persistent verbal abuse.  Unfortunately, this form of domestic violence is prevalent throughout society and all societies, and can be committed by either spouse or partner.  

Although we can envisage a decrease in 'violent' domestic violence occurring in a socialist society whether or not there would be a corresponding decrease in non-violent domestic violence occurring remains to be seen.  For given the socialist framework mentioned above - and despite the tremendous advantages it offers to people to cop-out of domestic violence and abusive situations and circumstances - there are always going to be people who are willing to put up with the situation, come what may.

Any Questions?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 29, 2010)

JimW said:


> You signed up to say that? Oh aye



So?  Are you saying he's not entitled to do so?  I thought this thread is open to everybody?  Or are you another Leninist who prefer their comfort zone to remain uncluttered with messages which support a valid criticism?


----------



## JimW (May 29, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> So?  Are you saying he's not entitled to do so?  I thought this thread is open to everybody?  Or are you another Leninist who prefer their comfort zone to remain uncluttered with messages which support a valid criticism?



You in a nutshell - I cast a mild aspersion on the likely non-partisan nature of someone who of all the thousand of threads on this site has signed up to support the SPGB, and you're off into a world of ridiculous inferences which true to form are entirely wrong. Well done that man.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 29, 2010)

JimW said:


> You in a nutshell - I cast a mild aspersion on the likely non-partisan nature of someone who of all the thousand of threads on this site has signed up to support the SPGB, and you're off into a world of ridiculous inferences which true to form are entirely wrong. Well done that man.



Not quite I merely posed the inference I never actually made it.  Now you have confirmed you are not a Leninist what are the reasons for your inference that Tim19 is seemingly poking his nose in where he's not wanted?


----------



## JimW (May 29, 2010)

Fucking hell man, grind a light hearted bit of piss-taking into the ground why don't you? The answer's there in my previous if you care to look. Tim19 is of course free to post what s/he likes and tell me to piss off themselves. Is this your vanguardist tendency showing that you feel the need to speak on their behalf?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 29, 2010)

JimW said:


> Fucking hell man, grind a light hearted bit of piss-taking into the ground why don't you? The answer's there in my previous if you care to look. Tim19 is of course free to post what s/he likes and tell me to piss off themselves. Is this your vanguardist tendency showing that you feel the need to speak on their behalf?



Just demonstrating that we are all entitled to our democratic opinion and that's fuck all to do with vanguardism - just that it takes two to tango - as I will be demonstrating in my reply to Tim19 that is following shortly.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 29, 2010)

Tim19 said:


> Well, as a 'non-partisan', I've been reading this thread and have to say that this comment pretty well sums up your contribution.  You have done nothing but misrepresent and distort the SPGB position and insult its defenders.



It would be interesting to know where your non-partisan view actually coincides with robbo and disagrees with ProperTidy?


----------



## stethoscope (May 29, 2010)

JimW said:


> You in a nutshell - I cast a mild aspersion on the likely non-partisan nature of someone who of all the thousand of threads on this site has signed up to support the SPGB, and you're off into a world of ridiculous inferences which true to form are entirely wrong. Well done that man.


----------



## Tim19 (May 30, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> It would be interesting to know where your non-partisan view actually coincides with robbo and disagrees with ProperTidy?



I never suggested it does.


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2010)

Simple language for robbo. Vanguardists. That's all you are. Coward leninists.


----------



## two sheds (May 30, 2010)

As a random passer by just come in from the street and happening to read this thread over Sheds' shoulder, I'd just like to say what a stunning critique he's given of the socialist stance and it's a shame nobody has taken up his idea for the first step towards an ideal society. 

Yours 

A. Jackson


----------



## JimW (May 30, 2010)

A lady's just looked in my window and commented that I'm possibly the most handsome, perspicacious and thoroughly decent person she's ever seen typing a reply to an Internet bulletin board.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (May 30, 2010)

two sheds said:


> As a random passer by just come in from the street and happening to read this thread over Sheds' shoulder, I'd just like to say what a stunning critique he's given of the socialist stance and it's a shame nobody has taken up his idea for the first step towards an ideal society.
> 
> Yours
> 
> A. Jackson


----------



## Tim19 (May 30, 2010)

LOL.


----------



## robbo203 (May 30, 2010)

stephj said:


>





LOL

Getting catty are we now?


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2010)

sexist


----------



## TremulousTetra (May 30, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> So, what is your coherent analysis as to "why the workers persistently support a system which is designed to exploit their labour power "? For example, why do something like a third of working class people people who vote, vote Tory?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So what's your answer to the question I posed to Louis Butch?


----------



## robbo203 (May 30, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> sexist



Surely that should be specieist?  Or is that a specious argument?


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (May 30, 2010)

I thought vanguardist organisations are supposed to 'lead' others?


----------



## Gravediggers (May 30, 2010)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> I thought vanguardist organisations are supposed to 'lead' others?



It does, in a literal sense, but its application in a meaningful sense depends on what is the object of the vanguard. 

If for example a group have an idea, notion, opinion or theory that they think needs the attention of the wider community, e.g. the possibility of climate change being caused by an increase in human activity.  To support their theory they would accumulate evidence to that effect on the assumption the wider community would recognise the dangers for not cutting back on their activity by force of argument and weight of evidence and come to accept that something needs to be done.  This is a minority 'vanguard idea' leading others to a con sensus view which reflects a majority opinion.   This is perfectly acceptable behaviour and depends on the argument being approved through voluntary agreement and goes on all the time.

If on the other hand, for example a group seek to impose their idea, notion, opinion or theory through the use of lies, deceit, manipulation or dictatorship this is unacceptable behaviour and vanguardist.

Make your own mind up on which group the SPGB adhere to.


----------



## TremulousTetra (May 30, 2010)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> I thought vanguardist organisations are supposed to 'lead' others?



http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10682772&postcount=798

ie?  The IWCA of which Butch Louis etc are 'supporters'?


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2010)

Both gd. That's the point.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (May 30, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> It does, in a literal sense, but its application in a meaningful sense depends on what is the object of the vanguard.
> 
> If for example a group have an idea, notion, opinion or theory that they think needs the attention of the wider community, e.g. the possibility of climate change being caused by an increase in human activity.  To support their theory they would accumulate evidence to that effect on the assumption the wider community would recognise the dangers for not cutting back on their activity by force of argument and weight of evidence and come to accept that something needs to be done.  This is a minority 'vanguard idea' leading others to a con sensus view which reflects a majority opinion.   This is perfectly acceptable behaviour and depends on the argument being approved through voluntary agreement and goes on all the time.
> 
> ...



Vanguardism is a Leninist praxis. As the military connotations of the word suggests, one group is organised to lead, and their activity is leading 'in the battle'. Ideologically as well as organisationally the SPGB is more or less anarchist. The latter is what is decisive when considering whether they are a 'vanguard'. So what's being criticised is mere elitism _at worst_.


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2010)

That 'so' is redundant' FRAUD. Do make a point.


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2010)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> Vanguardism is a Leninist praxis.



a -get it 'a'.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (May 30, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> That 'so' is redundant' FRAUD. Do make a point.



I did make a point - can't you?


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (May 30, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> a -get it 'a'.



The operative word was _praxis_.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (May 30, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> That 'so' is redundant' FRAUD. Do make a point.



You inverted my comma and hid it next to 'redundant'. How sneaky.


----------



## robbo203 (May 30, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10682772&postcount=798
> 
> ie?  The IWCA of which Butch Louis etc are 'supporters'?



Resistance

I looked at the link above which I reproduce below

Originally Posted by Jean-Luc  
*The reason why Gravediggers and others are getting upset by being called "vanguardists" is that they and you are using different definitions of the term "vanguard party". On your definition any propagandist or educational group or any group that wanted to convince others of their point of view would be a "vanguard party". In fact insofar as you want to convince anybody you would be a one-person vanguard party,

But this is not the sense in which the term has been used in leftwing political circles. Here it goes back to Lenin who introduced the idea into the working class movement. He held that, because workers left to themselves were not capable of developing a socialist consciousness (ie working out socialism for themselves) but only of developing a "trade-unionist" consciousness, they needed to be led to socialism by an enlightened minority, an intellectual elite organised as a centralised and highly disciplined party. 

All Leninist and Trotskyist groups are organised on this top-down basis and all set out to lead the working class. For instance, see this from a Trotskyist vanguard party group:


No wonder people get upset when such elitist views are attributed to them!*

I think Jean-Luc is essentially correct though I would quibble with his suggestion that Lenin argued (in What is to be Done), in support of Kautsky, that workers could not become socialists by themselves and that socialist consciousness had to be brought to them from outside by "bourgeois intellectuals" like Marx - a fairly common misunderstanding.  Lenin qualified this remark in a footnote in WITBD as follows

_This does not mean, of course, that the workers have no part in creating such an ideology. They take part, however, not as workers, but as socialist theoreticians, as Proudhons and Weitlings; in other words, they take part only when they are able, and to the extent that they are able, more or less, to acquire the knowledge of their age and develop that knowledge_

Curiously, and not a little confusingly (Lenin was a very confused and sloppy thinker at times!) he also  maintained that the working class "_spontaneously gravitates towards socialism_" but "_bourgeois ideology spontaneously imposes itself upon the working class to a still greater degree_".  Why that "bourgeois ideology" would not impose itself even more forcefully on the "bourgeois intellectuals" as one might expect from their presumably more vulnerable position of being "bourgeois" themselves. Lenin omitted to say. Afterall did not Lenin's materialism (a rather crude and mechanical version of materialism IMO) lead him to argue that consciousness is the product of material circumstances. If so , how did *bourgeois *intellectauls come to be the fountainhead of ideas that radically challenged the very *bourgeois *basis of society?

But all that is by the by.  This thing about vanguardism really needs to be clarified once and for all. One of the most useful definitions of vanguardism Ive come across is from  Keith Graham's The Battle of Democracy: Conflict, Consensus and the Individual, (Wheatsheaf Books, Brighton, 1986, p.207). Graham argues that  Vangardism is the doctrine  "that a given group's emancipation depends cruciallly on some other, much smaller group's leadership, guidance or domination in some stronger form". In political terms this entails the smaller group capturing political power on behalf the larger group ostensibly with the aim of emancipating the latter. 

By that yardstick, Leninism clearly falls into the category of a vanguard theory of political action.  I earlier supplied several quotes from the man himself supporting this interpretation.  The SPGB on the other hand cannot possibly be accused of espousing vanguardism as defined in this way since it makes it abundantly clearly that it  is not interested in capuring power on behalf of the working class but sees itself as a simply a tool through which workers emancipate themseves in a socialist revolution and only then when they are a socialist majority.

I cannot think of any other useful way in which one could be called vanguardist.  Propagating a set of ideas which one believes to be  more sound than others   is hardly grounds for calling someone a vanguardist as Jean Luc points out.  If that were the case then every single person on the planet could be considered a "vanguardist" since as far as I know no one sincerely holds an idea that they believe to be unsound and unjustifable.  Their holding the idea in itself is _ipso facto_ proof that they believe it to be sound and superior to ideas that appear to contradict it.

Given that, to argue that simply by promoting a set of ideas that one believes to be superior to some other set of ideas is "vanguardist" is frankly absurd.  If this is something everyone does as a matter of course then such a definition of vanguardism is utterly trite and meaningless.  If the only colour we could see was red, then red as a concept would be meaningless.  Its meaningfulness derives from contrasting it with other colours.  Ditto with vanguardism


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2010)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> I did make a point - can't you?



Did you? Think, did you? Where is it.


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> ,snip.
> 
> Given that, to argue that simply by promoting a set of ideas that one believes to be superior to some other set of ideas is "vanguardist" is frankly absurd.  If this is something everyone does as a matter of course then such a definition of vanguardism is utterly trite and meaningless.  If the only colour we could see was red, then red as a concept would be meaningless.  Its meaningfulness derives from contrasting it with other colours.  Ditto with vanguardism



It's a joke really isn't it - you're not serious about your politics at all. If you were you wouldn't dare argue that what constitutes vanguardism is all outside of the the SPGB and vice versa - therefore the SPGB is not VG by definition. Kiddy stuff.

But you're not serious. You're  interested in dogma.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (May 30, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Did you? Think, did you? Where is it.



"_Vanguardists are supposed to do stuff._"


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2010)

> By that yardstick, Leninism clearly falls into the category of a vanguard theory of political action.



So there's more to vanguardism than just leninism -at fucking last. Unluckily for you that then is the last nail in your coffin.

 But you've nailed yourself shut already haven't you?


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2010)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> "_Vanguardists are supposed to do stuff._"



That's your point after all that waffle? No, you're wrong.


----------



## robbo203 (May 30, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> It's a joke really isn't it - you're not serious about your politics at all. If you were you wouldn't dare argue that what constitutes vanguardism is all outside of the the SPGB and vice versa - therefore the SPGB is not VG by definition. Kiddy stuff.
> 
> But you're not serious. You're  interested in dogma.




You know, try as I might I cannot work out what the fuck you are talking about.  Cut out the snidey comments. If you are interested in a serious discussion define what you mean by vanguardism and we can go from there. OK?


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2010)

I've told you, over and over. That's the whole basis of your rejection of my claim - that i'm on about a different sort of vanguardism.

Please, grow up.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (May 30, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No, you're wrong.



No - you.


----------



## TremulousTetra (May 30, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Resistance
> 
> Given that, to argue that simply by promoting a set of ideas that one believes to be superior to some other set of ideas is "vanguardist" is frankly absurd.  If this is something everyone does as a matter of course then such a definition of vanguardism is utterly trite and meaningless.  If the only colour we could see was red, then red as a concept would be meaningless.  Its meaningfulness derives from contrasting it with other colours.  Ditto with vanguardism


 Absurd, but this does seem to be butchers position.

" On your definition any propagandist or educational group or any group that wanted to convince others of their point of view would be a "vanguard party". In fact insofar as you want to convince anybody you would be a one-person "vanguard party"." Originally Posted by Jean-Luc 


As soon as you mention "contradictory levels of consciousness", up goes the cry "Vanguard".  And yet at the same time they do themselves seem to accept the notion of contradictory levels of consciousness. http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10709371&postcount=1226

There seems to be at point blank refusal to discuss, such anomalies, and their views in any depth, whilst nitpicking anything they disagree with.  For example, do a search for threads with anarchism in the title and you'll see non-anywhere as near as long as this one.  Which to me gives the appearance of people who are very reticent to discuss what they stand for.  Strange, for people with so robust opinions.


----------



## robbo203 (May 30, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I've told you, over and over. That's the whole basis of your rejection of my claim - that i'm on about a different sort of vanguardism.
> 
> Please, grow up.



Yes and Ive asked you before for a concise definition of  this "different sort of vanguardism" not some vague assertion. Unless Ive missed something, you have not obliged.

BTW please try to be a little more temperate.  You are not doing yourself any favours with your impulsive insults.  They are getting terribly boring


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Yes and Ive asked you before for a concise definition of  this "different sort of vanguardism" not some vague assertion. Unless Ive missed something, you have not obliged.
> 
> BTW please try to be a little more temperate.  You are not doing yourself any favours with your impulsive insults.  They are getting terribly boring



You've had a definition, you've attempted to respond to it. Don't play dead.


----------



## TremulousTetra (May 30, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> You know, try as I might I cannot work out what the fuck you are talking about.  Cut out the snidey comments. If you are interested in a serious discussion define what you mean by vanguardism and we can go from there. OK?


 and there's your problem.  He isn't.


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> BTW please try to be a little more temperate.



Concomitant crudities piss face.


----------



## TremulousTetra (May 30, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Yes and Ive asked you before for a concise definition of  this "different sort of vanguardism" not some vague assertion. Unless Ive missed something, you have not obliged.
> 
> BTW please try to be a little more temperate.  You are not doing yourself any favours with your impulsive insults.  They are getting terribly boring


 watch it.  As soon as you start asking him questions, about what he stands for, he will flounce.


----------



## robbo203 (May 30, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You've had a definition, you've attempted to respond to it. Don't play dead.



Where? Can you give me the number of the post in question or restate iot here for the benefit of the readers.  Thank you


----------



## TremulousTetra (May 30, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Where? Can you give me the number of the post in question or restate iot here for the benefit of the readers.  Thank you


 That's it!  I predict butchers will leave the thread.


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2010)

Any of the ones in which you done battle with the beast of my understanding of what vgism is. - what were you fighting otherwise? Or the many posts in which I outline what vgism and why the spgb is a classic example of it. If you mean tie it up and put a pretty little bow around it so that you can then squawk reforism, then no.


----------



## robbo203 (May 30, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Any of the ones in which you done battle with the beast of my understanding of what vgism is. - what were you fighting otherwise? Or the many posts in which I outline what vgism and why the spgb is a classic example of it. If you mean tie it up and put a pretty little bow around it so that you can then squawk reforism, then no.



So what it then Butchers? A brief definition would suffice.  Then we can look at your argument.  I have no idea what you mean by "vanguardism" from your past contributions becuase you really havent made this clear


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2010)

I have, you've even replied to those posts.


----------



## robbo203 (May 30, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I have, you've even replied to those posts.




Which ones? Do you have the numbers please? Or why not just simply restate your definition now if you prefer


----------



## Gravediggers (May 30, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Which ones? Do you have the numbers please? Or why not just simply restate your definition now if you prefer



He will prefer not to, simply because it will confirm the conclusion reached by most viewers on this thread.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 30, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> He will prefer not to, simply because it will confirm the conclusion reached by most viewers on this thread.



Have you done a survey?

Or are you assuming?


----------



## robbo203 (May 30, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Which ones? Do you have the numbers please? Or why not just simply restate your definition now if you prefer



Helloooo Butchers are you there? If you dont respond soon Im gonna pack it in for the night.  Wage slavery beckons in the morning and I need my kip


----------



## robbo203 (May 31, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> He will prefer not to, simply because it will confirm the conclusion reached by most viewers on this thread.



Its beginning to look that way...


----------



## FreddyB (May 31, 2010)

SPGB - see only what you want to see


----------



## Gravediggers (May 31, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> SPGB - see only what you want to see



Does this mean that blind assertions are your stock in trade?  Or have you stopped wearing your glasses?


----------



## fraz (May 31, 2010)

The vagueness to which the SPGB are accused of is allowing such ambiguity & misinterpretation. To my mind -any- individual, or group - with an idea that is controversial and is in a minority can be accused of a 'vanguard' or vanguardist by the SPGB detractors on urban75. This really detracts from what a vanguard means. I've got a suspicion that these allegations are motivated by people who have got an axe to grind - it's called deflection. I experience it in my everyday work -   if somebody accused of something they immediately accuse others of being worse than they are, finger pointing s a good way of getting out of it, at least for now. Hence Butchers an Louis d are so focused on calling the SPGB vanguardist! That's my take on it anyway, for me it points to the shallowness of the BT & L's argument.


----------



## robbo203 (May 31, 2010)

fraz said:


> The vagueness to which the SPGB are accused of is allowing such ambiguity & misinterpretation. To my mind -any- individual, or group - with an idea that is controversial and is in a minority can be accused of a 'vanguard' or vanguardist by the SPGB detractors on urban75. This really detracts from what a vanguard means. I've got a suspicion that these allegations are motivated by people who have got an axe to grind - it's called deflection. I experience it in my everyday work -   if somebody accused of something they immediately accuse others of being worse than they are, finger pointing s a good way of getting out of it, at least for now. Hence Butchers an Louis d are so focused on calling the SPGB vanguardist! That's my take on it anyway, for me it points to the shallowness of the BT & L's argument.



Yes, there is a precise defintion of vanguardism which I supplied in an earlier post which entails, as I said, some smaller group seeking to act on behalf of some larger group by capturing political power for that purpose. This is the Leninist view of revolution - the majority cannot emancipate themselves by themselves and need to be emancipated by the vanguard from a position of political power.  

This is certainly not the view of the SPGB so I am genuinely intrigued as to how the label "vanguardist" can be attached to the SPGB by several of its detractors on this list. I agree the SPGB can be called a "vanguard" in the descriptive sense of a small minority holding a set of views that might be considered "advanced".  But being a *vanguard *is not the same thing as being a *vanguardist *- a point I was trying to explain to Proper Tidy before he went off in a huff to sulk and lick his wounds.

Being a vanguardist cannot possibly amount to just being a small minority that insistently puts across a set of ideas it believes to be correct and preferable to any others in the political market place.  That is an absurd definition.  Its scope is so wide as to make it quite meaningless

Butchers claims he has good grounds for calling the SPGB vanguardist. I would genuinely like to look at his argument in more detail  but as yet he has not been particularly forthcoming in explaining himself. Which is a pity because this could turn out to be a very interesting and useful discussion.


----------



## FreddyB (May 31, 2010)

Butchers and Lousi have explained in detail on a number of posts that the SPGB is a vanguardist organisation. The SPGB resposnse has been "No we're not and you haven't explained why we are".

It's sad


----------



## whichfinder (May 31, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> Butchers and Lousi have explained in detail on a number of posts that the SPGB is a vanguardist organisation. The SPGB resposnse has been "No we're not and you haven't explained why we are".
> 
> It's sad




GD's right; you are blind and clearly the sad one


----------



## robbo203 (May 31, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> Butchers and Lousi have explained in detail on a number of posts that the SPGB is a vanguardist organisation. The SPGB resposnse has been "No we're not and you haven't explained why we are".
> 
> It's sad



They haven't "explained" and thats precisely the problem! Assertion is not explanation.  I would like to see what their explanation actually is and if you know what it is perhaps you might care to share it with the rest of us.  Then we can consider whether this explanation is valid


----------



## scrappy1 (May 31, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Butchers claims he has good grounds for calling the SPGB vanguardist. I would genuinely like to look at his argument in more detail  but as yet he has not been particularly forthcoming in explaining himself. Which is a pity because this could turn out to be a very interesting and useful discussion.



It would be interesting if these people would give their reasons for considering the SPGB vanguardist. Not only that, but, in the event of agreeing with them, where do I go next? OK, I'd leave the SPGB, but which other, non-vanguardist, organisation do I join?

If, as they say, they've given their reasons, it would be a simple task to cut-and-paste their arguments to settle this once and for all. It will need to be something more than how they think we hold our views (arrogantly, smugly, self-righteously etc.).


----------



## robbo203 (May 31, 2010)

scrappy1 said:


> It would be interesting if these people would give their reasons for considering the SPGB vanguardist. Not only that, but, in the event of agreeing with them, where do I go next? OK, I'd leave the SPGB, but which other, non-vanguardist, organisation do I join?
> 
> If, as they say, they've given their reasons, it would be a simple task to cut-and-paste their arguments to settle this once and for all. It will need to be something more than how they think we hold our views (arrogantly, smugly, self-righteously etc.).



Yes exactly. Smugness, arrogance and self righteous , while not being particularly attractive qualities, do not constitute vanguardism.  Vanguardism is a political theory, a theory about political action, and it is not even the same thing as elitism which is another thing the SPGB has been accused of (wrongly in my view).  Which is why I think it needs to be explained in more detail in what sense these detractors consider the SPGB to be "vanguardist".  Frankly Im baffled.


----------



## Gravediggers (May 31, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Yes exactly. Smugness, arrogance and self righteous , while not being particularly attractive qualities, do not constitute vanguardism.  Vanguardism is a political theory, a theory about political action, and it is not even the same thing as elitism which is another thing the SPGB has been accused of (wrongly in my view).  Which is why I think it needs to be explained in more detail in what sense these detractors consider the SPGB to be "vanguardist".  Frankly Im baffled.



Well frankly I'm not baffled, but rather delighted that the main protagonists on this thread have been shown for what they are - political bluffers - who are determined to be a disservice to their class and class interests.  They all admitted supporting the enemy of the workers despite their miserable attempts of projecting themselves as class warriors.  

ProperTidy fell on his own petard of supporting state capitalism, and  by voting for Plaid and also for accepting the SPGB definition of socialism; butcherapron seemingly strangled himself with a lack of explanation for the accusation of the SPGB being vanguardist, and also being a member IWCA; whilst Louis Mcneice was exposed for being a member of IWCA and for supporting the Greens and convincingly showed her seemingly non-partisan contributions to trite and lacking political integrity. 

Have we seen the last of these apologists for capitalism? I doubt it for their only mission in life is to try and deny their class any inkling of what self-emancipation really entails.  For what they fear is the time when the working class start thinking for themselves so they become a class for itself.  When that day arrives their ilk will either slink in to the shadows or crawl under the nearest rock in an effort to escape the wrath of the workers.
They have had a taste of it here but this is nothing to what they can expect on the day of reckoning.


----------



## JimW (Jun 1, 2010)

Declaring yourselves the winners of the argument. Bless.
Not that it matters tuppence one way or the other as you're just going to sit on the sidelines blathering while the rest of us fight the class war because we have to - which makes your "any inkling of what self-emancipation really entails" particularly prize. Though if capital could be bored to death you might have some use.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 1, 2010)

JimW said:


> Declaring yourselves the winners of the argument. Bless.
> Not that it matters tuppence one way or the other as you're just going to sit on the sidelines blathering while the rest of us fight the class war because we have to - which makes your "any inkling of what self-emancipation really entails" particularly prize. Though if capital could be bored to death you might have some use.



I did not declare ourselves winners, not by a long shot, for I did say they would be back.  And what makes you imply a member of the working class, or the capitalist class for that matter, can cop-out of the class war?   For I take it that is behind your reasoning for saying, ".... .... to sit on the sidelines blathering while the rest of us fight the class war because we have to ... ... "?  

Indeed we have to participate in the class war whether we like it or not, but the point at issue for the SPGB is how that participation actually takes place.  Do we participate in class struggle on our masters terms or do we participate under our own terms?  For us it is self defeating to use their language, their tactics, their methods, their hierarchy, their deceit, lies, manipulation, postures, slogans, etc, etc.  For the working class revolution is going to be different to all past revolutions and we have no intention of cowtowing to our masters voice.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 1, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> But being a *vanguard *is not the same thing as being a *vanguardist *- a point I was trying to explain to Proper Tidy before he went off in a huff to sulk and lick his wounds.



Utter semantic bollocks. I'm also not licking my wounds - I know you can't all really be so lacking in awareness that you think your debates on here have gone well for you. I've just got to the point of almost everybody else in realising that trying to debate with squeegees is as pointless as debating with Jehovas. In fact, I got to that point about twenty pages ago, and now just dip my toes now and again to point out that you are all bearded cultists pursuing a futile intellectual and abstract utopian dream whilst doing absolutely fuck all to bring about socialism or improve the lot of working people. You're more like dungeons and dragons aficionados, dreaming of a fantasy world, than you ever will be a working class political body.

My first post on this thread set out my criticisms and you are still yet to overcome them. Your whole operation on these 'debates' is to deflect criticism by attacking, well, everybody as reformists and drive serious debate away by repeating the same inflexible arguments verbatim until everybody else gets bored, then claim this is some sort of victory of ideas.

That you all feel the need to flood these threads with a succession of new posters who also happen, coincidentally, to be squeegees says it all. Do you see any other party, organisation, tradition etc using such pathetic tactics? No, you don't. It is also telling that about a third of your total membership has cropped up on this thread; that a supposedly serious political organisation sees posting on u75 as a critical priority is sad beyond belief.

The fact is you don't matter. You don't matter to socialists and you are a complete irrelevance to the labour movement and the working class. My only concern is that the squeegees may now and again suck in the odd good young socialist, thereby wasting a potentially good young activist by introducing him/her to puritanical dogma that decrees socialism will just happen; not as the result of struggle; no interim period in which the power and influence of the capitalist class - those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo - can be neutralised; just spontaneously. Fortunately, the vast majority of socialists will have a strong antipathy towards any organisation that is as elitist and po-faced enough to make potential recruits sit a fucking entrance exam in dogma.

You're like a joke without a punchline.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 1, 2010)

See I told you they would be back just can't resist ignoring the fact their questions have been answered on every occasion.  Yet insist on ignoring the questions posed to them.  ProperTidy is a *Proper BULLY*


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 1, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> ProperTidy is a Proper BULLY



You're just a proper pompous and self-aggrandising old fool, GD.


----------



## Sesquipedalian (Jun 1, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> See I told you they would be back just can't resist ignoring the fact their questions have been answered on every occasion.  Yet insist on ignoring the questions posed to them.  ProperTidy is a *Proper BULLY*



I'm suprised by that post.
And i disagree with it.

Although,i need to add,
Until recently i have never,
Been aware of this Poster.

Another change of name ?


----------



## JimN (Jun 1, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Utter semantic bollocks. I'm also not licking my wounds - I know you can't all really be so lacking in awareness that you think your debates on here have gone well for you. I've just got to the point of almost everybody else in realising that trying to debate with squeegees is as pointless as debating with Jehovas. In fact, I got to that point about twenty pages ago, and now just dip my toes now and again to point out that you are all bearded cultists pursuing a futile intellectual and abstract utopian dream whilst doing absolutely fuck all to bring about socialism or improve the lot of working people. You're more like dungeons and dragons aficionados, dreaming of a fantasy world, than you ever will be a working class political body.
> 
> My first post on this thread set out my criticisms and you are still yet to overcome them. Your whole operation on these 'debates' is to deflect criticism by attacking, well, everybody as reformists and drive serious debate away by repeating the same inflexible arguments verbatim until everybody else gets bored, then claim this is some sort of victory of ideas.
> 
> ...



In fairness Proper Tidy, I think it would be reasonable to expect that if you start a thread entitled The Socialist Party of Great Britain on a popular discussion forum you will have a few members of that party contributing to the discussion.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 1, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Which ones? Do you have the numbers please? Or why not just simply restate your definition now if you prefer


What did I tells ya.  Knew he'd fuck off.  Always does.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jun 1, 2010)




----------



## fraz (Jun 1, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You're just a proper pompous and self-aggrandising old fool, GD.


Proof in the pudding...?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 1, 2010)

I think it was twosheds who asked me when the SPGB became interested in ecology/environmental issues, and I said from September 1904.  And further I would check it out when in London last weekend.  I checked it out and there was a reference to ecology/environment if the first issue of the _Socialist Standard _in September 1904.  It was in reference to how the conditions of the working class in 1904 had changed little, if any, from the time when Engles had described them in his book, 'The Condition of the Working Class in England'.

There is no further reference on ecology/environment until 1907 in reply to Malthus and population.  The ecology/environment articles continue in this vein all the way to 1972 when they start commenting on the broader issues of ecology/environment.  Now hardly a month goes past when the _Socialist Standard_ fails to make some comment on the environment.  And so it should.


----------



## whichfinder (Jun 1, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Now hardly a month goes past when the _Socialist Standard_ fails to make some comment on the environment.  And so it should.




Talking about the _*Socialist Standard*_ here is the June 2010 edition  

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/standardonline/index.html


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 1, 2010)

Whats this I hear about the SPGB annual  conference approving a motion along the lines that the struggle for socialism has an "ethical dimension" or something like that.  Can any SPGB comrades fill me in with the details?  It certainly sounds like a promising move away from a somewhat over-economistic approach in my view.  Cheers


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 1, 2010)

*weeps*


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 1, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Whats this I hear about the SPGB annual  conference approving a motion along the lines that the struggle for socialism has an "ethical dimension" or something like that.  Can any SPGB comrades fill me in with the details?  It certainly sounds like a promising move away from a somewhat over-economistic approach in my view.  Cheers



Yes we've had a vote on: Socialism is both scientific and ethical.  The result of the resolution will be announced on Saturday after the EC meeting.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 1, 2010)

*laughs*


----------



## Tim19 (Jun 2, 2010)

May I offer my general view on this thread and the opposing arguments?  My perspective on all this is from the point of view of a capitalist.  I am a business owner.  I employ people.  So, why am I interested in socialism?  

Well, my background is working class, and I was exposed to left-wing ideas and trade unionism in my formative years.  So, I am a broad sympathiser with the socialist movement - admittedly, perhaps for emotional reasons partly, but I think mainly it's a rational position.  Capitalism was once a progressive system, but it is now looking increasingly outdated and does not appear to provide a mechanism for resolving some of the most pressing issues facing us - such as mass starvation, possible nuclear annihilation and environmental sustainability.  I was looking for some discussion and I happened on this thread.  Coincidences happen.

If my employees started asking me for higher wages and threatened to go on strike, I would be worried.  But I would only be worried within the framework of capitalism, if that makes any sense, within the context of the social relationship of employer and employee.  OK, if I can't afford to pay higher wages, I just find new employees.

But if my employees started campaigning for, not higher wages, but the abolition of the wages system...well....It seems to me that the SPGB are a vanguard, but only a vanguard of the truth.  The problem the SPGB has - and I see this was mentioned earlier in the thread by TomR77 - is that in telling the truth, they are telling people something they do not wish to hear.  That partly explains their lack of success in generating a significantly larger membership.

However, I can see Proper Tidy's point, and I think perhaps GD and Robbo and other SPGB'ers need to pay more heed to it.  What Proper Tidy is saying is that by campaigning for both achievable improvements and reforms, and for 'transitional demands' which would weaken capitalism, this would demonstrate to workers their potential as a cohesive group and gradually encourage the development of their consciousness as a class and understanding of the socialist case.  This makes sense, perhaps more sense than simply believing you can persuade people of an abstract case.

But, the problem with Proper Tidy's position remains this.  The strategy he outlines has been tried before.  OK, not in the same way, but in a similar enough way to raise legitimate scepticism.  By campaigning within capitalism, you risk becoming a radical capitalist movement rather than a socialist movement.

So, who do I side with?  I happen to think the two positions are, to a large extent, complementary.  I don't think it's necessary to be one or the other.  It's a shame there isn't more unity among socialists/the Left.  That would worry people like me more than this endless bickering over details.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 2, 2010)

Lol ...is that how they say it...lol?


----------



## 1%er (Jun 2, 2010)

Tim19 said:


> I happen to think the two positions are, to a large extent, complementary.  I don't think it's necessary to be one or the other.  It's a shame there isn't more unity among socialists/the Left.  That would worry people like me more than this endless bickering over details.


This thread is a classic example of what is wrong with Class/Socialist/libertarian politics in the UK and elsewhere.

You guys would agree on 90% of things and the 10% where you'd disagree, doesn't and will not have an answer until the workingclass have started to take power and ask the questions for themselves.

No one has all the answers because no one has asked all the question yet, I believe the workingclass will ask the question at some point, but not in my lifetime.


----------



## dannysp (Jun 2, 2010)

Tim19 said:


> May I offer my general view on this thread and the opposing arguments?  My perspective on all this is from the point of view of a capitalist.  I am a business owner.  I employ people.  So, why am I interested in socialism?
> 
> Well, my background is working class, and I was exposed to left-wing ideas and trade unionism in my formative years.  So, I am a broad sympathiser with the socialist movement - admittedly, perhaps for emotional reasons partly, but I think mainly it's a rational position.  Capitalism was once a progressive system, but it is now looking increasingly outdated and does not appear to provide a mechanism for resolving some of the most pressing issues facing us - such as mass starvation, possible nuclear annihilation and environmental sustainability.  I was looking for some discussion and I happened on this thread.  Coincidences happen.
> 
> ...



Hi Tim
Your right the SPGB like Marx is telling a truth that very few people wish to hear, what's pointed out to workers is that they are a servant class, there purpose is to live primarily for the benefit of their masters, they are therefore not an end in themselves but a means to an end. 

To compensate for their humbled position and lack of accurate self estimate, ego the substitute for esteem the symptom of the alienated self develops. So when a worker is told that they are being taken for a chump it dents and takes the shine of their character armour and is painful, life for workers is painful enough so the shutters are pulled to. If there were more of us we'd have more strength to prise the shutters open and let in some more light.

You seem to be suggesting we dilute, adulterate this truth you say we have with us, that's advice we can't take no matter how well meant. We have come to understand that there's beauty in truth and it's the only thing that'lll set us free.
As George Orwell Wrote "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act"


----------



## dannysp (Jun 2, 2010)

1%er said:


> This thread is a classic example of what is wrong with Class/Socialist/libertarian politics in the UK and elsewhere.
> 
> You guys would agree on 90% of things and the 10% where you'd disagree, doesn't and will not have an answer until the workingclass have started to take power and ask the questions for themselves.
> 
> No one has all the answers because no one has asked all the question yet, I believe the workingclass will ask the question at some point, but not in my lifetime.



Here's a good question: why are the poor poor?
Another one similar:      why are the rich rich?

The answers are out there somewhere.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 2, 2010)

> =Tim19;10717649]But if my employees started campaigning for, not higher wages, but the abolition of the wages system...well....It seems to me that the SPGB are a vanguard, but only a vanguard of the truth.  The problem the SPGB has - and I see this was mentioned earlier in the thread by TomR77 - is that in telling the truth, they are telling people something they do not wish to hear.  That partly explains their lack of success in generating a significantly larger membership.



OK if we did not tell the truth we would not be the SPGB.  But ask yourself this: If the SPGB "are telling people something they do not wish to hear" what does that say of their state of mind?  Are they: in denial; afraid of the unknown consequences, albeit to themselves; support the idea but unwilling to act in a practical way/sense; stuck within the capitalist mindset and adopted a slave mentality; afraid of being honest with themselves; have no sense of trust or responsibility in their fellow workers; do not want to appear a dimwit in political discourse?  Need I go on?  

We know what we are up against in the subjective sense and also psychologically and we can work on this when workers come forward with their support by encouraging them to start thinking for themselves and by asking them for their own ideas on socialism, or what have been their experiences under capitalism and what they think is the solution.  Indeed we can and do engage on many levels in this respect.  Nevertheless, our main message is aimed at the working class as a whole in the hope it will trigger a sense of class understanding and identity.  We have no choice on this matter in that we have to issue a general appeal which affects our class.  It is up to the individual to recognise where the convergence occurs.



> However, I can see Proper Tidy's point, and I think perhaps GD and Robbo and other SPGB'ers need to pay more heed to it.  What Proper Tidy is saying is that by campaigning for both achievable improvements and reforms, and for 'transitional demands' which would weaken capitalism, this would demonstrate to workers their potential as a cohesive group and gradually encourage the development of their consciousness as a class and understanding of the socialist case.  This makes sense, perhaps more sense than simply believing you can persuade people of an abstract case.
> 
> But, the problem with Proper Tidy's position remains this.  The strategy he outlines has been tried before.  OK, not in the same way, but in a similar enough way to raise legitimate scepticism.  By campaigning within capitalism, you risk becoming a radical capitalist movement rather than a socialist movement.



And that is exactly what happens in that the gradualists become caught in the trap of reformism, what I term the magic roundabout of capitalism.  It just don't work because revolution is put on the backburner for the day after next.  Its a myth that the workers will gradually gain class consciousness by becoming involved in reforms, the only consciousness they do gain is it is all a waste of time and effort.  And when there is no light at the end of the tunnel in the practical shape of a revolutionary alternative their class consciousness remains zero.  And when that happens the usual response is to stay away from politics full stop and to reject the alternative has old hat, or utopian, day dreaming, etc.  Bit once, twice shy as the saying goes.



> So, who do I side with?  I happen to think the two positions are, to a large extent, complementary.  I don't think it's necessary to be one or the other.  It's a shame there isn't more unity among socialists/the Left.  That would worry people like me more than this endless bickering over details.


[/QUOTE]

They are not complementary indeed they are diametrically opposed positions in that one supports capitalism and the other socialism.  But the implication in the use of the word "worry" suggests you fear socialism - whichever way it comes about - is it because you are a capitalist and think you will have no other role to play in the new set of social relationships?  Or is it because you think the workers are incapable of running things for themselves?  

We would like to know because every time we have posed this question to members of the capitalist class they have always responded from within the capitalist mindset or framework.  Are you going to be any different?


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 2, 2010)

Tim19 said:


> However, I can see Proper Tidy's point, and I think perhaps GD and Robbo and other SPGB'ers need to pay more heed to it.  What Proper Tidy is saying is that by campaigning for both achievable improvements and reforms, and for 'transitional demands' which would weaken capitalism, this would demonstrate to workers their potential as a cohesive group and gradually encourage the development of their consciousness as a class and understanding of the socialist case.  This makes sense, perhaps more sense than simply believing you can persuade people of an abstract case.



Tim 

Thank you for setting out your perspective. Its nice to see a critique that is not intemperate or snidey or resorting to dreary ad hominens.  A refreshing change!

I take your point the need to move away from a reliance on simply presenting an abstract case for socialism.  This is one of the few criticisms I have of the SPGB. Not that I think the job they are doing is not an important one.  It is. There is no way round the fact that if you want a socialist society then the mass of the population have to want it and understand it as well. That means talking about it and arguing for it. Frankly, just about the only political party that is doing this is the SPGB (though obviously there are some - mainly anarchist - groups that are doing this as well).  

Most of the left say nothing about socialism at all. I asked PT for any reference in the literature of his organisation - SPEW - to the idea that socialism would be a moneyless wageless system of society.  He couldnt provide it and Im not surprised. Instead they call for things like the nationalisation of parts of industry which they would have us believe is what socialism is about.  Its not. At most, socialism (by which I mean the genuine thing) is a distant goal which does not need to be discussed among the Left but only paid lip service to.  This is a certain recipe for ensuring its perpetual postponement to some distant future.

However I dont agree with your argument that campaigning for reforms and transitional demands would help to raise the consciousness of workers. I think the opposite is the case. Necessarily , it entails shelving the goal of socialism in the meantime. Necesarily it binds the workers more firmly to a capitalist political persective.  Necessarily , it will lead to disappointment and a disabling sense of disllisionment with politics. Because at the end of the day capitalism cannot be run in the interest of workers and the attempt to do this is bound to end in failure

PTs argument is that transitional demands, becuase they are inherently unachievable within capitalism, will somehow cause workers in some mysterious way to transcend the limitations of a capitalist outlook and seek the realisation of these demands outside of capitalism.  But this presupposes the very thing that PT is trying to avoid - that we put across  directly the clear case for a non-market  alternative to capitalism, SPGB-style.   In other words, transitional demands are supposed to lead on to a socialist outlook but for the theory to work at a conceptual level there has to be a socialist outlook in place to begin with in order to understand why these transitional demands are not achievable within capitalism!  Otherwise, you will just be banging your head against a brick , trying to achieve what is unachievable, and that is certainly not conducive to raising consciousness!

As I see it, if you want to build a cohesive class conscious outlook then you need to turn to the economic field to do this - through militant trade uniuon struggle.  In the political field the SPGB is right to emphasise the need to avoid reformism.   This is a treadmill that is really not going to take us anywhere except cynicism and despair.

But militant trade union struggle - and many SPGBers have been militant trade unioniists - does not in  itself imply a socialist objective.  As I explained before, trade unionism is not a goal-directed activity but a process-directed activity.  For a goal-directed activity we have to turn to the political field in which the SPGB put forward the case for a genuine non market alternative to capitalism,.

The problem is, as you say ,that merely putting forward an abstract case for socialism, rational though it may be, is not sufficiently persuasive in motivating workers to establish a socialist society. This is where another approach becomes necessary which avoids the pitfalls of reformism and transitional demands - namely the development of grassroots initiatives that actively seek to transcend the commodity relationship while addressing the material and social needs of workers in capitalism. This is what I call providing a material stratum or seedbed in which socialist ideas can take root - not simply putting these ideas across in the abstract necessary though it is to do that.

I am convinced that this is the way forward and that the SPGB needs to open itself up to this possibility.  I am not suggesting that it modifies its function in any way.  It is a political party and its purpose, quite rightly, is to disseminate ideas.  What I am talking about is the ideas themselves including what we ought to be doing as individuals - not simply as party members -to expedite the cause for socialism


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 2, 2010)

Tim19 said:


> May I offer my general view on this thread and the opposing arguments?  My perspective on all this is from the point of view of a capitalist.  I am a business owner.  I employ people.  So, why am I interested in socialism?
> 
> Well, my background is working class, and I was exposed to left-wing ideas and trade unionism in my formative years.  So, I am a broad sympathiser with the socialist movement - admittedly, perhaps for emotional reasons partly, but I think mainly it's a rational position.  Capitalism was once a progressive system, but it is now looking increasingly outdated and does not appear to provide a mechanism for resolving some of the most pressing issues facing us - such as mass starvation, possible nuclear annihilation and environmental sustainability.  I was looking for some discussion and I happened on this thread.  Coincidences happen.
> 
> ...



Stop me if you have heard this one


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 2, 2010)

Tim19 said:


> So, who do I side with?  I happen to think the two positions are, to a large extent, complementary.  I don't think it's necessary to be one or the other.  It's a shame there isn't more unity among socialists/the Left.  That would worry people like me more than this endless bickering over details.



Left unity would be somewhat tricky with an organisation that is implacably hostile to all 'competition', alas.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> that is exactly what happens in that the gradualists become caught in the trap of reformism, what I term the magic roundabout of capitalism. It just don't work because revolution is put on the backburner for the day after next. Its a myth that the workers will gradually gain class consciousness by becoming involved in reforms, the only consciousness they do gain is it is all a waste of time and effort



The same assertion yet again from yourself and Robbo - but that is all it is, an assertion. You will no doubt now assert that it isn't in fact an assertion because we 'don't have socialism'. It's all a bit 'prove god doesn't exist' isn't it.

To deny the clear reality that struggles and victories accelerates the class and revolutionary awareness of participants and can act as a catalyst for change beggars belief.


----------



## Random (Jun 2, 2010)

fifty two pages.  Shame on you all


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 2, 2010)

Random said:


> fifty two pages.  Shame on you all



Shame? This is an epicly entertaining thread.


----------



## dennisr (Jun 2, 2010)

Random said:


> fifty two pages.  Shame on you all


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 2, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> And that is exactly what happens in that the gradualists become caught in the trap of reformism, what I term the magic roundabout of capitalism.  It just don't work because revolution is put on the backburner for the day after next.  Its a myth that the workers will gradually gain class consciousness by becoming involved in reforms, the only consciousness they do gain is it is all a waste of time and effort.  And when there is no light at the end of the tunnel in the practical shape of a revolutionary alternative their class consciousness remains zero.  And when that happens the usual response is to stay away from politics full stop and to reject the alternative has old hat, or utopian, day dreaming, etc.  Bit once, twice shy as the saying goes.



What is this "class consciousness" you speak of?


----------



## 1%er (Jun 2, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Here's a good question: why are the poor poor?
> Another one similar:      why are the rich rich?
> 
> The answers are out there somewhere.


I think maybe you have misunderstood my post 




FreddyB said:


> Shame? This is an epicly entertaining thread.


Indeed it is, but I also find it sad as well


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 2, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> What is this "class consciousness" you speak of?



When socialist talk of "class consciousness" they specifically mean a working class consciousness that recognises their subservient role within the capitalist mode of production and how this came about.  It follows, a prerequisite is a general understanding on how exploitation takes place to extract surplus value from the workers and create profit, rent and interest for the capitalist class.  This does not mean you have to attend study groups on the reading of Marx for in its essence the formula for exploitation can be explained by an examination of the wages system itself.

Broadly speaking the workers produce more than enough to live within a set number of hours.  For example, within an eight hour day we can produce sufficient to meet our everyday needs and to reproduce our labour power within 6 hours, the other 2 hours is extracted by the capitalist has surplus value.

What I've described here is economic class consciousness and although many workers would identify with this description there are also many other workers who have formed the impression that its down to, 'a fairs days work for a fair days pay' leading to the myth's like a hard days work never killed anybody, or I have the freedom to choose my employer, or my exploiter deserves their hard earned wealth through dint of perseverance and frugality, etc. 

Another aspect of economic class consciousness is the struggle for improvements in the condition of the workers and this by its very nature involves the workers organising themselves into trade unions and organisations struggling for particular reforms.  It is however a struggle which is continually on the defensive for when capitalism is in crisis or it is the general opinion that the workers can afford a particular service these reforms are eroded or removed.  For the capitalist class hold all the cards.

Socialists do not deride workers for participating in such struggles, indeed if the class have no intention of ending up in the gutter it can under such conditions only struggle as, 'a class in its self', where it seeks to alleviate the pressures of wage slavery.  However, there have been many attempts to make this aspect of class struggle has the necessary stage towards a revolutionary situation.  History illustrates they have all failed for a variety of reasons.

Those differences aside, there is also "political class consciousness" and this entails not only recognising and understanding how exploitation takes place but also acknowledging that the capitalist mode of production is not here for the benefit of the working class and being prepared to do something about it so there is a radical and complete change in the social relationships.

Contained within a political class consciousness is a determination not to compromise with capitalism in any shape or form when pursuing a socialist revolution.  For instance, I've mentioned in previous posts that socialists refuse to work within the 'political system' but abide by the 'political process'.  And I've also mentioned previously that the politically conscious organised workers choose their own weapons and strategy when confronting the capitalists class.  For not to do so is self-defeating and involves compromise on the principle that the socialist revolution is not a revolution led by leaders seeking to impose their will on the majority, but a revolution of the majority.  

In short, the workers have become a class for itself, with only one item on the agenda: self-emancipation.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 2, 2010)

What happens in this little picture if a worker rejects or recognises problems with the labour theory of value? Are they cast out?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 2, 2010)

1%er said:


> This thread is a classic example of what is wrong with Class/Socialist/libertarian politics in the UK and elsewhere.
> 
> You guys would agree on 90% of things and the 10% where you'd disagree, doesn't and will not have an answer until the workingclass have started to take power and ask the questions for themselves.
> 
> No one has all the answers because no one has asked all the question yet, I believe the workingclass will ask the question at some point, but not in my lifetime.



I tend to agree with you over the 90% and 10% split but unlike yourself I see nothing "wrong" in this, for in reality this split is a reflection of the battle of ideas which is a necessary condition for class struggle.  On the one hand, the libertarian tradition is stating that the revolution by definition must be by the working class themselves.  This presumes the struggle takes place on the workers terms and not of their masters.  Whilst on the other hand, the left insist we use capitalist methodology, means and language, etc.

There is nothing "wrong" in discussing such opposing views and allows for a debate where the workers can - like you imply - work it out for themselves.  Indeed, they have to in order to obtain their self-emancipation.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 2, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What happens in this little picture if a worker rejects or recognises problems with the labour theory of value? Are they cast out?



Cast out from where, by whom, for what reason?  Above all does a rejection of the labour theory of value mean they are no longer workers?  

Your pitch butchers.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 2, 2010)

That's precisely what i've just asked you. Repeating it doesn't answer the question - in fact it avoids it, and i think we both know very well why you chose to do that.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 2, 2010)

*!!!!!*



1%er said:


> This thread is a classic example of what is wrong with Class/Socialist/libertarian politics in the UK and elsewhere.
> 
> You guys would agree on 90% of things and the 10% where you'd disagree, doesn't and will not have an answer until the workingclass have started to take power and ask the questions for themselves.
> 
> No one has all the answers because no one has asked all the question yet, I believe the workingclass will ask the question at some point, but not in my lifetime.


fucking spot on sir!!!!  Should agree to disagree, and test your ideas in this class struggle.


----------



## Tim19 (Jun 2, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> They are not complementary indeed they are diametrically opposed positions in that one supports capitalism and the other socialism.  But the implication in the use of the word "worry" suggests you fear socialism - whichever way it comes about - is it because you are a capitalist and think you will have no other role to play in the new set of social relationships?  Or is it because you think the workers are incapable of running things for themselves?
> 
> We would like to know because every time we have posed this question to members of the capitalist class they have always responded from within the capitalist mindset or framework.  Are you going to be any different?



I have no problem with the idea of a socialist society.  Doesn't worry me in the slightest old boy.  Quite the opposite.  To an 'entrepreneurial' mind, socialism seems like the ideal society, in some ways very close to the Enlightenment ideal of capitalism - both ideologies share the same root influences, of course. People like me who thrive in capitalism will thrive in socialism too, probably more so if a socialist society is built along the lines you suggest, with an emphasis on personal responsibility, initiative and freedom.  Bring it on.  

I was just trying to articulate the view that as long as socialists and the Left are split, you will not be taken seriously.  I know there are coherent responses to that point, but academic coherence doesn't always satisfy the reality of situations.  To an outsider, your debate just looks like pedantic bickering.  I know you won't like me saying this, and I apologise in advance, but to Mr. Average Joe & Hilda Bloggs of 23 Acacia Avenue, SPEW = bunch of nutters who hand out leaflets down the market on a Saturday, and SPGB (when they're even heard of or noticed, which is rare) = bunch of weirdo sad bastards probably into stamp collecting or train spotting.  Sorry about that.

I still think the two positions - that of SPEW and that of the SPGB - are more complementary than conflicted.  That is not to say there are no differences, nor to suggest either side should ditch its key principles, but maybe by working more co-operatively you would, over time, build the capacity to become a persuasive influence in society-at-large, rather than the small sects you are at present.  

It's admirable that you want to retain your political integrity and tell the truth, and so on, but is that going to bring socialism about any quicker?  As much as I might recoil a little at SPEW's tactics, I think Proper Tidy has a point that sometimes the smart thing isn't always the right thing, but if doing the smart thing achieves your objective, then in the long run will anyone care?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 2, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> That's precisely what i've just asked you. Repeating it doesn't answer the question - in fact it avoids it, and i think we both know very well why you chose to do that.


  To mimic you?


----------



## Tim19 (Jun 2, 2010)

1%er said:


> This thread is a classic example of what is wrong with Class/Socialist/libertarian politics in the UK and elsewhere.
> 
> You guys would agree on 90% of things and the 10% where you'd disagree, doesn't and will not have an answer until the workingclass have started to take power and ask the questions for themselves.
> 
> No one has all the answers because no one has asked all the question yet, I believe the workingclass will ask the question at some point, but not in my lifetime.



But how will the working class take power?  This is the problem (I think) we are discussing.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 2, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Cast out from where, by whom, for what reason?  Above all does a rejection of the labour theory of value mean they are no longer workers?
> 
> Your pitch butchers.





butchersapron said:


> That's precisely what i've just asked you. Repeating it doesn't answer the question - in fact it avoids it, and i think we both know very well why you chose to do that.



No butchers I'm not repeating your question just trying to expand on the dumb assertion you put, "Are they cast out"?  Now either explain what you mean by that term or drop it and I'll just answer your first question, "What happens in this little picture if a worker rejects or recognises problems with the labour theory of value?"

Your pitch once again butchers.


----------



## 1%er (Jun 2, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I tend to agree with you over the 90% and 10% split but unlike yourself I see nothing "wrong" in this, for in reality this split is a reflection of the battle of ideas which is a necessary condition for class struggle.  On the one hand, the libertarian tradition is stating that the revolution by definition must be by the working class themselves.  This presumes the struggle takes place on the workers terms and not of their masters.  Whilst on the other hand, the left insist we use capitalist methodology, means and language, etc.
> 
> There is nothing "wrong" in discussing such opposing views and allows for a debate where the workers can - like you imply - work it out for themselves.  Indeed, they have to in order to obtain their self-emancipation.


What I think is "wrong" is concentrating of the differences rather then building on what is agreed.

I agree the struggle must take place on the workers terms.

The reason I didn't use the term "left" is precisely because the left wants to tinker with capitalism to make it "more beneficial" to the workingclass, in my view the best workers can hope for by tinkering with capitalism is a Scandinavian style social democracy with slightly better living conditions, but still under the control of capitalism.


----------



## 1%er (Jun 2, 2010)

Tim19 said:


> But how will the working class take power?  This is the problem (I think) we are discussing.


Well this is where I part company with many people who seek a socialist society.

I am firmly of the view that "change comes through the barrel of a gun", to coin a phrase The only way the workingclass will get power is by the use of force, I have no problem with that at all (fuck me this takes me back more than 30 years).

Has this questions been asked and answered, it was something that used to come up a lot in my day "how do you avoid the dictatorship of the proletariat without perpetual revolution"? History has shown us that this is where it all fucks up, it gets stuck.

Please excuse me because I haven't read anything about this since about 1974 until I joined here


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 2, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> When socialist talk of "class consciousness" they specifically mean a working class consciousness that recognises their subservient role within the capitalist mode of production and how this came about.  It follows, a prerequisite is a general understanding on how exploitation takes place to extract surplus value from the workers and create profit, rent and interest for the capitalist class.  This does not mean you have to attend study groups on the reading of Marx for in its essence the formula for exploitation can be explained by an examination of the wages system itself.
> 
> Broadly speaking the workers produce more than enough to live within a set number of hours.  For example, within an eight hour day we can produce sufficient to meet our everyday needs and to reproduce our labour power within 6 hours, the other 2 hours is extracted by the capitalist has surplus value.
> 
> ...



So in short this "class consciousness" you describe is an awareness of what's going on which is called "economic class consciousness" and for the more advanced a vague idea that there should be a revolution that will happen by workers choosing their own weapons and that's called "political class consciousness"? 

Have I got this right?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 2, 2010)

Tim19 said:


> I have no problem with the idea of a socialist society.  Doesn't worry me in the slightest old boy.  Quite the opposite.  To an 'entrepreneurial' mind, socialism seems like the ideal society, in some ways very close to the Enlightenment ideal of capitalism - both ideologies share the same root influences, of course. People like me who thrive in capitalism will thrive in socialism too, probably more so if a socialist society is built along the lines you suggest, with an emphasis on personal responsibility, initiative and freedom.  Bring it on.



Glad to hear you would have no problem finding a role for yourself in socialism though I have some concerns on what you mean by, "'entrepreneurial' mind".  If by that you mean how to do things better due to the advantages of production for use under free access to the means of living all to the good.  But would appreciate it if you could clarify this moot point.



> I was just trying to articulate the view that as long as socialists and the Left are split, you will not be taken seriously.  I know there are coherent responses to that point, but academic coherence doesn't always satisfy the reality of situations.  To an outsider, your debate just looks like pedantic bickering.  I know you won't like me saying this, and I apologise in advance, but to Mr. Average Joe & Hilda Bloggs of 23 Acacia Avenue, SPEW = bunch of nutters who hand out leaflets down the market on a Saturday, and SPGB (when they're even heard of or noticed, which is rare) = bunch of weirdo sad bastards probably into stamp collecting or train spotting.  Sorry about that.



No need for apologies for a very fair analogy for I clearly recognise it for the present reality of how anything outside the mainstream of politics is actually perceived by 23 Acacia Avenue.  Further to this very few of the workers are actively seeking an alternative to capitalism which IMO suggests they may not be satisfied with capitalism but nevertheless accept it has a _fait accompli_ and lost hope in a viable solution coming their way.

If this is indeed the case more the reason why socialist must take up the challenge of instilling the hope of a socialist future within the working class through every possible avenue.  Which is the very reason why I'm on this board for it allows me to broadcast the true socialist case to a much wider audience than I will find on the Clapham Omnibus or at Speakers Corner.  And in this respect my thanks to the staff at urban75 for providing me this opportunity.



> I still think the two positions - that of SPEW and that of the SPGB - are more complementary than conflicted.  That is not to say there are no differences, nor to suggest either side should ditch its key principles, but maybe by working more co-operatively you would, over time, build the capacity to become a persuasive influence in society-at-large, rather than the small sects you are at present.



This is not going to happen not ever.  OK say lets say for sake of argument I left the SPGB and joined SPEW or some other left wing outfit. Do you think they would adopt my definition of socialism or accept the implications of self-emancipation?  So how long do you think I would last?



> It's admirable that you want to retain your political integrity and tell the truth, and so on, but is that going to bring socialism about any quicker?  As much as I might recoil a little at SPEW's tactics, I think Proper Tidy has a point that sometimes the smart thing isn't always the right thing, but if doing the smart thing achieves your objective, then in the long run will anyone care?



Given the dynamics of class struggle it is impossible to determine whether or not we are in for the long or short haul.  We do know that capitalism is not faced with a sudden collapse through internal contradictions for the present crisis is illustrating how resilient the profit system is to the periods of boom and bust.  Again although poverty and misery is going to continue at an increasing rate it is all to the good for capitalism for even poverty and misery have become industry's in themselves.  Obviously, if the predictions of climate change turn out to be the new reality capitalism will come under severe pressure on all fronts, and given the present state of affairs it will struggle through and make a buck on the way.  

But the fact of the matter is that no society faces extinction until it loses 
majority support to an alternative which proposes major solutions to the present impasse on social progress.  That is how capitalism became the dominant force over feudalism.   Socialism offers a means of breaking out of this impasse and it is up to a majority of the working class to take up this challenge for only they can do it.  For without a majority we wont have socialism.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 2, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> So in short this "class consciousness" you describe is an awareness of what's going on which is called "economic class consciousness" and for the more advanced a vague idea that there should be a revolution that will happen by workers choosing their own weapons and that's called "political class consciousness"?
> 
> Have I got this right?



Yes except we are not talking about vagueness, rather the reverse, in that the politically class conscious workers are very *clear* and aware on the aim and objective of socialism and how to get it so to ensure the means are harmonised with the ends.  For instance the nearer the revolution becomes the more planning and preparation will be taking place.  In effect we wont be sitting on our arses waiting for it to happen we will actively be making it happen as a politically  conscious working class.  In fact this aspect of the transformation is taking place right now before our very eyes, and not just with the SPGB and the World Socialist Movement.  For there are others within the libertarian tradition who discuss this very topic/subject.

Ask robbo he's got a list on who they are.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 2, 2010)

Tim19 said:


> But how will the working class take power?  This is the problem (I think) we are discussing.



Yes spot on this is the very question we are discussing, insofar we don't see, on how the workers will take power as a problem per se.   What is a problem by far is getting the workers to accept that capitalism is the problem to their wellbeing in the present and the foreseeable future.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 2, 2010)

1%er said:


> What I think is "wrong" is concentrating of the differences rather then building on what is agreed.
> 
> I agree the struggle must take place on the workers terms.
> 
> The reason I didn't use the term "left" is precisely because the left wants to tinker with capitalism to make it "more beneficial" to the workingclass, in my view the best workers can hope for by tinkering with capitalism is a Scandinavian style social democracy with slightly better living conditions, but still under the control of capitalism.



There is no agreement with the reformist left and the socialist alternative whatsoever.  Indeed, they would be quite satisfied with a Scandinavian style social democracy or state capitalism for they would eagerly accept the crumbs either system offers.  Socialists however, demand the bakery and the land which produces the corn or wheat.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 2, 2010)

1%er said:


> Well this is where I part company with many people who seek a socialist society.
> 
> I am firmly of the view that "change comes through the barrel of a gun", to coin a phrase The only way the workingclass will get power is by the use of force, I have no problem with that at all (fuck me this takes me back more than 30 years).



Socialism will come through the use of force, but fortunately its not the type of force you imagine.  Just think on this.  Any society which is brought about through violent means can only survive through the continual use of violence.  On the other hand, any society which is brought about through mainly peaceful means will survive through cooperation, unity of purpose, solidarity and a sense of responsibility to themselves and others and towards the environment.  I've stated in previous posts that if a violent minority tried to impose their rule on the democratic majority they will be dealt with for socialists are not pacifists.



> Has this questions been asked and answered, it was something that used to come up a lot in my day "how do you avoid the dictatorship of the proletariat without perpetual revolution"? History has shown us that this is where it all fucks up, it gets stuck.
> 
> Please excuse me because I haven't read anything about this since about 1974 until I joined here



In answer to your question, you avoid the dictatorship of the proletariat by chucking such outdated theories in the dustbin where they belong.  And while you are at it you can do the same with the theory of perpetual revolution, or to put it more accurately permanent revolution which was one of Trotsky's daydreams.  The reason why they are outdated and been taken over by events is because both theories have a very strong connection with reforms, and a state of abundance.  We are now in a position where we have attained sufficient reforms to move on and a state of abundance is self-evident despite the fact that capitalism is incapable of delivering the goods.


----------



## 1%er (Jun 2, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> *There is no agreement with the reformist left and the socialist alternative whatsoever*.  Indeed, they would be quite satisfied with a Scandinavian style social democracy or state capitalism for they would eagerly accept the crumbs either system offers.  Socialists however, demand the bakery and the land which produces the corn or wheat.


Yes that is why I used the terms "Class/Socialist/libertarian politics" in my first post and didn't use the term "left" 



Gravediggers said:


> Socialism will come through the use of force, but fortunately its not the type of force you imagine.  Just think on this.  *Any society which is brought about through violent means can only survive through the continual use of violence.*  On the other hand, any society which is brought about through mainly peaceful means will survive through cooperation, unity of purpose, solidarity and a sense of responsibility to themselves and others and towards the environment.  I've stated in previous posts that if a violent minority tried to impose their rule on the democratic majority they will be dealt with for socialists are not pacifists.


(bit in bold) I'm not sure history shows that to be the case



Gravediggers said:


> In answer to your question, you avoid the dictatorship of the proletariat by chucking such outdated theories in the dustbin where they belong.  And while you are at it you can do the same with the theory of perpetual revolution, or to put it more accurately permanent revolution which was one of Trotsky's daydreams.  The reason why they are outdated and been taken over by events is because both theories have a very strong connection with reforms, and a state of abundance.  We are now in a position where we have attained sufficient reforms to move on and a state of abundance is self-evident despite the fact that capitalism is incapable of delivering the goods.


I'm glad this has been solved  back in the late 60' early 70's it seemed to be the only thing people talked about 

It good to know that things have moved on, I fear that getting on and enjoying my life instead of changing the world kind of got in the way of politics for me


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 2, 2010)

1%er said:


> Any society which is brought about through violent means can only survive through the continual use of violence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Jun 3, 2010)

Where do you think the far left will be this time next year and how much progress will have been made between then and now?
Where do you think the far left will be in five years time and how much progress will have been made between then and now?

If not much progress will be made, why do you think this will be and what can people within the far left do to rectify this situation?
Is the far left any good at learning from its mistakes and changing both strategy and tactics according to lessons learnt from past actions and activites?


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Yes except we are not talking about vagueness, rather the reverse, in that the politically class conscious workers are very *clear* and aware on the aim and objective of socialism and how to get it so to ensure the means are harmonised with the ends.  For instance the nearer the revolution becomes the more planning and preparation will be taking place.  In effect we wont be sitting on our arses waiting for it to happen we will actively be making it happen as a politically  conscious working class.  In fact this aspect of the transformation is taking place right now before our very eyes, and not just with the SPGB and the World Socialist Movement.  For there are others within the libertarian tradition who discuss this very topic/subject.
> 
> Ask robbo he's got a list on who they are.


How will we know when the revolution is getting close, what signs should we look for? The SPGB busily planning for it or something else?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 3, 2010)

Prince Rhyus said:


> Where do you think the far left will be this time next year and how much progress will have been made between then and now?
> Where do you think the far left will be in five years time and how much progress will have been made between then and now?
> 
> If not much progress will be made, why do you think this will be and what can people within the far left do to rectify this situation?
> Is the far left any good at learning from its mistakes and changing both strategy and tactics according to lessons learnt from past actions and activites?



Depends on what you mean by "far left".  I much prefer the generalised description of 'left' rather than, hard left, ultra left, etc.  Whichever way you describe the left they are by definition the left wing of capitalism for they all seek solutions within the framework of the profit system.

How the fuck do I know where the left will be in five weeks from now let alone five years!  Have you had a look on ebay perhaps someone is selling a guessometer that's in good working order cheaply?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 3, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> How will we know when the revolution is getting close, what signs should we look for? The SPGB busily planning for it or something else?



Good point which comes up for discussion from time to time.  One sure sign would be the capitalist class offering reforms like there was no tomorrow in order to delay the inevitable and in a futile effort to appease their dwindling support.  There could also be groups within the community establishing their own political and social networks in anticipation of the transformation.  

Another sign could be a refusal to pay for public transport, though this would require the active support of the transport staff.  The squatters movement could well re-emerge but organised in the particular properties they took for themselves.  There's plenty of deliberately empty property in Kensington and Chelsea by all accounts!

The armed forces finding it very hard to recruit and an increase in resignations and desertions would be a positive sign of resistance to doing our masters bidding.  Likewise with the police and prison service.  The ultimate sign would be the election of socialist delegates to political office for that would be carrying the stamp of working class approval.

Of course we can speculate as much has we like but the truth is we do not know how the workers will start expressing their sense of empowerment until that time arrives.  Perhaps you've had some thoughts on the matter?  If so please spit them out.


----------



## Sesquipedalian (Jun 3, 2010)

Puting this Thread on ignore,
It's really dull.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> No butchers I'm not repeating your question just trying to expand on the dumb assertion you put, "Are they cast out"?  Now either explain what you mean by that term or drop it and I'll just answer your first question, "What happens in this little picture if a worker rejects or recognises problems with the labour theory of value?"
> 
> Your pitch once again butchers.



A question isn't an assertion, it's an attempt to establish something - your outline of class consciousness was a good example of what a long list of assertions designed to look like a substantive argument is though. It's really quite simple, you gave a confused and contradictory outline of how you see the concept of class consciousness, i asked a question about it. 

You started off by offering the classic second international model of there being a split between economic consciousness and political consciousness. If you remember earlier in the thread i posted up a quote by Lenin endorsing Kautsky's very similar outline of this model and using it as the basis of his early model of political organisation - vanguardism. It seems that the similarities just keep on coming don't up they? You offer no reason whatsoever for saying this split exists beyond an inept attempt to map Marx's idea of class-in-itself and class-for-itself onto the situation - but more on that in a sec.

Then when you get down to what those consciousness' consist of, rather than say that class consciousness is collective and individual experience reflecting on itself - an open ended* process or use of a creative capacity* - you've decided that it's agreement with a set of definite per-existing *beliefs* (including acceptance of a technical economic definition of value production!) - and guess whose already decided what those beliefs are - that's right, the self-selected SPGB. 

No basis is offered for why these specific beliefs have been settled on or why the SPGB have the right to decide that these must be believed in to qualify as a class conscious worker beyond this marking the point at which full collective class consciousness is achieved, the point when the class becomes a class-for-itself is the point *at which it learns to agree with SPGB. *

All of the above consists of pure assertion as well. Now, we've already established that you are unable to draw out the vanguardist implications of your politics, so i'm hoping you'll find in the above some useful pointers. But the question remains, are those workers who do not accept the labour theory of value (or indeed the whole list of positions to be accpeted that you've drawn up on behalf of them) to be cast out of the ranks of the 'advanced workers', of the vanguard by you, by the SPGB?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> A question isn't an assertion, it's an attempt to establish something - your outline of class consciousness was a good example of what a long list of assertions designed to look like a substantive argument is though. It's really quite simple, you gave a confused and contradictory outline of how you see the concept of class consciousness, i asked a question about it.
> 
> You started off by offering the classic second international model of there being a split between economic consciousness and political consciousness. If you remember earlier in the thread i posted up a quote by Lenin endorsing Kautsky's very similar outline of this model and using it as the basis of his early model of political organisation - vanguardism. It seems that the similarities just keep on coming don't up they? You offer no reason whatsoever for saying this split exists beyond an inept attempt to map Marx's idea of class-in-itself and class-for-itself onto the situation - but more on that in a sec.
> 
> ...


Your fibbing again.  It wasn't just a question in an "attempt to establish something".  





butchersapron;10720587]That's precisely what i've just asked you. Repeating it doesn't answer the question - in fact it avoids it said:


> What happens in this little picture if a worker rejects or recognises problems with the labour theory of value? Are they cast out?


 what happens in this little picture if a worker reject's or recognizes problems in any of your theories Butcher's?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> But the question remains, are those workers who do not accept the labour theory of value (or indeed the whole list of positions to be accpeted that you've drawn up on behalf of them) to be cast out of the ranks of the 'advanced workers', of the vanguard by you, by the SPGB?



All applications for membership to the SPGB contain questions relating to economic consciousness and political consciousness.  When applicants fail to relate their reply to an acceptance of the labour theory of value they are not accepted as members.   If they have been accepted and at a later stage there's been a change of mind and they have rejected the labour theory of value they are asked to reconsider, resign or face expulsion.

Obviously, we are not talking about instant dismissal, for the member concerned can if they so wish go over the disagreement with his Branch or with other members to clarify the issue.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2010)

Who mentioned membership of the SPGB? I certainly didn't. You've entirely missed the point. Freddy asked you what class consciousness is, you replied with the above assertions, i pointed put the problems that these assertions highlighted and you immediately responded, _almost as if to prove my point_, by equating class consciousness purely with membership of the SPGB, And aside from doing that you ignored all the other points i brought out - after demanding that i expand on them.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Who mentioned membership of the SPGB? I certainly didn't. You've entirely missed the point. Freddy asked you what class consciousness is, you replied with the above assertions, i pointed put the problems that these assertions highlighted and you immediately responded, _almost as if to prove my point_, by equating class consciousness purely with membership of the SPGB, And aside from doing that you ignored all the other points i brought out - after demanding that i expand on them.



You see GD, if you misunderstand butch, that's your fault. if Butch misunderstands you, that's your fault.  And if he ask's you to clarify, your obligated, BUT if you ask him to clarify anarchism, he throws a hissy or stonewalls.

Your waisting your time, if you are interested in an honest exchange of ideas.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Who mentioned membership of the SPGB? I certainly didn't. You've entirely missed the point. Freddy asked you what class consciousness is, you replied with the above assertions, i pointed put the problems that these assertions highlighted and you immediately responded, _almost as if to prove my point_, by equating class consciousness purely with membership of the SPGB, And aside from doing that you ignored all the other points i brought out - after demanding that i expand on them.





butchersapron said:


> What happens in this little picture if a worker rejects or recognises problems with the labour theory of value? Are they cast out?



Cast out of what?  I too thought you meant the SPGB.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Who mentioned membership of the SPGB? I certainly didn't. You've entirely missed the point. Freddy asked you what class consciousness is, you replied with the above assertions, i pointed put the problems that these assertions highlighted and you immediately responded, _almost as if to prove my point_, by equating class consciousness purely with membership of the SPGB, And aside from doing that you ignored all the other points i brought out - after demanding that i expand on them.



When I asked you to clarify what you meant by, "Cast out" you then replied by implying membership to the SPGB so naturally I replied in that vein.  You now say that is not what you meant.  So we are back to my original request for clarification of what you mean by, "Cast out"?  

The SPGB do not deny there are workers out side of the membership who are economically and politically class conscious so how are we in a position to cast them out if at some stage they reject the labour theory of value?   Out of where, by whom, for what reason.

They either accept they are exploited as a class or they do not.  What the fuck are you arguing about?


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 3, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> You see GD, if you misunderstand butch, that's your fault. if Butch misunderstands you, that's your fault.  And if he ask's you to clarify, your obligated, BUT if you ask him to clarify anarchism, he throws a hissy or stonewalls.
> 
> Your waisting your time, if you are interested in an honest exchange of ideas.



You've got an axe to grind but all you're achieving is making yourself look like a twat.


----------



## JimW (Jun 3, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> You've got an axe to grind but all you're achieving is making yourself look like a twat.



And then some. Embarrassing.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> When I asked you to clarify what you meant by, "Cast out" you then replied by implying membership to the SPGB so naturally I replied in that vein.  You now say that is not what you meant.  So we are back to my original request for clarification of what you mean by, "Cast out"?
> 
> The SPGB do not deny there are workers out side of the membership who are economically and politically class conscious so how are we in a position to cast them out if at some stage they reject the labour theory of value?   Out of where, by whom, for what reason.
> 
> They either accept they are exploited as a class or they do not.  What the fuck are you arguing about?


I said exactly and explicitly - cast out of the ranks of the 'advanced workers', out of those who have class consciousness. It's not complicated. I'm not talking about SPGB membership at all.  (Luckily for the class) And you really do not get the point do you, you genuinely don't - and this is why your own inherent vanguardism manages to elude you so easily. That you define class consciousness as agreeing with the positions that you've already worked up _on behalf of the working class _- inside or outside of the SPGB - you reduce CC down to agreeing with you and you evacuate it of any sense of self-activity or collective experience. Class consciousness becomes agreeing with you. That's a fixed game and it's one you damn other left groups for sharing in.


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Good point which comes up for discussion from time to time.  One sure sign would be the capitalist class offering reforms like there was no tomorrow in order to delay the inevitable and in a futile effort to appease their dwindling support.  There could also be groups within the community establishing their own political and social networks in anticipation of the transformation.
> 
> Another sign could be a refusal to pay for public transport, though this would require the active support of the transport staff.  The squatters movement could well re-emerge but organised in the particular properties they took for themselves.  There's plenty of deliberately empty property in Kensington and Chelsea by all accounts!
> 
> ...



How do these things come about, what creates the situations that you describe above?



Gravediggers said:


> It is however a struggle which is continually on the defensive for when capitalism is in crisis or it is the general opinion that the workers can afford a particular service these reforms are eroded or removed. For the capitalist class hold all the cards.



How does capitalism come to be in crisis? It seems to me you have everything backwards.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2010)

Yes, it's an upside down picture that accurately reflects the vanguardist notion of w/c passivity and a mechanical law driven capitalism instead of recognising that the w/c actually are the crisis.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> Shame? This is an epicly entertaining thread.



It is, we've had the SPGB - as represented by former welsh nationalsit gravediggers -  moving from arguing they're not vanguardist everyone else is, to now arguing that everyone including them is vanguadist and have to be. Genius stuff.


----------



## editor (Jun 3, 2010)

Is this the biggest. most widely read thread about the SPGB anywhere on the internet?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 3, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> You see GD, if you misunderstand butch, that's your fault. if Butch misunderstands you, that's your fault.  And if he ask's you to clarify, your obligated, BUT if you ask him to clarify anarchism, he throws a hissy or stonewalls.
> 
> Your waisting your time, if you are interested in an honest exchange of ideas.



I've never expected an honest exchange of ideas with the likes of butchers for they will never be satisfied with the reply you provide.  Nevertheless, butchers does serve a useful purpose in exposing where he actually stands in relation to *his own* class consciousness, both economically and politically.  For his eternal nit picking classically illustrates he does not accept that the working class will ever become a class conscious majority.  

Ultimately, his thesis is that self-education by the class and for the class is an impossible task and therefore organisations like the SPGB should discontinue propogating the case for socialism.  Indeed never even start the process, for the class struggle is only about reforms.  For revolution does not even come into the picture. The logic of this thesis is the working class deserve to find permanent residence in the gutter for that is where they belong.

If socialists ignore that message they are IMHO doing a disservice to the case for socialism.


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 3, 2010)

editor said:


> Is this the biggest. most widely read thread about the SPGB anywhere on the internet?


Probably the biggest most widely read anything about the SPGB anywhere ever


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I've never expected an honest exchange of ideas with the likes of butchers for they will never be satisfied with the reply you provide.  Nevertheless, butchers does serve a useful purpose in exposing where he actually stands in relation to *his own* class consciousness, both economically and politically.  For his eternal nit picking classically illustrates he does not accept that the working class will ever become a class conscious majority.
> 
> Ultimately, his thesis is that self-education by the class and for the class is an impossible task and therefore organisations like the SPGB should discontinue propogating the case for socialism.  Indeed never even start the process, for the class struggle is only about reforms.  For revolution does not even come into the picture. The logic of this thesis is the working class deserve to find permanent residence in the gutter for that is where they belong.
> 
> If socialists ignore that message they are IMHO doing a disservice to the case for socialism.


It's only your own view of the w/c that allows you to think that. He's saying completely the opposite, that he doesn't see the w/c as the passive accepting collection of numpties that you do and is quite confident they'll keep themselves out of the gutter without your help.


----------



## JimW (Jun 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I've never expected an honest exchange of ideas with the likes of butchers for they will never be satisfied with the reply you provide.  Nevertheless, butchers does serve a useful purpose in exposing where he actually stands in relation to *his own* class consciousness, both economically and politically.  For his eternal nit picking classically illustrates he does not accept that the working class will ever become a class conscious majority.
> 
> Ultimately, his thesis is that self-education by the class and for the class is an impossible task and therefore organisations like the SPGB should discontinue propogating the case for socialism.  Indeed never even start the process, for the class struggle is only about reforms.  For revolution does not even come into the picture. The logic of this thesis is the working class deserve to find permanent residence in the gutter for that is where they belong.
> 
> If socialists ignore that message they are IMHO doing a disservice to the case for socialism.



Or maybe he, like me, just disagrees with you and your bizarre take on what class consciousness and the class for itself might mean. The self-education of the class comes from our lived experience of the class war, not having the best theory polished with knobs on (let alone this lash-up you're peddling).


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 3, 2010)

Anarchism is still a load of rubbish though.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 3, 2010)

editor said:


> Is this the biggest. most widely read thread about the SPGB anywhere on the internet?



I have no idea, but I imagine so.  Why do you ask, and is it bothering the staff at urban75 that we have turned out to be so popular with the number of views (coming up for 11,00)?


----------



## JimW (Jun 3, 2010)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Anarchism is still a load of rubbish though.



 I blame you and your poor levels of self-activity (not the hand shandy variety).


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 3, 2010)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Anarchism is still a load of rubbish though.


Eating out of skips?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 3, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> It's only your own view of the w/c that allows you to think that. He's saying completely the opposite, that he doesn't see the w/c as the passive accepting collection of numpties that you do and is quite confident they'll keep themselves out of the gutter without your help.



Since when have the SPGB stated or even asserted that the working class are a "passive accepting collection of numpties"?  Quite the reverse in fact for the very reason we propagate the socialist case is on the understanding that the workers are the engine for change.

And if you are correct that this is indeed butchers position it confirms my point I made e.g. 

"Ultimately, his thesis is that self-education by the class and for the class is an impossible task and therefore organisations like the SPGB should discontinue propogating the case for socialism. Indeed never even start the process, for the class struggle is only about reforms. For revolution does not even come into the picture. The logic of this thesis is the working class deserve to find permanent residence in the gutter for that is where they belong."


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 3, 2010)

So we're back to this drivel then?

Self education of the working class by the more advanced members of the class aka the SPGB


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 3, 2010)

JimW said:


> Or maybe he, like me, just disagrees with you and your bizarre take on what class consciousness and the class for itself might mean. The self-education of the class comes from our lived experience of the class war, not having the best theory polished with knobs on (let alone this lash-up you're peddling).



But butchers take on the class struggle stops at the gateway for reforms, for he fails to acknowledge that class struggle also consists of a revolutionary approach.  To him this is always a waste of time and effort.  This in itself is a denial of what is taking place in the real world.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 3, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> So we're back to this drivel then?
> 
> Self education of the working class by the more advanced members of the class aka the SPGB



And how does this explain the many instances of workers becoming class conscious without even being in touch with the SPGB?  Indeed, there have been quite a few instances in our experience where the class conscious worker have deliberately made the effort to seek out an organisation which reflects their class consciousness.  Happily, they have come across the SPGB to confirm they were not in isolation and that there were workers who had reached exactly reached the same conclusion.

Class consciousness does not arise because the SPGB says so, but from life experiences and a basic understanding that capitalism is not in our interests.


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 3, 2010)

round and round in circles we go. Your world is backwards


----------



## editor (Jun 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I have no idea, but I imagine so.  Why do you ask, and is it bothering the staff at urban75 that we have turned out to be so popular with the number of views (coming up for 11,00)?


We don't have "staff" and the amount of views is barely that significant: the "The Great MS Paint Album Cover Thread" received almost as many, and the "featured fuckwit farrago" managed over seven times as many views!


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I said exactly and explicitly - cast out of the ranks of the 'advanced workers', out of those who have class consciousness. It's not complicated. I'm not talking about SPGB membership at all.  (Luckily for the class) And you really do not get the point do you, you genuinely don't - and this is why your own inherent vanguardism manages to elude you so easily. That you define class consciousness as agreeing with the positions that you've already worked up _on behalf of the working class _- inside or outside of the SPGB - you reduce CC down to agreeing with you and you evacuate it of any sense of self-activity or collective experience. Class consciousness becomes agreeing with you. That's a fixed game and it's one you damn other left groups for sharing in.



We have not worked out class consciousness on behalf of the working class they do that for themselves through their self-activity and collective experience.  We have always stated this as an obvious fact of life. Has for agreement this is by its very nature a unity of purpose, so whats wrong with that?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> We have not worked out class consciousness on behalf of the working class they do that for themselves through their self-activity and collective experience.  We have always stated this as an obvious fact of life. Has for agreement this is by its very nature a unity of purpose, so whats wrong with that?



You genuinely don't get it do you? You just outlined exactly what class consciousness consists of - and it consists of agreeing with you. You've worked out what it consists of prior to anything else, any self-activity by the w/c - how else could you have made the post above explicitly outlining the beliefs that class consciousness consist of if you hadn't. It now falls to the w/c to find their way to you. That's the vanguardism coming out once more.

I have no idea what that last sentence is supposed to mean.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 3, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> How do these things come about, what creates the situations that you describe above?



This is exactly the same question you asked originally, and I have no intention of repeating myself.



> How does capitalism come to be in crisis? It seems to me you have everything backwards.



You don't need me to explain to you how capitalism comes to be in a crisis.  Unless of course you are living in total isolation of the events of what is happening at this present moment in time.  Are you in fact confirming that is indeed the present situation you find yourself in?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> And how does this explain the many instances of workers becoming class conscious without even being in touch with the SPGB?  Indeed, there have been quite a few instances in our experience where the class conscious worker have deliberately made the effort to seek out an organisation which reflects their class consciousness.  Happily, they have come across the SPGB to confirm they were not in isolation and that there were workers who had reached exactly reached the same conclusion.
> 
> Class consciousness does not arise because the SPGB says so, but from life experiences and a basic understanding that capitalism is not in our interests.



You've just argued the exact opposite. That CC consists of very specific beliefs that you've already worked out for everyone else and that class must come to achieve class consciousness through agreeing with these beliefs. 

Not a word about their beliefs and experience or capacities - you didn't mention a damn thing about that before, i've forced you into that after your incredibly crude post outlining how you see CC - not as an open ended process of self-understanding  but a closed one one made up of agreeing with pre-formed beliefs - or dogma, more accurately.

All over the shop, full of holes and unable to see the position in which your politics puts you. Whay else do you think you have the openly vanguardist SWP supporter backing you up and libertarian communists attacking you?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> But butchers take on the class struggle stops at the gateway for reforms, for he fails to acknowledge that class struggle also consists of a revolutionary approach.  To him this is always a waste of time and effort.  This in itself is a denial of what is taking place in the real world.



What on earth gives you that ridiculous idea. Is the only thread that you've ever read on here or something? Absolutely bizarre post. I understand why you've made it though - you've a centuries worth of arguments against reformism and by your mechanical stalinist logic anyone who disagrees with you must therefore be a supporter of reformism which then allows you to deploy these 100 year old arguments against reformism. Quite tawdry.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 3, 2010)

editor said:


> We don't have "staff" and the amount of views is barely that significant: the "The Great MS Paint Album Cover Thread" received almost as many, and the "featured fuckwit farrago" managed over seven times as many views!



That may be so but there is no getting away from the observation that unlike the fff thread this is a serious thread and possibly attracting a more discerning viewer who not only find it entertaining but a rather interesting take on politics in general.  As for its continuing popularity only time will tell.

My apologies if you found my use of "staff" has offending.  So how would you describe the people working with urban75?  Workers perhaps, in a volunteer capacity?  For I have no idea what the actual set up of this board is.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2010)

You think this is a serious thread? Ah bless


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What on earth gives you that ridiculous idea. Is the only thread that you've ever read on here or something? Absolutely bizarre post. I understand why you've made it though - you've a centuries worth of arguments against reformism and by your mechanical stalinist logic anyone who disagrees with you must therefore be a supporter of reformism which then allows you to deploy these 100 year old arguments against reformism. Quite tawdry.



OK butchers here's your opportunity to reveal your take on class consciousness and let this thread be the judge on your own state or understanding of class consciousness.  If it helps, I promise I wont find it embarrassing.

Your pitch.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You think this is a serious thread? Ah bless



Butchers you have made it pretty plain by your countless contributions that you find nothing, absolutely nothing serious.


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> This is exactly the same question you asked originally, and I have no intention of repeating myself.



You answered it by describing these situations - you're like the under pants elves on south park stage one "class conscious workers" stage two "?" stage three "revolution"




Gravediggers said:


> You don't need me to explain to you how capitalism comes to be in a crisis.  Unless of course you are living in total isolation of the events of what is happening at this present moment in time.  Are you in fact confirming that is indeed the present situation you find yourself in?


I need you to explain to me your analysis of how captial comes to be in crisis because I'm not a mind reader.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> OK butchers here's your opportunity to reveal your take on class consciousness and let this thread be the judge on your own state or understanding of class consciousness.  If it helps, I promise I wont find it embarrassing.
> 
> Your pitch.



What, you've taken back your one then? The one you posted up and that we were discussing? You accept all the criticisms i made and the problems it highlighted? Cool, we move forward.

My take on class consciousness? I'm not sure that i agree with the class consciousness model at all - it leads to the daft sort of stuff that you've just come up with above and if not handled properly (again, see your long above post) opens the trapdoor to all sorts of vanguardism. 

I prefer to think, as i've said already now a number of times, to think in terms of individual or collective reflections on shared experiences, relations, problems, needs, solutions - Marx thought of strikes as schools of revolution, well there's many fields of experience to learn from, without having to be taught by the 'educators' or without having to come to a pre-deterermined set of ideas worked out 100 years before by the brain and memory of the class - they party. 

Indeed, the SPGB's contemporary and historical marginality itself demonstrates that the w/c can and does go beyond the ideas these vanguard groups attempt to provide them with on the basis of their 'advanced consciousness' - a consciousness that appears to come into existence by nothing else than a self-selecting group of people who've applied to belong to the party. The only hope lies outside of and in rejection of the 'instillers' of consciousness. We both know that.




			
				SPGB said:
			
		

> Nevertheless, our aim includes a very important caveat: We have no intention of remaining a small organisation and to this end are committed and determined to instill a majority of the working class with the level of political class consciousness we have attained.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Butchers you have made it pretty plain by your countless contributions that you find nothing, absolutely nothing serious.



Did i fail the class consciousness test? How did i score? Did i at least beat my 59% from last time?


----------



## dennisr (Jun 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> "a more discerning viewer"


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Butchers you have made it pretty plain by your countless contributions that you find nothing, absolutely nothing serious.



Actually, to be serious, i take serious things seriously. Pompous puffed up politicos i do not.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 3, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> I need you to explain to me your analysis of how captial comes to be in crisis because I'm not a mind reader.



Neither am I a mind reader but I am aware that capitalism is in one of its periodical crisis.  And if I required an analysis I would start here: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/AZ.html#Crises


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What, you've taken back your one then? The one you posted up and that we were discussing? You accept all the criticisms i made and the problems it highlighted? Cool, we move forward.
> 
> My take on class consciousness? I'm not sure that i agree with the class consciousness model at all - it leads to the daft sort of stuff that you've just come up with above and if not handled properly (again, see your long above post) opens the trapdoor to all sorts of vanguardism.
> 
> ...



"Nevertheless, our aim includes a very important caveat: We have no intention of remaining a small organisation and to this end are committed and determined to instill a majority of the working class with the level of political class consciousness we have attained."

I take it the use of the word, "instill" does not fit your exacting standards on the use of the english language in this context?  OK what if rewrote this text so it reads, "Nevertheless, our aim includes a very important caveat:  We have no intention of remaining a small organisation and to this end are committed and determined to share with a majority of the working class the level of political class consciousness we have attained."

Which I think is the approach you are advocating in that we share our collective experiences so we attain a class consciousness? But I remain assured that it will also fail to fit your exacting standards for nit-picking.


----------



## Random (Jun 3, 2010)

The SPGB are clearly some league of Yogic masters who have mastered Socialism-Fu.

(Shame on me for posting on this thread.)


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> "Nevertheless, our aim includes a very important caveat: We have no intention of remaining a small organisation and to this end are committed and determined to instill a majority of the working class with the level of political class consciousness we have attained."
> 
> I take it the use of the word, "instill" does not fit your exacting standards on the use of the english language in this context?  OK what if rewrote this text so it reads, "Nevertheless, our aim includes a very important caveat:  We have no intention of remaining a small organisation and to this end are committed and determined to share with a majority of the working class the level of political class consciousness we have attained."
> 
> Which I think is the approach you are advocating in that we share our collective experiences so we attain a class consciousness? But I remain assured that it will also fail to fit your exacting standards for nit-picking.



No, that's not really that close to what I'm advocating, which is that you recognise and drop your ridiculous vanguardist conception of class consciousness, that the idea that you are more advanced by virtue of signing up to the SPGB is itself a misunderstanding of the dynamics of class struggle and one that you have been led to precisely by your crude conception of what class consciousness is. Simply declaring that you want everyone to be as fabulous as you doesn't remove the original arrogance - if anything it throws it into even greater relief.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You've just argued the exact opposite. That CC consists of very specific beliefs that you've already worked out for everyone else and that class must come to achieve class consciousness through agreeing with these beliefs.
> 
> Not a word about their beliefs and experience or capacities - you didn't mention a damn thing about that before, i've forced you into that after your incredibly crude post outlining how you see CC - not as an open ended process of self-understanding  but a closed one one made up of agreeing with pre-formed beliefs - or dogma, more accurately.
> 
> All over the shop, full of holes and unable to see the position in which your politics puts you. Whay else do you think you have the openly vanguardist SWP supporter backing you up and libertarian communists attacking you?


Where/who is the "openly vanguardist SWP supporter backing" GD/SPGB??  Your lying again.  All I have done, is invite YOU to explain YOUR position.


butchersapron said:


> What, you've taken back your one then? The one you posted up and that we were discussing? You accept all the criticisms i made and the problems it highlighted? Cool, we move forward.
> 
> My take on class consciousness? I'm not sure that i agree with the class consciousness model at all - it leads to the daft sort of stuff that you've just come up with above and if not handled properly (again, see your long above post) opens the trapdoor to all sorts of vanguardism.
> 
> ...


He clearly doesn't understand YOUR position.  SOOOO, clarify Butch.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No, that's not really that close to what I'm advocating, which is that you recognise and drop your ridiculous vanguardist conception of class consciousness, that the idea that you are more advanced by virtue of signing up to the SPGB is itself a misunderstanding of the dynamics of class struggle and one that you have been led to precisely by your crude conception of what class consciousness is. Simply declaring that you want everyone to be as fabulous as you doesn't remove the original arrogance - if anything it throws it into even greater relief.



There you are AGAIN,,,, explaining what your against, not what your for.


btw, Butch accusing the people of arrogance...........


----------



## dannysp (Jun 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Did i fail the class consciousness test? How did i score? Did i at least beat my 59% from last time?



Hi Butch
You've told us something of how class consciousness is attained, and  I don't see any problem, but you've not given any opinion of what it consists of.
So what is it that's necessary to be understood, aware of, conscious of to become class conscious?

That's a fair question, so a fair answer would be appreciated.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No, that's not really that close to what I'm advocating, which is that you recognise and drop your ridiculous vanguardist conception of class consciousness, that the idea that you are more advanced by virtue of signing up to the SPGB is itself a misunderstanding of the dynamics of class struggle and one that you have been led to precisely by your crude conception of what class consciousness is. Simply declaring that you want everyone to be as fabulous as you doesn't remove the original arrogance - if anything it throws it into even greater relief.



OK you are not satisfied with the use of the terms instilling or sharing, that being the case it leads us right back to what robbo asked you some posts previously: Define what you mean by vanguardism/vanguardist.  Until then I see no point in engaging in this particular discussion any further.

Your pitch butchers.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 3, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Hi Butch
> You've told us something of how class consciousness is attained, and  I don't see any problem, but you've not given any opinion of what it consists of.
> So what is it that's necessary to be understood, aware of, conscious of to become class conscious?
> 
> That's a fair question, so a fair answer would be appreciated.


Yeh, come on Butch,,,,, show us yours, the SPGB have shown you their's.

To be fair to the SPGB, they have made crystal clear their position, why can't you Butch?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> OK you are not satisfied with the use of the terms instilling or sharing, that being the case it leads us right back to what robbo asked you some posts previously: Define what you mean by vanguardism/vanguardist.  Until then I see no point in engaging in this particular discussion any further.
> 
> Your pitch butchers.


I don't think he can make you understand why in his oppinion you are a 'vanguardist', until you understand his position on consciousness.

Hope that help's.


----------



## Random (Jun 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Define what you mean by vanguardism/vanguardist.  Until then I see no point in engaging in this particular discussion any further.


 he's already done so, in childishly simply language. The point surely is that you just don't want to get it, do you?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 3, 2010)

Random said:


> he's already done so, in childishly simply language. The point surely is that you just don't want to get it, do you?



I'm afraid he hasn't.  So far all we have been able to establish is that butchers applies the term vanguard to any organisation which puts forward an idea.  He then applies the slap dash broad brush strokes  to *assert* that by definition that makes everybody vanguardist including the SPGB.

It has been constantly pointed out to him that although the term vanguard can be applied to the SPGB that does not make them vanguardist in the political sense of the meaning.  So clearly there is some confusion over how butchers defines the term vanguardist.  And so far he's declined to post his definition.

Until he replies with a definition and not hodge potch assertions any claims he makes concerning the SPGB and vanguardism/vanguardist are without foundation.


----------



## Random (Jun 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> It has been constantly pointed out to him that although the term vanguard can be applied to the SPGB that does not make them vanguardist in the political sense of the meaning.


 So you're a vanguard, but not a political vanguard?

edit: shame on me for posting on this thread


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 3, 2010)

Random said:


> So you're a vanguard, but not a political vanguard?
> 
> edit: shame on me for posting on this thread



Correct if by political vanguard you mean a minority group of professional revolutionaries seeking to lead the majority towards an objective only the self-elected minority fully understand.


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Neither am I a mind reader but I am aware that capitalism is in one of its periodical crisis.  And if I required an analysis I would start here: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/AZ.html#Crises



Capitalism is in one of it's periodical crises and the w/c are just spectators? That's a piss poor analysis that amongst other things places capitalism as a fixed thing that follows a cycle. Is that the best you can do?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 3, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> Eating out of skips?



Not my kind of lifestyle.


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 3, 2010)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Not my kind of lifestyle.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 3, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I don't think he can make you understand why in his oppinion you are a 'vanguardist', until you understand his position on consciousness.
> 
> Hope that help's.



I understand his position on consciousness and how that relates for him to claim the SPGB are vanguardist.  For butchers anything the SPGB say or do only confirms his assumption that we are part of the political vanguardist tradition.  What he has gone and done is unscientific for he's gone and made that original assumption into a foregone conclusion by not considering the evidence which speaks volumes to illustrate he's got the wrong end of the stick.

It reminds me of that saying: If you keep on asserting a lie long enough, eventually people will begin to believe it is the truth.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 3, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> Capitalism is in one of it's periodical crises and the w/c are just spectators? That's a piss poor analysis that amongst other things places capitalism as a fixed thing that follows a cycle. Is that the best you can do?



It maybe a piss poor analysis in your opinion, nevertheless you are correct in stating that the working class are just spectators.  What do you think the best thing is to do in such circumstances?   Passive resistance or become Mr Angry at every opportunity.   Grrrr.....


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 3, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> Capitalism is in one of it's periodical crises and the w/c are just spectators? That's a piss poor analysis that amongst other things places capitalism as a fixed thing that follows a cycle. Is that the best you can do?



So what is your analysis, which I presume is so much better?


----------



## dannysp (Jun 3, 2010)

Random said:


> So you're a vanguard, but not a political vanguard?
> 
> edit: shame on me for posting on this thread



I suggest the term avant garde rather than vanguard from my point of view is more fitting, because if I didn't think that the SPBG's analysis and proposition was in a position in advance of any other political party I wouldn't have joined. 


A brief look without prejudice at the history and practice of the SPGB makes the assertion that it's vanguardist laughable. From its formation the concept of political leadership has been rejected as undemocratic, leaderships need privileged information and so privileged power and will have none of it.


The SPGB recognises that the only responsible way of dealing with social responsibility is to share it, so when a new member joins the first thing that happens is they are given a Party rule book, the rules are there to ensure that the new member has exactly the same democratic power as any other no matter how long standing, and that the Party is run by the membership not the reverse.

We refuse to lead our fellow workers, what we offer is an analyses, a proposition and an democratic organisation for the use of workers in their struggle for self emancipation.

Don't take my word for it, take a look for yourself.

www.worldsocialism.org


----------



## dannysp (Jun 3, 2010)

Never a follower be.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/apr98/follower.html


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 3, 2010)

Random said:


> So you're a vanguard, but not a political vanguard?
> 
> edit: shame on me for posting on this thread
> 
> ...


But Random and Butchers think the their cliques analysis and proposition is better than SPGB, SP, WP etc, so their position too is 'avant garde' vanguard????? 


I don't think they'd accept that, but will they explain?  I don't think so.


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 3, 2010)

Random said:


> So you're a vanguard, but not a political vanguard?
> 
> edit: shame on me for posting on this thread



Jesuuusss not again 


Cant you see there is a difference between a "vanguard" and being a "vanguard*ist*"?   The one term is descriptive, the other prescriptive.  Big difference!

The SPGB is a vanguard in the sense that it is a minority whose views may be considered "advanced" or "in the vanguard of social thinking" if you want to look at it like that.  What the SPGB cannot be called is vanguardist since it does not propose to lead to the workers to socialism or act (e.g. take power) on their behalf.

Vanguardism is a theory of political action. I know of no other definition of vanguardism and have repeatedly asked people on this thread to supply one so we can at least look at it but to no avail


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2010)

dannysp said:


> I suggest the term avant garde rather than vanguard from my point of view is more fitting, because if I didn't think that the SPBG's analysis and proposition was in a position in advance of any other political party I wouldn't have joined.
> 
> 
> A brief look without prejudice at the history and practice of the SPGB makes the assertion that it's vanguardist laughable. From its formation the concept of political leadership has been rejected as undemocratic, leaderships need privileged information and so privileged power and will have none of it.
> ...



The vanguardist relationship is _between you and the wider working class_, not amongst yourselves or other political parties. And guess what, once again this mirrors the relationships theorised by in the 2nd International and later developed by explicit theorists of vanguardism like Lenin and Trotsky. 

That you can even imagine that parties are the bearers of class consciousness says it all really. Your arguments are exactly the same as orthodox leninists except they have the honesty to draw the organisational conclusions that flow from your shared theory of the advanced party, rather than running away from it, or recoiling in horror from the consequences of holding that theory. And that massive internal contradiction between a correct recognition of the dangers of vanguardism whilst holding a vanguardist position (this now seems clear to all but yourselves) has been evident throughout this whole discussion. 

The only way you all have out of it is by reducing vanguardism down to leninism alone - that trick won't work. Leninism developed out of and from the same soil that you still messing about in - the _necessarily advanced nature of the party_ (by what mechanism this comes about you've not gone anywhere near suggesting, it appears that it comes about simply by you joining the SPGB or the SPGB calling itself 'Socialist' and that this is demonstration enough of the self evident truth of the matter - it's really not) meaning that it has the answers that the working class must come to achieve its emancipation. 

The honest leninists say (very crudely put for now) that this can happen through their leadership of ongoing struggles in a two-way dynamic interaction between party and class, the dishonest vanguardists say it can only happen through education and a similar dynamic between party and class -  either way the answers are already in your grasp, and anyone who doesn't agree with you is by definition a backward worker (to continue your use of disgusting archaisms). The fruit didn't fall far from the tree. You're the passive side of the vanguardist coin and they're the active face.


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 4, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> It maybe a piss poor analysis in your opinion, nevertheless you are correct in stating that the working class are just spectators.  What do you think the best thing is to do in such circumstances?   Passive resistance or become Mr Angry at every opportunity.   Grrrr.....



Capitalism isn't a merry go round that passes fixed points in it's cycle every few years it's changing all the time and the changes are a result of the working class.  The crises are a result of the working class and capitalists reaction to theses crises are reactions to the the working class. 

That pretty much sums up what I think.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 4, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> Capitalism isn't a merry go round that passes fixed points in it's cycle every few years it's changing all the time and the changes are a result of the working class.  The crises are a result of the working class and capitalists reaction to theses crises are reactions to the the working class.
> 
> That pretty much sums up what I think.



So according to your take on capitalism in crisis the working class caused it, and not the inbuilt contradictions of the capitalist economy.  The logic of this argument seems to suggest that the working class also hold the solution to a crisis of capitalism.  So what is your take on that?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 4, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The vanguardist relationship is _between you and the wider working class_, not amongst yourselves or other political parties. And guess what, once again this mirrors the relationships theorised by in the 2nd International and later developed by explicit theorists of vanguardism like Lenin and Trotsky.
> 
> That you can even imagine that parties are the bearers of class consciousness says it all really. Your arguments are exactly the same as orthodox leninists except they have the honesty to draw the organisational conclusions that flow from your shared theory of the advanced party, rather than running away from it, or recoiling in horror from the consequences of holding that theory. And that massive internal contradiction between a correct recognition of the dangers of vanguardism whilst holding a vanguardist position (this now seems clear to all but yourselves) has been evident throughout this whole discussion.
> 
> ...



Are we to take this has your definition of vanguardism?  Yes or no?


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 4, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> So according to your take on capitalism in crisis the working class caused it, and not the inbuilt contradictions of the capitalist economy.  The logic of this argument seems to suggest that the working class also hold the solution to a crisis of capitalism.  So what is your take on that?



The working class are the crisis, they are the contradiction. How can you spout that labour theory of value stuff and think anything else?


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 4, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The vanguardist relationship is _between you and the wider working class_, not amongst yourselves or other political parties. And guess what, once again this mirrors the relationships theorised by in the 2nd International and later developed by explicit theorists of vanguardism like Lenin and Trotsky.
> 
> That you can even imagine that parties are the bearers of class consciousness says it all really. Your arguments are exactly the same as orthodox leninists except they have the honesty to draw the organisational conclusions that flow from your shared theory of the advanced party, rather than running away from it, or recoiling in horror from the consequences of holding that theory. And that massive internal contradiction between a correct recognition of the dangers of vanguardism whilst holding a vanguardist position (this now seems clear to all but yourselves) has been evident throughout this whole discussion.
> 
> ...



I thought as much. You have confused vanguard with vanguardism.  Even if it were remotely true that an organisation like the SPGB sees itself as the bearers of class consciousness (as you claim)which has to be ladled out to the class unconscious worker *this still does not make the SPGB vanguardist*.  

I repeat again - vanguardism is a theory of political action,  the idea that a minority can emancipate the majority.  The SPGB has said loud and clear that it cannot happen like that.  The majority has to emancipate itself by becoming class consciousnss.  However much you try to wriggle out of it this is the basic point which cannot be denied and demonstrates conclusively that the SPGB is no vanguradist party. A vanguard, yes, but vanguardist - no!


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 4, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> The working class are the crisis, they are the contradiction. How can you spout that labour theory of value stuff and think anything else?



The labour theory of value explains no such thing, all the labour theory of explains is how workers are exploited through the wages system.  It does not explain how crisises of capitalism occur and why they occur.


----------



## JimW (Jun 4, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> I thought as much. You have confused vanguard with vanguardism.  Even if it were remotely true that an organisation like the SPGB sees itself as the bearers of class consciousness (as you claim)which has to be ladled out to the class unconscious worker *this still does not make the SPGB vanguardist*.
> 
> I repeat again - vanguardism is a theory of political action,  the idea that a minority can emancipate the majority.  The SPGB has said loud and clear that it cannot happen like that.  The majority has to emancipate itself by becoming class consciousnss.  However much you try to wriggle out of it this is the basic point which cannot be denied and demonstrates conclusively that the SPGB is no vanguradist party. A vanguard, yes, but vanguardist - no!



It's not an attempt to wriggle, it's saying that however much you may believe or intend otherwise, that's what you objectively are.


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 4, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> The labour theory of value explains no such thing, all the labour theory of explains is how workers are exploited through the wages system.  It does not explain how crisises of capitalism occur and why they occur.



It makes it clear who needs who.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 4, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> It makes it clear who needs who.



So capital and labour are dependent on each other to produce surplus value, so what?  How does this explain the cause of crisis?


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 4, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> So capital and labour are dependent on each other to produce surplus value, so what?  How does this explain the cause of crisis?



Labour is dependent on capital for surplus value?


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 4, 2010)

JimW said:


> It's not an attempt to wriggle, it's saying that however much you may believe or intend otherwise, that's what you objectively are.



In the same way that a cat is a member of the canine species.  Yep, very objective


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> I thought as much. You have confused vanguard with vanguardism.  Even if it were remotely true that an organisation like the SPGB sees itself as the bearers of class consciousness (as you claim)which has to be ladled out to the class unconscious worker *this still does not make the SPGB vanguardist*.
> 
> I repeat again - vanguardism is a theory of political action,  the idea that a minority can emancipate the majority.  The SPGB has said loud and clear that it cannot happen like that.  The majority has to emancipate itself by becoming class consciousnss.  However much you try to wriggle out of it this is the basic point which cannot be denied and demonstrates conclusively that the SPGB is no vanguradist party. A vanguard, yes, but vanguardist - no!



I really have not confused the two, i've already pointed out now numerous times that they're slightly different manifestations of the same thing. The 
wriggle here is you reducing vanguardism down to Leninism alone so that you can dismiss criticisms of your own flabby passive vanguardism. 

And you've actually made of a hash of the sort of vanguardism you're rejecting - that version argues that a minority can and must instill in the working class the correct socialist consciousness through education and common struggle so that they togther can move forward to the emancipation of the working class - does that sound familiar to you? It should do because it's another demonstration of your shared territory. 

Face it robbo, you're trying to sneak in the idea that vanguardism is a theory of political organisation _alone_, and wiping out the sort of political thinking (advanced party etc) that led to that form of organisation in certain specific circumstances. In different ones that same vanguardist thinking produced you lot. The lack of seriousness with which you're responding to this charge demonstrates that you don't have a problem with this. In fact you pretty much say yep, we are the vanguard - but we're not vanguardist. In the same way Nick Griffin defends his race but isn't a racist i presume.

Oh yeah, ta for ignoring the central point i made which was about the nature of the parties relationship with the working class - the actual thing which makes the party vanguardist.

One more thing:




			
				you said:
			
		

> Even if it were remotely true that an organisation like the SPGB sees itself as the bearers of class consciousness (as you claim)which has to be ladled out to the class unconscious worker *this still does not make the SPGB vanguardist*.






			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> Nevertheless, our aim includes a very important caveat: We have no intention of remaining a small organisation and to this end are committed and determined to instill a majority of the working class with the level of political class consciousness we have attained.


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 4, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> The working class are the crisis, they are the contradiction. How can you spout that labour theory of value stuff and think anything else?



Crises are the result of disproportionate growth between different sectors of the economy - the relative overproduction of one sector in relation to the demand from some other sector (s)  which then generates ripple effects that spread outwards to engulf most of the economy.  This is because enterprises are blindly producing for a market in the expectation of profit which may not always be forthcoming. Crises take a cyclical form.  Capitalism restores the conditions of profitability by such means as the cheapening of the means of production , as Marx argued, but as production steps up again the same tendency towads disproprotionate growth manifests itself once again leading to yet another crisis.  It is part of the nature of capitalism

Its got nothing to do with the working class as such . Nor indeed is it the fault of politicians who are pretty much irrelevant to the way capitalism functions at a systemic level.  The once widely held belief that crises could be overcome by Keynesian demand management has been flatly contradicted by events and led ironically enough to a period of "stagflation" - inflation with stagnant economic performance.  The capitalist Labour Party in an early postwar manifesto once argued that if a crisis beckoned the way to ward it off was to "give workers more money" (ha!!) to spend to they could buy their way out of crisis.  This is called underconsumption theory, the belief that there is not enough  market demand that is the problem. It is a false theory which mistakes cause for symptoms and it has to be said that the SPGB have been pioneers in discrediting both Keynesnianism and monetarism - particular when the former was widely fashionable among the Left. Edgar Hardcastle was a prominent writer on economics  for the Socialist Standard for many years and wrote some very good articles on crisis theory which you can find here http://www.marxists.org/archive/hardcastle/

The labour theory of value does not really have much connection with crisis theory and I suggest you quite easily understand crises without recourse to the LTV


----------



## chilango (Jun 4, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> The working class are the crisis, they are the contradiction.





Yup. Like this.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Jesuuusss not again
> 
> 
> Cant you see there is a difference between a "vanguard" and being a "vanguard*ist*"?   The one term is descriptive, the other prescriptive.  Big difference!
> ...



'May be considered advanced' by who? By the party

Why are you the vanguard? Who appointed you? Who provided you with your authenticating certificate? History? Hmmm...that does sound rather familiar again sounds a bit like the vanguardist defences of the parties supremacy from the fist half of the 20th century:




			
				Trotsky said:
			
		

> I know that one must not be right against the party. One can be right only with the Party, and through the Party for history has no other road for being in the right."



And no, you've been given one over and over (just have a look at the above), you just reject it because it catches you out.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Crises are the result of disproportionate growth between different sectors of the economy - the relative overproduction of one sector in relation to the demand from some other sector (s)  which then generates ripple effects that spread outwards to engulf most of the economy.  This is because enterprises are blindly producing for a market in the expectation of profit which may not always be forthcoming. Crises take a cyclical form.  Capitalism restores the conditions of profitability by such means as the cheapening of the means of production , as Marx argued, but as production steps up again the same tendency towads disproprotionate growth manifests itself once again leading to yet another crisis.  It is part of the nature of capitalism
> 
> Its got nothing to do with the working class as such . Nor indeed is it the fault of politicians who are pretty much irrelevant to the way capitalism functions at a systemic level.  The once widely held belief that crises could be overcome by Keynesian demand management has been flatly contradicted by events and led ironically enough to a period of "stagflation" - inflation with stagnant economic performance.  The capitalist Labour Party in an early postwar manifesto once argued that if a crisis beckoned the way to ward it off was to "give workers more money" (ha!!) to spend to they could buy their way out of crisis.  This is called underconsumption theory, the belief that there is not enough  market demand that is the problem. It is a false theory which mistakes cause for symptoms and it has to be said that the SPGB have been pioneers in discrediting both Keynesnianism and monetarism - particular when the former was widely fashionable among the Left. Edgar Hardcastle was a prominent writer on economics  for the Socialist Standard for many years and wrote some very good articles on crisis theory which you can find here http://www.marxists.org/archive/hardcastle/
> 
> The labour theory of value does not really have much connection with crisis theory and I suggest you quite easily understand crises without recourse to the LTV



Hilarious objectivist nonsense - straight out of the mechanical models of the 19th century of science. Crisis is written into every pore of Marx's formulation of the LTV - the use of use-value and exchange-value alone should tell you that, that opens the doors to crisis right from the very start of process. That model you've produced is stunning in it's top-down nonsense - you've got a model of the workings of capitalism that hasn't yet managed to find room for class struggle - the working class are seen as external to capitalism  It's the sort of nonsense that marx himself destroyed many times over.

I seriously suggest that you read Ron Rothbart's The Limits Of Matticks Economics which i put online years ago as response to this outdated robot nonsense


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> The labour theory of value explains no such thing, all the labour theory of explains is how workers are exploited through the wages system.  It does not explain how crisises of capitalism occur and why they occur.



Bloody hell, even in your crude mechanical marxism you should be able to see how it outlines the pressures that capital faces from the w/c. The rise in organic compostion of capital caused by intra-capitalist competition driven by rising labour costs, the associated concentration of capital and overproduction, the local monopolies leading to the same, the falling rate of profit from the decreasing amount of variable capital  - all offest by counter-tendencies which can themselves heighten crisis and so on - it's all there if only you know how to read Marx.


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 4, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I really have not confused the two, i've already pointed out now numerous times that they're slightly different manifestations of the same thing. The
> wriggle here is you reducing vanguardism down to Leninism alone so that you can dismiss criticisms of your own flabby passive vanguardism.
> 
> And you've actually made of a hash of the sort of vanguardism you're rejecting - that version argues that a minority can and must instill in the working class the correct socialist consciousness through education and common struggle so that they togther can move forward to the emancipation of the working class - does that sound familiar to you? It should do because it's another demonstration of your shared territory.
> ...



Sorry but you are wrong - wrong as can possibly be on this score.

Firstly the SPGB does *not * assert it is the fountainhead of revolutiuonary class conscious ideas notwithstanding your quote from Gravediggers on this score.  Ultimately it argues that socialist ideas arise from the general conditions of capitalism - class struggle - which predispose workers towards socialism.  Yes, the SPGB works to try and instil socialist ideas in workers - just as every other political organisation on the face of the planet tries to instil its ideas - but this does *not *negate the point that the idea of socialism does not come from the SPGB and the SPGB has never claimed it has.  The SPGB is simply seeking to reinforce or accelerate the spread of certain ideas that arise from capitalism itself and there is nothing vanguardist about that

Secondly you say I am "trying to sneak in the idea that vanguardism is a theory of political organisation _alone_, and wiping out the sort of political thinking (advanced party etc) that led to that form of organisation in certain specific circumstances. In different ones that same vanguardist thinking produced you lot".  Wrong again.  Vanguardist thinking is the belief that a minority can emancipate the majority by itself.  The SPGB has *never *held this view. Show me one instance where it has done this.  Just one.  You cant and you knowq it. You infer from the allegedly common ground that the SPGB holds with leninists in thinking of itself as a "vanguard" in the descriptive sense that it must therefore similarly be a kind of vanguardist party albeit different from the Leninist type. This is rubbish and a complete non sequitur.  It is your inference and your inference *alone *that holds that this must be so but there is absolutely no reason at all why it must be so.  I repeat - the idea that you are a vanguard, a small minority with a distinct set of views, does not in any way shape or form imply the idea that as a minority you can emancipate the majority by acting on its behalf which is a political theory of action.  It might do that but then again it might not.  There is absolutely no necessity that it *will *do.

This is where your whole argument comes crashing down the ground.  You are trying to infer a causal connection when there simply is none!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2010)

There's two arguments you make there - one that GD doesn't understand the SPGB's politics despite passing the entrance requirements - not a good advert in itself, but i'm open to the idea that what he has been arguing all along is a misunderstanding of the SPGB if you'd like to expand on that theme. However, your argument as to the correct understanding of how the SPGB view class consciousness is contradicated by the hostility clause and the clause following which unambiguously declare that the SPGB is the sole standard bearer of the correct class consciousness of course, it doesn't go anywhere near outlining ow and why this is or should be the case.

And even better, your second argument demonstrates in the clearest light possible the partial understanding of vanguardism that you hold, for if its logic is followed through consistently it leads to the inescapable conclusion that leninism - the thing you've berated for vanguardism for a 100 years - is not leninist. The leninists don't believe that a small minority can emancipate the vast majority, they believe that the small minority can and must _instill_ the correct class consciousness in order for the majority to emancipate themselves - and that they are the sole current bearers of that consciousness - that's their hostility clause.

You have no way around this.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Sorry but you are wrong - wrong as can possibly be on this score.
> 
> Firstly the SPGB does *not * assert it is the fountainhead of revolutiuonary class conscious ideas notwithstanding your quote from Gravediggers on this score.  Ultimately it argues that socialist ideas arise from the general conditions of capitalism - class struggle - which predispose workers towards socialism.  Yes, the SPGB works to try and instil socialist ideas in workers - just as every other political organisation on the face of the planet tries to instil its ideas - but this does *not *negate the point that the idea of socialism does not come from the SPGB and the SPGB has never claimed it has.  The SPGB is simply seeking to reinforce or accelerate the spread of certain ideas that arise from capitalism itself and there is nothing vanguardist about that



So the SPGB isn't actually necessary then?


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 4, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Hilarious objectivist nonsense - straight out of the mechanical models of the 19th century of science. Crisis is written into every pore of Marx's formulation of the LTV - the use of use-value and exchange-value alone should tell you that, that opens the doors to crisis right from the very start of process. That model you've produced is stunning in it's top-down nonsense - you've got a model of the workings of capitalism that hasn't yet managed to find room for class struggle - the working class are seen as external to capitalism  It's the sort of nonsense that marx himself destroyed many times over.
> 
> I seriously suggest that you read Ron Rothbart's The Limits Of Matticks Economics which i put online years ago as response to this outdated robot nonsense



Er come again?  Could you be a little more precise about what it is you are objecting to in the theory of disproportionate growth which Marx put forward to explain economic crises.  I never suggested in any way that the working class are somehow external to the workings of capitalism but was only criticising what I assumed was a kind of underconsumptionist theory in the view that the "working class was the crisis".  *Crises happen whether the working class is militant or not*. They are part of the nature of capitalism

If you seriously believe Marx did not subscribe to a theory of disproportionate growth then I think your grasp of Marxian economics is deificient. I said you can understand crises from the perspective of disrporitionaility theory without recourse to the LTV. I did *not *say that this made the LTV irrelevant to an understanding of capitalism, did I?


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 4, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> So the SPGB isn't actually necessary then?



Duh.  The SPGB or any genuinely socialist organisation is necessary in the sense that it is needed to  accelerate the spread of socialist ideas of which it is not the fountainhead (that being capitalism's class struggle)


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2010)

You think that the view that Freddy was putting forward was underconsumptionist!  Really, do some more reading on things like operaismo, read some tronti or panzieri for example to see what he means. Who mentioned anything about the w/c being militant or not? This is bizarre. And you confirm that you see capitalism as this mechanical model operating to its own laws regardless of class struggle when you say both "Crises happen whether the working class is militant or not" and "Its got nothing to do with the working class as such".

As for marxian economics - no such thing. If you're referring to marx's abstraction of the dynamics of the system (or his reproduction schema) you'll be aware that he posited certain conditions, one of which was a steady flat wage/needs demand on behalf of labour, _to be come back to at a later point _when he would examine the effects of rising demand from the w/c. He never got round to it though, and for 150 years since people like you have been taking this half-finished picture as his complete model - thus missing the point entirely and what he considered centrally important (hence the setting up) to the functioning of capital and crisis - class struggle.


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 4, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> And even better, your second argument demonstrates in the clearest light possible the partial understanding of vanguardism that you hold, for if its logic is followed through consistently it leads to the inescapable conclusion that leninism - the thing you've berated for vanguardism for a 100 years - is not leninist. The leninists don't believe that a small minority can emancipate the vast majority, they believe that the small minority can and must _instill_ the correct class consciousness in order for the majority to emancipate themselves - and that they are the sole current bearers of that consciousness - that's their hostility clause.
> .




Crap.  The Leninist believe in a minority *capturing political power first*, acting on behalf of the majority and then from this position of power begin the process on instilling class consciousness. Go back to the quotes from Lenin himself which I gave you a long way back.

This is what is meant by vanguardism as a theory of political action and this is why the SPGB is manifestly not a vanguardist party.  It argues quite rightly that if it were to capture political power under the conditions in which the working class was not socialist minded,  it would then itself become a new ruling class whose interests would soon enough become opposed to the workers.  You cant have socialism without mass support for it and by default you would end up running capitalism.  That is what happened under Lenin and why the SPGB opposes vanguardism.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Duh.  The SPGB or any genuinely socialist organisation is necessary in the sense that it is needed to  accelerate the spread of socialist ideas of which it is not the fountainhead (that being capitalism's class struggle)



Why Duh? The SPGB have signally failed to meet its aims. If it doesn't do that what's the point, especially when you've undermined your own case by saying that it's the conditions of capitalism that give rise to socialist consciousness (where's this then btw?). Good to see that you again pull GD up on his misunderstanding of the SPGB conception of class consciousness.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Crap.  The Leninist believe in a minority *capturing political power first*, acting on behalf of the majority and then from this position of power begin the process on instilling class consciousness. Go back to the quotes from Lenin himself which I gave you a long way back.
> 
> This is what is meant by vanguardism as a theory of political action and this is why the SPGB is manifestly not a vanguardist party.  It argues quite rightly that if it were to capture political power under the conditions in which the working class was not socialist minded,  it would then itself become a new ruling class whose interests would soon enough become opposed to the workers.  You cant have socialism without mass support for it and by default you would end up running capitalism.  That is what happened under Lenin and why the SPGB opposes vanguardism.




No, you're simply wrong - they believe that by taking part in and capturing leading positions in various campaigns and struggles they can help instill the wider class consciousness that they have and that is required if they are to take power (with or without a majority). Again, it's your position in different clothes. You really do need to update and move on from 1917.

You can try and reduce vanguardism down to a theory of political organisation all you like, after all it's your only escape route - i'm not going to allow you to do so unchallenged though, and i doubt if anyone else is falling for the we're a vanguard but we're not vanguardists line either.


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 4, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You think that the view that Freddy was putting forward was underconsumptionist!  Really, do some more reading on things like operaismo, read some tronti or panzieri for example to see what he means. Who mentioned anything about the w/c being militant or not? This is bizarre. And you confirm that you see capitalism as this mechanical model operating to its own laws regardless of class struggle when you say both "Crises happen whether the working class is militant or not" and "Its got nothing to do with the working class as such".
> 
> As for marxian economics - no such thing. If you're referring to marx's abstraction of the dynamics of the system (or his reproduction schema) you'll be aware that he posited certain conditions, one of which was a steady flat wage/needs demand on behalf of labour, _to be come back to at a later point _when he would examine the effects of rising demand from the w/c. He never got round to it though, and for 150 years since people like you have been taking this half-finished picture as his complete model - thus missing the point entirely and what he considered centrally important (hence the setting up) to the functioning of capital and crisis - class struggle.



Fred did indeed flirt with underconsumptionist theory for a while but then reverted back to disproportionality theory

As for the rising demand from the w/c it goes without sayinmg that this is primarily  dependent on whether capitalism is in a boom period or a depression so you are kind of assuming what you need to prove arent you. Trade union struggle does have an effect on wage levels I agree although this will be largely dependent on the general conditions of the economy as to how much of an effect.


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 4, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No, you're simply wrong - they believe that by taking part in and capturing leading positions in various campaigns and struggles they can help instill the wider class consciousness that they have and that is required if they are to take power (with or without a majority). Again, it's your position in different clothes. You really do need to update and move on from 1917.
> 
> You can try and reduce vanguardism down to a theory of political organisation all you like, after all it's your only escape route - i'm not going to allow you to do so unchallenged though, and i doubt if anyone else is falling for the we're a vanguard but we're not vanguardists line either.



Are you denying then that Lenin said the vanguard must first capture political power before the workers could be instilled with socialist consciousness because if so then Im afraid youve lost the argument


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2010)

Fred did nothing of the sort - he wasn't talking about underconsumption, or disproprtionality or overproduction, you've entirely missed the point and seem only able to understand his claim in terms of classical Zusammenbruchstheorie.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Are you denying then that Lenin said the vanguard must first capture political power before the workers could be instilled with socialist consciousness because if so then Im afraid youve lost the argument



Lenin said many things. Are you denying that he said that the w/c must be instilled with a socialist consciousness _before_ taking power _as well._

As i said, crawl out of 1917 before 2017 if you can.


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 4, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Why Duh? The SPGB have signally failed to meet its aims. If it doesn't do that what's the point, especially when you've undermined your own case by saying that it's the conditions of capitalism that give rise to socialist consciousness (where's this then btw?). Good to see that you again pull GD up on his misunderstanding of the SPGB conception of class consciousness.




No I am saying that there is no contradiction between trying to instill socialist ideas in fellow workers and recognising that these ideas arise from the general conditions of capitalism i.e. its class struggle and not out of the heads of SPGBers.  Many SPGBers incidentally will tell that they became socialists long before they even met the SPGB.

I think you have a far too mechanistic black-or-white perspective on the relationship between ideas and social reality


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 4, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Lenin said many things. Are you denying that he said that the w/c must be instilled with a socialist consciousness _before_ taking power _as well._
> .



Yes I am denying that!!  Lenin was quite clear on this score.  See for example
 Theses on Fundamental Tasks of The Second Congress Of The Communist International published in 1920

_On the other hand, the idea, common among the old parties and the old leaders of the Second International, that the majority of the exploited toilers can achieve complete clarity of socialist consciousness and firm socialist convictions and character under capitalist slavery, under the yoke of the bourgeoisie (which assumes an infinite variety of forms that become more subtle and at the same time more brutal and ruthless the higher the cultural level in a given capitalist country) is also idealisation of capitalism and of bourgeois democracy, as well as deception of the workers. In fact, it is only after the vanguard of the proletariat, supported by the whole or the majority of this, the only revolutionary class, overthrows the exploiters, suppresses them, emancipates the exploited from their state of slavery and-immediately improves their conditions of life at the expense of the expropriated capitalists—it is only after this, and only in the actual process of an acute class struggle, that the masses of the toilers and exploited can be educated, trained and organised around the proletariat under whose influence and guidance, they can get rid of the selfishness, disunity, vices and weaknesses engendered by private property; only then will they be converted into a free union of free workers. _


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2010)

Quote wars will get you nowhere  - lenin said many things at many different times depending on what specific aims were at that point. Why aren't you quoting his anti-vanguardist stuff from the years immediately after 1905? I know why and so do you - because, like Marx, you can cherry pick from his millions of words on millions of issues.

And you didn't even cherry pick a good one  You've given me one in which Lenin argues that only the vanguard party with the support of the conscious majority of the w/c (i.e *before* the revolution) must take power and instill socialist consciousness in the non-w/c sections of the population. You didn't miss the very important difference between the 'proletariat' and the ' toilers and exploited' did you? Oh yes you did.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 4, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> The working class are the crisis, they are the contradiction. How can you spout that labour theory of value stuff and think anything else?


What are you trying to say?  This makes no sense.


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 4, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> What are you trying to say?  This makes no sense.



I've said it. Makes perfect sense to me


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 4, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> Capitalism isn't a merry go round that passes fixed points in it's cycle every few years it's changing all the time and the changes are a result of the working class.  The crises are a result of the working class and capitalists reaction to theses crises are reactions to the the working class.
> 
> That pretty much sums up what I think.


but marx and labour the theory value never said Capitalism is a merry go round that passes fixed points in it's cycle every few years.

For marx the economic crisis was innate to capitalism, produced by the capitalists, not the working class.  According to the labour theory of value, and it's developments in the capital volume one, the economic crisis occurs because of the rise in the organic composition of capital, and this is driven by the capitalists raison d'être, "Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets".  Without going into what the organic composition of capitalis etc., it is fact that marx firmly placed responsibility for the economic crisis with the capitalists, period.

PS. You need to clarify this; "The crises are a result of the working class and capitalists reaction to theses crises are reactions to the the working class."
The crises are reactions to the crises??????????


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 4, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> I've said it. Makes perfect sense to me


 honestly mate, I am not Butchers, I am not being sarcastic.  I am trying to understand what you are saying, the 'Marxist labour theory of value' leads to, [or your alternative].  I am not clear at all what you are trying to do.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2010)

Capital Volume one didn't really cover crisis at all, and certainly not as a result of a rising organic composition of capital producing a falling rate of profit - that was volume 3.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 4, 2010)

JimW said:


> It's not an attempt to wriggle, it's saying that however much you may believe or intend otherwise, that's what you objectively are.



so how are you and butchers etc different?  Are you saying you have no consciousness whatsoever of what you are trying to achieve, and how to achieve it?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 4, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Capital Volume one didn't really cover crisis at all, and certainly not as a result of a rising organic composition of capital producing a falling rate of profit - that was volume 3.


ok expert on everything, did he say "Capitalism is a merry go round that passes fixed points in it's cycle every few years."?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 4, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The vanguardist relationship is _between you and the wider working class_, not amongst yourselves or other political parties. And guess what, once again this mirrors the relationships theorised by in the 2nd International and later developed by explicit theorists of vanguardism like Lenin and Trotsky.
> 
> That you can even imagine that parties are the bearers of class consciousness says it all really. Your arguments are exactly the same as orthodox leninists except they have the honesty to draw the organisational conclusions that flow from your shared theory of the advanced party, rather than running away from it, or recoiling in horror from the consequences of holding that theory. And that massive internal contradiction between a correct recognition of the dangers of vanguardism whilst holding a vanguardist position (this now seems clear to all but yourselves) has been evident throughout this whole discussion.
> 
> ...


 so how is your clique different to the SPGB?  Are you saying you have no consciousness whatsoever of what you are trying to achieve, and how to achieve it?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 4, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Oh yeah, ta for ignoring the central point i made which was about the nature of the parties relationship with the working class - the actual thing which makes the party vanguardist.


 so how is your relationship with the working class different?

AS Butchers will not answer, feel free random, louis, jim etc to explain your cliques politics.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 4, 2010)

robbo203;10726312][QUOTE=JimW said:


> It's not an attempt to wriggle, it's saying that however much you may believe or intend otherwise, that's what you objectively are.


In the same way that a cat is a member of the canine species.  Yep, very objective
[/QUOTE] precisely!


Random said:


> he's already done so, in childishly simply language. The point surely is that you just don't want to get it, do you?


 it is a purely childish definition of vanguard, which renders the  Vanguard analogy, meaningless.  If we apply butchers childish definition, who isn't Vanguard party????  That is a serious question to any member of butchers clique.  In order for it to be a useful definition, it must be able to define who is not a Vanguardist party, so  who isn't Vanguard party?

I used to be a member of Vanguard party, and imo the suggestion the SPGB Vanguardist is a totally laughable analogy.  If anything, off the top of my head, the analogy here would be of a "Siren Party", and as such have far more in common with Butcher's clique.  Does that mean they are anarchists?  1. No,,, that would be absurd. 2. WTF IS a u75 anarchist?


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 4, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> but marx and labour the theory value never said Capitalism is a merry go round that passes fixed points in it's cycle every few years.
> 
> For marx the economic crisis was innate to capitalism, produced by the capitalists, not the working class.  According to the labour theory of value, and it's developments in the capital volume one, the economic crisis occurs because of the rise in the organic composition of capital, and this is driven by the capitalists raison d'être, "Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets".  Without going into what the organic composition of capitalis etc., it is fact that marx firmly placed responsibility for the economic crisis with the capitalists, period.
> 
> ...



I never said Marx said that. I was referring to our friends in SPGB who more than a century after Marx are talking about cycles of capitalism and ignoring the working class completely or otherwise portraying them as spectators. If you go back to my original question which he answered with that link about cycles I asked about _this _crisis and it's roots. The roots of it are the working class. Pretty well everything that capital does is a reaction to the working class.


----------



## dannysp (Jun 4, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> I never said Marx said that. I was referring to our friends in SPGB who more than a century after Marx are talking about cycles of capitalism and ignoring the working class completely or otherwise portraying them as spectators. If you go back to my original question which he answered with that link about cycles I asked about _this _crisis and it's roots. The roots of it are the working class. Pretty well everything that capital does is a reaction to the working class.



Hi Freddy
Could you explain how/why the causes of crisies are rooted in the working class?


----------



## dannysp (Jun 4, 2010)

Hi Butch
You've told us something of how class consciousness is attained, and I don't see any problem, but you've not given any opinion of what it consists of.
So what is it that's necessary to be understood, aware of, conscious of, to become class conscious?

That's a fair question, so a fair answer would be appreciated.


Perhaps you missed this post.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 4, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Crises are the result of disproportionate growth between different sectors of the economy - the relative overproduction of one sector in relation to the demand from some other sector (s)  which then generates ripple effects that spread outwards to engulf most of the economy.  This is because enterprises are blindly producing for a market in the expectation of profit which may not always be forthcoming. Crises take a cyclical form.  Capitalism restores the conditions of profitability by such means as the cheapening of the means of production , as Marx argued, but as production steps up again the same tendency towads disproprotionate growth manifests itself once again leading to yet another crisis.  It is part of the nature of capitalism


In fairness to Butcher's, this isn't really Marx's explanation of the economic crisis, it's a underconsumptionist, Keynesian, explanation.  The crisis does come from the change in the ratio of dead labour to living labour, the rise in the organic composition of capital.

LTV.  If profit comes from living labour, and not from dead labour (ie factory, machinery raw materials etc), as the level of investment in dead labour rises proportionately to the level of investment in living labour, so the rate of profit falls.
The rate of profit = Total investment ratio to profit.  So £100 invested in £50 dead labour and £50 living labour, with  £10 _profit,_ has a 10 per cent rate of profit.  However if because of pressures the ratio was shifted to So £100 invested in £70 dead labour and £30 living labour, the proportion of investment in that that produces profit, living labour, is reduced and so is the rate of profit.  And so the labour theory of value is central to the crisis.



butchersapron said:


> Bloody hell, even in your crude mechanical marxism you should be able to see how it outlines the pressures that capital faces from the w/c. The rise in organic compostion of capital caused by intra-capitalist competition driven by rising labour costs, the associated concentration of capital and overproduction, the local monopolies leading to the same, the falling rate of profit from the decreasing amount of variable capital  - all offest by counter-tendencies which can themselves heighten crisis and so on - *it's all there if only you know how to read Marx.*


 If only we had Butch's higher level of consciousness.  hypocrite.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 4, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You think that the view that Freddy was putting forward was underconsumptionist!



So explain to us your/Freddy's superior economic understanding.


----------



## dannysp (Jun 4, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Never a follower be.
> 
> http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/apr98/follower.html



I posted this link to counter the accusation that the SPGB is vanguardist. This article from the Socialist Standard sets out our case against political leadership.
I would have thought that if the SPGB is a vanguardist Party this article would be grist to the mill of those that criticise it.

I look forward to your thoughts.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 4, 2010)

dannysp said:


> I posted this link to counter the accusation that the SPGB is vanguardist. This article from the Socialist Standard sets out our case against political leadership.
> I would have thought that if the SPGB is a vanguardist Party this article would be grist to the mill of those that criticise it.
> 
> I look forward to your thoughts.



Butch only cherry picks attributes from SPGB which fit his childish definition vanguardist.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 4, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> In fairness to Butcher's, this isn't really Marx's explanation of the economic crisis, it's a underconsumptionist, Keynesian, explanation.  The crisis does come from the change in the ratio of dead labour to living labour, the rise in the organic composition of capital.
> 
> LTV.  If profit comes from living labour, and not from dead labour (ie factory, machinery raw materials etc), as the level of investment in dead labour rises proportionately to the level of investment in living labour, so the rate of profit falls.
> The rate of profit = Total investment ratio to profit.  So £100 invested in £50 dead labour and £50 living labour, with  £10 _profit,_ has a 10 per cent rate of profit.  However if because of pressures the ratio was shifted to So £100 invested in £70 dead labour and £30 living labour, the proportion of investment in that that produces profit, living labour, is reduced and so is the rate of profit.  And so the labour theory of value is central to the crisis.


please explain why dead labour (or, more concisely, machinery and infrastructure) would be more pricey than workers. because, in the long term, I don't see it that way _at all._


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 4, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> but marx and labour the theory value never said Capitalism is a merry go round that passes fixed points in it's cycle every few years.
> 
> For marx the economic crisis was innate to capitalism, produced by the capitalists, not the working class.  According to the labour theory of value, and it's developments in the capital volume one, the economic crisis occurs because of the rise in the organic composition of capital, and this is driven by the capitalists raison d'être, "Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets".  Without going into what the organic composition of capitalis etc., it is fact that marx firmly placed responsibility for the economic crisis with the capitalists, period.
> 
> ...




You can't have a capitalist class without a working class.  It's a dialectic.  That's how I understand it anyway.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 4, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> please explain why dead labour (or, more concisely, machinery and infrastructure) would be more pricey than workers. because, in the long term, I don't see it that way _at all._


Over investment.

Sorry mate, don't really want to get sidetracked.  I am much more interested in Butcher's cliques underdtanding of consciousness, and how we get from capitalism to anarchism.  Can I have a rain check on that question please?


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 4, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Over investment.
> 
> Sorry mate, don't really want to get sidetracked.  I am much more interested in Butcher's cliques underdtanding of consciousness, and how we get from capitalism to anarchism.  Can I have a rain check on that question please?



There is no consciousness


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 4, 2010)

This brings us back to the interesting question to Butchers, random, louis, jim, freddy etc.





FreddyB said:


> There is no consciousness


 If they reject the notion of contradictory levels of consciousness, how do they explain the working classes choosing to not to control of the means of production?  How do you explain them not sharing your different, 'better' level of understanding of capitalism and the anarchism alternative?







Also explain to me how these statements are wrong or right;

Butchers, Jim, Random Freddy etc,,, are saying they have no consciousness whatsoever of what they are trying to achieve, and how to achieve it?

The working class have no consciousness whatsoever of what you are trying to achieve, and how to achieve it?


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 4, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> This brings us back to the interesting question to Butchers, random, louis, jim, freddy etc. If they reject the notion of contradictory levels of consciousness, how do they explain the working classes choosing to not to control of the means of production?  How do you explain them not sharing your different, 'better' level of understanding of capitalism and the anarchism alternative?
> 
> Also explain to me how these statements are wrong or right;
> 
> ...



I dunno who else is saying there is no consciousness but I am.  I've got no explanation for people having a different view of capitalism to me, I haven't asked everyone, anyone in fact. I don't see any need - they don't need me, or Butchers or Random or the SPGB or you and whatever strange sect you belong too. People do what they need to do in the situations they find themselves in and if those people are working class then they are by definition in conflict with capitalism whether they think of it in those terms or not. COnsciousness is just a silly way for people like you to think themselves important. You aren't. Not even slightly.


----------



## chilango (Jun 4, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> I dunno who else is saying there is no consciousness but I am. I've got no explanation for people having a different view of capitalism to me, I haven't asked everyone, anyone in fact. I don't see any need - they don't need me, or Butchers or Random or the SPGB or you and whatever strange sect you belong too. People do what they need to do in the situations they find themselves in and if those people are working class then they are by definition in conflict with capitalism whether they think of it in those terms or not. COnsciousness is just a silly way for people like you to think themselves important. You aren't. Not even slightly.


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 4, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> In fairness to Butcher's, this isn't really Marx's explanation of the economic crisis, it's a underconsumptionist, Keynesian, explanation.  The crisis does come from the change in the ratio of dead labour to living labour, the rise in the organic composition of capital.




Well no disproportionality theory is not the same thing as underconsumptionist theory at all.  It is about uneven growth between different sectors of the economy due to the fact that enterprises produce "blindly" for the market and do not coordinate their output with other enterprises.  So there is a relative overproduction in one part of the economy leading to cutbacks which have knock on effects resulting ultimiately in an  economic crisis.  

This is Marx's theory of crisis.  It is not the same as the "profit squeeze" thesis advanced by people like Glyn and Sutcliffe in   British Capitalism, Workers and the Profit Squeeze (Penguin Books, 1972) - a thesis which I think Butchers holds though I am not entiurely sure about this.  Admittedly it can easily be read as a  marxist theory of crisis insofar as Marx himself talked about the "fall in the rate of profit consequent upon the general rise of wages"  Value Price and Profit) At first blush this might appear to lend credence to the claim that economic crisis is a consequence of workers "pricing themselves out of job", as the expression goes, by imposing unrealistic wage demands on their employers, eroding the latter's profit margins.  Marx's observation above as well as his comment that " crises are always prepared by a period in which wages generally rise" might seem to support this conclusion.  

However, Marx was adamant  that the wage rate was the *dependent *variable, while the rate of capital accumulation  or investment (which in turn is heavily influenced by the rate of profit)  was the independent variable.(Capital Volume I p. 770).   In other words, *the ability of workers to secure increased wages was dependent upon the profitability of the businesses employing them.*  This was the point I put to Butchers but he evidently didnt see the significance of it.  He is mistaking the symptoms for the cause of the problem.

If profit margins are too low, a  large wage increase could jeopardise the very viability of the business. Then, should that business collapse, the workers employed in it would cease to have a job.  Not only that, the consequence of this would be to swell the "industrial reserve army" of the unemployed.  The larger the size of that army, the greater the downward pressure it would tend to exert on the wages of workers still currently employed. That, in turn, would tend to enhance the profit margins of existing firms and thus, on the face of it, serve to avert a crisis.  

In any case as people like Brenner have pointed out, the crisis of 1974 was a fairly generalised one affecting a large number of countries  irrespective of whether they had a strong tradition of labour militancy or not ("The economics of global turbulence", New Left Review no. 229 May/June 1998 ). So it is difficult to see how labour militancy as such could have been a factor in this crisis. Rather it is something that tends to be responsive to changing economic circumstances instead of directly bring about these changing circumstances


BTW there is quite an interesting article from the Education department of the SPGB  on economic crises.  Its a bit dated but still very useful .  Check it out at http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/Education Series Crises.html


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 4, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> I dunno who else is saying there is no consciousness but I am.


 so there is no are uniting philosophical strands, which groups all you u75 anarchists?  It's just pure coincidence the u75 anarchists say exactly the same things?



> I've got no explanation for people having a different view of capitalism to me, I haven't asked everyone, anyone in fact. I don't see any need - they don't need me, or Butchers or Random or the SPGB or you and whatever strange sect you belong too. People do what they need to do in the situations they find themselves in and if those people are working class then they are by definition in conflict with capitalism whether they think of it in those terms or not. COnsciousness is just a silly way for people like you to think themselves important. You aren't. Not even slightly


you seem talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk.  You, Butchers, etc have clearly delineated you think you have a superior, higher level of consciousness of what needs to be done, Vanguardism, etc in this thread,,,,, haven't you??


It seems to me it is clear, butcher's is far more conscious of anarchism, than anyone I know in my neighbourhood.  He clearly has a better understanding of capitalism.  To deny the fucking obvious, is nonesense.  Well that IS, from what I can discern, what they are claiming.  "There is no difference between the political revolutionary anarchist, and the mechanic not interested in politics whatsoever."  It is like saying there is no difference between the brain surgeon, and the hairdresser when it comes to cutting hair????  Your position doesn't make sense, and none you even try to explain it.

ETA "sect"?  Is that how anarchists refer to people they politically disagree with?  You don't think that's a bit elitist, arrogant?
And for your information, I am a member of no political organization, and I am indeed of no consequence to the class struggle, or feel a need to be.  Can you say the same?


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 4, 2010)

I think I just did


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 4, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Quote wars will get you nowhere  - lenin said many things at many different times depending on what specific aims were at that point. Why aren't you quoting his anti-vanguardist stuff from the years immediately after 1905? I know why and so do you - because, like Marx, you can cherry pick from his millions of words on millions of issues.
> 
> And you didn't even cherry pick a good one  You've given me one in which Lenin argues that only the vanguard party with the support of the conscious majority of the w/c (i.e *before* the revolution) must take power and instill socialist consciousness in the non-w/c sections of the population. You didn't miss the very important difference between the 'proletariat' and the ' toilers and exploited' did you? Oh yes you did.



What a pathetic attempt to rationalise the irrational.


----------



## JimW (Jun 4, 2010)




----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 5, 2010)

FreddyB;10728596][QUOTE=ResistanceMP3 said:


> and I am indeed of no consequence to the class struggle, or feel a need to be.  Can you say the same?



I think I just did[/QUOTE]

An anarchist, anarchism, has no intention/design/"need" to be of "consequence to the class struggle"?  Think you've got that wrong mate.  Anarchist activists clearly do have vested class and vocational interests in,,,,, and a desire/need for the working class to adopt those tactics, which will best suite the working classes objectives.  You therefore do have a vested interest in 'showing' those tactics are superior to,,,,,, say Vanguardism.  Why else, besides ego, would Butchers etc spend 1400 post's 'delineating' the 'inferiority' of the SPGB's 'Vanguardism'?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 5, 2010)

I've come back to this, because my discussion with you as reiterated my point "axe to grind".





ResistanceMP3 said:


> You see GD, if you misunderstand butch, that's your fault. if Butch misunderstands you, that's your fault.  And if he ask's you to clarify, your obligated, BUT if you ask him to clarify anarchism, he throws a hissy or stonewalls.
> 
> Your waisting your time, if you are interested in an honest exchange of ideas.
> 
> ...


 I wouldn't say I have an axe to grind, I'm intrigued.  It has always fascinated me how butchers can condemn any expression that somebody can hold a superior understanding as elitist, whilst he for 64000 post's appears to flaunt his 'superior' understanding.

The other thing that intrigues me is the way U75 anarchists, collectively, behave like clams.  Look at this thread for example. The SPGB have been absolutely battered, [mostly justified IMHO] from every political direction, and yet they have steadfastly attempted to engage in discussion of their politics.  Like every other topic the U75 anarchists have laid in, unabel to keep their mouths shut, when discussing other people's ideas.  But as soon as the conversation turns to the U75 anarchists views,  like clams their mouths snap shut.  They "if you misunderstand butch, that's your fault. if Butch misunderstands you, that's your fault.  And if he ask's you to clarify, your obligated, BUT if you ask him to clarify anarchism, he throws a hissy or stonewalls."

And this isn't just about anarchism. Butchers must have been asked about 100 time, for his definition of Vanguardism.  And to be fair to Butchers he did throw people a few scraps,,, eventually.  But there has been no honest discussion of his definition.  He just imposes it, with no justification, and even in recognition of the fact that Vanguard parties would not accept that the SPGB is Vanguardist.  His attitude is elitist and arrogant, crimes he postulates against the Vanguardists.

In the end, the SPGB don't really interest me.  They have made crystal clear their position, it makes sense, but I disagree with it.  U75 anarchists do intrigue me, because they make no sense.  And their reticence to discuss their ideas, only makes it more intriguing.   I am a bit sad, like that, I admit.  it isn't about a need  for me to feel "superior", it is just the entertainment of understanding other people's views.


----------



## two sheds (Jun 5, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> The other thing that intrigues me is the way U75 anarchists, collectively, behave like clams.



We anarchists don't actually agree on anything because agreeing with anyone on anything just shows that you haven't thought it through for yourself. Only people in cults agree with each other.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 5, 2010)

two sheds said:


> We anarchists don't actually agree on anything because agreeing with anyone on anything just shows that you haven't thought it through for yourself. Only people in cults agree with each other.



your tagline clearly isn't true.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 5, 2010)

two sheds said:


> We anarchists don't actually agree on anything because agreeing with anyone on anything just shows that you haven't thought it through for yourself. Only people in cults agree with each other.



What utter fabricated nonsense, if it is indeed the case that, "Only people in cults agree with each other." how do you explain the fact that the greater majority agree the earth is round?  Or that the moon does not consist of cheese.  By your definition the greater majority belong to the cult of round earthers.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jun 5, 2010)

JimW said:


>





Tell us moar!


----------



## YouSir (Jun 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> What utter fabricated nonsense, if it is indeed the case that, "Only people in cults agree with each other." how do you explain the fact that the greater majority agree the earth is round?  Or that the moon does not consist of cheese.  By your definition the greater majority belong to the cult of round earthers.



He may have been taking the piss slightly...


----------



## two sheds (Jun 5, 2010)

YouSir said:


> He may have been taking the piss slightly...


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 5, 2010)

ResistanceMP3;10730254]The other thing that intrigues me is the way U75 anarchists said:


> your tagline clearly isn't true.


[/QUOTE]


Gravediggers;10730496]What utter fabricated nonsense said:


> He may have been taking the piss slightly...


[/QUOTE] if only, YouSir, he was jesting.  And no, Spanky Longhorn, this isn't a case of Two Sheds being "daft".  Two Sheds is being honest.  This is precisely the U75 anarchists 'excuse' "We anarchists don't actually agree on anything because agreeing with anyone on anything just shows that you haven't thought it through for yourself. Only people in cults agree with each other.".  And so if there is any "daftness" or perhaps absurdity, it does not lie with two sheds, it lies with U75 anarchism.  This is indeed the basis of upon which they CONSTANTLY refuse to debate anarchism.  And when I say, CONSTANTLY refuse to debate anarchism, I mean> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/search.php?searchid=15723575


----------



## two sheds (Jun 5, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> if only, YouSir, he was jesting.  And no, Spanky Longhorn, this isn't a case of Two Sheds being "daft".  Two Sheds is being honest.  This is precisely what the U75 anarchists 'agree' on "We anarchists don't actually agree on anything because agreeing with anyone on anything just shows that you haven't thought it through for yourself. Only people in cults agree with each other.".  And so if there is any "daftness" or perhaps absurdity, it does not lie with two sheds, it lies with U75 anarchism.  This is indeed the basis of upon which they CONSTANTLY refuse to debate anarchism.  And when I say, CONSTANTLY refuse to debate anarchism, I mean> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/search.php?searchid=15723575



I agree with that, actually.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 5, 2010)

YouSir;10730535]He may have been taking the piss slightly... [QUOTE=two sheds said:


>


[/QUOTE]so go on, clarify.  Be as honest as the SPGB, and explain your 'logic'.  We will not hang all U75 anarchists by your words, we will accept for the purpose of a novel experience, debating anarchism, you speak only for yourself.


PS.  Every single post I have made to this thread has been in the same vain.  I have asked Louis, Random, Jim W, Butchers, Fred, Two Sheds etc questions not just on anarchism, but on their personal opinions, and not one of them has answered honestly.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 5, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> if only, YouSir, he was jesting.  And no, Spanky Longhorn, this isn't a case of Two Sheds being "daft".  Two Sheds is being honest.  This is precisely the U75 anarchists 'excuse' "We anarchists don't actually agree on anything because agreeing with anyone on anything just shows that you haven't thought it through for yourself. Only people in cults agree with each other.".  And so if there is any "daftness" or perhaps absurdity, it does not lie with two sheds, it lies with U75 anarchism.  This is indeed the basis of upon which they CONSTANTLY refuse to debate anarchism.  And when I say, CONSTANTLY refuse to debate anarchism, I mean> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/search.php?searchid=15723575



As Urban's quietest (and laziest) Anarchist I'll say that I do, on occasion, agree with people, but that may be besides the point. Either way I wouldn't choose the handful of people who actively expouse Anarchism on Urban as the ultimate exhibitors of what most Anarchists are like, largely because there is no generalised archetype tied to the beliefs. You just don't get on with a few people, that's not a political issue (and it's not one that I'd take any sides on).


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 5, 2010)

two sheds said:


> I agree with that, actually.


fucking hell, credit to you.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 5, 2010)

YouSir said:


> Either way I wouldn't choose the handful of people who actively expouse Anarchism on Urban as the ultimate exhibitors of what most Anarchists are like, largely because there is no generalised archetype tied to the beliefs.


 that's complete utter excuse.  There is probably more divisions and less of a generalised archetypal Marxist, it doesn't mean we can't discuss Marxism.  

There is no excuse for not explaining what you as an individual anarchists stand for, and any element that you would suggest, IYO, all anarchists share in common.  For example,,,,,,,,, I'm going to come back on Two Sheds.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 5, 2010)

two sheds said:


> I agree with that, actually.



Can we take that as confirmation you belong to some cult?  Or perhaps its confirmation of your idiocy?  Then again it maybe a very poor attempt to reaffirm that you are not as dumb has you look?


----------



## YouSir (Jun 5, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> that's complete utter excuse.  There is probably more divisions and less of a generalised archetypal Marxist, it doesn't mean we can't discuss Marxism.
> 
> There is no excuse for not explaining what you as an individual anarchists stand for, and any element that you would suggest, IYO, all anarchists share in common.  For example,,,,,,,,, I'm going to come back on Two Sheds.



No it's not, it's stating the obvious, you're arguing with a collection of individuals who, regardless of their mutual ideals, are still going to behave differently on a message board. If they won't give you the debate you want that's nothing to do with the ideology and everything to do with their personalities. Whether they're right or wrong to not deal with you as you'd want them to I've no idea, I'm not monitoring their posts, but it's still not a matter of politics.

As for me personally, I find the politics forums interesting but I hardly ever get involved because I don't see the point, plus I don't have the time or energy to get as riled up as a lot of the leading posters seem to. If you want my personal opinions on something though feel free to ask, if I'm at work and bored I'll probably answer. There y'go though, Urban Anarchists are all different, we've all got our own ways of being a bit shit, just like everyone else


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 5, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> so go on, clarify.  Be as honest as the SPGB, and explain your 'logic'.  We will not hang all U75 anarchists by your words, we will accept for the purpose of a novel experience, debating anarchism, you speak only for yourself.
> 
> 
> PS.  Every single post I have made to this thread has been in the same vain.  I have asked Louis, Random, Jim W, Butchers, Fred, Two Sheds etc questions not just on anarchism, but on their personal opinions, and not one of them has answered honestly.



I think you would be more likely to get a honest reply if you were to ask what they are logically against.


----------



## scrappy1 (Jun 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> What utter fabricated nonsense, if it is indeed the case that, "Only people in cults agree with each other." how do you explain the fact that the greater majority agree the earth is round?  Or that the moon does not consist of cheese.  By your definition the greater majority belong to the cult of round earthers.



Reminds me of a Will Hay sketch:
Teacher: "Is the world round or flat?"
Pupil: "Round, sir!"
Teacher: "How do you know?"
Pupil: "All right, flat then!"


----------



## two sheds (Jun 5, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> fucking hell, credit to you.



Nah I was lying, sorry, I thought it was crap  

I'm also not really an anarchist (like I said I'm more a environmentalist). I like the idea that decisions should be made at the lowest possible level of society, and I tend to agree with the anarchist analyses of why we are where we are. Mind you, I also agree with the SPGB analyses of why we are where we are. Saying what's wrong with society is fairly easy, it's what people want to put in its place that I usually have problems with. 

The first thread that came up on that search you did saying that nobody will debate anarchism on u75 actually has some interesting views on anarchism. Incidentally the thread title: 'Can someone explain anarchism to me (again)' does suggest that he's asked before and that people have tried to explain before but that he's just not understood and is having another go. 

There indeed wasn't really a debate on that thread, but a couple of people who *do* say they are anarchists give some interesting links/views/quotes. I don't think anarchists actually have the same sort of debate you seem to hold in the SPGB when left to yourselves which seems to be along the lines of 'I'm glad you asked me that, comrade, because if they reject the notion of contradictory levels of consciousness, how  do they explain the working classes choosing to not to control of the  means of production?"  

As to your complaint that I've not answered questions on my personal opinions 'honestly' I've actually in a couple of places said how I feel we should approach the problems in society. I think my first step (that we try to find out what type of society people would be happiest and most fulfilled living in) was so far from the SPGB's own ideas that it is invisible because none of you came back on it.


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 5, 2010)

two sheds said:


> As to your complaint that I've not answered questions on my personal opinions 'honestly' I've actually in a couple of places said how I feel we should approach the problems in society. I think my first step (that we try to find out what type of society people would be happiest and most fulfilled living in) was so far from the SPGB's own ideas that it is invisible because none of you came back on it.



So what type of society do you feel people would be happiest and most fulfilled living in, two sheds,  and in what way does it differ from the SPGB's own ideas about a (socialist) society?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 5, 2010)

two sheds;10730389][QUOTE=ResistanceMP3 said:


> The other thing that intrigues me is the way U75 anarchists, collectively, behave like clams.  Look at this thread for example. The SPGB have been absolutely battered, [mostly justified IMHO] from every political direction, and yet they have steadfastly attempted to engage in discussion of their politics.  Like every other topic the U75 anarchists have laid in, unabel to keep their mouths shut, when discussing other people's ideas.  But as soon as the conversation turns to the U75 anarchists views,  like clams their mouths snap shut.  They "if you misunderstand butch, that's your fault. if Butch misunderstands you, that's your fault.  And if he ask's you to clarify, your obligated, BUT if you ask him to clarify anarchism, he throws a hissy or stonewalls."


We anarchists don't actually agree on anything because agreeing with anyone on anything just shows that you haven't thought it through for yourself. Only people in cults agree with each other.[/QUOTE] the first part of your statement is implicitly false.  If it is true, it has to be false, because if "anarchists don't actually agree on anything", then there has to be anarchists who disagree with this statement.  What's more if we venture away from U75 anarchists to my website www.ResistanceMP3.org.uk, you will find anarchists who have no problem discussing anarchism.  Lastly, in your very acknowledgement that U75 anarchists act collectively, "collectively, behave like clams.   [.......] as soon as the conversation turns to the U75 anarchists views,  like clams their mouths snap shut.", you demonstrate that even the U75 anarchists have enough common ground, to act spontaneously collectively.

However that is by the by, because this statement "just shows that you haven't thought it through for yourself. Only people in cults agree with each other." IS commonISH to virtually all the writings U75 anarchists, and most I have come across outside.  It's this kind of Christian individualism attitude, that people can only come as individuals, by their own effort, on their own,  to an  anarchism,,,,, which needs some explaining.  It seems to have no evidential or logical basis, yet it is so prevalent they must have some explanation.


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 5, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> the first part of your statement is implicitly false.  If it is true, it has to be false, because if "anarchists don't actually agree on anything", then there has to be anarchists who disagree with this statement.  What's more if we venture away from U75 anarchists to my website www.ResistanceMP3.org.uk, you will find anarchists who have no problem discussing anarchism.  Lastly, in your very acknowledgement that U75 anarchists act collectively, "collectively, behave like clams.   [.......] as soon as the conversation turns to the U75 anarchists views,  like clams their mouths snap shut.", you demonstrate that even the U75 anarchists have enough common ground, to act spontaneously collectively.
> 
> However that is by the by, because this statement "just shows that you haven't thought it through for yourself. Only people in cults agree with each other." IS commonISH to virtually all the writings U75 anarchists, and most I have come across outside.  It's this kind of Christian individualism attitude, that people can only come as individuals, by their own effort, on their own,  to an  anarchism,,,,, which needs some explaining.  It seems to have no evidential or logical basis, yet it is so prevalent you must have some explanation.




Disagreement for the sake of disagreement is probably even more absurd and pointless than agreement for the sake of agreement


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I think you would be more likely to get a honest reply if you were to ask what they are logically against.


True.  That is the only way you will get an honest reply usually off the majority of U75 anarchists.  Just boring mate.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 5, 2010)

YouSir said:


> No it's not, it's stating the obvious, you're arguing with a collection of individuals who, regardless of their mutual ideals, are still going to behave differently on a message board. If they won't give you the debate you want that's nothing to do with the ideology and everything to do with their personalities. Whether they're right or wrong to not deal with you as you'd want them to I've no idea, I'm not monitoring their posts, but it's still not a matter of politics.
> 
> As for me personally, I find the politics forums interesting but I hardly ever get involved because I don't see the point, plus I don't have the time or energy to get as riled up as a lot of the leading posters seem to. If you want my personal opinions on something though feel free to ask, if I'm at work and bored I'll probably answer. There y'go though, Urban Anarchists are all different, we've all got our own ways of being a bit shit, just like everyone else


You didn'tn wait for me "to come back on Two Sheds." mate.  As you see there, I have no disagreement with what you say above.  in fact violent panda used to be quite like yourself.

PS.  my motivation, boredom.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 5, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> What's more if we venture away from U75 anarchists to my website www.ResistanceMP3.org.uk, you will find anarchists who have no problem discussing anarchism.



Had a look and failed to find anything on anarchism, or anarchists, plenty on the SWP though.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 5, 2010)

two sheds said:


> Nah I was lying, sorry, I thought it was crap
> 
> I'm also not really an anarchist (like I said I'm more a environmentalist).


Thank fuck for that!  You had me changing my entire world view for a minute.


> I like the idea that decisions should be made at the lowest possible level of society, and I tend to agree with the anarchist analyses of why we are where we are. Mind you, I also agree with the SPGB analyses of why we are where we are. Saying what's wrong with society is fairly easy, it's what people want to put in its place that I usually have problems with.


BINGO!!!  I am of  exactly the same mind.  ETA.... Ive always said on here, if I had a choice of social revolutions, I'd choose what I understand of the Anarchists route. To add to that, my problem is, at least with the SPGB, they have an idea of what they are trying to achieve, and how they want to achieve it, you can accept or reject.  With the U75anarchists, it's like getting on a coach where the driver has an idea where you're going, anarchism, but has no directions, map, clue HOW to get there.  Or do they? Who knows, because>



> The first thread that came up on that search you did saying that nobody will debate anarchism on u75 actually has some interesting views on anarchism. Incidentally the thread title: 'Can someone explain anarchism to me (again)' does suggest that he's asked before and that people have tried to explain before but that he's just not understood and is having another go.
> 
> There indeed wasn't really a debate on that thread, but a couple of people who *do* say they are anarchists give some interesting links/views/quotes. I don't think anarchists actually have the same sort of debate you seem to hold in the SPGB when left to yourselves which seems to be along the lines of 'I'm glad you asked me that, comrade, because if they reject the notion of contradictory levels of consciousness, how  do they explain the working classes choosing to not to control of the  means of production?"


LOL Im not a SPGB member.





ResistanceMP3 said:


> The SPGB have been absolutely battered, [mostly justified IMHO] from every political direction, and yet they have steadfastly attempted to engage in discussion of their politics.


 Got ya.

The link was to demonstrate, in five years there hasn't been anything like the 1400 post debate about the SPGB.  In fact any discussion of anarchism rarely gets beyond a few posts.  Considering  number of anarchists there seems to be on this website, I find that fact intriguing, without explanation.  I'm incurably curious, thats all.


> As to your complaint that I've not answered questions on my personal opinions 'honestly' I've actually in a couple of places said how I feel we should approach the problems in society. I think my first step (that we try to find out what type of society people would be happiest and most fulfilled living in) was so far from the SPGB's own ideas that it is invisible because none of you came back on it.


 I think you have me mixed up with somebody else.  Don't worry, I don't usually catalogue of other people's viewpoints either.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Had a look and failed to find anything on anarchism, or anarchists, plenty on the SWP though.


you need to try harder, comrade.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 5, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Thank fuck for that!  You had me changing my entire world view for a minute.BINGO!!!  I am of  exactly the same mind.  To add to that, my problem is, at least with the SPGB, they have an idea of what they are trying to achieve, and how they want to achieve it, you can accept or reject.  With the U75anarchists, it's like getting on a coach where the driver has an idea where you're going, anarchism, but has no directions, map, clue HOW to get there.  Or do they? Who knows, because>
> 
> LOL Im not a SPGB member. Got ya.



Now I'm intrigued that you have a problem with accepting or rejecting the SPGB?  Frankly I'm baffled on trying to fathom the reason this is a problem.  Would appreciate some clarity.



> The link was to demonstrate, in five years there hasn't been anything like the 1400 post debate about the SPGB.



Which IME signifies that both the posters and the viewers are finding the SPGB case for socialism not only intriguing and entertaining but also worthy of closer examination.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 5, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> you need to try harder, comrade.



Will do and get back to a.s.a.p.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Will do and get back to a.s.a.p.



Done still no luck.  Clicked on several links and nothing on anarchism. Also tried using the search feature and all I had was blank pages.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Now I'm intrigued that you have a problem with accepting or rejecting the SPGB?  Frankly I'm baffled on trying to fathom the reason this is a problem.  Would appreciate some clarity.


I don't mate have a a problem with "accepting or rejecting the SPGB".
my problem is, at least with the SPGB, they have an idea of what they are trying to achieve, and how they want to achieve it, you can accept or reject.  <That's fine. With the U75anarchists, it's like getting on a coach where the driver has an idea where you're going, anarchism, but has no directions, map, clue HOW to get there. Or do they? Who knows, because>





> Which IME signifies that both the posters and the viewers are finding the SPGB case for socialism not only intriguing and entertaining but also worthy of closer examination.


 but your new to U75.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Done still no luck.  Clicked on several links and nothing on anarchism. Also tried using the search feature and all I had was blank pages.


try chomsky http://resistancemp3.org.uk/cgi-bin/namekeysearch.pl 
However, the site is in a process of problem sorting.  try here to,,,, wait a minute.

there you go http://www.radio-rouge.org/resistancemp3/ not perfect, but better.

oops.  real probs sos. found such as;

Anarchy: Co-Operation Without Restraint
Noam Chomsky - Length: 51 minutes 

Government of the Future
Noam Chomsky 1970 - Length: 54 minutes

but mp3 file link not working


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 5, 2010)

have applied a temp fix.

Heres just one now working
http://www.radio-rouge.org/Users/resistancemp3/noamchomskyanarchy-co-operationwithoutrestraint.mp3
Anarchy: Co-Operation Without Restraint
Noam Chomsky - Length: 51 minutes

all the others should work too.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 5, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I don't mate have a a problem with "accepting or rejecting the SPGB".
> my problem is, at least with the SPGB, they have an idea of what they are trying to achieve, and how they want to achieve it, you can accept or reject.  <That's fine. With the U75anarchists, it's like getting on a coach where the driver has an idea where you're going, anarchism, but has no directions, map, clue HOW to get there. Or do they? Who knows, because>



OK then the problem is I take it to be, ".... .... at least with the SPGB, they have an idea of what they are trying to achieve, and how they want to achieve it,".  Would appreciate some clarity on how for you this is a problem.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 5, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> try chomsky http://resistancemp3.org.uk/cgi-bin/namekeysearch.pl
> However, the site is in a process of problem sorting.  try here to,,,, wait a minute.
> 
> there you go http://www.radio-rouge.org/resistancemp3/ not perfect, but better.
> ...



Yeh so I found out, but eventually managed to get through.


----------



## JimN (Jun 6, 2010)

Hi folks,

Since we seem to have entered the eye of the storm on this discussion I thought it might be a good time to post a snippet from the SPGB website on what we mean by socialism:



> What is Socialism?
> 
> Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 6, 2010)

JimN said:


> Hi folks,
> 
> Since we seem to have entered the eye of the storm on this discussion I thought it might be a good time to post a snippet from the SPGB website on what we mean by socialism:



About time something like this brief outline was posted and not just to illustrate how our ideas are in the vanguard of describing the revolutionary changes in the social relationships.  For it also illustrates that the SPGB can not be described as a vanguardist political party out to dictate the terms  which reflect a ruling minority.  If this was indeed the case the passage quoted below would be worded very differently to the idea it sets out to convey, for what this passage proposes is a non-hierarchical society where the decisions and responsibilities for production for use are taken by the whole of society rather than a leadership who by definition would constitute a minority ruling class.



> In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions.


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 6, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> About time something like this brief outline was posted and not just to illustrate how our ideas are in the vanguard of describing the revolutionary changes in the social relationships.  For it also illustrates that the SPGB can not be described as a vanguardist political party out to dictate the terms  which reflect a ruling minority.  If this was indeed the case the passage quoted below would be worded very differently to the idea it sets out to convey, for what this passage proposes is a non-hierarchical society where the decisions and responsibilities for production for use are taken by the whole of society rather than a leadership who by definition would constitute a minority ruling class.



It reminds me of those watchtower magazines the jehovas have. The ones with pictures of kids hugging tigers. They share the same relevance to day to day life.


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 6, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> It reminds me of those watchtower magazines the jehovas have. The ones with pictures of kids hugging tigers. They share the same relevance to day to day life.



So basically what you are saying is that we are stuck with capitalism and have to accept this but cannot provide any convicing reason as to why we should just accept it other than to resort a somewhat smug ad hominen


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 6, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> What a pathetic attempt to rationalise the irrational.



Eh?


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 6, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> So basically what you are saying is that we are stuck with capitalism and have to accept this but cannot provide any convicing reason as to why we should just accept it other than to resort a somewhat smug ad hominen



No. Where have a I said that? I'm saying that the quote is completely and utterly disconnected from the here and the now and you might just as well claim that you want us to live in a harmony with the tigers for all the point there is to saying it. It's useless


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 6, 2010)

Originally Posted by Gravediggers  View Post
What a pathetic attempt to rationalise the irrational.




butchersapron said:


> Eh?



He's done it yet again. Your claims that the SPGB are a vanguardist party have no foundation whatsoever until you provide a definition of vanguardism.  Until then it is expected of you to continue to pathetically attempt to rationalise the irrational.  You continue to be unscientific by making your assumption a foregone conclusion in the absence of evidence to illustrate your claim is a fact and not a fantasy, or even worst the behaviour of a person, or persons who are in denial.

Indeed, your whole claim is based on the assertion that the SPGB are in denial that they are a vanguardist party.  Therefore, to prove this claim the onus is on you to provide a definition which substantiates such accusations.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 6, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> It reminds me of those watchtower magazines the jehovas have. The ones with pictures of kids hugging tigers. They share the same relevance to day to day life.



Do we take this as confirmation that you see no prospect of a society without leaders or rulers?  If so say so.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 6, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Originally Posted by Gravediggers  View Post
> What a pathetic attempt to rationalise the irrational.
> 
> 
> ...


The return of the oppressed  - what's that go to do with my post?

Wait till i show you that you're a classic reformist party next week.


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 6, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Do we take this as confirmation that you see no prospect of a society without leaders or rulers?  If so say so.



I haven't said that so no, you can't.


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 6, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> No. Where have a I said that? I'm saying that the quote is completely and utterly disconnected from the here and the now and you might just as well claim that you want us to live in a harmony with the tigers for all the point there is to saying it. It's useless



Of course you are saying  that - by implication.  You are saying a socialist alternative to capitalism is unrealistic, disconnected from the present and impossibly romantic in the sense of chilrden hugging tigers as protayed in some religious mag, might be.  So if a socialist alternative to capitalism is simply not feasible then that means we are stuck with capitalism and your self-imposed task is to consel us to simply accept this reality.  Isnt it?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 6, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The return of the oppressed  - what's that go to do with my post?
> 
> Wait till i show you that you're a classic reformist party next week.



Going by you past performance it would be foolish to expect you to define a "classical reformist party".


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 6, 2010)

Note he defines socialist alternative as agreeing with him. Awakened men. What awoke you robb?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 6, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Going by you past performance it would be foolish to expect you to define a "classical reformist party".



Look, your tongue's already out - not walkies yet lad.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 6, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> I haven't said that so no, you can't.



Well that is exactly what the original quote was putting across a world without leaders.  Yet you choose to slag that idea as a fantasy related to religious meanderings on a perfect world.  So can you please confirm you agree that in a participatory democracy where the means of living are held in common ownership by the whole of the global community, the concept of leadership has effectively been made redundant?  Yes or no.

Also do you agree with leadership or not?


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 6, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Note he defines socialist alternative as agreeing with him. Awakened men. What awoke you robb?




Dont be silly Butchers.  Lets be candid - we all strive to get the other person to agree with us otherwise we would hardly engage in a debate with them would we?.  You are no exception.  So come off your high horse. 

The definition of socialism I use is not my invention, its a usage that goes back to begining of the socialist movement itself in the 19th century.  If you dont like this particular usage Im quite happy to drop the label for the sake of  argument,  It wont affect the substance of the argument by one jot, mind you


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 6, 2010)

I don't. I genuinely don't. Sorry. Not how i see talk.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 6, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Look, your tongue's already out - not walkies yet lad.



No butchers I can assure you that I'm not straining at the leash has you try to make out.   You can rant as much has you like but no one is going to enter a discussion with you until you provide a definition on what you mean by vanguardism, or for that matter, "a classical reformist party".

Your past performances speak for themselves for you offer no evidence to the contrary by failing to provide a definition.  Therefore you have no foundation to base your claims on.


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 7, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Well that is exactly what the original quote was putting across a world without leaders.  Yet you choose to slag that idea as a fantasy related to religious meanderings on a perfect world.  So can you please confirm you agree that in a participatory democracy where the means of living are held in common ownership by the whole of the global community, the concept of leadership has effectively been made redundant?  Yes or no.
> 
> Also do you agree with leadership or not?



I'm not going to claim to be able to describe the intricate workings of an entire planet from the future and the lessons learnt along the way. That would be foolish but I think that the idea is wonderful and perfectly possible in one form or another. So what?


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 7, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> No butchers I can assure you that I'm not straining at the leash has you try to make out.   You can rant as much has you like but no one is going to enter a discussion with you until you provide a definition on what you mean by vanguardism, or for that matter, "a classical reformist party".
> 
> Your past performances speak for themselves for you offer no evidence to the contrary by failing to provide a definition.  Therefore you have no foundation to base your claims on.



Describe your relationship to that quote about a socialist society and your role in bringing it about and as if by magic you'd have written the definition of vangaurdism


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

spgb said:
			
		

> but no one is going to enter a discussion with you



danny is.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> I'm not going to claim to be able to describe the intricate workings of an entire planet from the future and the lessons learnt along the way. That would be foolish but I think that the idea is wonderful and perfectly possible in one form or another. So what?



What a turnaround from your original slagging remarks.  Nevertheless, you have still failed to provide an answer to the question, "Do you agree with leadership or not?"


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

Next question, what's stopping it?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> Describe your relationship to that quote about a socialist society and your role in bringing it about and as if by magic you'd have written the definition of vangaurdism



This is exactly the claim butchers is trying to make, his like yours has no foundation until you provide a definition of vanguardism.  You are deliberately avoiding a rational discussion by resorting to the irrational.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

> rational discussion



= agree with me.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Next question, what's stopping it?



I presume you are referring to leadership here?  I'm well aware on what is needed.  But the question is are you?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

our leadership - duck park salute.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> = agree with me.



It is you who is attempting to rationalise the irrational, I would not even dream of attempting the impossible.  So no I'm unable to agree with irrational arguments for they have no foundation.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> our leadership - duck park salute.



Typical butchers response.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Typical butchers response.



No, it's not. Thread is proof of this lie.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

BTW - brevity. Good thing.


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 7, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> What a turnaround from your original slagging remarks.  Nevertheless, you have still failed to provide an answer to the question, "Do you agree with leadership or not?"



No turn around at all. I still say exactly the same thing. It's useless, nothing to do with here and now. 

And leadership of what by who?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> No turn around at all. I still say exactly the same thing. It's useless, nothing to do with here and now.
> 
> And leadership of what by who?



Not by the SPGB. Or is it this time.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> No turn around at all. I still say exactly the same thing. It's useless, nothing to do with here and now.



But it is to do with the here and now, for you have suddenly realised you have broken with your principle of, "not agreeing with anything" no matter how ridiculous it makes you out to be.  But here you are saying you agree that participatory democracy is possible in a society where the means of living are held in common ownership.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by FreddyB View Post
> I'm not going to claim to be able to describe the intricate workings of an entire planet from the future and the lessons learnt along the way. That would be foolish but I think that the idea is wonderful and perfectly possible in one form or another. So what?






> What a turnaround from your original slagging remarks. Nevertheless, you have still failed to provide an answer to the question, "Do you agree with leadership or not?"





> And leadership of what by who?



OK lets reformulate my question.  Do you follow leaders?


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 7, 2010)

Do I follow what leaders where and when?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> Do I follow what leaders where and when?



Whatever leaders you care to name, and where ever you like and when ever you like.


----------



## dannysp (Jun 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> BTW - brevity. Good thing.



When accompanied by accuracy and clarity it's good, on its own meaningless.

BTW A discussion is an exchange of ideas, now that would be nice Butch, novel in your case. 

I'm not trying to score a point here, just making one.

Cheers


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

dannysp said:


> When accompanied by accuracy and clarity it's good, on its own meaningless.
> 
> BTW A discussion is an exchange of ideas, now that would be nice Butch, novel in your case.
> 
> ...



Helps when you read other posts too danny. Especially ones in which they've answered your questions before you've asked them.


----------



## dannysp (Jun 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Helps when you read other posts too danny. Especially ones in which they've answered your questions before you've asked them.



 Originally Posted by dannysp  View Post
When accompanied by accuracy and clarity it's good, on its own meaningless.

BTW A discussion is an exchange of ideas, now that would be nice Butch, novel in your case.

I'm not trying to score a point here, just making one.

Cheers


The Above isn't a question just observations Butch.

What answers have I missed?

Cheers


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

The question is not what what answers have you missed, but what daft questions have you asked _after_ posts that make them redundant. For example, i say i reject the class consciousness model - you then ask me of what stuff does class consciousness consist.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The question is not what what answers have you missed, but what daft questions have you asked _after_ posts that make them redundant. For example, i say i reject the class consciousness model - you then ask me of what stuff does class consciousness consist.



Are you saying that there is no such thing as class consciousness?  If so this means logically you do not consider yourself a class conscious member of the working class.

You are serious in making this statement I take it?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

Have you been reading this thread?


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 7, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Whatever leaders you care to name, and where ever you like and when ever you like.



I don't know where you're going with this but lets say yes. I follow leaders of various types in a variety of circumstances for a variety of reasons.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Have you been reading this thread?



I most certainly have that's why I went back to Post 1366 where you made the following:



> My take on class consciousness? I'm not sure that i agree with the class consciousness model at all - it leads to the daft sort of stuff that you've just come up with above and if not handled properly (again, see your long above post) opens the trapdoor to all sorts of vanguardism.



Which by the insertion of, "I'm not sure that i agree with the class consciousness model at all", clearly states your mind is still open on the subject.  Now it appears you have come off the fence by rejecting the class consciousness model entirely.  I'm bumping up my post to make it plain there are serious implications to this rejection.



> Are you saying that there is no such thing as class consciousness? If so this means logically you do not consider yourself a class conscious member of the working class.
> 
> You are serious in making this statement I take it?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

I'm saying, as i've said many times before, that i reject the class consciousness model - it's a trap door through which vanguardists like yourselves gleefully jump.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> I don't know where you're going with this but lets say yes. I follow leaders of various types in a variety of circumstances for a variety of reasons.



Fine, that's what we needed to know, thanks for that.  Now it would be helpful if you would confirm you are an anarchist.  And if so what type do you consider yourself to be.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

We


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I'm saying, as i've said many times before, that i reject the class consciousness model - it's a trap door through which vanguardists like yourselves gleefully jump.



No butchers you never said it many times before.  If you reject the class consciousness model how can you describe yourself as class conscious?  What is your criteria for class consciousness.  In fact do you accept that class consciousness does exist?


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 7, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Fine, that's what we needed to know, thanks for that.  Now it would be helpful if you would confirm you are an anarchist.  And if so what type do you consider yourself to be.



Is this market research? Do you shape your message based on my answers? This stems from me saying that the vision of a socialist future is disconnected from here and now but I'll bite and keep it short. I consider myself to be a class struggle anarchist - This doesn't mean you can tell me what I think though. Please try and stick to the things I've actually said.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> No butchers you never said it many times before.  If you reject the class consciousness model how can you describe yourself as class conscious?  What is your criteria for class consciousness.  In fact do you accept that class consciousness does exist?



I've said it many many times. As i said yesterday, there are more threads than this one.

I see that you're struggling with this. Think about what i've said and then think about your questions. They don't make any sense do they?


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I'm saying, as i've said many times before, that i reject the class consciousness model - it's a trap door through which vanguardists like yourselves gleefully jump.



_Au contraire_  Its the lack of class consciousness that permits vanguardism to flourish.  What need of a vanguard to lead  us when we all know and desire where we are heading in the first place - classless communism


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

That's pure vanguardism there. _Agree with me or be damned._ I now know that you genuinely can't see it though.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I've said it many many times. As i said yesterday, there are more threads than this one.
> 
> I see that you're struggling with this. Think about what i've said and then think about your questions. They don't make any sense do they?



Yes I agree they don't make any sense because you are avoiding the question yet again.  Do you accept that class consciousness does exist?




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Gravediggers View Post
> No butchers you never said it many times before. If you reject the class consciousness model how can you describe yourself as class conscious? What is your criteria for class consciousness. In fact do you accept that class consciousness does exist?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

me said:
			
		

> i reject the class consciousness model






			
				you said:
			
		

> how can you describe yourself as class conscious? What is your criteria for class consciousness. In fact do you accept that class consciousness does exist?



eh?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

Tell me about false consciousness robbo and SPGBers.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I've said it many many times. As i said yesterday, there are more threads than this one.
> 
> I see that you're struggling with this. Think about what i've said and then think about your questions. They don't make any sense do they?





butchersapron said:


> eh?




When are you going to answer the question, "In fact do you accept that class consciousness does exist?"


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Tell me about false consciousness robbo and SPGBers.



Slipping and sliding wont get you off the hook.  Answer the bloody question for fucks sake, "In fact do you accept that class consciousness does exist?"


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 7, 2010)

Ironically this thread has been running for ages and is well boring


----------



## dannysp (Jun 7, 2010)

To counter the charge that The WSM and the SPGB was vanguardist I put up the Socialist Standard article in this link.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/apr98/follower.html  Never a follower be.

Not one response to this fine piece of journalism that put our Party's case against leadership, not one.

Could no one be bothered to read it? Or is it rock solid and can't be taken to pieces?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Ironically this thread has been running for ages and is well boring



Well why don't you start to liven things up by posing some questions you think are relevant to class struggle.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

dannysp said:


> To counter the charge that The WSM and the SPGB was vanguardist I put up the Socialist Standard article in this link.
> 
> http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/apr98/follower.html  Never a follower be.
> 
> ...



I can find you a million articles from the USSR saying that it was socialist. Does that mean that it actually was?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Ironically this thread has been running for ages and is well boring



Fitting mind.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Slipping and sliding wont get you off the hook.  Answer the bloody question for fucks sake, "In fact do you accept that class consciousness does exist?"



An explicit answer to your question is neither slipping nor sliding.




			
				me said:
			
		

> i reject the class consciousness model


----------



## dannysp (Jun 7, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Ironically this thread has been running for ages and is well boring



Is there there the possibility that you could be missing the point?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 7, 2010)

there is the slimmest possibility that I might be taking the piss not the point, yes.


----------



## dannysp (Jun 7, 2010)

Originally Posted by me (butch)
i reject the class consciousness model


What model do you accept?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> An explicit answer to your question is neither slipping nor sliding.



You are slipping and sliding.  I'm not explicitly pinning you down on a 'model' but a concept.  So answer the fucking question, "In fact do you accept that class consciousness does exist?"


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

I reject the class consciousness concept


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> there is the slimmest possibility that I might be taking the piss not the point, yes.



Is this the only contribution you are capable of making?  Surely you have a question up your sleeve which is relevant to class struggle?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Is this the only contribution you are capable of making?  Surely you have a question up your sleeve which is relevant to class struggle?



He's full of false consciousness


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 7, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Is this the only contribution you are capable of making?  Surely you have a question up your sleeve which is relevant to class struggle?



ok. How do you address the fact that most people see politics as a thing done to them by an elite political class and not as a personal thing? How do you seek to address the fact that most people don't give a shit about politics of the parliamentary sort and just want a functioning society to live their lives in?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I reject the class consciousness concept



Fine butchers, pity you didn't make that plain from the very beginning.  So logically speaking you accept you do not have any class consciousness.  Correct?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

Nope. Think.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> ok. How do you address the fact that most people see politics as a thing done to them by an elite political class and not as a personal thing? How do you seek to address the fact that most people don't give a shit about politics of the parliamentary sort and just want a functioning society to live their lives in?



Very good question.  Short answer, alienation from the political process, in that their empowerment only goes so far has an *X*on a bit of paper which paradoxically confirms their support for a system which enslaves them and by definition alienates them from the decision making process on the means of living.  Yep apathy and complacency abounds within capitalism and is essential to its survival.  And it is a functioning society of sorts, specifically for the capitalists.  

So how can socialists address this problem?  By propagating the socialist case whenever the opportunity arises.  What else do you suggest we do?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 7, 2010)

heh, preaching the message. Totally guilty of that, if guilty is the right word. 

As to the latter question I see immense results from community activity undertaken by my local Kingdom Faith church groep. Clearing gardens, washing cars, doorstepping and scoutish bob-a-job stuff tbf but they have recruited hugely as well as making inroads to attempting to convert the LBTG community through grassroots stuff. Now I'm not claiming that as some grand way forward, but intense community activity and involvement on the local issues- the grassroots stuff- surely holds more sway with people than lectures on marxist theory.


----------



## dannysp (Jun 7, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> You are slipping and sliding.  I'm not explicitly pinning you down on a 'model' but a concept.  So answer the fucking question, "In fact do you accept that class consciousness does exist?"





Calm down GD, calm down, he's not worth it! ;-)


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Nope. Think.



Butchers I'm not into mind games, and I'm most certainly not going to hazard a guess on what you expect me to think.  Spit it out for fucks sake. You've stated you reject the class consciousness model, and the concept of class consciousness, so what in actual fact do you accept as class consciousness?

What's the fuck with all this mystery?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

This is the scene where the robots head explodes:



> You've stated you reject the class consciousness model, and the concept of class consciousness, so what in actual fact do you accept as class consciousness?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> heh, preaching the message. Totally guilty of that, if guilty is the right word.
> 
> As to the latter question I see immense results from community activity undertaken by my local Kingdom Faith church groep. Clearing gardens, washing cars, doorstepping and scoutish bob-a-job stuff tbf but they have recruited hugely as well as making inroads to attempting to convert the LBTG community through grassroots stuff. Now I'm not claiming that as some grand way forward, but intense community activity and involvement on the local issues- the grassroots stuff- surely holds more sway with people than lectures on marxist theory.



I know of many members doing exactly that, including myself.  Socialists find it impossible not to be involved in community activity and rarely give lectures on marxian theory.  What I do frequently is challenge the myth that disempowerment is here to stay.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> This is the scene where the robots head explodes:



Mind games again.  I take it you are refusing to answer a simple question?


----------



## dannysp (Jun 7, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> there is the slimmest possibility that I might be taking the piss not the point, yes.



Thanks, without your honesty I would have missed that. What must have I been thinking, silly me.

There's two ways to take the piss, sarcasm or taking advantage, you're engaging in the latter it seems to me. The advantage you secure is that while you "take the piss" out of the SPGB's open position you conceal your own, which is the snipers way, the cowards way of "taking the piss".

OK so we might be fools us "squeegees" but what sort of person is it that spends their time taking the piss out of fools?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

The vanguard?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 7, 2010)

Generally I am the sort of person who sharpens his goading stick regularly.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 7, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Butchers I'm not into mind games, and I'm most certainly not going to hazard a guess on what you expect me to think.  Spit it out for fucks sake. You've stated you reject the class consciousness model, and the concept of class consciousness, so what in actual fact do you accept as class consciousness?
> 
> What's the fuck with all this mystery?



Presumably if someone rejects class consciousness as a concept, then asking them to "accept [something] as class consciousness" is a bit pointless.


----------



## dannysp (Jun 7, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Generally I am the sort of person who sharpens his goading stick regularly.



OK then, why?


----------



## dannysp (Jun 7, 2010)

Originally Posted by me (butch)
i reject the class consciousness model


What model do you accept? 

Any chance of a reply?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 7, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Originally Posted by me (butch)
> i reject the class consciousness model
> 
> 
> ...



Presumably if someone rejects the class consciousness model, they don't neccesarily have to have something to replace it.

Although I would be interested in hearing why butchers rejects it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

No model at all. I place experience, lived experience - at the centre. danny will now say that his and his parties reflection on experience means they're necessarily advanced. If he doesn't he has no grounds on which to claim that his party is in advance of the mass of people.  

for blagsta: consciousness for people like the above simply means agreement with them. A set of beliefs rather than a process of self-and social awareness. If you define class consciousness as 'agreeing with me/us' then it's useless..And it opens the door to _we're advanced you're backward - this is is for your own good.
_


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No model at all. I place experience, lived experience - at the centre. danny will now say that his and his parties reflection on experience means they're necessarily advanced. If he doesn't he has no grounds on which to claim that his party is in advance of the mass of people.
> 
> for blagsta: consciousness for people like the above simply means agreement with them. A set of beliefs rather than a process of self-and social awareness. If you define class consciousness as 'agreeing with me/us' then it's useless..And it opens the door to _we're advanced you're backward - this is is for your own good.
> _



Yeah, I can see that.  Cheers.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Presumably if someone rejects class consciousness as a concept, then asking them to "accept [something] as class consciousness" is a bit pointless.



Yes to you and me, but alas not to butchers who will unforgivably find fault with any response that fails to fit with his understanding of what class consciousness actually consists of.  He's the nit picker supremo!  He will wriggle and squirm, slip and slide, act dumb and deaf in an effort to retain the crown of the uncommitted and irrational argument which can be found often with those who are in denial that class consciousness is the starting block for a serious and determined discussion on aspects of the class struggle.

His understanding of class consciousness is his and his alone and to tread on this sacred patch is to do so at your peril.  For to him this constitutes an invasion of his privacy where the sharing of ideas is frowned upon and serves to confirm you are a vanguardist.  In effect he constantly attempts to rationalise the irrational.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 7, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Yes to you and me, but alas not to butchers who will unforgivably find fault with any response that fails to fit with his understanding of what class consciousness actually consists of.  He's the nit picker supremo!  He will wriggle and squirm, slip and slide, act dumb and deaf in an effort to retain the crown of the uncommitted and irrational argument which can be found often with those who are in denial that class consciousness is the starting block for a serious and determined discussion on aspects of the class struggle.
> 
> His understanding of class consciousness is his and his alone and to tread on this sacred patch is to do so at your peril.  For to him this constitutes an invasion of his privacy where the sharing of ideas is frowned upon and serves to confirm you are a vanguardist.  In effect he constantly attempts to rationalise the irrational.



He's just given you a response.


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 7, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Yes to you and me, but alas not to butchers who will unforgivably find fault with any response that fails to fit with his understanding of what class consciousness actually consists of.  He's the nit picker supremo!  He will wriggle and squirm, slip and slide, act dumb and deaf in an effort to retain the crown of the uncommitted and irrational argument which can be found often with those who are in denial that class consciousness is the starting block for a serious and determined discussion on aspects of the class struggle.
> 
> His understanding of class consciousness is his and his alone and to tread on this sacred patch is to do so at your peril.  For to him this constitutes an invasion of his privacy where the sharing of ideas is frowned upon and serves to confirm you are a vanguardist.  In effect he constantly attempts to rationalise the irrational.


There is no class conciousness except in your head where it exists to make you and your party important.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No model at all. I place experience, lived experience - at the centre. danny will now say that his and his parties reflection on experience means they're necessarily advanced. If he doesn't he has no grounds on which to claim that his party is in advance of the mass of people.
> 
> for blagsta: consciousness for people like the above simply means agreement with them. A set of beliefs rather than a process of self-and social awareness. If you define class consciousness as 'agreeing with me/us' then it's useless..And it opens the door to _we're advanced you're backward - this is is for your own good.
> _



May I remind you of my Post 1353 below.



> And how does this explain the many instances of workers becoming class conscious without even being in touch with the SPGB? Indeed, there have been quite a few instances in our experience where the class conscious worker have deliberately made the effort to seek out an organisation which reflects their class consciousness. Happily, they have come across the SPGB to confirm they were not in isolation and that there were workers who had reached exactly reached the same conclusion.





> Class consciousness does not arise because the SPGB says so, but from life experiences and a basic understanding that capitalism is not in our interests.


----------



## scrappy1 (Jun 7, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> But it is to do with the here and now, for you have suddenly realised you have broken with your principle of, "not agreeing with anything" no matter how ridiculous it makes you out to be.  But here you are saying you agree that participatory democracy is possible in a society where the means of living are held in common ownership.



All this stuff reminds me of that famous Monty Python "Argument" sketch. See


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> May I remind you of my Post 1353 below.
> 
> 
> 
> Class consciousness does not arise because the SPGB says so, but from life experiences and a basic understanding that capitalism is not in our interests.



May i remind you of the specific things that you say class consciouses consists of:


> When socialist talk of "class consciousness" they specifically mean a working class consciousness that recognises their subservient role within the capitalist mode of production and how this came about. It follows, a prerequisite is a general understanding on how exploitation takes place to extract surplus value from the workers and create profit, rent and interest for the capitalist class. This does not mean you have to attend study groups on the reading of Marx for in its essence the formula for exploitation can be explained by an examination of the wages system itself.
> 
> Broadly speaking the workers produce more than enough to live within a set number of hours. For example, within an eight hour day we can produce sufficient to meet our everyday needs and to reproduce our labour power within 6 hours, the other 2 hours is extracted by the capitalist has surplus value.
> 
> ...


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 7, 2010)

Class consciousness only exists in your head. Somebody knows something that you agree with and they're class conscious. It means nothing at all that you've pointed to someone and claimed they have this magic consciousness.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> There is no class conciousness except in your head where it exists to make you and your party important.



What a put down for our class interests.  Not a very nice way of confirming you lack a class consciousness.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

Nothing  outside of the party  

Nothing.


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 7, 2010)

But they aren't vanguardist


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> May i remind you of the specific things that you say class consciouses consists of:







> Quote:
> When socialist talk of "class consciousness" they specifically mean a working class consciousness that recognises their subservient role within the capitalist mode of production and how this came about. It follows, a prerequisite is a general understanding on how exploitation takes place to extract surplus value from the workers and create profit, rent and interest for the capitalist class. This does not mean you have to attend study groups on the reading of Marx for in its essence the formula for exploitation can be explained by an examination of the wages system itself.
> 
> Broadly speaking the workers produce more than enough to live within a set number of hours. For example, within an eight hour day we can produce sufficient to meet our everyday needs and to reproduce our labour power within 6 hours, the other 2 hours is extracted by the capitalist has surplus value.
> ...



So what is your beef with this?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

Apart for all the posts outlining my problems with this idiocy?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Yes except we are not talking about vagueness, rather the reverse, in that the politically class conscious workers are very *clear* and aware on the aim and objective of socialism and how to get it so to ensure the means are harmonised with the ends.  For instance the nearer the revolution becomes the more planning and preparation will be taking place.  In effect we wont be sitting on our arses waiting for it to happen we will actively be making it happen as a politically  conscious working class.  In fact this aspect of the transformation is taking place right now before our very eyes, and not just with the SPGB and the World Socialist Movement.  For there are others within the libertarian tradition who discuss this very topic/subject.
> 
> Ask robbo he's got a list on who they are.



Who are they robbo?


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No model at all. I place experience, lived experience - at the centre. danny will now say that his and his parties reflection on experience means they're necessarily advanced. If he doesn't he has no grounds on which to claim that his party is in advance of the mass of people.
> 
> for blagsta: consciousness for people like the above simply means agreement with them. A set of beliefs rather than a process of self-and social awareness. If you define class consciousness as 'agreeing with me/us' then it's useless..And it opens the door to _we're advanced you're backward - this is is for your own good.
> _



I think you are confusing two things here The process by which you come conscious of class and what that class consciousness consists in. No Marxist or SPGBer would say class consciousness means "agreeing with me/us.". Thats just silly.  What they would say and what i would say is that class consciousness means accepting or recognising that there are such things as a capitalist and working class and that the relationship of one to the other is an antagonistic one. The "agreement" comes when you realise are not alone in thinkiing this.

Incidentally I cant help thinking that your comment "consciousness for people like the above simply means agreement with them" is a freudian slip.  You meant *class * consciousness didnt you but it does hint at your diversionary approach which is to draw attention away from  the object of class consciousness to the process by which you become class consciousness which for you in some mystical way does not involve agreement with others. Presumably for you class consciousness is a eureka thing aint it?.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

This doesn't work if i reject the class consciousness model - and i do. BTW the SPGB just did say what you said they never would.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Apart for all the posts outlining my problems with this idiocy?



All you've outlined are your pathetic attempts to rationalise the irrational.  So why is this idiocy?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Presumably for you class consciousness is a eureka thing aint it?.



Or perhaps he thinks its a given truth?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> All you've outlined are your pathetic attempts to rationalise the irrational.  So why is this idiocy?



That's a massive embarrassing lie. You've ran out of ways to convince me of your status as an 'advanced worker'. Next, europe!


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> This doesn't work if i reject the class consciousness model - and i do. BTW the SPGB just did say what you said they never would.



Go on tell us what we have supposed to have said which robbo said we never would.


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> This doesn't work if i reject the class consciousness model - and i do. BTW the SPGB just did say what you said they never would.



I dont quite understand what you are getting at.

How would it not work if you reject the class consciousness model and what does this mean? Are you saying there are no classes or what? You seem to be very cyptic in your statements.

As for the SPGB are you saying they would say they dont think you are class conscious unless you agreed with them.  Becuase thats a load of bollocks for sure . You dont have to have even heard of the SPGB or Marx to be class consciousness and those of us who have heard of the SPGB and dont agree with everything they say can still be class conscious in every sense of the word.  The SPGB would be the first to agree.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

Have you read the last 5 pages of this thread? 

Where's the list?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Go on tell us what we have supposed to have said which robbo said we never would.



What did robbo say that you'd never say?



> No Marxist or SPGBer would say class consciousness means "agreeing with me/us."



You did when you outlined what class consciousness consists of. When you listed what specific beliefs you need to agree with.


----------



## two sheds (Jun 7, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> With the U75anarchists, it's like getting on a coach where the driver has an idea where you're going, anarchism, but has no directions, map, clue HOW to get there.



Ah but having a driver would go against the whole idea of u75 anarchism surely - you'd instead have to have one person with foot on accelerator, one on brake, someone steering, and everyone else fighting over where we are on the map and where we actually want to go 



> LOL Im not a SPGB member. Got ya.


whoops  



> I think you have me mixed up with somebody else.  Don't worry, I don't usually catalogue of other people's viewpoints either.


Nah I'm right on this one - it was your post 1467, only a throw-away comment though.

So, to answer your question.As I say I’m not an anarchist and what I’d like to see is almost outside politics. The trouble with political parties is that they have entrenched views. They have their own view of the world which seem based on emotional decisions, and try to impose that on society.   

  For example, what if the SPGB got the working class all together in a room and asked them what they want and they replied ‘yes well the idea of a socialist society is very nice and I’d love to live in one but I’ve got two kids and the thing above all else for me is to put food on the table for them. I’m a bit concerned – with all work being voluntary – we might suddenly have a country full of celebrity chefs and nobody to plough the fields. “As the SPGB stands, you’d have to ignore their wishes because you’ve already decided what is best for them. 

  I tend to see the problems we have as the effects of ‘the system’ rather than being caused by individuals – I’d be acting just the way that businessmen do in the situation they’re in – you can’t not act in that way because if you did you’d be out of a job. What we actually need is to improve the ‘system’, and the person who really seems to have understood that is W. Edwards Deming. The language he uses is acceptable to business but is actually empowering for workers. 

  To improve a system you work backwards from the outcomes you want. You Evaluate what we need against what we’ve got, Plan how to get where you want to go, then Do it while Checking progress and Adopting the new system /Amending it or Abandoning it if it actually totally fucks up. And you work on a small scale to test out what you’re doing.And yes it's a statement of the bleeding obvious but no fucker does it. 

  Personally, I’d like to see some attempt to ‘model’ the economic and social factors that go to make people happy and fulfilled (hours worked, commuting distance, pay, size of house/garden, size of family, conditions in neighbourhood etc etc etc). Then you can look at your resources and see how you can best spread them round to get the outcomes you want. Effectively you feed the data into a computer and press a large button on the front labeled ‘Optimise’ that would redistribute resources to best effect for the majority.  

  Now I quite realize that this isn’t going to work – nothing ever does. The temptation with political systems then is to look for scapegoats, but the correct response is ‘what is wrong with the system?’


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What did robbo say that you'd never say?
> 
> 
> 
> You did when you outlined what class consciousness consists of. When you listed what specific beliefs you need to agree with.





I said you dont have to be in the SPGB or agree with everything it says or even to have heard ofthe SPGB in the first place to be class conscious.  Has it occured to you that it is SPGB that is agreeing to a " model of class consciousness" that was not something that it invented.  Class consciousness is not dependent on the SPGB and the SPGB would I am certain go along with this


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

My posts refered to who and what?

Given you're still not in the SPGB. I was only going on he arguments offered the SPGB on here.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What did robbo say that you'd never say?
> 
> 
> 
> You did when you outlined what class consciousness consists of. When you listed what specific beliefs you need to agree with.



So according to you an *outline* is cast in stone.  That is realllly is stretchingggg it to make it fit your argument and disingenuous IMO, especially when I later clarified that they are not specific to any agreement.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

You mean you took it/them back? Which parts or all?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> ...when I later clarified that they are not specific to any agreement.



You what? 

You mean you take it back, that you think you are wrong.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

two sheds said:


> Ah but having a driver would go against the whole idea of u75 anarchism surely - you'd instead have to have one person with foot on accelerator, one on brake, someone steering, and everyone else fighting over where we are on the map and where we actually want to go



Yeh don't we know it! 



> For example, what if the SPGB got the working class all together in a room and asked them what they want and they replied ‘yes well the idea of a socialist society is very nice and I’d love to live in one but I’ve got two kids and the thing above all else for me is to put food on the table for them. I’m a bit concerned – with all work being voluntary – we might suddenly have a country full of celebrity chefs and nobody to plough the fields. “As the SPGB stands, you’d have to ignore their wishes because you’ve already decided what is best for them.


 
What gives you the idea that there will be too many chefs and not enough agricultural workers?  Firstly, production is part of our social make up, it needs to be in order for us to survive.  Indeed, we need to be useful and busy to express your humanity, for we find when we are not useful we suffer the consequences of ill health.  Secondly, you assume there will be an imbalance on fulfilling our needs, by failing to take into account that the work involved with buying and selling alone will realise millions of workers from useless toil.   This in effect means there will be a surplus working population
to the requirements of production for use.

Thirdly, and more importantly, this surplus working population would not be forced to put their nose to the grindstone, so to speak, but set their own pace, their own output, their own hours and days to work, etc.  Common ownership of the means of living under participatory democracy would have no role for party politics which means bye, bye SPGB.

“As the SPGB stands, you’d have to ignore their wishes because you’ve already decided what is best for them."  What blathering nonsense!


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 7, 2010)

two sheds said:


> For example, what if the SPGB got the working class all together in a room and asked them what they want and they replied ‘yes well the idea of a socialist society is very nice and I’d love to live in one but I’ve got two kids and the thing above all else for me is to put food on the table for them. I’m a bit concerned – with all work being voluntary – we might suddenly have a country full of celebrity chefs and nobody to plough the fields. “As the SPGB stands, you’d have to ignore their wishes because you’ve already decided what is best for them. ’



Forget about the SPGB for a moment.  The SPGB goes out of existence once we have socialism anyway.  We are talking about people in general organising  to produce directly for need, not  for the market, and voluntarily cooperating to that end.  

Now the discussion has opened up about what a socialist society would actually be like which is much more productive than quibbling over silly ideas  such as whether or not one agreees with some "model of class consciousness".  

So OK lets focus on this instead.  Why would you be concerned  that we "might suddenly have a country full of celebrity chefs and nobody to plough the fields" ? On what grounds do you think this might be a problem?

To put it in context, probably something like over half of all the formal sector jobs  in a modern capitalist economy like the UK would  simply disappear in socialism becuase they would no longer be needed. They dont actually produce anything that enhances human welfare.  Banks, for example, would have absolutely no purpose whatosever in a moneyless economy. The same with a thousand  and one other money-based jobs.  The extent of capitalism's structural waste is literally massive and growing both absolutely and relatively year upon year.

So you would have this huge reservoir of labour and resources to tap into in socialism.  Which means you would have far more people available to do socially useful production - like ploughiong fields!  So you think there might not be any one willing to plough the fields, eh?   Well, look at the garden allotment movement.  Look at all the other charitable and voluntary things that go on even today.  Do you realise that the grey economy - the unpaid or moneyless sector of economy - is actually *larger *in terms of total labour hours expended than *both *the white sector (the formal economy) and the black economy put togetner?  Now thats a thought to consider...

And heres another thought.  In a volunraistic socialist society you are not going to be restricted to just one job.  You can experiment. You can try whatever different types of work take your fancy.  Variety is the spice of life as they say. Chances are that the num,bner of people volujhterring for ploughwork in a socialist society will probably vastly exceed those availabbe for poorly paid agricultural wage labour under capiutalismn. And you will not have a boss standing over  you and hounding you to do this or that.  Work will be a pleasure not a drudge. .  If you go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/worldincommon/message/10568 you will find an intereresting youtube presentation which provides evidence to show that money incentives far from boosting perfioance actually have a negative effect. We work better without money.


A finalk point (though there are many more I could make which i might leave for later).   In socialism, in a monyeless wgelss society in which we all have free access to the things we need and voluntarily cooperate with one another to produce these things, there is no more question of "us" and "them".  There is simply "us" - the people , the volk , the mense.  There is no more talk of "what are you in government going to do for us". All that bullshit we will have left far far  behind us.  Thankfully.. 

In socialism we will recognise our vital mutual indeterdependence. In socialism we will have what the anthropologists call a "*moral economy*" in which everyone recognisies that everyone depends upon upon everyone else and that this entails  a moral obligation on all of us to contribute to socewtyu to the best of our abilities.  Not that our our contributions need to be looked upon as a burden.  I would see work as a form of creative expresssion (without which we are diminished as human beings) and none more so than in a society in which labour is completely voluntaristic and unpaid. 

If perchance there was some remote possibility that everyone would want to be a celebrity chef  rather than plough the field - personallly as a gardener and a crap cook i would far sooner be doing the latter - well, then there is nothing for it.  These wannabee celebrity chefs are gonna have to roll up their sleeves and get down to some serious ploughing if they want food on the table. Not that that is going to be a problem in socialism.  We wont be dumping food or paying farnmers not tpo produce while people go hungry

Thus socialism is a society in which people will become truly responsible and mature adults.  We wont be relying on some nanny state to do things for us.  We wont be humiliating ourselves by begging for charity.   And work that needs to be done, and what today we might think is less  likely to be done,  will be precisely the kind of work that would attract the most esteeem  and status in a socialist society.  Afterall in a socialist society when we can take what we need without payment of any kind how do we differentiate between one another in terms of statis and esteem except in terms of what we contribute to society


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

Pretty pictures

Where is the brush from?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2010)

Btw a 'moral economy' was EP thompson via Polanyi - there will be no economy at all. That's what communism means.


----------



## two sheds (Jun 7, 2010)

two sheds said:


> “As the SPGB stands, you’d have to ignore their wishes because you’ve already decided what is best for them."  What blathering nonsense!



Oh tish. 

Well say we got to the point where there is actually a majority who want and will vote for a socialist party. What would you say to them if they (or the party they are part of) say 'well actually we don't think that doing away with money immediately is the right way to go - we'd prefer a transitional phase where we are paid a fair wage and profits are fed back into the business rather than being siphoned off to individuals'. 

Would you support them?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You what?
> 
> You mean you take it back, that you think you are wrong.



Butchers I've been saying for quite a while you have made an assumption into a conclusion, and that you have been trying to rationalise the irrational.  And you have gone and proved this with the use of one word, "outline".  

Your *assumption* was that the SPGB seemed to be a vanguardist party and when I posted my *outline* you then came to the *conclusion* that we are a vanguardist party.  You then stuck with that *conclusion *come hell or high water, through thick and thin because there it was in black and white.  But it order to maintain your *conclusion* you had to ignore the fact that an *outline *is just that an *outline*, or if you like a broad sketch of possibilities. Nothing more and nothing less.

Its no wonder you were reluctant to provide a definition of vanguardism/ vanguardist for if you had you would have illustrated you either got the wrong end of the stick or you were in denial.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 7, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> What gives you the idea that there will be too many chefs and not enough agricultural workers?  Firstly, production is part of our social make up, it needs to be in order for us to survive.  Indeed, we need to be useful and busy to express your humanity, for we find when we are not useful we suffer the consequences of ill health.  Secondly, you assume there will be an imbalance on fulfilling our needs, by failing to take into account that the work involved with buying and selling alone will realise millions of workers from useless toil.   This in effect means there will be a surplus working population
> to the requirements of production for use.
> 
> Thirdly, and more importantly, this surplus working population would not be forced to put their nose to the grindstone, so to speak, but set their own pace, their own output, their own hours and days to work, etc.  Common ownership of the means of living under participatory democracy would have no role for party politics which means bye, bye SPGB.
> ...



The blathering nonsense is all too apparent between your opening two paragraphs and your closing sentence; the SPGB knew best at it's foundation (evidenced by its hostility clause), it knows best now (evidenced by the unedifying contents of their contribution to this thread), and it will know best in that dreamed of future containing as it does, not just it's own demise but that of all political associations.

Such is the unchanging world of the vanguard SPGB, those most advanced of workers, that you go away for a weeks holiday and the same stale thin vomit is being retched up again and again. Welcome to another century of heaving for socialism and goodnight.

Cheers and cheerio - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 7, 2010)

two sheds said:


> Oh tish.
> 
> Well say we got to the point where there is actually a majority who want and will vote for a socialist party. What would you say to them if they (or the party they are part of) say 'well actually we don't think that doing away with money immediately is the right way to go - we'd prefer a transitional phase where we are paid a fair wage and profits are fed back into the business rather than being siphoned off to individuals'.
> 
> Would you support them?



Of course we would, but - and its a very big but - that is unlikely to happen, for we are talking about a politically conscious working class who are fully aware of all the what ifs, maybe's and consequences of their decisions.  In fact they would have already have gone through the transitional phase with the planning and preparation before hand.  And more importantly, a politically conscious working class would be determined and serious on completing the revolutionary process with no hang ups in between.


----------



## two sheds (Jun 7, 2010)

@ robbo: fair do's. I wouldn't argue with most of that. 

One point, though, would people be actually doing the ploughing? Surely we'll have high tech oxen to do that. I'd say we'd be more likely to run out of tractor crankshafts which might mean we *did* all end up pulling a plough around.


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 7, 2010)

two sheds said:


> @ robbo: fair do's. I wouldn't argue with most of that.
> 
> One point, though, would people be actually doing the ploughing? Surely we'll have high tech oxen to do that. I'd say we'd be more likely to run out of tractor crankshafts which might mean we *did* all end up pulling a plough around.




I like that - high tech oxen.  hehehe.  Here in my part of the world we still have teams of mules to do the terraces and fertilise the ground with manure.  
Love it.  But so much food arouind here - southern Spain - goes to waste becuase of stupid market regulations imposed by bureaucrats in Brussels. Thank christ we wont have any more of that bullshit in socialism


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 8, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> I said you dont have to be in the SPGB or agree with everything it says or even to have heard ofthe SPGB in the first place to be class conscious.  Has it occured to you that it is SPGB that is agreeing to a " model of class consciousness" that was not something that it invented.  Class consciousness is not dependent on the SPGB and the SPGB would I am certain go along with this



So where does it come from this consciousness? Who came up with the concept in the first place and in what context and what for?


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 8, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> So where does it come from this consciousness? Who came up with the concept in the first place and in what context and what for?



Good question. If you are talking specifically about about class in  a capitalist context I guess it would have emerged spontaneously out of the class struggle engendered by early capitalism. One thing is for sure - the idea peddled by Kautsky and  Lenin (in his What is to be Done) that revolutuoinary socialist ideas, the embodiment of class consciousness in its self-aware form as class -for-itself, can be brought to workers only "from without", by bourgeois intellectuals like Marx and Engels, is sheer nonsense.  The Chartist movement consisted of ordinary workers and made a huge impact. Though it fizzled out in the 1850s it laid ther foundations for the early socialist movement in Brtain.  As for Marx and Engels , well, they learnt their communism from German and French artisan workers in Paris. The League of St Just with which Charlie and Fred associated and later became the Communist League for which the Communist Manifesto was written, was somewhat hostile towards bourgeois intellectuals as I understand it.  

The SPGB itself, incidentally, began life as an organisation of ordinary workers and typically consisted of working class autodidacts.  The sprinkling of university types that we find in it today as we do in other organisations was really a post war phenomenon.  Barltrops book about the SPGB called The Monument, largely anecdotal and not altogether reliable, does give you a good taste of life in the SPGB and is amusingly written.  Dave Perrin's Book The Socialist Party of Great Britain: Politics , Economics and Britains Oldest Socialist Party is superior in my view and very well researched.  You could learn a lot by dipping into it.


----------



## fraz (Jun 8, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Generally I am the sort of person who sharpens his goading stick regularly.



Shit not another one.. this goading nonsense is trolling - 

What we want is ideas.. not fucking the battle of the egos.


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 8, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Good question. If you are talking specifically about about class in  a capitalist context I guess it would have emerged spontaneously out of the class struggle engendered by early capitalism. One thing is for sure - the idea peddled by Kautsky and  Lenin (in his What is to be Done) that revolutuoinary socialist ideas, the embodiment of class consciousness in its self-aware form as class -for-itself, can be brought to workers only "from without", by bourgeois intellectuals like Marx and Engels, is sheer nonsense.  The Chartist movement consisted of ordinary workers and made a huge impact. Though it fizzled out in the 1850s it laid ther foundations for the early socialist movement in Brtain.  As for Marx and Engels , well, they learnt their communism from German and French artisan workers in Paris. The League of St Just with which Charlie and Fred associated and later became the Communist League for which the Communist Manifesto was written, was somewhat hostile towards bourgeois intellectuals as I understand it.
> 
> The SPGB itself, incidentally, began life as an organisation of ordinary workers and typically consisted of working class autodidacts.  The sprinkling of university types that we find in it today as we do in other organisations was really a post war phenomenon.  Barltrops book about the SPGB called The Monument, largely anecdotal and not altogether reliable, does give you a good taste of life in the SPGB and is amusingly written.  Dave Perrin's Book The Socialist Party of Great Britain: Politics , Economics and Britains Oldest Socialist Party is superior in my view and very well researched.  You could learn a lot by dipping into it.



I'm not asking for examples of people you consider to have been class conscious I want you to tell me who came up with the concept, the yard stick by which consciousness or lack of it is measured and what for.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 8, 2010)

fraz said:


> Shit not another one.. this goading nonsense is trolling -
> 
> What we want is ideas.. not fucking the battle of the egos.



Steady on DotCommunist did pose a question earlier on, so he's not a complete troll.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 8, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> I'm not asking for examples of people you consider to have been class conscious I want you to tell me who came up with the concept, the yard stick by which consciousness or lack of it is measured and what for.



This is a toughie.  The usual starting point is the _Communist Manifesto_ but that only provides a generalisation on the history of class struggle not on the origins of a working class consciousness itself.  IMO class consciousness starts from the realisation of a common identity and interests derived from the real experiences of living in a class society where exploitation of the many by the few is clearly apparent. 

As to its historical background in reference specifically to the working class I have no idea where class consciousness originated or even, "who came up with the concept, the yard stick by which consciousness or lack of it is measured and what for." -  I have to admit I'm stumped.  Even Marx must have had a starting point or a reference to other ideas on the subject.

But I'm also intrigued on the relevance of how class consciousness comes about.   Marx remarked on, "Its not the consciousness of men which determines their circumstances, rather their circumstances which determines their consciousness".  Which to me explains that the material circumstances in which we find ourselves in are the elements which defines the mode of production and how exploitation takes place.

Hope this helps.


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 8, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> This is a toughie.  The usual starting point is the _Communist Manifesto_ but that only provides a generalisation on the history of class struggle not on the origins of a working class consciousness itself.  IMO class consciousness starts from the realisation of a common identity and interests derived from the real experiences of living in a class society where exploitation of the many by the few is clearly apparent.
> 
> As to its historical background in reference specifically to the working class I have no idea where class consciousness originated or even, "who came up with the concept, the yard stick by which consciousness or lack of it is measured and what for." -  I have to admit I'm stumped.  Even Marx must have had a starting point or a reference to other ideas on the subject.
> 
> ...



It could help you, think about the bold bit for a while


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 8, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> It could help you, think about the bold bit for a while





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Gravediggers View Post
> This is a toughie. The usual starting point is the Communist Manifesto but that only provides a generalisation on the history of class struggle not on the origins of a working class consciousness itself. IMO class consciousness starts from the realisation of a common identity and interests derived from the real experiences of living in a class society where exploitation of the many by the few is clearly apparent.
> 
> ...



If you are saying that in your opinion it was Marx who came up with the concept of class consciousness, for sake of argument I'll go along with that. By the way you do realise that this statement by Marx places the prime emphasis on matter, and in direct opposition to Descartes proposition, "I think therefore I am"?


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 8, 2010)

I'm not saying anything I'm asking you to tell me.


> "Its not the consciousness of men which determines their circumstances, rather their circumstances which determines their consciousness".



Think about it some more. Go back and read the post Butchers made about lived experience. There is no class consciousness, not in one or a collection of individuals.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 8, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> I'm not saying anything I'm asking you to tell me.
> 
> 
> Think about it some more. Go back and read the post Butchers made about lived experience. *There is no class consciousness, not in one or a collection of individuals.*



I take it you mean this: Post 1366.  But this post is in contradiction to your statement above, has I point out in bold.  So what point are you trying to make?



> My take on class consciousness? I'm not sure that i agree with the class consciousness model at all - it leads to the daft sort of stuff that you've just come up with above and if not handled properly (again, see your long above post) opens the trapdoor to all sorts of vanguardism.
> 
> *I prefer to think, as i've said already now a number of times, to think in terms of individual or collective reflections on shared experiences, relations, problems, needs, solutions* - Marx thought of strikes as schools of revolution, well there's many fields of experience to learn from, without having to be taught by the 'educators' or without having to come to a pre-deterermined set of ideas worked out 100 years before by the brain and memory of the class - they party.
> 
> Indeed, the SPGB's contemporary and historical marginality itself demonstrates that the w/c can and does go beyond the ideas these vanguard groups attempt to provide them with on the basis of their 'advanced consciousness' - a consciousness that appears to come into existence by nothing else than a self-selecting group of people who've applied to belong to the party. The only hope lies outside of and in rejection of the 'instillers' of consciousness. We both know that.


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 8, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> I'm not asking for examples of people you consider to have been class conscious I want you to tell me who came up with the concept, the yard stick by which consciousness or lack of it is measured and what for.



You asked _So where does it come from this consciousness_ ans I answered _If you are talking specifically about about class in a capitalist context I guess it would have emerged spontaneously out of the class struggle engendered by early capitalism_ I couldnt begin to tell who first articulated the idea of class consciousness.  Can anyone? But does it really 
matter? I suggested that class consciousness would have been present in movements like the Chartists but I really couldnt say much more than that.  Perhaps EP Thompson might be a source to turn to on the subject.  just a thought.


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 8, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I take it you mean this: Post 1366.  But this post is in contradiction to your statement above, has I point out in bold.  So what point are you trying to make?



It's not actually the post I had in mind but it says the same. Are you now saying that class consciousness is _"individual or collective reflections on shared experiences, relations, problems, needs, solutions"_

Not what you said a few pages ago when I asked, you gave me a descrption of political and economic consciousness. OR are you saying that the individual or collective reflections on shared experiences, relations, problems, needs, solutions are only valid if they reach the conclusions you listed in your description?


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 8, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> You asked _So where does it come from this consciousness_ ans I answered _If you are talking specifically about about class in a capitalist context I guess it would have emerged spontaneously out of the class struggle engendered by early capitalism_ I couldnt begin to tell who first articulated the idea of class consciousness.  Can anyone? But does it really
> matter? I suggested that class consciousness would have been present in movements like the Chartists but I really couldnt say much more than that.  Perhaps EP Thompson might be a source to turn to on the subject.  just a thought.



So the SPGB here can't tell me what CC is, can't tell me where it came from but can point to people who they agree with and say that they had it? 


Just say it. "Class consciousness is agreeing with the SPGB, that we'r right, that our ideas are the correct ideas"


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 8, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> So the SPGB here can't tell me what CC is, can't tell me where it came from but can point to people who they agree with and say that they had it?
> 
> 
> Just say it. "Class consciousness is agreeing with the SPGB, that we'r right, that our ideas are the correct ideas"



Now come on - stop playing games.  I did *not *say I or  the SPGB cant tell you what class consciousness is.  And i did not say I or the SPGB cant tell me  "where" is came from.  In fact I told you where I thought it came from in my view - that it would have emerged spontaneously out of the lived experience of workers in early capitalism in their struggles with employers

You asked a very particular question about who first came up with the concept of class consciousness and I said I did not think I could help you out with that and that you would advised to consult historians like EP Thompson. But I still dont know why you think it is a matter of such great import.  Who cares who first came up with the concept

And, no , class consciousness does not mean agreeing with the SPGB becuase you can fully class conscious without ever having even heard of the SPGB.  The SPGB incidentally would be the frist to agree with this statement


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 9, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> It's not actually the post I had in mind but it says the same. Are you now saying that class consciousness is _"individual or collective reflections on shared experiences, relations, problems, needs, solutions"_
> 
> Not what you said a few pages ago when I asked, you gave me a descrption of political and economic consciousness. OR are you saying that the individual or collective reflections on shared experiences, relations, problems, needs, solutions are only valid if they reach the conclusions you listed in your description?



I've never denied that, "class consciousness is _individual or collective reflections on shared experiences, relations, problems, needs, solutions"_.  Of course it is.  And by definition they have to relate to our economic and political circumstances which explains how and why workers are exploited and disempowered.   The validity of the description I listed is admittedly not a self evident truth, it was not meant to be, which is the reason why I included two references to aspects of false consciousness so to underline the point that the working class can accept class consciousness or reject it.   However, the majority of individual workers are not in any position to accept or reject class consciousness until they have been faced with the proposition, or alternatively worked it out for themselves.


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 9, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Now come on - stop playing games.  I did *not *say I or  the SPGB cant tell you what class consciousness is.  And i did not say I or the SPGB cant tell me  "where" is came from.  In fact I told you where I thought it came from in my view - that it would have emerged spontaneously out of the lived experience of workers in early capitalism in their struggles with employers
> 
> You asked a very particular question about who first came up with the concept of class consciousness and I said I did not think I could help you out with that and that you would advised to consult historians like EP Thompson. But I still dont know why you think it is a matter of such great import.  Who cares who first came up with the concept
> 
> And, no , class consciousness does not mean agreeing with the SPGB becuase you can fully class conscious without ever having even heard of the SPGB.  The SPGB incidentally would be the frist to agree with this statement



I said you can't tell me what it is, I've had two answers now. CC is the list of things a person knows that GD gave me, it's the shared experience that Butchers described when he said he rejected CC. Which is it? 

Unless you can tell me where it came from, who came up with the concept of CC as a way of describing either what they have observed or what is required/desireable then CC is just what you say it is at any given time. Which makes it completely none existent as an idea let alone as something tangible. And of course a person can have this magic CC without ever having heard of the SPGB, you decide, you point to the chartists and say look! they have CC or you don't say it. Depending on whether you agree with them or not or they fit your particular argument at the time.


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 9, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I've never denied that, "class consciousness is _individual or collective reflections on shared experiences, relations, problems, needs, solutions"_.  Of course it is.  And by definition they have to relate to our economic and political circumstances which explains how and why workers are exploited and disempowered.   The validity of the description I listed is admittedly not a self evident truth, it was not meant to be, which is the reason why I included two references to aspects of false consciousness so to underline the point that the working class can accept class consciousness or reject it.   However, the majority of individual workers are not in any position to accept or reject class consciousness until they have been faced with the proposition, or alternatively worked it out for themselves.



You could have just said "yes, that's right CC is shared experience etc as long the people draw the same conclusions as us from that experience, otherwise no, it's false. CC is agreeing with me and the SPGB"


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 9, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> You could have just said "yes, that's right CC is shared experience etc as long the people draw the same conclusions as us from that experience, otherwise no, it's false. CC is agreeing with me and the SPGB"



The way you put it is as if I and the SPGB have sole copyright on class consciousness which is plain nonsense.  The individual worker claims sole copyright on their own class consciousness, which is verified, confirmed and agreed through the shared experiences of their fellow workers which may, or may not include the membership of the SPGB.


----------



## newbie (Jun 9, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I've never denied that, "class consciousness is _individual or collective reflections on shared experiences, relations, problems, needs, solutions"_.  Of course it is.  And by definition they have to relate to our economic and political circumstances which explains how and why workers are exploited and disempowered.


how do you determine when class consciousness has arrived?

f'rinstance, it's self evident that the vast majority of the working class may grumble a bit but have reflected, both individually and collectively, on their shared experience and decided that for the time being a social democratic version of capitalism is reasonably satisfactory.  It delivers both basic needs- food, shelter, healthcare, education- and also provides aspirational solutions to widespread desires- asset accumulation, social mobility, a vote, personal mobility, leisure, toys.  There's a lot wrong with it, hence the grumbles, but most adults don't believe in utopia.

Have those reflections, and the resultant clear acceptance of where we're at now, achieved CC, or will that only be achieved when everybody agrees with you that actually they're sufficiently exploited and disempowered that it's necessary to throw all that away in search of the promised land?


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 9, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> The way you put it is as if I and the SPGB have sole copyright on class consciousness which is plain nonsense.  The individual worker claims sole copyright on their own class consciousness, which is verified, confirmed and agreed through the shared experiences of their fellow workers which may, or may not include the membership of the SPGB.



Individual workers aren't wondering around claiming to be conscious though are they? You're pointing at anyone/workers who agree with you and declaring them to be conscious.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 9, 2010)

newbie said:


> how do you determine when class consciousness has arrived?
> 
> f'rinstance, it's self evident that the vast majority of the working class may grumble a bit but have reflected, both individually and collectively, on their shared experience and decided that for the time being a social democratic version of capitalism is reasonably satisfactory.  It delivers both basic needs- food, shelter, healthcare, education- and also provides aspirational solutions to widespread desires- asset accumulation, social mobility, a vote, personal mobility, leisure, toys.  There's a lot wrong with it, hence the grumbles, but most adults don't believe in utopia.



Of course you've depicted an ideal society here where the expectations on meeting basic needs are being met and social aspirations are being fulfilled.  This is the promised land of a better tomorrow we are constantly being offered as a carrot by the politicians.  But the reality is our social expectations and aspirations ended up in the dustbin years ago and the periodic crisis of capitalism means a change in message from the politicians, who are now saying, 'Unfortunately the holiday is over and we apologise for forgetting to tell you there was a hidden surcharge to be paid'.

In this respect capitalism is the utopia for it fails to deliver the goods.  In fact it is incapable of delivering the means of living to the greater majority, and increasingly so.  On the other hand, if the majority of the working class perceive the socialist message to be utopian, it means logically they are unconvinced of its validity.  But this hypothesis remains untested for the fact of the matter is the greater majority of the working class remain untouched by the socialist case.



> Have those reflections, and the resultant clear acceptance of where we're at now, achieved CC, or will that only be achieved when everybody agrees with you that actually they're sufficiently exploited and disempowered that it's necessary to throw all that away in search of the promised land?



The SPGB don't promise anything.  What we propose is a possible alternative the the inequality of capitalism, there is a big difference between a proposition and a promise.  The establishment of socialism will of course not be taken lightly for we are proposing a historical approach to enacting the revolutionary transformation, in that a social revolution by a conscious majority as never been tried in the history of social evolution.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 9, 2010)

Sorry a bump


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 9, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> The SPGB don't promise anything.



That is a barefaced lie: you promise the moon, the stars and the sun over and over again, you promise you know best, better than all the rest, you promise you are the genuine article, the one and only, then, now and into the future, genuine article. 

Unfortunately you have no means of getting anywhere, besides more promise laden flights of fancy. You have no proof of your cleverness, just circular assertions to that effect. You have no guarantee of your genuineness, besides the ones penned by yourselves; a bit like the glowing reviews of your own publications which you also go in for.

But don't let any of that stop you puking up more demands to lead the working class into the light and on to heaven. I know it won't.

Back to work now - Louis Macneice


----------



## newbie (Jun 9, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Of course you've depicted an ideal society here where the expectations on meeting basic needs are being met and social aspirations are being fulfilled.  This is the promised land of a better tomorrow we are constantly being offered as a carrot by the politicians.  But the reality is our social expectations and aspirations ended up in the dustbin years ago and the periodic crisis of capitalism means a change in message from the politicians, who are now saying, 'Unfortunately the holiday is over and we apologise for forgetting to tell you there was a hidden surcharge to be paid'.
> 
> In this respect capitalism is the utopia for it fails to deliver the goods.  In fact it is incapable of delivering the means of living to the greater majority, and increasingly so.


Your grumbles are noted.  Everyone has grumbles, no-one thinks here and now is perfect.


> On the other hand, if the majority of the working class perceive the socialist message to be utopian, it means logically they are unconvinced of its validity.  But this hypothesis remains untested for the fact of the matter is the greater majority of the working class remain untouched by the socialist case.


a hypothesis is capable of neither proof nor disproof until it is tested, a bit like angels on the head of a pin. 

Your assertion that the majority of us are 'untouched' by the case for socialism is rather more contentious, since it assumes that the case hasn't been put rather than that it has been put and actively rejected, which is where all the evidence points. Do you really think the w/c doesn't know what's best for it, because it hasn't taken enough notice of you?  Isn't that a bit patronising?



> The SPGB don't promise anything.  What we propose is a possible alternative the the inequality of capitalism, there is a big difference between a proposition and a promise.  The establishment of socialism will of course not be taken lightly for we are proposing a historical approach to enacting the revolutionary transformation, in that a social revolution by a conscious majority as never been tried in the history of social evolution.


ok, there is no promised land, merely a proposal.  None the less it involves sweeping away the here and now.



now, the question I asked, how do you determine when class consciousness has arrived?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 9, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> Individual workers aren't wondering around claiming to be conscious though are they? You're pointing at anyone/workers who agree with you and declaring them to be conscious.



Actually the reverse is happening to what you perceive is occurring with the workers doing the pointing at us and declaring we are the genuine expression of class consciousness.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 9, 2010)

> newbie said:
> 
> 
> > Your grumbles are noted.  Everyone has grumbles, no-one thinks here and now is perfect.
> ...


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 9, 2010)

The thing is, most people are reasonably satisfied with their lot.  They're not starving to death.

The go to work, go out with their mates, have a family/gf, have the odd holiday, live in a house, eat food, watch telly, do stuff they like in their spare time, raise kids.

I wouldn't say people consider the socialist message to be utopian, they consider it to be worse.


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 9, 2010)

Sorry, worse is the wrong word.  I meant _irrelevant_.

What exactly would change?  

They'd still go to work, go out with their mates, have a family/gf, have the odd holiday, live in a house, eat food, watch telly, do stuff they like in their spare time, raise kids.


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 9, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Actually the reverse is happening to what you perceive is occurring with the workers doing the pointing at us and declaring we are the genuine expression of class consciousness.



You're delusional


----------



## newbie (Jun 9, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> No the case for socialism has not been put to the greater majority, so there is no evidence to suggest the case has been rejected.



yes it has, we're not as thick or as uneducated as you seem to think.  This thread alone has been going for over a month and has attracted 13,000 views.  That much is quantifiable (as is the 55,000 views on the Liverpool FC thread).  Your party has been putting your case for a century, plenty of others have put their own case.  

All of us know, in outline, what's meant by socialism and have thought about it.  And it's been rejected, quite consciously, by the vast majority. 

That same vast majority also know what's meant by capitalism and, again quite consciously, have accepted it. Although many grumble few have much appetite for your 'socialist analysis'.  They know what it is you're on about, why you think it's a good idea, why you think they should join in with you, why you think you know best but, quite consciously, they don't want socialism.

They've reflected on their individual experiences and on the collective experiences of their peers, here and abroad, now and in the past. Pretending that the vast majority are yearning to be educated, and will grasp the idea with both hands as soon as it's revealed to them, is ridiculous.  That may have happened a hundred and more years ago when people genuinely were exposed to the idea for the first time, but it ain't happening now.  Now, your patient explanations fall on deaf ears because the vast majority have heard it all before and, quite simply, reject it.





> When a majority of the working class are actively proposing the establishment of socialism by preparing and planning for the eventual transformation.



So class consciousness has nothing to do with the class knowing what it wants, as it does at the moment, and everything to do with agreeing with you.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 9, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> You're delusional



We are only delusional to you because you specifically reject class consciousness.  It don't exist, its a fiction of the mind, a fantasy in your estimation, despite the fact there are thousands of workers who are living proof there is such a thing as class consciousness.


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 9, 2010)

'thousands'

This class consciousness does sound a bit like divine revelation.  You know that right?


----------



## two sheds (Jun 9, 2010)

newbie said:


> That same vast majority also know what's meant by capitalism and, again quite consciously, have accepted it.



This vast majority hasn't


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 9, 2010)

I don't thin they've accepted it so much as it's just The Way Things Work.


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 9, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> We are only delusional to you because you specifically reject class consciousness.  It don't exist, its a fiction of the mind, a fantasy in your estimation, despite the fact there are thousands of workers who are living proof there is such a thing as class consciousness.



No, you're delusional. I don't think one single worker has come to you and said that you're _"genuine expression of class consciousness."_

I suspect what you mean is that there are workers who have come to you and said they agree with you and want to join. Not the same thing at all.


----------



## newbie (Jun 9, 2010)

two sheds said:


> This vast majority hasn't





fractionMan said:


> I don't thin they've accepted it so much as it's just The Way Things Work.



of course there's loads of scope for a tiny, interested, minority to discuss the degree to which capitalism has been embraced, accepted, accomodated or imposed but this is about the consciousness of a whole class, not a few individuals.  

No-one, surely, is going to assert that there is any indication, any evidence, that the great majority has rejected capitalism.


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 9, 2010)

Like I said, I don't think most people even think about it.


----------



## newbie (Jun 9, 2010)

I don't suppose most people think about socialism either, but that's not to say they've never, ever thought about this stuff, just that it's pretty obvious what's accepted and what's rejected.


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 9, 2010)

No it's not.

For most people accepting capitalism is like accepting breathing.  It's just the way it is.


----------



## newbie (Jun 9, 2010)

so only a subset of the population has actually thought about any of this stuff?  the rest are what, too thick or something?

I'm sorry, I don't believe a word of it.  

Start a conversation with anybody about capitalism and socialism and they'll know what you're talking about.  There's a very high probability that what they say will be supportive of capitalism.


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 9, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> That is a barefaced lie: you promise the moon, the stars and the sun over and over again, you promise you know best, better than all the rest, you promise you are the genuine article, the one and only, then, now and into the future, genuine article.
> 
> Unfortunately you have no means of getting anywhere, besides more promise laden flights of fancy. You have no proof of your cleverness, just circular assertions to that effect. You have no guarantee of your genuineness, besides the ones penned by yourselves; a bit like the glowing reviews of your own publications which you also go in for.
> 
> ...




Give it a rest, Louis.  Your rhetorical flourishes are really getting a bit dull and dont really connect with the argument at all


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 9, 2010)

newbie said:


> so only a subset of the population has actually thought about any of this stuff?  the rest are what, too thick or something?
> 
> I'm sorry, I don't believe a word of it.
> 
> Start a conversation with anybody about capitalism and socialism and they'll know what you're talking about.  There's a very high probability that what they say will be supportive of capitalism.



It's nothing to do with being thick.  Where did I say that?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 9, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> Sorry, worse is the wrong word.  I meant _irrelevant_.
> 
> What exactly would change?
> 
> They'd still go to work, go out with their mates, have a family/gf, have the odd holiday, live in a house, eat food, watch telly, do stuff they like in their spare time, raise kids.



There would be quite a lot more than you are suggesting here.  For instance, they would not only be the active decision makers on your list of activities but also be actively involved in putting them into affect.  And come to think of it IMO the odd holiday would not occur for every single day would be a holiday, with work and leisure as we know it being a thing of the past along with the alienation associated with it.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 9, 2010)

newbie said:


> so only a subset of the population has actually thought about any of this stuff?  the rest are what, too thick or something?
> 
> I'm sorry, I don't believe a word of it.
> 
> Start a conversation with anybody about capitalism and socialism and they'll know what you're talking about.  There's a very high probability that what they say will be supportive of capitalism.



What most people understand as socialism is the experiences of Russia, etc, where state capitalism reigned.  Socialism is a society without classes, a state, money, waged labour, profit, borders, leaders, trade, markets, etc.  In short, the complete opposite of capitalism.  When as this comparison been put to the majority of workers?  Never!


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 9, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> There would be quite a lot more than you are suggesting here.  For instance, they would not only be the active decision makers on your list of activities but also be actively involved in putting them into affect.  And come to think of it IMO the odd holiday would not occur for every single day would be a holiday, with work and leisure as we know it being a thing of the past along with the alienation associated with it.



Every single day would be a holiday?  With work and leisure as we know it being a thing of the past?  Seriously?

Will there be unicorns?


----------



## newbie (Jun 9, 2010)

good.

what is it to do with then, why has the great majority thought about capitalism and socialism and accepted the former as being as natural as breathing?


----------



## newbie (Jun 9, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> What most people understand as socialism is the experiences of Russia, etc, where state capitalism reigned.  Socialism is a society without classes, a state, money, waged labour, profit, borders, leaders, trade, markets, etc.  In short, the complete opposite of capitalism.  When as this comparison been put to the majority of workers?  Never!



pretty much everybody has discussed those ideas at some point in their lives, one way or another.  

If only you could explain it more, explain it better, they'd see the light.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 9, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Give it a rest, Louis.  Your rhetorical flourishes are really getting a bit dull and dont really connect with the argument at all



There is no argument. There is just the 'socialist' faith,  a lot of wishing and continual retching up the 'case'. As for dull, well that's as maybe , but there are definitely duller contributions.

Louis Macneice

p.s. 'Give it a rest'? Are you after a mods job?


----------



## newbie (Jun 9, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> definitely duller contributions



sorry louis


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 9, 2010)

newbie said:


> good.
> 
> what is it to do with then, why has the great majority thought about capitalism and socialism and accepted the former as being as natural as breathing?



I didn't say that either.


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 9, 2010)

To put the SPGB into a broader context here's part of John Crump's Introduction to 
'Non-Market Socialism in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries'1987

Introduction 
The theme of this book is 'non-market socialism'. This term demands an explanation at an early stage of the book. We are well aware that 'non-market socialism' is - to use the current jargon - a pleonasm. In other words, if we use words accurately, it is unnecessary to qualify 'socialism' with 'non-market' because socialism is, by definition, a markctless society. The market cannot coexist with socialism because socialism means that society owns and controls both the means of production and the goods which result from productive activity. For the market to exist, some sectional interest (an individual,  a joint-stock company, a nationalised concern, a workers' cooperative and so on) has to be in control of part of the social product, which it then disposes of by entering into exchange relations with others. Exchange cannot take place when society, and none other, controls the means of production and the social product. Far from socialism being compatible with exchange and the market, the generalised production of goods for exchange on the market is the hallmark of an entirely different type of society - capitalism. 
If socialism means the social ownership of the means of production and the fruits of production, so too does communism. The terms 'socialism1 and 'communism' are used interchangeably in this book because, just as there is no distinction between society and the community, so social ownership and communal ownership are equally indistinguishable. Contrary to Lenin's assertions, socialism is not a partial and incomplete first stage of communism. 
Yet though it is a simple matter logically to define socialism/ communism, it is politics and not logic which determines how words are (mis)used within capitalism. Dispensing with logic, those who wield political power in all parts of the world have an interest in misrepresenting socialism. Thanks to their unrelenting efforts, the word 'socialism' has taken on the spurious meaning of state enterprises employing wage-earners in order to produce goods for sale on the market. In Chapter 2, John Crump demonstrates how both Social Democracy and Leninism have played an important role in bringing about ( the popular identification of'socialism'with state capitalism. 
It is in the face of this situation that we have chosen to use the term 'non-market socialism'. Our purpose is straightforward, and we do not hide it. We want to re-establish the genuine meaning of socialism. We are not arguing that absence of the market is the sole defining feature of socialism. On the contrary, socialism is not merely a markedess society; it is also a stateless society, a classless society, a moneyless society, a wageless society ... and so on. However, in choosing to use the term 'non-market socialism', we are selecting one among a number of qualities which socialism possesses (its characteristic of being a marketiess society) and focusing on this in order to stress the difference between socialism and all varieties of capitalism. 
Undoubtedly, our use of the term 'non-market socialism' is not without danger. Maximilien Rubel brings out this point in Chapter 1. By talking in terms of 'non-market socialism', we may inadvertently imply that other varieties of socialism (even 'market socialism'!) could exist. Nothing could be further from our intention, of course. But at least 'non-market socialism' does have the merit of emphasising firstly that the markedess society of socialism has never been established anywhere in the world, and secondly that most so-called 'socialists' are nothing of the sort. The fact that Social Democrats, Leninists and other supposed 'socialists' or 'communists' envisage a role for the market, tells us that they represent forces for maintaining capitalism, not for achieving socialism. 
One final point needs to be made with regard to our terminology. Despite the inaccuracy of calling an organisation such as the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) a communist party, or the Socialist Party of Italy (PSI) a socialist party, we have regarded organisational labels simply as proper names which deserve to be used neutrally. Hence our references to organisations such as the CPGB and PSI do not imply any recognition of their supposedly 'communist' or 'socialist* (in fact, state capitalist) character. 
__________________________ 

to be continued


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 9, 2010)

__________________________ 
In Chapter 1, Maximilien Rubel looks at 'Non-Market Socialism in the Nineteenth Century'. Rubel explains that rejection of the market was an integral component of Marx's and Engels's conception of socialism and he demonstrates that the approach which Marx and Engels adopted towards this question separated them from Proudhon and the other false 'socialists' of their day. Rubel's chapter is complemented by Alain Pengam's discussion in Chapter 3 of other nineteenth-century, non-market socialists, such as Joseph Dejacque and Peter Kropotkin. 
In Chapter 2, John Crump examines 'Non-Market Socialism in the Twentieth Century'. In addition to identifying those currents which have represented the 'thin red line' of non-market socialism in the twentieth century, Crump identifies a number of key principles which distinguish non-market socialists from Social Democrats, Leninists and other advocates of capitalism. These key principles have served as litmus paper, as it were, in deciding which currents to include in a book on non-market socialism and which to exclude. 
The currents which have adhered to these principles are_ presented in roughly the order of their historical appearance in Chapters 3 to 7. In Chapter 3, Alain Pengam differentiates 'Anarcho-Communism' from other varieties of anarchism. In Chapter 4, Stephen Coleman discusses 'Impossibilism' in general and the Socialist Party of Great Britain in particular. In Chapter 5, Mark Shipway examines 'Council Communism', paying particular attention to the theories of Anton Pan-nekoek. Similarly, in Chapter 6 on 'Bordigism', Adam Buick focuses principally on the ideas of Amadeo Bordiga. Finally, in Chapter 7 on 'Situationism', Mark Shipway analyses the ideas of the situationists. Some of the writers identify more closely with the currents about which they have written than others, but all were given the brief of producing chapters which fulfilled three objectives. First, each chapter provides a brief historical account of the current under examination. Second, each chapter outlines the principal theoretical ideas of the current. Third, each writer gives a personal assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the current. 
It may be useful for readers to have an overall picture of the various currents which have represented non-market socialism in the twentieth century before they tackle the detailed, chapter-by-chapter analyses of each current. Accordingly, we present brief profiles of these five currents here. 
ANARCHO-COMMUNISM 
Anarcho-communism's roots extend back to the activity and writings in the nineteenth century of anarchists such as Peter Kropotkin, Elisee Reclus and Jean Grave. One of anarcho-communism's fullest expositions in this century was Alexander Berkman's What Is Communist Anarchism's (1929), better known in its abridged form as the ABC of Anarchism (1942). As examples of anarcho-communist revolutionary activity, we could point to the struggles of the Partido Liberal Mexicano in the Mexican Revolution and to some anarchist groups in the Russian Revolution. In both these revolutions, anarcho-communists worked with peasants and workers, encouraged them to substitute their own organisations for those of the state, and participated in attempts to organise production on the basis of free communes. What distinguishes anarcho-communism from other varieties of anarchism is the equal emphasis which anarcho-communism has placed on individual freedom and communal solidarity, and its belief that these twin goals can be achieved simultaneously through the establishment of a stateless, moneyless communist society. 
IMPOSSIBILISM 
'Possibilism' and 'impossibilism' were terms coined in the nineteenth century to distinguish different wings of the Social Democratic Parties. Social Democrats who concentrated their efforts on reforming capitalism were dubbed 'possibilists', while the 'impossibilists' were those who struggled solely to achieve the goal of socialism. In time, the impossibilists either split away from the Social Democratic Parties, or abandoned impossibilism as the price for remaining in the ranks of Social Democracy. In Britain, impossibilism has its roots in various revolts against the leadership of the first Social Democratic organisation to be formed, the Social Democratic Federation of 1884. Secessions from the Social Democratic Federation led to the formation, as early as 1884, of the Socialist League, in which William Morris was a prominent participant, and to the emergence in 1904 of the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB). The SPGB has become the best-known impossibilist group, and its journal, the Socialist Standard, is the most accessible written expression of impossibilism. 
COUNCIL COMMUNISM 
Although both workers' councils and groups which later formed the nuclei of the council communist movement existed before the First World War, council communism rose to brief prominence, principally in Germany, immediately following the War. Inspired by the Russian Revolution, the council communists saw the workers' councils (Soviets) as the instrument of proletarian revolution. In a number of West European countries, groups of council communists were constituent elements in the Communist Parties when these were first formed, but they were criticised by Lenin in 'Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder (1920) because of their opposition to communists participating in parliamentary elections and joining trade unions and Social Democratic Parties. The council communists split away from, or were expelled from, the Communist Parties of the Third International during [he period 1920-1, and some of them organised alternative Communist Workers' Parties, such as the Communist Workers' Party of Germany (KAPD) in 1920. Sizeable council communist organisations disappeared as the post-war wave of radicalisation receded, and as the 1920s progressed the council communist movement was reduced to small groups engaged in theoretical work and propaganda activity. Paul Maitick's Anti-Bolshevik Communism (1978) represents some of the best fruits of the theoretical work in which the council communists have engaged. 
BORDIGISM 
Amadeo Bordiga and his comrades stood on the left wing of the Italian Socialist Party before the First World War and they were the most resolutely anti-war faction in Italy during the war. When the Communist Party of Italy was founded in 1921, the dominant position of Bordiga's faction within the new party was symbolised by the fact that Bordiga became the party leader. Bordiga had already been criticised by Lenin in 'Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder for advocating abstention from parliamentary elections, and in 1923 the executive committee of the Third Internationa! ousted him from the leadership of the Communist Party of Italy. Bordiga and his comrades remained within the Communist Party of Italy, but they suffered a defeat at the hands of Gramsci and his supporters, who were backed by the leaders of the Third International, at the congress held in exile in Lyons in 1926. Subsequently, the Bordigists either were expelled or withdrew from the Italian Communist Party, Bordiga himself being expelled in 1930. Although Bordiga was forced into political inactivity as long as Mussolini was in power, others who shared his views ensured that Bordigism maintained an organised existence. The form and name of the Bordigists' organisation changed at various junctures, but eventually became fixed as the International Communist Party, with members in Italy, France and elsewhere. Bordiga returned to political activity at the close of the Second World War and was associated with the International Communist Party until his death in 1970. Amadeo Bordiga's ideas on the nature of communist society have been presented in Jacques Camatte's Bordiga et la passion du communisme (1974). 
SITUATIONISM 
The situationists emerged in 1957 as a movement of avant-garde artists. Their criticism of consumer-oriented conventional an led them to criticise consumerism in general, and | hence to attack the basis of capitalism - the production of * wealth as commodities. Having widened their perspectives, I their revolutionary activity principally took the form of j publicity-catching stunts and the production of a stream of pamphlets and j'ournals. Among their pamphlets, Guy Debord's The Society of the Spectacle (1967) and Raoul Van-eigem's Traite de savoir-vivre a l'usage des jeunes generations (1967) (translated into English as The Revolution of Everyday Life) are key texts. When tens of thousands of students and workers erupted onto the streets of Paris in May 1968, many of their j protests had been anticipated by the situationists. Situationists were involved in the May events, but they never claimed to be leading the mass demonstrations and occupations, whose value they judged to lie in their spontaneity. From the 1970s, with the onset of economic depression, the situationists went into decline and were reduced to individuals and small groups engaged in propaganda activity. 
__________________________


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 9, 2010)

From the foregoing, it can be seen that many of the chapters devote attention to organisations which have long since disbanded or to the ideas of people who are long since dead. We do not apologise for this. The theories which inspired these organisations and which were formulated by these people are relevant to the predicament in which the world finds itself today. Capitalism has not changed in any fundamental way since their day, and neither has the non-market socialist alternative to capitalism which they articulated. 
Besides, although organisations and individuals may come and go, non-market socialism came into existence not long after industrial capitalism was established and has had a persistent, if chequered, history which extends down to the present day. The continued existence of non-market socialism is partly attributable to the efforts of those working men and women who have been its partisans, but paradoxically is due above all to the nature of capitalism itself. Capitalism necessarily entails an unceasing effort on the part of rival capitals throughout the world to maintain themselves by means of accumulation, and accumulation can only take place at the expense of the wage-working class. Unremitting exploitation and oppression of the wage-working class are built into capitalism, and can only be abolished by instituting a worldwide socialist society and hence destroying the implacable market forces which capitalism has unleashed. Thus it can confidently be said that as long as capitalism exists, the non-market socialist response to it will continually emerge within the working class. 
Some people may be puzzled by the fact that we devote so much attention in this book to minority currents and less-than-famous individuals. How, it will be asked, can we neglect the mass movements of the past 100 years and their leaders? Our response is to turn back the question to the questioners. Haven't the mass movements and their leaderships had their chances to right the wrongs of the world, by virtue of their attaining mass proportions? Conservatism, Liberalism, Social Democracy, Leninism .. . haven't they all had their share of power, and haven't they all proved totally ineffective in ridding the world of the problems which capitalism continually recreates? Other contenders for the privileges which accompany the administration of capitalism (nuclear disarmers, 'greens', feminists ...) are waiting in the wings, and are having some success in turning themselves into mass movements because of the illusory attractiveness of their promises to reform the market system. Like previous attempts at reform, these latest efforts directed towards making the capitalist system function in a manner which gives priority to human interests are bound to fail. As long as the world market remains, human beings will be forced to dance to its tune. Market forces cannot be tamed; only eliminated. The very existence of humankind is now threatened by the rivalry and the fixation on profit which are inherent in the market system. Surely this is sufficient reason for setting aside preconceptions and prejudices and for considering the non-market socialists' case for abolishing the market on its intellectual and political merits.


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 9, 2010)

massive wall of academic text.

With that many words, it's a wonder you struggle to get your message across.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 9, 2010)

two sheds said:


> Nah I'm right on this one - it was your post 1467, only a throw-away comment though.


 I see what you are referring to.  I just meant U75 anarchists dont respond, I have since learned you are not an anarchist.





> Ah but having a driver would go against the whole idea of u75 anarchism surely - you'd instead have to have one person with foot on accelerator, one on brake, someone steering, and everyone else fighting over where we are on the map and where we actually want to go


Yup, that why U75@ are frightened to discuss their 'tactics',,,, I think.





> So, to answer your question.As I say I’m not an anarchist and what I’d like to see is almost outside politics. The trouble with political parties is that they have entrenched views. They have their own view of the world which seem based on emotional decisions, and try to impose that on society.


 to deal with the entrenched views part first.
I don't think there is a problem with that.  Well sort of.  What I mean is, if you have a lot of different parties, organisations, all going in the same direction, but trying slightly different tactics' because of their philosophical differences, I think this can be a good thing.   like creatures in nature and evolution, each trying to develop to the environment, all the different revolutionary strands trying to a different tactics', gives more chance of success.  I think there is great attributes to anarchism, which many socialist parties lack.  We have these differences because we have fundamentally different views about 'the' solution.  However, if they were to accept these differences more, and worked together where they do agree, in my opinion they would be very complimentary.  Each making up for the failings of the others strategy and tactics.  So having entrenched views, a clearly defined set of tactics, is not necessarily a bad thing.  However, they do have to be adaptable.  You do have to adapt to the environment, you do have to learn from the working class, as a socialist anarchist.  

The emotional issue.  To me, from what I so on here, anarchism does seem very emotional, or perhaps that's because I still don't understand a lot of what they say.  Perhaps as Butchersn suggested earlier, it is because for us socialists, we cannot compute what they're saying.  Having said that, I honestly don't think they have tried very hard to define what they're saying.
As far as emotion and socialists go, I don't think you can say that.  I think there is a great deal of morality in a Marxism, for example. But for me personally, you could take every ounce of morality out of Marxism, and Marxism stands on a purely scientific basis.  That is as scientific as the social sciences can be.  For example>



> I tend to see the problems we have as the effects of ‘the system’ rather than being caused by individuals – I’d be acting just the way that businessmen do in the situation they’re in – you can’t not act in that way because if you did you’d be out of a job. What we actually need is to improve the ‘system’, and the person who really seems to have understood that is W. Edwards Deming. The language he uses is acceptable to business but is actually empowering for workers.
> 
> To improve a system you work backwards from the outcomes you want. You Evaluate what we need against what we’ve got, Plan how to get where you want to go, then Do it while Checking progress and Adopting the new system /Amending it or Abandoning it if it actually totally fucks up. And you work on a small scale to test out what you’re doing.And yes it's a statement of the bleeding obvious but no fucker does it.
> 
> ...


 that is exactly the type of way of doing things, that communism is supposed to be.  It is about the rationality of organized planning of the economy, where production is based upon human need of everybody, rather than the profits of the minority.  For me Marxism is scientific, this is why what the anarchists sa about consciousness doesn't make any sense.  It is unscientific.  See next post.>


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 9, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> I'm not asking for examples of people you consider to have been class conscious I want you to tell me who came up with the concept, the yard stick by which consciousness or lack of it is measured and what for.


For me the answer is obvious.  Who became conscious the sun an the stars did not orbit the Earth it was vice versa, why did they do that, and what have they used it for?  Scientific consciousness and class consciousness has developed in the same way.

Class/classes have always existed, as long as society has existed. Like the sun the stars and the earth, they have existed whether or not men have been conscious of their movements, causes and effects.  The discovery of classes was not made to create a yardstick of intellectual inferiority and superiority, it was discovered from observation.  Can you name a society where a tiny minority have controlled the means of production, and have not therefore controlled society.  As far as I know, every time the society has had a minority owning a controlling the means of production, they have had a ruling class.  That is not made up, it is fact.

The reason it was discovered, like any other scientific discovery, was curiosity.  The search for truth and understanding.  BUT,,,,, it is NOT just a means to understand the past, but away to, and guide to how to change the future, and in the direction we should change it.

Class consciousness, is about class awareness....  That is it really.  Having class consciousness does not make you inferior or superior, just more aware of the relationship of classes to the society's of the past and present, and what the alternative is to capitalism.  How can you say class consciousness doesn't exist, without saying classes do not exist?  The very fact that anarchists are aware of the need for a society without classes, means they are class conscious.  Even those who were not aware of this, the chartists mentioned earlier, have been referred to by historians as "the first flowering of working class consciousness".

That's why the anarchists need to define what they mean by class consciousness.  Or at least what they think we mean, the socialists, by class consciousness.


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 9, 2010)

So everyone is class conscious then? It means nothing at all.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 9, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> So everyone is class conscious then? It means nothing at all.


Are you an anarchist? if so, how can you say that your being conscious of the need of the working class, for classless society means nothing at all????  And that not enough working class sharing your conscious of this need for classless society, to make it a reality today, means nothing at all????


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 9, 2010)

You've described CC as awareness that there are classes - means nothing at all, it's useless. 

As has been said before on this thread by me for one at least once - the class struggle is ongoing and everyone is a participant whether they explicitly think of it in those terms or not. CC is nothing.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 9, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> No, you're delusional. I don't think one single worker has come to you and said that you're _"genuine expression of class consciousness."_
> 
> I suspect what you mean is that there are workers who have come to you and said they agree with you and want to join. Not the same thing at all.



You can think what you like but the fact of the matter is many workers have said to us that we are the _"genuine expression of class consciousness."_ and yes there are those who have joined the SPGB because of that and because of agreement with our case.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 9, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> You've described CC as awareness that there are classes - means nothing at all, it's useless.


I didn't say just that





> Class/classes have always existed, as long as society has existed. Like the sun the stars and the earth, they have existed whether or not men have been conscious of their movements, causes and effects. The discovery of classes was not made to create a yardstick of intellectual inferiority and superiority, it was discovered from observation. Can you name a society where a tiny minority have controlled the means of production, and have not therefore controlled society. As far as I know, every time the society has had a minority owning a controlling the means of production, they have had a ruling class. That is not made up, it is fact.
> 
> The reason it was discovered, like any other scientific discovery, was curiosity. The search for truth and understanding. BUT,,,,, it is NOT just a means to understand the past, but away to, and guide to how to change the future, and in the direction we should change it.
> Class consciousness, is about class awareness.... That is it really. Having class consciousness does not make you inferior or superior, just more aware of the relationship of classes to the society's of the past and present, and what the alternative is to capitalism. How can you say class consciousness doesn't exist, without saying classes do not exist? The very fact that anarchists are aware of the need for a society without classes, means they are class conscious. Even those who were not aware of this, the chartists mentioned earlier, have been referred to by historians as "the first flowering of working class consciousness".





> As has been said before on this thread by me for one at least once - the class struggle is ongoing and everyone is a participant whether they explicitly think of it in those terms or not. CC is nothing.


 that is just repeating what I have just said.  You haven't answered "Are you an anarchist? if so, how can you say that your being conscious of the need of the working class, for classless society means nothing at all???? And that not enough working class sharing your conscious of this need for classless society, to make it a reality today, means nothing at all?"

Perhaps I should put the question even simpler, are you conscious of the need of the working class, for classless society?


cue freds exit from the thread...


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 9, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> Every single day would be a holiday?  With work and leisure as we know it being a thing of the past?  Seriously?
> 
> Will there be unicorns?



Of course I'm serious and for a very simple reason.  Think on this:  All work will volunteered, and there will be plenty of work to choose from, so the square pegs in round holes formula will no longer exist; the pace of the work will be up to the people involved and the priorities set by society; the freedom of expression will have open access; the hours of work will be set by the individual not the job for replacements are not an issue.  

Now work out what this will mean in terms of work and leisure, IMO they are either interchangeable or made redundant in a socialist society.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 9, 2010)

newbie said:


> pretty much everybody has discussed those ideas at some point in their lives, one way or another.
> 
> If only you could explain it more, explain it better, they'd see the light.



Socialist are always trying to explain the case better and fresher.  As for seeing the light I hope you are not suggesting we are on a religious crusade?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 9, 2010)

v





fractionMan said:


> No it's not.
> 
> For most people accepting capitalism is like accepting breathing.  It's just the way it is.



To you accepting capitalism is like accepting breathing+  It's just the way it is?


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 9, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I didn't say just that
> 
> that is just repeating what I have just said.  You haven't answered "Are you an anarchist? if so, how can you say that your being conscious of the need of the working class, for classless society means nothing at all???? And that not enough working class sharing your conscious of this need for classless society, to make it a reality today, means nothing at all?"
> 
> ...



I'm an anarchist and I think that there's every chance that the working class that I know, that I'm part of will never see a classless society no matter how desireable it is. I think that recognising the desiribility of a classless society is not a matter of consciousness  and describing it as necessary is a lot of bollocks unless you define what it's necessary for, there wasn't one yesterday and there won't be tomorrow yet here I am. 

Dreams of the impotent.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 9, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Julie Burchill, who had her dad whisper in her ear as a child in the sixties, when the US were being thrown out of Vietnam by the Vietnamese, 'we've won'.
> 
> I admire her for her consistent championing of the working-class. Julie, like us all, has some contradictions though. First, claiming that she has never renounced the Communist beliefs of her youth, but then later announcing to all that she had 'found God', became a Lutheran and later a "self-confessed Christian Zionist".



I think she needs cocaine for her brain to work properly. Semi-retirement has turned her into a blithering idiot.
I went for UKIP because I can't forgive Germany


----------



## two sheds (Jun 9, 2010)

Knotted said:


> I think she needs cocaine for her brain to work properly. Semi-retirement has turned her into a blithering idiot.
> I went for UKIP because I can't forgive Germany



Apt (i.e. totally irrelevant) post for the thread


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 9, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> I'm an anarchist and I think that there's every chance that the working class that I know, that I'm part of will never see a classless society no matter how desireable it is. I think that recognising the desiribility of a classless society is not a matter of consciousness  and describing it as necessary is a lot of bollocks unless you define what it's necessary for, there wasn't one yesterday and there won't be tomorrow yet here I am.
> 
> Dreams of the impotent.



So, you are not only conscious of "how desireable it is", you are also conscious how to "define what it's necessary for".  now this "working class that you know, that you are a part of", are they as conscious as you of "how desireable it is", and "what it's necessary for"?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 9, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> I'm an anarchist and I think that there's every chance that the working class that I know, that I'm part of will never see a classless society no matter how desireable it is. I think that recognising the desiribility of a classless society is not a matter of consciousness  and describing it as necessary is a lot of bollocks unless you define what it's necessary for, there wasn't one yesterday and there won't be tomorrow yet here I am.
> 
> Dreams of the impotent.



Well if that's not a classic exit post I don't know what is.  For it contains so many glaring contradictions I would be ashamed to describe myself as a 'class struggle anarchist', for it plainly illustrates you have no idea what class struggle is about, denies involvement in the struggle raises class consciousness, foresees no outcome and is of the firm opinion that capitalism is here to stay and inevitable, finally it claims that socialism is not necessary for socialists do not define why socialism is necessary, which is clearly saying that inequality is an insufficient reason to abolish capitalism.

How more defeatist can you get?!


----------



## newbie (Jun 9, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Socialist are always trying to explain the case better and fresher.  As for seeing the light I hope you are not suggesting we are on a religious crusade?



I wouldn't be so bold, although the parallels are blindingly obvious 

Of course you're always trying to explain.  Anyone who hasn't achieved what you think of as class consciousness (which is a bit different from what RMP3 thinks it is) just needs the explanation to be put slightly better.  Then they'll get it.  Anyone who doesn't get it clearly hasn't had the opportunity to hear the explanation properly.

No-one could hear the ideas, think about them and then reject them because they prefer capitalism, could they?  Well, the odd one or two can be written off as class traitors or somesuch, but when more or less the entire class does it, it must be because the case hasn't been properly put.  There's no other possibility.


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 9, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> So, you are not only conscious of "how desireable it is", you are also conscious how to "define what it's necessary for".  now this "working class that you know, that you are a part of", are they as conscious as you of "how desireable it is", and "what it's necessary for"?



I never said I could define what it's necessary for. I said saying it's necessary is bollocks unless you define what it's necessary for. 

We're back to the Watchtower with the second part of your post. hich brings your mate in nicely. 



Gravediggers said:


> Well if that's not a classic exit post I don't know what is.  For it contains so many glaring contradictions I would be ashamed to describe myself as a 'class struggle anarchist', for it plainly illustrates you have no idea what class struggle is about, denies involvement in the struggle raises class consciousness, foresees no outcome and is of the firm opinion that capitalism is here to stay and inevitable, finally it claims that socialism is not necessary for socialists do not define why socialism is necessary, which is clearly saying that inequality is an insufficient reason to abolish capitalism.
> 
> How more defeatist can you get?!



Did you know the Jehovas have an angel living in their New York headquarters? This angel told them that the world would end, second coming the lot, in 1910 it was supposed to happen and we'd all be living with in harmony with the tigers, the chosen ones anyway. 

Was it an angel that the SPGB of 1904 were following or was it a frayed copy of the manifesto that they were interpreting? Either way they never saw a classless society and neither did any of the people they knew. 

So is now the time? Because now is when I live and all the people around me live. Painting pretty pictures of this socialist utopia is no more use to them than it is to you. 

Consciousness my arse.


----------



## JimW (Jun 9, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> <snip>
> 
> How more defeatist can you get?!



He could join the SPGB and accept permanent verbose irrelevance.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 9, 2010)

newbie said:


> I wouldn't be so bold, although the parallels are blindingly obvious
> 
> Of course you're always trying to explain.  Anyone who hasn't achieved what you think of as class consciousness (which is a bit different from what RMP3 thinks it is) just needs the explanation to be put slightly better.  Then they'll get it.  Anyone who doesn't get it clearly hasn't had the opportunity to hear the explanation properly.
> 
> No-one could hear the ideas, think about them and then reject them because they prefer capitalism, could they?  Well, the odd one or two can be written off as class traitors or somesuch, but when more or less the entire class does it, it must be because the case hasn't been properly put.  There's no other possibility.



Yes the facts are that the case for socialism hasn't been properly put.  Not by socialists I may add but by the private and state capitalist opposition. Despite the fact that a socialist society as never existed the term 'socialism' has been defined and identified with what occurred in Russia (and elsewhere) as socialism in practice when it was state capitalist in existence there.  Nationalisation has also been associated with socialism when in truth it is the state operating businesses and industry on behalf of the capitalist class.  The most ridiculous recent assertion of socialism is of Obama being a socialist because of the introduction of health reforms.

Clearly, socialists have an uphill battle just explaining what socialism isn't more often than explaining what socialism is.  Although this is all par for the course it paradoxically helps us to explain how capitalism operates to besmirch any opposition to the profit system.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 9, 2010)

JimW said:


> He could join the SPGB and accept permanent verbose irrelevance.



What makes you think we would accept him as a member when clearly he has no understanding of what class consciousness consists of.


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 10, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> What makes you think we would accept him as a member when clearly he has no understanding of what class consciousness consists of.



It consists of agreeing with you. I think that's been pretty conclusively demonstrated.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 10, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> It consists of agreeing with you. I think that's been pretty conclusively demonstrated.



Its not so straight forward or one sided as you might think.  Of course agreement on class consciousness by both parties is central to a succesful application for membership, for what is the point of having non-socialists in a socialist party?  On the other hand, there are plenty of socialists who have decided not to apply for membership because they disagree on certain points in our case.  Again there have been socialists who have left the SPGB for any number of reasons.  Robbo for instance, left because he thought the hostility clause was being strictly applied in all cases, yet he still adheres to socialist principles, despite these disagreements.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 10, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> Did you know the Jehovas have an angel living in their New York headquarters? This angel told them that the world would end, second coming the lot, in 1910 it was supposed to happen and we'd all be living with in harmony with the tigers, the chosen ones anyway.
> 
> Was it an angel that the SPGB of 1904 were following or was it a frayed copy of the manifesto that they were interpreting? Either way they never saw a classless society and neither did any of the people they knew.
> 
> ...



Such dreadful caricatures stand out like a sore thumb and do nothing to support your claim you are a class struggle anarchist.


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 10, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Such dreadful caricatures stand out like a sore thumb and do nothing to support your claim you are a class struggle anarchist.



The stuff about the Jehovas is true (I might have the year wrong though) I don't know about the SPGB. You tell me, what went wrong, what happened to the classless society that was promised to the followers in 1904? 

Is it coming soon?


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 10, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Of course I'm serious and for a very simple reason.  Think on this:  All work will volunteered, and there will be plenty of work to choose from, so the square pegs in round holes formula will no longer exist; the pace of the work will be up to the people involved and the priorities set by society; the freedom of expression will have open access; the hours of work will be set by the individual not the job for replacements are not an issue.
> 
> Now work out what this will mean in terms of work and leisure, IMO they are either interchangeable or made redundant in a socialist society.



It's good to dream eh?


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 10, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> v
> 
> To you accepting capitalism is like accepting breathing+  It's just the way it is?



As in, there's no point denying we live under capitalism and it's not going to change?

Yes.

I can moan about it all day long, but I'm one of a small few irl I know that does.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 10, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> The stuff about the Jehovas is true (I might have the year wrong though) I don't know about the SPGB. You tell me, what went wrong, what happened to the classless society that was promised to the followers in 1904?
> 
> Is it coming soon?



Nothing gone wrong or even went wrong, for in 1904 and since, we have never promised anything just made a basic proposal based on an analysis of capitalism and the solution of socialism.  The case for socialism is a proposal for change to be enacted by the working class not the SPGB.  In this proposal we make it quite clear that our role is specifically a vehicle for the workers to use - if they so wish - and as they see fit.  The SPGB can help the working class to obtain a change in the revolutionary transformation of political power, but it is not the engine or the driver for those roles remain firmly with the workers.

The type of vehicle used will depend on the circumstances of the time.  It could a large car, or if thought necessary a double decker bus. The choice of direction and the speed and who will be in the passenger seats will be entirely up to the workers.  The actual route taken will depend on them and the map used will created by them, and the compass bearings will be their own experiences of the class struggle.  The instruments used to help them on the journey will be of their own creation and all excess baggage containing the promise of reforms will be left behind.  

The stopovers along the route will be used to distribute socialist literature and street meetings held to encourage other workers to join them on the journey of a lifetime.  Some of the stopovers may consist of a few days, whilst others may take longer in an effort to set in motion the necessary planning and preparation for the eventual transformation.  

There will of course be the occasional breakdown in communications and the vehicle will require maintenance from time to time, but the fuel for the journey will not be a problem for it will consist of all the miseries, poverty, wars and inequalities imposed by capitalism.  As the journey progresses the vehicle will be adapted to the climate and geography of the regional differences.  But whatever the adaptations the basic framework of the vehicle will remain the same and consist of socialist principles.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 10, 2010)

newbie said:


> I wouldn't be so bold, although the parallels are blindingly obvious
> 
> Of course you're always trying to explain.  Anyone who hasn't achieved what you think of as class consciousness (which is a bit different from what RMP3 thinks it is) just needs the explanation to be put slightly better.  Then they'll get it.  Anyone who doesn't get it clearly hasn't had the opportunity to hear the explanation properly.


 just out of interest, what perspective are you politically?  Because, I am honestly interested in mutual understanding what we have to say.  I don't think that has happened so far in this thread.



What has claimed to be dismissed so far in this thread, is the Marxist understanding of class consciousness.  However, it is plain from what you write, and what everyone else has written, we have not clearly defined that yet.  To illustrate that point, I do not think there is any real difference between what I see as class consciousness and grave digger sees as class consciousness.  There is a tactical difference of how we apply it to party and class, but I don't think there is a difference in the understanding of the term.  So what is a  Marxist understanding of class consciousness?

Firstly I don't think you can understand a  Marxist understanding of class consciousness, without first understanding Marxist understanding, the Marxist method.  An understanding of the Marxist method, which applies to every area of investigation, will quickly illustrate that many of the assumptions being made about the Marxist understanding of class consciousness, about it being static, a testament of thoughts of Marx, with no connection to an ever changing world, are incongruent with the Marxist method.
Dialectical Materialism, the Marxist method, is really simple, and really complex at the same time.  But quite simply, the whole point of the Marxist method, is to understand why society changes.  
There are three main elements to it.
1.  Everything is part of the whole.  So you cannot understand the evolution of society in terms of Kings and Queens, how history was taught at school for many years.  But it is equally true to say, you cannot understand history just in terms of history from below.  There is an inextricable dialectical relationship between the ruled and the rulers.
2.  It is a scientific fact, that there is nothing you can think of, that is not enough process of change.  Nothing can exist in stasis, including society.
3.  The driving force for change, is contradiction.  It is the contradiction between the interests of the rulers and the ruled, that has caused the evolution of human society.  So, "the history of all hitherto existing society, is the history of class struggle".

And so the Marxist understanding of class consciousness, as in every other area of analysis, is holistic, dynamic, and contradictory, and attacking class consciousness as it being static, a testament of thoughts of Marx, with no connection to an ever changing world, is not attacking what I actually think.
So with regard to class consciousness.  You cannot really view class consciousness in terms of, "that is class conscious and that is not".  For a start, it is part of the society with two main classes.  So there is two forms of class consciousness.  There is ruling class consciousness, and working class class consciousness.  (let's forget the middle classes for now).
Every day there all kinds of pressures which inculcate into people the ruling ideas, but at exactly the same time there are all kinds of pressures which lead people to question those ruling ideas.  In the vast majority of people this leads to "contradictory levels of consciousness".  If you are any kind of activist, you will be familiar with this.  You meet somebody, say in some kind of trade union campaign.  This somebody is absolutely excellent.  They have really got working class instincts, of what is in the interest of their campaign and the working class, and what is not.  And then all of a sudden, they come out with a whole load of racism, sexism, or homophobia etc.  They have contradictory levels of consciousness.  They are aware of many aspects of what is in their class interest, but at the same time they accept many ideas which are in the interests of the ruling class, ideas which divide and rule the working class.  
So what I am saying here, is that the idea of consciousness is very complex, it covers a whole spectrum, it is not just black and white, you have either got it or you haven't.  Everybody has varying degrees, and contradictory consciousness.
Also this is a very dynamic situation.  Shifts in consciousness between the left and right, can happen on a daily basis not only in the individual, but in society as a whole.  It is part of the whole, the class struggle.  And so the class struggle intervenes in that consciousness, every day.
And lastly, and this is where I might be at odds with the SPGB, Marxist's are not immune to the pressures that create contradictory levels of consciousness.[1]  The Marxist's do not have all the answers.  The answers, especially about the here and now, change on a daily basis, as the circumstances change.  That is why, imo, the SPGB is wrong, it is NOT a vanguard.  You have to be connected to the working class, to test your ideas in the class struggle every day, just like a Vanguard has to be connected to the train, to see whether they cut the mustard.  Creating communism/anarchism, isn't just about standing on the sidelines acting as a Siren beckoning the working class to socialism, it is about fighting for it in the here and now.


> No-one could hear the ideas, think about them and then reject them because they prefer capitalism, could they?  Well, the odd one or two can be written off as class traitors or somesuch, but when more or less the entire class does it, it must be because the case hasn't been properly put.  There's no other possibility


 well, I am led to believe, Stephen Hawkins believes in god.  At the same time he postulates scientific based theories.  Now I dare say, more people in the world accept his ideas about god, than they do his scientific theories.  This does not mean his scientific theories are wrong, and his belief in god is right.  That is not a scientific methodology.
Likewise, Marxism claims to have scientific insight into evolution of human society.  This insight is based upon observation, which makes predictions.  One of these predictions is that “the emancipation of the working class, has to be the act of the working class”.  That this idea is not accepted by the working class, does not make it necessarily untrue.  And that there is “another possibility”, is very well documented amongst Marxist’s.  “Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master(3) and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
eta So, IMO accepting or rejecting Marxism as an understanding of capitalism and a guide to action, needs to be done so on a scientific and rational basis.




Footnote.
1.   I don’t know whether this will illuminate or confuse, but I do think it is an analogy which illustrates the Marxist method of analysis, and the pressures upon consciousness even for Marxist’s.
Marxist’s argued that chartists were the first flowering of working class consciousness.  Now the chartist movement produced many of its own newspapers, writings, ‘culture’.  However, the same Marxist added, there is no such thing as working class culture.  This is because, even though these  items of culture where produced solely by and for the working class, they were produced in capitalist society and, however autonomously the working class produced those items of culture, they only ever did/do so whilst in relation to their oppression by the ruling class, and so this mediated their production of culture.  You can only really have working class culture in communism/anarchism, where you have only one class the working class.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 10, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> It's good to dream eh?



And its good to know how we live and to imagine how we might live, for it would be a poor world if we did not have this capacity to think what is possible.


----------



## two sheds (Jun 10, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> The type of vehicle used will depend on the circumstances of the time.  It could a large car, or if thought necessary a double decker bus.



No, with 300 members you're going to need at least two or three double decker buses. Bicycles might be better, though. 

Tell us more about 1904, FreddyB


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 10, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> And its good to know how we live and to imagine how we might live, for it would be a poor world if we did not have this capacity to think what is possible.



I don't disagree.  I just think your utopia is unobtainable with our current levels of technology and will remain so until long after we're dead.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 10, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> As in, there's no point denying we live under capitalism and it's not going to change?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> I can moan about it all day long, but I'm one of a small few irl I know that does.


And that is my sole point.  You are " one of a small few irl I know that does" that has a different working class consciousness to those outside your "small few".  There are indeed different degrees of working class consciousness.


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 10, 2010)

You appear to be agreeing with me.  Either that or your point is as clear as mud.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 10, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> You appear to be agreeing with me.  Either that or your point is as clear as mud.



ye, I think I am agreeing with you.  I think I got you mixed up with freddy b the anarchist who denies the existence of class consciousness, when I originally responded to you.


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 10, 2010)

We'll then it's even more confusing, because I'm fairly convinced class consciousness doesn't exist too.

People might be fed up with their boss, hate working long hours for fuck all and wonder why their electricity bill is so bloody high.  They may even notice that a lot of people are in the same boat as them.  But that's not the class consciousness you and diggers are describing.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 10, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> Every single day would be a holiday?  With work and leisure as we know it being a thing of the past?  Seriously?
> 
> Will there be unicorns?


 I cannot logically see a classless society being any other way.  You would be living in a situation where you, as part of a collective, would have responsibility for and control of your destiny.  Where all production, work, would be for human need not profit, so where you would be quite literally working for the satisfaction of helping your brothers and sisters.  All the elements that now promote competition, would promote cooperation.  And if there were any shortages, inadequacies, in the system, they would be there because we had chose them instead of others, they were not created because of some privileged minorities greed.

The consciousness of capitalism, individualism greed and competition, would be as alien to communards, as is the consciousness of feudalism is to us today.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 10, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> j
> 
> What has claimed to be dismissed so far in this thread, is the Marxist understanding of class consciousness.  However, it is plain from what you write, and what everyone else has written, we have not clearly defined that yet.  To illustrate that point, I do not think there is any real difference between what I see as class consciousness and grave digger sees as class consciousness.  There is a tactical difference of how we apply it to party and class, but I don't think there is a difference in the understanding of the term.  So what is a  Marxist understanding of class consciousness?
> 
> ...


 
Excellent analysis and arguments which should broaden the discussion on this thread.  My apologies for editing but I spotted an obvious contradiction right at the end in the last sentence, "You can only really have working class culture in communism/anarchism, where you have only one class the working class."  If the working class still exist by definition there must be an opposing class and a class society.  Socialism will be a classless society and cultural expression will cease to be an expression of class interests but of the common interests of the community in producing for use and human needs.

Btw the quote from the CM referring to the history of class struggle was commented on in the prefaces of the later subsequent editions should have actual read, "All written history of the class struggle".  Also it should be made clear that Marx's use of the dialectic method was a tool to be used for further investigation into his main theory of historical materialism.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 10, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> I don't disagree.  I just think your utopia is unobtainable with our current levels of technology and will remain so until long after we're dead.



The current levels of technology are quite sufficient to produce and deliver the goods to satisfy human need. Indeed in many respects under capitalism they have been over efficient. They have been since the beginning of the last century when capitalism became an integrated production unit on a global scale.  The abundance is there already it will take socialism to deliver it, for capitalism is incapable of completing the delivery when there is no profit to made at the end of the journey.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 10, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> We'll then it's even more confusing, because I'm fairly convinced class consciousness doesn't exist too.
> 
> People might be fed up with their boss, hate working long hours for fuck all and wonder why their electricity bill is so bloody high.  They may even notice that a lot of people are in the same boat as them.  But that's not the class consciousness you and diggers are describing.


I assume your not a anarchist then?



diggers is talking about 1 degree of class consciousness.  The degree to which members of the SPGB, need to be aware of http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10744896&postcount=1674 to be a member.  So seen as JUST that, your right it doesn't exist.

What you are saying is correct. http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10747519&postcount=1700 IMHO.  class consciousness has a spectrum, extending from accepting totally the ideas of the ruling class, and even fascism, right across to the social revolutionary outlook.

PS. I'm don't share diggers 'anarchism'.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 10, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> The current levels of technology are quite sufficient to produce and deliver the goods to satisfy human need. Indeed in many respects under capitalism they have been over efficient. They have been since the beginning of the last century when capitalism became an integrated production unit on a global scale.  The abundance is there already it will take socialism to deliver it, for capitalism is incapable of completing the delivery when there is no profit to made at the end of the journey.


Just 1 fact exposes the obscenity of capitalisms ability to produce the goods but inability to deliver the goods to those that need it.  The biggest killer in the world today is drinking dirty water.  The entire world could be provided with clean water for the cost of two aircraft carriers.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 10, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I assume your not a anarchist then?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And what is my 'anarchism'?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 10, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Just 1 fact exposes the obscenity of capitalisms ability to produce the goods but inability to deliver the goods to those that need it.  The biggest killer in the world today is drinking dirty water.  The entire world could be provided with clean water for the cost of two aircraft carriers.



The problem with comparing costs with costs is that it can be misconstrued to imply that the problem with capitalism is that it needs to readjust the balance sheet in regards to human priorities.  The case for human priorities is always a secondary thought for bookkeepers and accountants in capitalism where profit is the only priority.  And in this respect, there is little if any profit to be made from cleaning up the worlds drinking water, especially when there is a surplus working population to pay for and maintain until they are ready to be put back into work.  In the meantime aircraft carriers and such like are essential to protecting the markets.


----------



## newbie (Jun 10, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> just out of interest, what perspective are you politically?



I'm rather resistant to pigeonholing on here, because it creates a prism through which posts are read, but if pushed I'd say 'dissident', somewhere on the left and I remain outraged by the iniquities of capitalism. I've never signed up for any political party.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 10, 2010)

newbie said:


> I'm rather resistant to pigeonholing on here, because it creates a prism through which posts are read, but if pushed I'd say 'dissident', somewhere on the left and I remain outraged by the iniquities of capitalism. I've never signed up for any political party.



Interesting self-observation.  Does your outrage go so far as to motivate you to condemn capitalism?


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 11, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> I don't disagree.  I just think your utopia is unobtainable with our current levels of technology and will remain so until long after we're dead.




I dont think its just a question of technological potential that is relevant here; its the mode of production, or the economic organisation of society, that also counts.

In most OECD countries *most *of the formal sector jobs actually serve no useful purpose whatsoever except to keep the system ticking over. There are a huge number of money-related jobs such as banking and finance, pay departments, tax collectors, accountants and so on which will all disappear in a moneyless economy. So too will a whole lot of other jobs that are less obviously tied up with capitalist system e.g. armaments production.

There has not been a great deal of research into this subject of socially useful versus socially useless work but most estimates Ive come across  suggest that, conservatively speaking, at least half of all the formal sector jobs will disappear in socialism where the purpose of production is simply and directly to produce for human needs without the market.

What does that mean? It means effectively that the social productivity of labour generally will be massively increased under socialism.  It means also that a huge amount of material resources currently diverted into socially unproductive ends will be released for socially useful purposes.

Eliminating the  structural waste of capitalism (which is growing both absolutely and relatively year upon year) is perhaps the biggest single productive advantage that socialism will have over capitalism and makes the former a practical possibility right now.  All that is lacking is the conscious will to turn this possibility into a reality


----------



## newbie (Jun 11, 2010)

oh yeah, I'll condemn capitalism for all the good that'll do anybody.

As of today, 11 June 2010, that condemnation is irrelevant.  It may be that at some point in the future there will be a time when choosing sides on such a grand question matters, but it doesn't matter now.  Because now the vast, vast majority of the working class have thought it through and decided they prefer social democratic capitalism to any of the other isms.  There are lots of visions that have been offered to people, that they've thought about and that haven't really inspired, and that includes socialism.  I'm sure we've all heard the reasons why people prefer capitalism- because we've all had the discussions- so everyone who has been gripped with a vision of socialism must know the frustration of banging their head against a brick wall.  I guess those pursuing the dream of caliphate or rapture have the same experience.  

Face it, you've got a platform here where the readers are predominantly likely to condemn capitalism, probably the biggest such platform in the country though tiny in terms of the working class as a whole.  You've been banging on about your scientific proofs for the last few months and I've yet to see any evidence of anyone saying "zoot!, you're right, that's the way forward."  This is 2010, we're too sophisticated to be influenced by prophets with sermons.   

FWIW, IMO what the working class actually wants is to be middle class. That's the key result of shared reflections on experience, individual and collective, local and international, past and present.  That's what's been driving thought and behaviour for the last few decades.  But that's not class consciousness is it, that's just anti-scientific error.


----------



## two sheds (Jun 11, 2010)

"I AGREE WITH HIM" ^^^

I think we need to forget about the language like 'working class' and 'bourgeois' (so hard to spell) and 'van Guardism' . They've got just too many negative connotations from the communism of Russia and China on one side and today's media on the other. Anyone see that changing because I don't. 

Now, you first have to tell people that your socialism is virtually the opposite of what people believe socialism - also anarchism - to be, and I just don't think we've got the attention span nowadays - people are as happy believing that its all explained by some conspiracy theory, so they're trying to interject their own view as soon as you've finished the first sentence. 

We need to bring the debate out of the language of the early 1900s. Rather than 'we want the working class to have a say' I think we should be saying 'we want everyone to have a say'. Rather than overthrowing capitalism we should be talking about changing the system so it benefits everyone. 

That's why i mentioned Deming, who is nowhere near political, because he knew about improving systems. He was the bloke who taught the Japanese about quality so that they changed from making cheap and shoddy copies of western electronics, cars, motor bikes etc to making such reliable stuff that they put were putting half the major western companies out of business within 20 years. He puts the case in language that you can even convince business managers with but his message is subversive. I think that working now in a company that actually did what he said is the closest you'd get in reality to what the SPGB are putting forward as an ideal. 

We need a science-based approach (so based on actual research that's been done within communities as to what makes people feel safer, happier, more fulfilled) that doesn't start off from demanding that we break up society as we know it.  

After this thread on the SPGB i definitely disagree with the idea that it's all or nothing. One of the basics of improving 'systems' is that you do it in stages - you use pilot projects to make changes to see what works and expand the ones that do work. You've got to build on what's good in society and try to get rid of the worst aspects. 

Trying to do everything in one go because you believe it's going to work is dangerous. First it's bound to fuck up, and second you're going to need to label one section of the community as a scapegoat when it *does* fuck up.


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 11, 2010)

two sheds said:


> "I AGREE WITH HIM" ^^^
> 
> I think we need to forget about the language like 'working class' and 'bourgeois' (so hard to spell) and 'van Guardism' . They've got just too many negative connotations from the communism of Russia and China on one side and today's media on the other. Anyone see that changing because I don't.
> 
> ...




Two sheds

Whilist I might not agree with all of the particulars of what you say here  I think the basic thrust of what you are saying is something I have sympathy for.  Sorry if that sounds patronising but its not.  We do definitely need to update our approach to changing society

The key thing for me is your second last paragraph rejecting the all or nothing approach. I agree.  What matters is how to proceed along these lines.  The SPGB has I think quite rightly pointed out the risk of just being sucked into supporting the system through the advocacy of reformism which is essentially just a treadmill.  But there are other ways forward - small scale and step by step - that avoid that pitfall and at the same time help break with logic of capitalism.  The important thing always is to have the bigger picture in mind and to adapt your approach accordingly. Or to put it differently to integrate the micro level with the macro level.

At the end of the day, however much you may knock the SPGB is does offer a vision of the bigger picture which makes sense.  It is not too hot on question of how to get there.  Putting across its vision important though this is is not enough.  That is where the kind of things you are talking about or alluding to might very well help. 

Perhaps you might care to expand on this?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 11, 2010)

newbie said:


> oh yeah, I'll condemn capitalism for all the good that'll do anybody.
> 
> As of today, 11 June 2010, that condemnation is irrelevant.  It may be that at some point in the future there will be a time when choosing sides on such a grand question matters, but it doesn't matter now.  Because now the vast, vast majority of the working class have thought it through and decided they prefer social democratic capitalism to any of the other isms.



Yes I agree we can condemn capitalism until we are blue in the face but it wont accomplish anything of a fundamental nature.  But when that condemnation is accompanied with a revolutionary challenge that is an entirely different proposition.  I also agree that, ".... .. the vast majority of the working class have thought it through and decided they prefer social democratic capitalism to any of the other isms." but lets be clear about this they have only reached this collective decision on the information given to them by the capitalist class.  So its not what can be called an informed decision, where a true description of socialism is entirely at odds to their masters message.  So the judges are still out on that one IME. 




> There are lots of visions that have been offered to people, that they've thought about and that haven't really inspired, and that includes socialism.  I'm sure we've all heard the reasons why people prefer capitalism- because we've all had the discussions- so everyone who has been gripped with a vision of socialism must know the frustration of banging their head against a brick wall.  I guess those pursuing the dream of caliphate or rapture have the same experience.



Of course the arguments for and against have usually ended with workers who condemn capitalism banging their heads against a brick wall.  And when they use the language and compromises of the left this is going to be predominately the case, for their solutions mainly mean a form of state capitalism.  Which is no solution.



> Face it, you've got a platform here where the readers are predominantly likely to condemn capitalism, probably the biggest such platform in the country though tiny in terms of the working class as a whole.  You've been banging on about your scientific proofs for the last few months and I've yet to see any evidence of anyone saying "zoot!, you're right, that's the way forward."  This is 2010, we're too sophisticated to be influenced by prophets with sermons.



The way you describe the workers arriving at a conclusion is has if you expect a spontaneous eruption of inspiration, when the present circumstances dictate it is not going to be like that.  Although there could come a time when that may well happen.  Socialists work with the here and now and they conversely stipulate that workers need time to think on the socialist proposal.  So a few months on urban75 is unlikely to confirm we are talking to a captured audience, is it?  

If indeed this was the case even on such a small scale has the platform of urban75 it would logically mean we could all sit back and wait for the revolution to happen at any time.  The truth is that whilst the description of socialism can be simply put, e.g. a classless, moneyless, free access, stateless society, the explanation on how to get there is going to take quite a bit longer.  And socialists are prepared for the patience this requires.




> FWIW, IMO what the working class actually wants is to be middle class. That's the key result of shared reflections on experience, individual and collective, local and international, past and present.  That's what's been driving thought and behaviour for the last few decades.  But that's not class consciousness is it, that's just anti-scientific error.



True there is no such thing as the 'middle class' except of course in market researchers bible for target segmentation.  And the possibility of even a large section of the workers attaining a supposedly comfortable lifestyle which is representative of the 'middle class' is most certainly not on the cards.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 11, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Two sheds
> 
> Whilist I might not agree with all of the particulars of what you say here  I think the basic thrust of what you are saying is something I have sympathy for.  Sorry if that sounds patronising but its not.  We do definitely need to update our approach to changing society
> 
> ...



"I AGREE WITH HIM" ^^^



BTW I support the SPGB's aims, but not their 'anarchist' tactics.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Jun 11, 2010)

The SPGB isn't vanguardist for the same reason it rejects reformism.

And Vanguardism isn't so bad Im beginning to think.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 11, 2010)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> The SPGB isn't vanguardist for the same reason it rejects reformism.


Fucking spot on!! Obvious to anyone who has an inkling of what vanguardism is.



> And Vanguardism isn't so bad Im beginning to think.



They, including the SPGB, talk about vanguardism as if vanguardist's are unaware of the pitfalls of Stalinism.  This ignores the fact  people make history, they may do so under circunstances inherited from the past, but this can be a guide as well as fetter.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 11, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> "I AGREE WITH HIM" ^^^
> 
> 
> 
> BTW I support the SPGB's aims, but not their 'anarchist' tactics.



OK RMP3 where are these anarchist tactic you keep harping on about, its the second time you've mentioned it.  But as you've more than probably guessed you're not the first to make such an allegation.  Time we had a looksy and put it under the spotlight.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 11, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Fucking spot on!! Obvious to anyone who has an inkling of what vanguardism is.
> 
> 
> 
> They, including the SPGB, talk about vanguardism as if vanguardist's are unaware of the pitfalls of Stalinism.  This ignores the fact  people make history, they may do so under circunstances inherited from the past, but this can be a guide as well as fetter.



I take it the conjecture here is that the pitfalls of vanguardism are only with Stalin which totally ignores the fact that Lenin started the ball rolling.


----------



## two sheds (Jun 13, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> At the end of the day, however much you may knock the SPGB is does offer a vision of the bigger picture which makes sense.  It is not too hot on question of how to get there.  Putting across its vision important though this is is not enough.  That is where the kind of things you are talking about or alluding to might very well help.
> 
> Perhaps you might care to expand on this?



As I say, I think the language they use is a large part of the problem, even talking about the 'working class' for example has the edge of Russian communism. Fewer and fewer people seem to see themselves as working class - and it would for example exclude people working in places like call centres. Are socialists not bothered about those people? 

I think even talking about 'workers' would be better but that has disadvantages too - are socialists not interested in the unemployed?  Improving things for everyone is a much more inclusive term. 

We need to be inclusive rather than divisive. Which is also why i disagree with the SPGB's hostility to all other socialist parties. It's petty and divisive and is going to get you into all sorts of arguments with people who actually agree with a lot of the ideas you put forward. It's another reason I'd never join - it tips the SPGB over into becoming a cult.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 13, 2010)

two sheds said:


> As I say, I think the language they use is a large part of the problem, even talking about the 'working class' for example has the edge of Russian communism. Fewer and fewer people seem to see themselves as working class - and it would for example exclude people working in places like call centres. Are socialists not bothered about those people?
> 
> I think even talking about 'workers' would be better but that has disadvantages too - are socialists not interested in the unemployed?  Improving things for everyone is a much more inclusive term.
> 
> We need to be inclusive rather than divisive. Which is also why i disagree with the SPGB's hostility to all other socialist parties. It's petty and divisive and is going to get you into all sorts of arguments with people who actually agree with a lot of the ideas you put forward. It's another reason I'd never join - it tips the SPGB over into becoming a cult.



For every socialist party I know and Karl Marxs definition, call centre workers and the unemployed are amongst the working class.  The interesting thing about Marx definition, it is as I explained earlier, holistic and dynamic, which actually mirrors the reality within capitalism.  At the beginning of the 19th century, the vast majority of the working class were servants etc, and people such as engineers were called the "aristocracy of labour".  Karl Marxs definition explains this transformation of engineers from middle class to working class.

Having said that, I do appreciate where you were coming from.  There is a problem with language.  However, I am not sure it is remedyable.  It is OK for the fascists, conservatives, new labour etc to ditch their politics in a dash for the centre, but revolutionaries are not about power, they are about social revolution from below.  "The emancipation of the working class has to be act the working class ".  And somehow we, a long with capitalism, have to get the message across that only they have the power, the interest, and the means to transform society into the kind of place human beings can flourish.


----------



## two sheds (Jun 13, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> For every socialist party I know and Karl Marxs definition, call centre workers and the unemployed are amongst the working class.



Fair do's, but I wonder whether *they'd* consider themselves to be working class. Again, I think it's an unnecessary division - aren't you bothered about the middle class? It sort of suggests that when socialists come to power the middle class will either be re-educated or put into labour camps to forcibly make them working class. Isn't that what Mao did with mixed success? . Quoting Marx, Lenin et al tbh I think similarly just puts people off - I'd have thought that they bear some responsibility for what happened in Russia, for example. 

Even if you feel that Russia and China are state capitalists, the fact that they described themselves and believed themselves to be socialist is enough for me to want to disassociate myself with the term. 



> It is OK for the fascists, conservatives, new labour etc to ditch their politics in a dash for the centre, but revolutionaries are not about power, they are about social revolution from below.


Ah, interesting - so concentrating on *everyone* is ditching your politics in  a dash for the centre? That's where I'd part company. I'd say replacing *working class* with *everyone* is broadening your politics. 

I'm actually a bit suspicious of someone who only wants to emancipate a particular section of society. Again - what happens to the rest of society - the people who when you get to power you deem not to be working class?   



> "The emancipation of the working class has to be act the working class  ".


Do you mean 'an act of'? Either way, why limit it to the working class again? 

I'd go further than just emancipating the middle class, too - I'd actually include the upper class. They'd be emancipated from the stresses of having to look after all that money. I do actually believe that work is good for people which is why i don't think it's healthy for the obscenely rich to be obscenely rich.


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 13, 2010)

two sheds said:


> As I say, I think the language they use is a large part of the problem, even talking about the 'working class' for example has the edge of Russian communism. Fewer and fewer people seem to see themselves as working class - and it would for example exclude people working in places like call centres. Are socialists not bothered about those people?
> 
> I think even talking about 'workers' would be better but that has disadvantages too - are socialists not interested in the unemployed?  Improving things for everyone is a much more inclusive term.
> 
> We need to be inclusive rather than divisive. Which is also why i disagree with the SPGB's hostility to all other socialist parties. It's petty and divisive and is going to get you into all sorts of arguments with people who actually agree with a lot of the ideas you put forward. It's another reason I'd never join - it tips the SPGB over into becoming a cult.



I would agree with some of the things you say here. Sometimes the language of the SPGB is a bit archiac but sometimes people misinterpret what the SPGB is saying as well (and possibly for that very reason).  For example as Resistance says, the Marxian definition of "working class" is much wider than the standard sociological definition based on occuopation or education.  It would definitely include the unemployed (the industrial reserve army), workers who work in call centres and the so called "middle class" who may or may imagine they have somehow risen above the economic compulsion to sell their labour power on the market (which is Marx's definition of what constitutes the working class).

On the question of hostility well, "yes" and "no" is my answer.  The problem with some of these so called socialist parties is that they are not really socialist in any meaningful sense of the term. They dont stand for socialism.  They dont even mention socialism in this sense. They mention lots of things like nationalisation of the commanding heights of industry which they call "socialism" but which has actually got sod all to do with socialism and is not doing the socialist cause any favours at all by misleading workers as to the nature of socialism.  How can a socialist not be opposed to them?

On the other hand, there are groups that clearly seek socialism in its proper sense - the original idea of socialism that the SPGB espouses. Here the SPGB, I agree , needs to be a lot more, as you say, inclusive and cooperative.  Gravediggers assures me that the attitude of the SPGB towards other organisations within the nonmarket anti-statist revolutionary sector has changed in recent years and I am glad to hear of that but personally I would like to see much more in the way of intrasectoral cooperation and collaboration myself.  What we have in common far outweighs what divides us


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 13, 2010)

two sheds said:


> Fair do's, but I wonder whether *they'd* consider themselves to be working class. Again, I think it's an unnecessary division - aren't you bothered about the middle class? It sort of suggests that when socialists come to power the middle class will either be re-educated or put into labour camps to forcibly make them working class. Isn't that what Mao did with mixed success? . Quoting Marx, Lenin et al tbh I think similarly just puts people off - I'd have thought that they bear some responsibility for what happened in Russia, for example.
> 
> Even if you feel that Russia and China are state capitalists, the fact that they described themselves and believed themselves to be socialist is enough for me to want to disassociate myself with the term.
> 
> ...



Thanks TS.

Anarchism/Communism [to me there both the same thing] is ALL the people, having equal power over society, so that society produces on the basis of what is needed by ALL the people.  But how do we get from here to there?

1.  If we could sit down and have a chat with the ruling class and convince them how wonderful communism will be, fair enough.  But that aint gonna happen.  They're going to fight tooth and claw to keep what they have got, ownership and control of the means of production, and so control of society..

2.  The middle classes are the political flotsam and jetsam.  If there is a period of revolution, just like in every other period of revolution, the middle classes will vacillate according to who has the upper hand, the ruling class of the working class.  I have no doubt many sections of the middle class will fall in behind the working class struggle for emancipation,,,,,,, but.  There will some who won't.  They're going to fight tooth and claw to keep their privilege.

3.  The working class is the capitalists kryptonite.  If the entire ruling class drop dead tomorrow, the working class will turn out to work and pretty much carry on producing wealth.  If the entire working class drop dead tommorow, the capitalists are fucked.  ONLY the working class has the ability to take control of the means of production, and run it on a collective basis.

The only way to achieve Anarchism/Communism ALL the people, having equal power over society, so that society produces on the basis of what is needed by ALL the people, is for those conscious of this need, to seize control of the means of production.  You might not like Marx, but what he observes, ‘the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle [for control of the means of production]’ is the scientific fact.  

BUT,,,,, Communism cannot be achieved by a tiny minority on behalf of the working class, “the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class” BECAUSE,,,,,, in this act they become conscious.  In becoming conscious, they’re an insurmountable barrier to minority rule, ever happening again.

Never in history has a ruling class given up its power.  Who knows, the communist revolution may be the exception to the rule.  BUT if history repeats itself, and the ruling classes mount any kind of resistance to communism, there has to be a period where the working class does what the capitalist class do every day, claim the sole right to the legitimate use of force.  They will have to act like a state, to suppress any capitalists undermining of the will of the collective majority.

Hopefully this will not happen.  Hopefully we can go straight from capitalism to communism/anarchism.

ETA, perhaps I should clarify at this point.  As I said in here I am not a member of the SPGB.  I used to be a member of the SWP, but have given up on politics for personal reasons.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 13, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> I would agree with some of the things you say here. Sometimes the language of the SPGB is a bit archiac but sometimes people misinterpret what the SPGB is saying as well (and possibly for that very reason).  For example as Resistance says, the Marxian definition of "working class" is much wider than the standard sociological definition based on occuopation or education.  It would definitely include the unemployed (the industrial reserve army), workers who work in call centres and the so called "middle class" who may or may imagine they have somehow risen above the economic compulsion to sell their labour power on the market (which is Marx's definition of what constitutes the working class).
> 
> On the question of hostility well, "yes" and "no" is my answer.  The problem with some of these so called socialist parties is that they are not really socialist in any meaningful sense of the term. They dont stand for socialism.  They dont even mention socialism in this sense. They mention lots of things like nationalisation of the commanding heights of industry which they call "socialism" but which has actually got sod all to do with socialism and is not doing the socialist cause any favours at all by misleading workers as to the nature of socialism.  How can a socialist not be opposed to them?
> 
> On the other hand, there are groups that clearly seek socialism in its proper sense - the original idea of socialism that the SPGB espouses. Here the SPGB, I agree , needs to be a lot more, as you say, inclusive and cooperative.  Gravediggers assures me that the attitude of the SPGB towards other organisations within the nonmarket anti-statist revolutionary sector has changed in recent years and I am glad to hear of that but personally I would like to see much more in the way of intrasectoral cooperation and collaboration myself.  What we have in common far outweighs what divides us


 just because of the numerical difference in the working class today, as to what it was in 1917, I believe it is quite possible there might not be a need for a 'workers state'.. BUT, if it is needed, it's needed.  Are you and the SPGB as opposed to a workers state as the anarchists are?


btw.  Workers autonomous zones, would be workers states imo, because they too would claim the sole right to legitimate force through workers militias.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 13, 2010)

two sheds said:


> We need to be inclusive rather than divisive. Which is also why i disagree with the SPGB's hostility to all other socialist parties. It's petty and divisive and is going to get you into all sorts of arguments with people who actually agree with a lot of the ideas you put forward. It's another reason I'd never join - it tips the SPGB over into becoming a cult.



In many respects - has illustrated by the responses on this thread and elsewhere - the hostility is not being emitted by the SPGB so much but by the state capitalist left.  IMHO they are more hostile to us than we are hostile to them, and even if we got rid of the hostility clause tomorrow the left would still hate and detest us for our take on political reality.  

I have to agree with robbo in that the membership of the SPGB need to be more discerning with working with groups from the libertarian sector.  A blanket hostility to groups and organisations is IMO self-defeating for it denies the possibility of an agreed analysis on the commonalities which have come out of activity in the class struggle.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 13, 2010)

Also two sheds, this is good if yoy commute, and have an mp3 player. http://www.resistancemp3.org.uk/


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 13, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> just because of the numerical difference in the working class today, as to what it was in 1917, I believe it is quite possible they might not be a need for a 'workers state'.. BUT, if it is needed, it's needed.  Are you and the SPGB as opposed to a workers state as the anarchists are?
> 
> 
> btw.  Workers autonomous zones, would be workers states imo, because they too would claim the sole right to legitimate force through workers militias.



Yes the SPGB are opposed to a workers state and for a very good reason.  So long has the state is in existence so a class society will persist.  Once the workers delegates have gained political power their first act will be to legitimately abolish the coercive features of the state machinery and use the socialist administration to complete the revolutionary process.  This may entail retaining the armed forces to ensure a violent minority do not attempt to turn back the clock.

Of course there is the possibility of workers autonomous zones being set up but whether they could be described as 'workers states' is unlikely given that you agree they would be the legitimate force, which presumes they have obtained political power by legitimate means.


----------



## two sheds (Jun 13, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Also two sheds, this is good if yoy commute, and have an mp3 player. http://www.resistancemp3.org.uk/



bookmarked, ta - yep i saw before that you have some of our noam on there, must give a listen.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 13, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I used to be a member of the SWP, but have given up on politics for personal reasons.



Who are you trying to kid.  Lol.  The truth is you have given up on party politics, but given up on politics no way for your excellent contributions to this thread testify that you are very much a political animal.  Good on you.

Btw I'm still waiting hear how you equate the SPGB with anarchism.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 13, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Yes the SPGB are opposed to a workers state and for a very good reason.  So long has the state is in existence so a class society will persist.  Once the workers delegates have gained political power their first act will be to legitimately abolish the coercive features of the state machinery and use the socialist administration to complete the revolutionary process.  This may entail retaining the armed forces to ensure a violent minority do not attempt to turn back the clock.
> 
> Of course there is the possibility of workers autonomous zones being set up but whether they could be described as 'workers states' is unlikely given that you agree they would be the legitimate force, which presumes they have obtained political power by legitimate means.


Hmmmmm, puzzled.  oxymoron alert???

Immediately after the revolution a class society will persist, classes will not just disappear.   Once the workers delegates have gained political power they can NOT abolish a material reality, the remaining of classes.  As you acknowledge yourself, "This may entail retaining the armed forces to ensure a violent minority do not attempt to turn back the clock."  So the coercive features of the state machinery remain, while classes remain?  

Only when classes cease to exist, can the workers' state cease to exist.  Only then can "the workers delegates [.....] legitimately abolish the coercive features of the state machinery and use the socialist administration to complete the revolutionary process",,, surely????



ETA. The difference being those coercive forces that are today used against the majority to maintain submission to minority rule, will be used against the 'capitalist' minority to maintain submission to majority rule.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 13, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I take it the conjecture here is that the pitfalls of vanguardism are only with Stalin which totally ignores the fact that Lenin started the ball rolling.


maybe, but Lenin is dead.  The SWP, amongst others, are aware of the pitfalls of Stalinism. Your assertion, still ignores the fact people make history, they may do so under circunstances inherited from the past, but this can be a guide as well as fetter.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 13, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> maybe, but Lenin is dead.  The SWP, amongst others, are aware of the pitfalls of Stalinism. Your assertion, still ignores the fact people make history, they may do so under circunstances inherited from the past, but this can be a guide as well as fetter.



He may well be dead but his ideas live on with the likes of the SWP, SPEW, etc, claiming his theories have not been dated by the events of Stalinism.  This is a poor excuse for what happened under Lenin who was ruthless in putting down all opposition to rule by the party. I have no problem with your paraphrasing of Marx's use of dialectic to explain that the state machinery can not be simply used by the workers to bring about their self-emancipation.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 13, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> He may well be dead but his ideas live on with the likes of the SWP, SPEW, etc, claiming his theories have not been dated by the events of Stalinism.  This is a poor excuse for what happened under Lenin who was ruthless in putting down all opposition to rule by the party.


 as you know SWP would argue with you and the anarchists about the role of lenin.  However, that is irrelevant imo, to the suggestion that vanguardists are not aware of, and some argue want to repeat the pitfalls of Stalin.  This kind of structuralist argument, denies agency, denies learning the lessons of history, and most important of all, it denies that it is no longer 1917 [my earlier numerical point].  





> I have no problem with your paraphrasing of Marx's use of dialectic to explain that the state machinery can not be simply used by the workers to bring about their self-emancipation.


 sorry, I do not understand this comment.  What is it in relation to?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 13, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by Gravediggers View Post
> Yes the SPGB are opposed to a workers state and for a very good reason. So long has the state is in existence so a class society will persist. Once the workers delegates have gained political power their first act will be to legitimately abolish the coercive features of the state machinery and use the socialist administration to complete the revolutionary process. This may entail retaining the armed forces to ensure a violent minority do not attempt to turn back the clock.
> 
> Of course there is the possibility of workers autonomous zones being set up but whether they could be described as 'workers states' is unlikely given that you agree they would be the legitimate force, which presumes they have obtained political power by legitimate means.





> Hmmmmm, puzzled. oxymoron alert???
> 
> Immediately after the revolution a class society will persist, classes will not just disappear. Once the workers delegates have gained political power they can NOT abolish a material reality, the remaining of classes.



The social relationships of capitalism are embodied in the state machinery, hence once the state is abolished the material reality, or the appendages of private property, waged labour, buying and selling, markets and exchange relationships are as a matter of course abolished also.



> As you acknowledge yourself, "This may entail retaining the armed forces to ensure a violent minority do not attempt to turn back the clock." So the coercive features of the state machinery remain, while classes remain?



How can the capitalist class still exist once their social relationships have been abolished?  The violent minority will have have no class base, granted it will be composed of ex-capitalists and ex-workers, but with the essential social relationships no longer existing the tactic of using the carrot or the stick against the majority will be less than useless.  

What form the armed forces may take will be up to the working class at the time and their ultimate use IME will depend on the ability of the majority to persuade a possible violent majority that it is not worth the effort.   It is possible that the armed forces will be adapted to deal with global emergencies



> Only when classes cease to exist, can the workers' state cease to exist. Only then can "the workers delegates [.....] legitimately abolish the coercive features of the state machinery and use the socialist administration to complete the revolutionary process",,, surely????



The state machinery can not be used by the majority, for by definition the state can only represent minority interests.  A workers state is the definitive oxymoron!  And all the more reason to turn the state machinery into a socialist administration.




> ETA. The difference being those coercive forces that are today used against the majority to maintain submission to minority rule, will be used against the 'capitalist' minority to maintain submission to majority rule.



A bit of dogma here I fear, for there is no certainty that coercion *will* be used come what may when there are other possible alternatives available.  A denial of resources could well be put into effect.  If all else fails the violent minority will have to be dealt with by armed force.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 13, 2010)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Gravediggers View Post
> He may well be dead but his ideas live on with the likes of the SWP, SPEW, etc, claiming his theories have not been dated by the events of Stalinism. This is a poor excuse for what happened under Lenin who was ruthless in putting down all opposition to rule by the party.






ResistanceMP3 said:


> as you know SWP would argue with you and the anarchists about the role of lenin.  However, that is irrelevant imo, to the suggestion that vanguardists are not aware of, and some argue want to repeat the pitfalls of Stalin.  This kind of structuralist argument, denies agency, denies learning the lessons of history, and most important of all, it denies that it is no longer 1917 [my earlier numerical point].



Of course the vanguardists are aware of the pitfalls of Stalin and assert they will avoid them.  But my point is that Stalins power base was laid for him by Lenin in that he paved the way for Stalin (or anybody else for that matter) by getting rid of the opposition to the party.  All Stalin had to do was get rid of the opposition to himself within the party.  What I'm saying is that it was a dictatorship over the proletariat during Lenin's reign.  The vanguardists fail to acknowledge this very important point.



> I have no problem with your paraphrasing of Marx's use of dialectic to explain that the state machinery can not be simply used by the workers to bring about their self-emancipation.





> sorry, I do not understand this comment. What is it in relation to?
> Reply With Quote



I thought you was paraphrasing Marx's remark on the _Paris Commune_ where he states the lessons from that famous class struggle were, "..... the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purpose."; to underline your comment on the lessons of history are both a guide and a fetter.  Sorry if I were mistaken.


----------



## whichfinder (Jun 17, 2010)

*Paddy Joe Shannon*

Hey!  See that Paddy Joe Shannon, of "Capitalism and other kids stuff" fame, is putting in an appearance at the citadel this Saturday, 19 June.  He'll be talking about class struggle and climate change.  Starts at 6.00pm but come early; it'll be standing room only again.  

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/meets.html


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 21, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Of course the vanguardists are aware of the pitfalls of Stalin and assert they will avoid them.  But my point is that Stalins power base was laid for him by Lenin in that he paved the way for Stalin (or anybody else for that matter) by getting rid of the opposition to the party.  All Stalin had to do was get rid of the opposition to himself within the party.  What I'm saying is that it was a dictatorship over the proletariat during Lenin's reign.  The vanguardists fail to acknowledge this very important point.


They don't 'fail' to ackowledge it.







> I thought you was paraphrasing Marx's remark on the _Paris Commune_ where he states the lessons from that famous class struggle were, "..... the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purpose."; to underline your comment on the lessons of history are both a guide and a fetter.  Sorry if I were mistaken.


yes, i was. sos


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 21, 2010)

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10759896&postcount=1742
I am sorry to be blunt, but this is formulaic deterministic nonsense.  Tantamount to saying that the delegates abolishing the state, abolishes the ideas in people's heads.  

*IF* there are people left with the ideas in their head to restore, or to oppose the majority, by force, sabotage, terrorism etc.  If there are such people left, I do not want to repeat the mistakes of the Paris Commune  etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam.  It would be the highest stupidity, not to point out those lessons.

But it doesn't end there.  What about invasion from countries who have not had a socialist revolution?

You say a workers' state cannot work in the interests of the majority.  How do you know?  Has there ever been a country where the majority of the population were working class, who controlled any state apparatus that does exist, using the tools of Paris Commune, ie worker's wage, recall, etc etc?

At the end of the day, it is the same argument with the anarchists.  I would absolutely love there to be an anarchist social revolution.  All nicey nicey, all we have to do is spread the 'WORD', butit aint gonna happen,,,, IMHO.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 21, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10759896&postcount=1742
> I am sorry to be blunt, but this is formulaic deterministic nonsense.  Tantamount to saying that the delegates abolishing the state, abolishes the ideas in people's heads.



It only becomes "formulaic deterministic nonsense" if you take this one act of abolishing the state in isolation of all that has gone previously.  Perhaps you have not read the posts covering the 'revolutionary process', where I and others have explained that the workers will be planning and preparing for the revolutionary transformation of political power well before it actually happens.  In fact the planning and preparation is taking place right now within the SPGB and the libertarian tradition.  

And obviously, we are quite aware that the abolishment of capitalism will not in its self be sufficient to bring an end to the idea of capitalism.  But lets face facts those who wish to turn back the clock will be at a historical disadvantage when you consider that they will be up against the first conscious revolution in the history of social evolution.  That fact alone will give them food for thought.   



> *IF* there are people left with the ideas in their head to restore, or to oppose the majority, by force, sabotage, terrorism etc.  If there are such people left, I do not want to repeat the mistakes of the Paris Commune  etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam.  It would be the highest stupidity, not to point out those lessons.



Neither do we want to repeat the mistakes of the Paris Commune which is the reason why we have taken on board the idea held by Marx "..... the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purpose."  The key word here is 'simply' for it is implying the state machinery must be converted or refashioned into an agent of emancipation otherwise it will still be used by the ruling class.  



> But it doesn't end there.  What about invasion from countries who have not had a socialist revolution?



You previously posted an excellent text on the dynamics of class consciousness and how this impacted on the course of class struggle.  So lets put those ideas to the test, in relation to the question you pose above.  An invasion from countries who have not had a socialist revolution is of course a possibility but not a probability for when you take into account that the workers of those countries contemplating an invasion, have been affected by a socialist revolution occurring in another country.  And lets not forget that more than likely they will also be near in gaining a majority.

Indeed, it only becomes a probability if the socialist revolution was in isolation of a global class consciousness.  Which is just not possible, for class consciousness and the class struggle is a global phenomenon.  So it would be foolish to think that the workers in those countries contemplating an invasion would be assisting an invasion in any way.



> You say a workers' state cannot work in the interests of the majority.  How do you know?  Has there ever been a country where the majority of the population were working class, who controlled any state apparatus that does exist, using the tools of Paris Commune, ie worker's wage, recall, etc etc?



The state machinery is there to serve the interests of the ruling minority and as such it is not a neutral institution.  To ignore this fact is not just asking for trouble but IMO also looking for trouble.  Why do you think it is necessary to go down that road of possible civil war when the 'simple' solution is to cut the feet away from the capitalists by abolishing their instrument of coercion and oppression?



> At the end of the day, it is the same argument with the anarchists.  I would absolutely love there to be an anarchist social revolution.  All nicey nicey, all we have to do is spread the 'WORD', butit aint gonna happen,,,, IMHO.



The socialist argument is not the same as the anarchists.  We differ from them on many issues but the main differences are over the need for an 'organised' working class politically conscious of their class position.  The anarchists see no need for the working class to be democratically organised and are opposed to any planning and preparation for a revolutionary change in the social relationships.  Presumably they think it is just going to happen out of thin air.

Although spreading the word is very important that in its self will not be  sufficient to bring about a socialist revolution.  But we have to be realistic that until the workers start withdrawing their support for capitalism all a small number of socialists can do is spread the word.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 21, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> They don't 'fail' to ackowledge it.



If they don't fail to acknowledge that the dictatorship 'over' the proletariat was Lenin's work lets have some quotes to this affect.  From my understanding of the lefts position is that during Lenin's reign it was the dictatorship of the proletariat, and during Stalin's reign it became the dictatorship over the proletariat.  Socialists say it became a dictatorship 'over' proletariat once Lenin got rid of all opposition to the party.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 22, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> If they don't fail to acknowledge that the dictatorship 'over' the proletariat was Lenin's work lets have some quotes to this affect.  From my understanding of the lefts position is that during Lenin's reign it was the dictatorship of the proletariat, and during Stalin's reign it became the dictatorship over the proletariat.  Socialists say it became a dictatorship 'over' proletariat once Lenin got rid of all opposition to the party.



Some socialists say that; many many don't. You should really stop this knee jerk dishonesty...


...but you won't because you're too far gone.

Louis Macneice


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 22, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> If they don't fail to acknowledge that the dictatorship 'over' the proletariat was Lenin's work lets have some quotes to this affect.  From my understanding of the lefts position is that during Lenin's reign it was the dictatorship of the proletariat, and during Stalin's reign it became the dictatorship over the proletariat.  Socialists say it became a dictatorship 'over' proletariat once Lenin got rid of all opposition to the party.


 and if that is the case, they wouldn't accept that they had 'failed' to acknowledge something they believed not to be true, would they?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 22, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Some socialists say that; many many don't. You should really stop this knee jerk dishonesty...
> 
> 
> ...but you won't because you're too far gone.
> ...


kettle!

At least he has the honesty to engage in a genuine discussion, instead of carping and sneering and nit pickng from the sidelines, whilst offering no alternative.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 22, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> kettle!
> 
> At least he has the honesty to engage in a genuine discussion, instead of carping and sneering and nit pickng from the sidelines, whilst offering no alternative.



You're not making sense. 
And he is not honest. 
You make a lovely couple.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 22, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> It only becomes "formulaic deterministic nonsense" if you take this one act of abolishing the state in isolation of all that has gone previously.  Perhaps you have not read the posts covering the 'revolutionary process', where I and others have explained that the workers will be planning and preparing for the revolutionary transformation of political power well before it actually happens.  In fact the planning and preparation is taking place right now within the SPGB and the libertarian tradition.
> 
> And obviously, we are quite aware that the abolishment of capitalism will not in its self be sufficient to bring an end to the idea of capitalism.  But lets face facts those who wish to turn back the clock will be at a historical disadvantage when you consider that they will be up against the first conscious revolution in the history of social evolution.  That fact alone will give them food for thought.


 don't really have a problem with any of this. [and yes, I haven't read your earliest stuff, on the 'revolutionary process'] 





> Neither do we want to repeat the mistakes of the Paris Commune which is the reason why we have taken on board the idea held by Marx "..... the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purpose."  The key word here is 'simply' for it is implying the state machinery must be converted or refashioned into an agent of emancipation otherwise it will still be used by the ruling class.
> 
> 
> 
> You previously posted an excellent text on the dynamics of class consciousness and how this impacted on the course of class struggle.  So lets put those ideas to the test, in relation to the question you pose above.  An invasion from countries who have not had a socialist revolution is of course a possibility but not a probability for when you take into account that the workers of those countries contemplating an invasion, have been affected by a socialist revolution occurring in another country.  And lets not forget that more than likely they will also be near in gaining a majority.


don't really have a problem with that ^.





> Indeed, it only becomes a probability if the socialist revolution was in isolation of a global class consciousness.  Which is just not possible, for class consciousness and the class struggle is a global phenomenon.  So it would be foolish to think that the workers in those countries contemplating an invasion would be assisting an invasion in any way.


 in the main I have no problem with that, but,,,,,,, it is difficult to make hard and fast predictions about the consciousness of populations still under the control of capitalism.





> The state machinery is there to serve the interests of the ruling minority and as such it is not a neutral institution.  To ignore this fact is not just asking for trouble but IMO also looking for trouble.  Why do you think it is necessary to go down that road of possible civil war when the 'simple' solution is to cut the feet away from the capitalists by abolishing their instrument of coercion and oppression?



SW doesn't really disagree with the main thrust of your arguments above re 1917.  Add to that, it is now 2010.  The numerical balance of class forces, is radically different today.  Will we still require a generation or two for the muck of ages to wither away?  

But I think your over emphasising state in workers state.  And are misinformed about an intention to 

Marx "........no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists, the economic economy of the classes. What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production (historische Entwicklungsphasen der Production), (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat,[1] (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society."

The state, in the workers state, is only a recognition, that there MAYBE a period of transition.  A period where the workers may have to impose their interests not only upon the capitalists.  That's all.  SW is NOT "implying the [capitalist] state machinery must be converted or refashioned into an agent of emancipation". 



> The socialist argument is not the same as the anarchists.  We differ from them on many issues but the main differences are over the need for an 'organised' working class politically conscious of their class position.  The anarchists see no need for the working class to be democratically organised and are opposed to any planning and preparation for a revolutionary change in the social relationships.  Presumably they think it is just going to happen out of thin air.


lol,  I compare their methods to the born again Christians, "each and everyone must find our own path to god/anarchism." 


> Although spreading the word is very important that in its self will not be  sufficient to bring about a socialist revolution.  But we have to be realistic that until the workers start withdrawing their support for capitalism all a small number of socialists can do is spread the word.


 like I have said, unlike the U75 anarchists, your argument does have a logic.  However, it is not one I agree with.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 22, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> and if that is the case, they wouldn't accept that they had 'failed' to acknowledge something they believed not to be true, would they?



Of course the SW and others are in denial of what actually occurred to bring about the dictatorship over the proletariat, and why events like Konstrad occurred.  For if they admit the truth their whole platform for vanguardism disintegrates.  The simple fact is that the workers refused to be led and Lenin had formed the opinion that they were incapable of deciding for themselves and had to be led come what may.  In effect Lenin found himself trapped within his own dogma and also found denial to be the only escape route available.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 22, 2010)

> ResistanceMP3 said:
> 
> 
> > don't really have a problem with any of this. [and yes, I haven't read your earliest stuff, on the 'revolutionary process'] don't really have a problem with that ^. in the main I have no problem with that, but,,,,,,, it is difficult to make hard and fast predictions about the consciousness of populations still under the control of capitalism.
> ...


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 22, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I'm not making hard and fast predictions on the spread of class consciousness just suggesting that the dynamics of class struggle have a global effect and that the effect of this will impact on any possibility of an invasion occurring.  The prospect of a socialist consciousness developing unevenly through the western industrial nations is very slim IMO.  And I fail to see the working class being passive in this instance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"In essence they have interpreted Marx to fit their platform for state capitalism."  Where have they ever, ever ever not argued against state capitalism?

http://www.resistancemp3.org.uk/cgi-bin/allfiles.pl


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 22, 2010)

What the Squeegees mean by state capitalism and what the Swappies mean by state capitalism is not the same thing. State capitalism as a theory is bollocks anyway.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 22, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Of course the SW and others are in denial of what actually occurred to bring about the dictatorship over the proletariat, and why events like Konstrad occurred.  For if they admit the truth their whole platform for vanguardism disintegrates.  The simple fact is that the workers refused to be led and Lenin had formed the opinion that they were incapable of deciding for themselves and had to be led come what may.  In effect Lenin found himself trapped within his own dogma and also found denial to be the only escape route available.


  That's a Butcherism.  



THE 'truth'?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 22, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> What the Squeegees mean by state capitalism and what the Swappies mean by state capitalism is not the same thing. State capitalism as a theory is bollocks anyway.


why? and what's the difference.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 22, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> why?



Why are they different or why is 'state capitalism' a bollocks theory? Cos I think we've already done the latter one RMP3.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 22, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> That's a Butcherism.
> 
> 
> 
> THE 'truth'?



The truth is Lenin thought the Russian working class were only capable of reaching a trade union consciousness and when they illustrated by their actions and decisions that this supposition was false it threw his whole theory for the need for a vanguardist party into disarray.  And when his promises fell on deaf ears and only encouraged more demands for democracy and less rule by the party slowly but surely he found himself drawn to the conclusion that the only solution was might was right.  It ended in the so called workers state oppressing the workers.  In fact the party had become the new ruling class.

 Has for equating me with butchers, no thanks.


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 23, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Why are they different or why is 'state capitalism' a bollocks theory? Cos I think we've already done the latter one RMP3.



So for the benefit of those of us who havent seen this supposed bollocking of the theory of state capitalism perhaps you might care to elaborate?  I personally cannot see how it is wrong to suggest that capitalism can be run via the state rather  than private concerns.  Afterall , your group - SPEW - advocates state run capitalism doesnt it? It calls for widespread nationalisation of industry, doesnt it? How is this not state capitalism since the basic features of capitalism such as generalised wage labour remain intact in your scenario?


----------



## two sheds (Jun 23, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Has for equating me with butchers, no thanks.



I keep reading your posts in the voice of Stanley Holloway doing Eliza Doolittle's father in My Fair Lady (he of the undeserving poor). Has greatly added to my enjoyment of the thread.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 23, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> So for the benefit of those of us who havent seen this supposed bollocking of the theory of state capitalism perhaps you might care to elaborate?  I personally cannot see how it is wrong to suggest that capitalism can be run via the state rather  than private concerns.  Afterall , your group - SPEW - advocates state run capitalism doesnt it? It calls for widespread nationalisation of industry, doesnt it? How is this not state capitalism since the basic features of capitalism such as generalised wage labour remain intact in your scenario?



No.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 23, 2010)

*The sound of silence*

At the end of April Proper Tidy agreed to organising a public debate between the SPGB and SPEW in his home town of Wrexham once the general election was done and dusted.  About a month after the general election the SPGB sent Proper Tidy an email asking him to confirm the acceptance to a public debate and what the arrangements were in respect to the date and venue.  

When we received no reply to this email another email was sent just to be on the safe side.  We had not reply to this second email also.  I then PM Proper Tidy asking him to confirm the public debate was still going ahead.  To date I've not received a reply.

With no explanation for the lack of communication I think its safe to presume that after his experience on this thread Proper Tidy had reached the conclusion that to organise a public debate in his home town would put him on a hiding for nothing.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 23, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> *The sound of silence*
> 
> At the end of April Proper Tidy agreed to organising a public debate between the SPGB and SPEW in his home town of Wrexham once the general election was done and dusted.  About a month after the general election the SPGB sent Proper Tidy an email asking him to confirm the acceptance to a public debate and what the arrangements were in respect to the date and venue.
> 
> ...



Oh fuck off.

First, I said we would be willing to invite you to a socialist forum involving representatives of various parties/organisations, not just SP and the Squeegees.

Secondly, I also said I didn't know when this would be because we would need to actually get the old wrexham socialist forum off the ground again and it isn't top priority.

I haven't replied to your PM because you asked me when it would be and I don't know yet. Sometime in the future. I'll send you an invite and you can either accept or not. Patience is a virtue. You of all people should know that.

If you're that keen then sort one yourself, you pompous old twat.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 23, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Why are they different or why is 'state capitalism' a bollocks theory? Cos I think we've already done the latter one RMP3.


Why are they different ?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 23, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Why are they different ?



The Squeegees apply the term state-capitalism to all forms of workers' states. Basically, anything but the complete and immediate creation of an international 'stateless classless moneyless wageless humourless socialist commonwealth' would be regarded as state capitalist (and therefore _fundamentally evil_) by them. Whereas the SWP apply the term exclusively to tops-down bureaucratic (nominally) workers' states.

The swappies are at least nominally still a Leninist-Trotskyist party. Clearly the Squeegees' theory of state-capitalism would be incompatible with this. Although I suspect the Swappies were at least influenced by the Squeegees.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 23, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> The Squeegees apply the term state-capitalism to all forms of workers' states. Basically, anything but the complete and immediate creation of an international 'stateless classless moneyless wageless humourless socialist commonwealth' would be regarded as state capitalist (and therefore _fundamentally evil_) by them. Whereas the SWP apply the term exclusively to tops-down bureaucratic (nominally) workers' states.
> 
> The swappies are at least nominally still a Leninist-Trotskyist party. Clearly the Squeegees' theory of state-capitalism would be incompatible with this. Although I suspect the Swappies were at least influenced by the Squeegees.


 so the Paris commune was state-capitalism?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 23, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> so the Paris commune was state-capitalism?



From their pov, yes I think so.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 23, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> So for the benefit of those of us who havent seen this supposed bollocking of the theory of state capitalism perhaps you might care to elaborate?  I personally cannot see how it is wrong to suggest that capitalism can be run via the state rather  than private concerns.  Afterall , your group - SPEW - advocates state run capitalism doesnt it? It calls for widespread nationalisation of industry, doesnt it? How is this not state capitalism since the basic features of capitalism such as generalised wage labour remain intact in your scenario?


He's lying.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 23, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> From their pov, yes I think so.


A bit like the anarchist's then?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 23, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Has for equating me with butchers, no thanks.


Sorry.  Your way ahead of butchers in most things, but it is just this one phenomena.  This delusion there is A truth, that only you possess.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 23, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> A bit like the anarchist's then?



There are similarities between the Squeegees' brand of Authentic Socialism and anarchist theory, yes; although IME anarchists, or at least proper anarchists rather than the trendy 'I've read Chomsky' types, have a much more realistic and less utopian approach than the Squeegees.

IMO you need to stop getting your knickers in a knot about the anarchists on here. A lot of the people you regularly argue with talk a lot of sense you know. I fundamentally disagree with them on some stuff but even so, they're not by and large a sectarian bunch and they speak a lot of value.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 23, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Sorry.  Your way ahead of butchers in most things, but it is just this one phenomena.  This delusion there is A truth, that only you possess.



Its not my truth I'm just paraphrasing what others have written.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 23, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> There are similarities between the Squeegees' brand of Authentic Socialism and anarchist theory, yes; although IME anarchists, or at least proper anarchists rather than the trendy 'I've read Chomsky' types, have a much more realistic and less utopian approach than the Squeegees.


how so, less utopian.  to me they are the exact opposite, whilst still being utopian.



> I fundamentally disagree with them on some stuff but even so


how do you disagree.

ps. I quite like chomsky.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 23, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> how so, less utopian.  to me they are the exact opposite, whilst still being utopian.
> 
> how do you disagree.
> 
> ps. I quite like chomsky.



Fucking hell, do you want an essay?

How do you think a Trot might disagree with an anarchist?

Sometimes I wonder if you have any clue about any of this Mr 3.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 23, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Its not my truth I'm just paraphrasing what others have written.



let me put it this way, is there any possibillity, you could be wrong.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 23, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Fucking hell, do you want an essay?
> 
> How do you think a Trot might disagree with an anarchist?
> 
> Sometimes I wonder if you have any clue about any of this Mr 3.



we're both trots.  but you clearly don't disagree in the way i do.

plus you have put much wordage into delineating your differences with trots, than with anarchists.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 23, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> we're both trots.  but you clearly don't disagree in the way i do.
> 
> plus you have put much wordage into delineating your differences with trots, than with anarchists.



Wordage lol.

By trots I assume you mean the cult of the SWP.

Most people on here will already understand the difference between a Trotskyist and an Anarchist. What would be the point in 'delineating the differences' again and again?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 24, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> let me put it this way, is there any possibillity, you could be wrong.



Of course there is a possibility that I could or maybe wrong.  But if I am the history of Leninism never occurred - its all a bloody nightmare.  It did occur and it was a bloody nightmare!  History records Lenin formulated the theory of a vanguardist party in 1905 in, 'What is to be done?'  He then had the opportunity of putting this theory into practice during the events in Russia from 1917 onwards.  

The theory of a vanguardist party is based entirely on the supposition that the workers were incapable of raising themselves above a trade union consciousness.  When this theory was put to the test with calls and demands for more democracy and less control by the party bosses, from the Soviets, the Workers Opposition and the sailors at Kronstradt they were all ruthlessly suppressed.  What this meant in reality was that the workers had turned out not to be stupid - and not to be held in contempt by the vanguardists - after all.  And in fact, on the contrary they were quite aware of, 'What is to be done' by starting to think for themselves.

For they were actually saying, 'Look we don't need your party bosses, your dicktats or your useless bureaucratic nightmare, to tell us what to do and how to do it.  We are quite capable of organising for ourselves, we know what needs to be done, just let us get on with the job.'   This political, economic and social reality meant if he had given in to these opposing forces his whole theory on the need for a vanguardist party would have gone down the swannee.  

Finding himself captured by his own dogma he had no alternative but deny the workers the freedom to organise for themselves.  He knew he had might on his side because he was in control of the state machinery.  And he used the might of the state machinery with all the urgency the situation demanded, even if it meant killing thousands of workers in the process.

That is the truth of the matter.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 24, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Of course there is a possibility that I could or maybe wrong.  But if I am the history of Leninism never occurred - its all a bloody nightmare.  It did occur and it was a bloody nightmare!  History records Lenin formulated the theory of a vanguardist party in 1905 in, 'What is to be done?'  He then had the opportunity of putting this theory into practice during the events in Russia from 1917 onwards.
> 
> The theory of a vanguardist party is based entirely on the supposition that the workers were incapable of raising themselves above a trade union consciousness.  When this theory was put to the test with calls and demands for more democracy and less control by the party bosses, from the Soviets, the Workers Opposition and the sailors at Kronstradt they were all ruthlessly suppressed.  What this meant in reality was that the workers had turned out not to be stupid - and not to be held in contempt by the vanguardists - after all.  And in fact, on the contrary they were quite aware of, 'What is to be done' by starting to think for themselves.
> 
> ...



And the SWP's 'truth' is,,,,,,,,,,,,?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 24, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Wordage lol.
> 
> By trots I assume you mean the cult of the SWP.
> 
> Most people on here will already understand the difference between a Trotskyist and an Anarchist. What would be the point in 'delineating the differences' again and again?


Far more wordage is spent on attacking the SWP again and again ad nauseum on U75, so what's the difference?  

Spend a minutiae of your time, identifying the way YOU do actually disagree, because so far, I have seen nothing from YOU.  So much so, it has left me wondering about the SP's 'trotskyism'.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 24, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Far more wordage is spent on attacking the SWP again and again ad nauseum on U75, so what's the difference?
> 
> Spend a minutiae of your time, identifying the way YOU do actually disagree, because so far, I have seen nothing from YOU.  So much so, it has left me wondering about the SP's 'trotskyism'.



First wordage, now minutiae. Ace.

I think you mean minute.

If you want to find out more about SP then go to a meeting or read the website or something. I'm an actual person, not the internet voice of the CWI.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 24, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> First wordage, now minutiae. Ace.
> 
> I think you mean minute.
> 
> If you want to find out more about SP then go to a meeting or read the website or something. I'm an actual person, not the internet voice of the CWI.


So spend a minutiae of your time, identifying the way YOU do actually disagree, because so far, I have seen nothing from YOU. So much so, it has left me wondering about your 'trotskyism'.

PS.  Your pedanticism about vocabulary is inconversant.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 24, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> So spend a minutiae of your time, identifying the way YOU do actually disagree, because so far, I have seen nothing from YOU. So much so, it has left me wondering about the your 'trotskyism'.



Minutiae doesn't mean what you think it means. You mean minute, just like you meant word. Adding erroneous bits to words doesn't make you smarter.

So much so, it has left me wondering about your sheer fuckwitedness.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 24, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Minutiae doesn't mean what you think it means. You mean minute, just like you meant word. Adding erroneous bits to words doesn't make you smarter.
> 
> So much so, it has left me wondering about your sheer fuckwitedness.



I'll take that as a 'no' then.

PS. google dictionary.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 24, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I'll take that as a 'no' then.
> 
> PS. google dictionary.



This google dictionary you mean?

Wordage.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 24, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> This google dictionary you mean?
> 
> Wordage.



That's right, I did mean a small insignificant ammount your time/wordage.

Now I'll be honest with you, my original use of wordage, was just sloven.  But so what?  However, the word does mean "the excessive use of words; verbiage", which describes precisely what takes place on U75 with regard to the SWP.

Any way, enough willy waving.  If you don't want to explain yourself, fair enough.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 24, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> And the SWP's 'truth' is,,,,,,,,,,,,?



I have no idea what the SWP's 'truth' is on the lessons of Leninism.  But no doubt they use every trick in the book to justify the decisions and actions he took to suppress all opposition to the party and to protect his own position of the leader of the Bolsheviks and dictator of Russia.  For like I've stated the whole theory for the necessity for vanguardist party was at stake.

If, as I suspect, you know the SWP's take on the 'truth' inside out, spit it out and while you are at it what about a post on why you disagree with the SPGB rather than the bland assertion of their 'utopianism'?

You've been pissing around the edges long enough.


----------



## dennisr (Jun 24, 2010)

"enough willy waving"


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 24, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> That's right, I did mean a small insignificant ammount your time/wordage.



No you didn't.



> Spend a minutiae of your time



Spend _an intricate detail_ of your time doesn't work.



ResistanceMP3 said:


> Now I'll be honest with you, my original use of wordage, was just sloven.  But so what?  However, the word does mean "the excessive use of words; verbiage", which describes precisely what takes place on U75 with regard to the SWP.
> 
> Any way, enough willy waving.  If you don't want to explain yourself, fair enough.



Lolage.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 24, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I have no idea what the SWP's 'truth' is on the lessons of Leninism.  But no doubt they use every trick in the book to justify the decisions and actions he took to suppress all opposition to the party and to protect his own position of the leader of the Bolsheviks and dictator of Russia.  For like I've stated the whole theory for the necessity for vanguardist party was at stake.
> 
> If, as I suspect, you know the SWP's take on the 'truth' inside out, spit it out and while you are at it what about a post on why you disagree with the SPGB rather than the bland assertion of their 'utopianism'?
> 
> You've been pissing around the edges long enough.


 my simple point is, one man’s truth, is another man’s lie.  There is no trickery on the part of the SWP, just like there is no trickery on the part of the SPGB.  

Can any of us really claim to know THE truth?  No!  All we can claim is, we have analysed the ‘facts’ scientifically, and come to an OPINION.  And just like science, there can be GENUINE disagreement about what the truth is.  In the end we could be wrong, and the anarchist’s right [and vice versa].
This ^ is the pragmatic position of the SWP.  There is no point the left trying to resolve these disagreements through debate, they should just agree to fraternally disagree.   For in the end the only real invigilator/arbitrator in this debate, is class struggle.  Testing the arguments, in the material world, validates or invalidates their veracity, not debate.

This ^ means that difference, diversity, is a good thing.  Each SPGB, SWP, SP etc etc, should struggle/compete for survival, for success, for influence amongst the working class, for this is social evolution. But whilst struggling recognising we are 95% in agreement.  Hence, agree to fraternally disagree, work together whilst competing.

So you believe what you’ve said about Lenin/ism.  Fine.  I’m not challenging it, OR offering an alternative.  If you want an alternative analysis go here.  
www.ResistanceMP3.org.uk 
http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/
http://www.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/search.html


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 24, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> No you didn't.


yes I did.





> Spend _an intricate detail_ of your time doesn't work.


that's right.





> Lolage.


You play the player [badly], because you wont play the game. thats ok.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 24, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> yes I did.



You really didn't



> that's right.



See, it makes absolutely no fucking sense



> You play the player [badly], because you wont play the game.



Nah, I just can't be arsed. You want to find out about Trotskyism then my suggestion would be to read Trotsky. You know, instead of Tony Cliff or Alex Callalalalinicos.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 24, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> my simple point is, one man’s truth, is another man’s lie.  There is no trickery on the part of the SWP, just like there is no trickery on the part of the SPGB.



The trickery on the part of the SWP is to gloss over the mistakes of adopting the vanguardist approach to political organisation.  The proof is in the eating and for them a retreat into pragmatism is a 'tactical solution' for it means all dissent and the need to unearth the facts of Leninism are channeled into the cliche of, 'case not proven'.  Or has a last resort to plea that Lenin in his final days conceded that events had proven him wrong and he had failed to understand the dynamics of class struggle.

Despite this admittance by Lenin the continual response from the left is there is life in the old dog yet, just give use a chance and we will prove - next time round - state capitalism is a stepping stone towards socialism.  When in fact all it will prove is the working class have been led up the garden path by a bunch of dishonest manipulators.



> Can any of us really claim to know THE truth?  No!  All we can claim is, we have analysed the ‘facts’ scientifically, and come to an OPINION.  And just like science, there can be GENUINE disagreement about what the truth is.  In the end we could be wrong, and the anarchist’s right [and vice versa].



But an opinion is worthless unless you have also reached a conclusion.  And the conclusion for me is that Leninism treats my class with contempt for according to them, only the elite of professional revolutionaries possess the required knowledge, understanding and organisation necessary to understand the 'revolutionary situation'.  In the meantime you lot stay over there in the shadows until we think we need you.




> This ^ is the pragmatic position of the SWP.  There is no point the left trying to resolve these disagreements through debate, they should just agree to fraternally disagree.   For in the end the only real invigilator/arbitrator in this debate, is class struggle.  Testing the arguments, in the material world, validates or invalidates their veracity, not debate.
> 
> This ^ means that difference, diversity, is a good thing.  Each SPGB, SWP, SP etc etc, should struggle/compete for survival, for success, for influence amongst the working class, for this is social evolution. But whilst struggling recognising we are 95% in agreement.  Hence, agree to fraternally disagree, work together whilst competing.



You assume the SPGB is part of the left. In a matter of fact, unlike the left, we do not support or participate in the political structure of capitalism.  The left is to us no different to the right for they all seek solutions within the capitalist framework.  So to expect us to "fraternally disagree" is not only a misnomer but suggests we have failed to identify the class enemy and collaborators.  And in this respect the supposedly "95% in agreement" strongly suggests you have failed, or deliberately being misleading, regarding the position of the SPGB in the political process.



> So you believe what you’ve said about Lenin/ism.  Fine.  I’m not challenging it, OR offering an alternative.  If you want an alternative analysis go here.
> www.ResistanceMP3.org.uk
> http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/
> http://www.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/search.html



None of these links offer an 'alternative' indeed all they have on offer is the same old crap of capitalism in a slightly different guise where a revolutionary leadership is supposedly an essential prerequisite for the transformation of the social relationships.  Thereby categorically denying that the emancipation of the working class is about self-emancipation and all that entails in terms of class consciousness.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 26, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You really didn't
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LOLage.  That you would deploy such wordage on the minutiae I of my vocabulary, and not on your politics, speaks volumes.


----------



## whichfinder (Jun 26, 2010)

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=769845&id=1358913026


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Butchers would the Anarchist Federation fit your description above 'of both its roots and its various manifestations'?  For clearly, according to your use of the word vanguard, they are also telling the workers what to think and do.



Of course it wouldn't and no it's not.

You've displayed your ignorance of anarchism once already. Here's a second chance.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 29, 2010)

This is about to enter the Top 5 of most replied threads on uk p&p ever.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2010)

...and not once have the SPGB caught on to what's going on. Well, the SPGBers not posting have.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 29, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> ...and not once have the SPGB caught on to what's going on. Well, the SPGBers not posting have.



It's only 18th in terms of views which suggests something.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 29, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Of course it wouldn't and no it's not.
> 
> You've displayed your ignorance of anarchism once already. Here's a second chance.



And need I remind you that your definition of a vanguardist political party is yet to be revealed on this thread.  Until this occurs we are denied the opportunity of comparing like with like and of reaching a conclusion that your allegations of the SPGB being a vanguardist political party is valid.  The onus is on your, and always has been to prove your point.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2010)

If i'd spent 100 years in the non-market socialism hole i'd have bothered finding out what those in there with me think.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 29, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> And need I remind you that your definition of a vanguardist political party is yet to be revealed on this thread.  Until this occurs we are denied the opportunity of comparing like with like and of reaching a conclusion that your allegations of the SPGB being a vanguardist political party is valid.  The onus is on your, and always has been to prove your point.




GD you're a liar. 

The SPGB has been shown to be vanguardist. 
It hasn't been shown to be leninist because it isn't. 
It hasn't been proposed (by me at least) that vanguardism is avoidable. 

With your head permanently over the bowl it's not surprising that you always miss the point.

Louis MacNeice

p.s. there is no 'onus' on anybody; not even on the SPGB to make a difference not just a whiney wimper.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 29, 2010)

The SPGB don't believe the working class are capable of transforming society without the SPGB. The Anarchist Federation don't even believe the working class are always capable of struggle without the Anarchist Federation:



> There are, however, some things that a revolutionary organisation can do that would be far less likely to happen without it. Anarchist communism is a living working class tradition, but there are times when that life hangs by a very thin thread. In periods
> of defeat and division, when the working class has few organisations of its own and there is very little struggle, something has to keep the lessons that have been learned alive. The revolutionary organisation is an important store of knowledge and skills. It is a kind of memory that keeps alive a vision of the working class as united and defiant, even when the class has been kicked in the head so many times it’s starting to forget its own name, let alone its past.


http://www.afed.org.uk/ace/afed_introduction_anarchist_communism.pdf

Who gives a stuff about who's a "vanguardist" and who isn't? Really? It's completely irrelevant. It's just a way of non-Leninists to say, "oooh, you sound like Lenin."

What's important is this whole "we know best" attitude. Every socialist tradition has adopted it. Anarchist, Leninist, social democratic, impossibilist, syndicalist - they all think they know best. To be fair this was a perfectly reasonable stance 100 years ago - with poor literacy and general education amongst the working classes, it was not too unreasonable to identify working class intellectuals and other socialist intellectuals as playing a vital educational role. That's not just in political parties and propaganda but with things like socialist Sunday schools and literacy programs.

Now it seems all so anachronistic. When I see anarchists or Trots or whoever trying to explain to people what's in their interests or finger wag about "authoritarianism" or "nationalism" (and yes "vanguardism is bad 'mkay" is just another example of finger wagging moralism), they just look foolish in the same way the Jehovas Witnesses look foolish. Listen to us - we know we're right, it's written in a book.

What's needed is an organically working class movement - not an ideological party or federation or whatever that operates within the working class. The reason this is needed has nothing to do with authority or liberty or the power of spontaneity or anything like that. It's because in these times socialist activists are die hards who stick to their idiotic ideas as firmly as they stick to their great ideas, whereas the masses are at their highest cultural point they've ever been. The activists have more to learn from the class than visa versa.


----------



## tbaldwin (Jun 29, 2010)

Great post by Knotted. IMO.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 29, 2010)

Knotted said:


> The activists have more to learn from the class than visa versa.



at long last someone has made this point


----------



## JimW (Jun 29, 2010)

Knotted said:


> <snip>
> 
> What's important is this whole "we know best" attitude. Every socialist tradition has adopted it. Anarchist, Leninist, social democratic, impossibilist, syndicalist - they all think they know best. To be fair this was a perfectly reasonable stance 100 years ago - with poor literacy and general education amongst the working classes, it was not too unreasonable to identify working class intellectuals and other socialist intellectuals as playing a vital educational role. That's not just in political parties and propaganda but with things like socialist Sunday schools and literacy programs.
> 
> ...



Fair points made but tbh despite having never joined any of the various sects I'm glad someone can be arsed to transmit the ideas in the manner as described in the bit you quote from AFed because I've also benefited from that.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 29, 2010)

JimW said:


> Fair points made but tbh despite having never joined any of the various sects I'm glad someone can be arsed to transmit the ideas in the manner as described in the bit you quote from AFed because I've also benefited from that.



I'd agree with that.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 29, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> GD you're a liar.



On what justification am I a liar?



> The SPGB has been shown to be vanguardist.



It has not been shown that the SPGB is a vanguardist party.  We make no reformist demands and neither do we support or oppose reforms, we have no hierarchy and no leaders, there is no transitional program, the party is there to be used by the working class as a vehicle of self-emancipation, our aim is to abolish wage slavery and the state machinery.  

Whereas, a vanguardist party is dedicated to reformism, they have a hierarchy and leaders, they are committed to a transitional program, the vanguardist party use the working class to gain political power for the party and not for self-emancipation, their aim does not include the abolishment of wage slavery and the state.

That said, we admit we are a vanguard party with political ideas and proposals for socialism, for the workers to use as they so wish.



> It hasn't been shown to be leninist because it isn't.



On the contrary, it has been shown that the SPGB is not a follower of Lenin, not by just what it says but also by what it does not do i.e. propose compromise and collaboration with the political structure of capitalism.



> It hasn't been proposed (by me at least) that vanguardism is avoidable.



Quite true it hasn't been proposed by you that vanguardism is avoidable, but the SPGB - since its formation - have proposed the workers avoid vanguardism like the plague.


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 29, 2010)

Knotted said:


> What's needed is an organically working class movement - not an ideological party or federation or whatever that operates within the working class. The reason this is needed has nothing to do with authority or liberty or the power of spontaneity or anything like that. It's because in these times socialist activists are die hards who stick to their idiotic ideas as firmly as they stick to their great ideas, whereas the masses are at their highest cultural point they've ever been. The activists have more to learn from the class than visa versa.



What is it that activists need to learn from the working class and in what sense are activists apart from the working class?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2010)

That they need to learn from the working class.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 29, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> What is it that activists need to learn from the working class and in what sense are activists apart from the working class?



OK second question first. I have not said that the activists are apart from the working class. I am not saying that being working class gives you some sort of wisdom that you can only get by being working class. I'm talking about the class as a mass rather than individuals.

First question. Speaking very generally. Socialists need to learn how the class advances it's interests. They might have various theoretical ideas about this, but these ideas need to be put to the test. Working class instincts about work place struggles, community struggles etc. should be taken seriously. Working class fears about crime and drugs should be taken seriously. Working class fears about loss of community identity should be taken seriously.

If we're talking about the SPGB in particular, they need to learn how to understand the significance of small victories, they need to learn how to think without lumping ideas into various categories or isms, they need to learn how to stop shielding their ideas from reality, they need to learn how to stop shielding their strategy from the fact that their strategy has had no success nor any hint of partial success, they need to learn that the working class's problems do not stem from the ideas in working class people's heads. Basically the SPGB have to learn that being a socialist does not mean pretending you are from the planet zog.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2010)

Exactly what a ZOGGER would say. And round you'll go.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 29, 2010)

If I do start going round, promise me you'll pull me off.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2010)

I'm waiting for that mom


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 29, 2010)

Knotted said:


> The SPGB don't believe the working class are capable of transforming society without the SPGB.



How you reached such a nonsensical conclusion beats me.  For the truth is we readily agree that the working class are capable of transforming society without the SPGB.  Presently, the SPGB are a vehicle to be used by the workers for self-emancipation if they so wish.  If by chance another vehicle were to be formed by the workers during the class struggle, that was obviously better equipped to achieve a revolutionary transformation of society we would not stand in their way.  However, until that time arrives - if ever - the proposal of the SPGB still stands.




> The Anarchist Federation don't even believe the working class are always capable of struggle without the Anarchist Federation:



We shall just have to wait and see what the AF have to say on that score.



> Who gives a stuff about who's a "vanguardist" and who isn't? Really? It's completely irrelevant. It's just a way of non-Leninists to say, "oooh, you sound like Lenin."



The concept of vanguardist politics is very relevant to the idea of self-emancipation.  For the concept of self-emancipation actually means that the next revolution will not be minority revolution but a revolution composed of the majority thinking for themselves without any reliance on leadership.



> What's important is this whole "we know best" attitude. Every socialist tradition has adopted it. Anarchist, Leninist, social democratic, impossibilist, syndicalist - they all think they know best. To be fair this was a perfectly reasonable stance 100 years ago - with poor literacy and general education amongst the working classes, it was not too unreasonable to identify working class intellectuals and other socialist intellectuals as playing a vital educational role. That's not just in political parties and propaganda but with things like socialist Sunday schools and literacy programs.
> 
> Now it seems all so anachronistic. When I see anarchists or Trots or whoever trying to explain to people what's in their interests or finger wag about "authoritarianism" or "nationalism" (and yes "vanguardism is bad 'mkay" is just another example of finger wagging moralism), they just look foolish in the same way the Jehovas Witnesses look foolish. Listen to us - we know we're right, it's written in a book.



Although your above description of the battle of ideas is fair comment is does not apply to the SPGB in the sense we are "finger waging moralists" for  our proposition for the establishment of socialism as the solution to the inequalities of capitalism is based on a materialist approach to class struggle.  And by implication our analysis does not include the ambiguity of moralism.



> What's needed is an organically working class movement - not an ideological party or federation or whatever that operates within the working class. The reason this is needed has nothing to do with authority or liberty or the power of spontaneity or anything like that. It's because in these times socialist activists are die hards who stick to their idiotic ideas as firmly as they stick to their great ideas, whereas the masses are at their highest cultural point they've ever been. The activists have more to learn from the class than visa versa.



The SPGB is an organically working class movement always have been and always will be.  And after being in existence for 106 years it would be fair comment to label us as "die hards".  However, the inclusion of "idiotic ideas" in the same breath is  a disputable assertion.  If your claim that, "the masses are at their highest cultural point they've ever been", were true what are we to make of Big Brother and consumerism? They are after all a very real aspect of culture.

The main lesson activists have learned from the workers is that they have yet to understand that the fight for democracy was only the beginning of the struggle for self-emancipation.  Once they understand how to use democracy in order to achieve self-emancipation then they become a class for itself fighting for it own interests rather than the interests of a wealthy parasitical few.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2010)

> For the truth is


isn't it


----------



## Knotted (Jun 29, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> How you reached such a nonsensical conclusion beats me.  For the truth is we readily agree that the working class are capable of transforming society without the SPGB.  Presently, the SPGB are a vehicle to be used by the workers for self-emancipation if they so wish.  If by chance another vehicle were to be formed by the workers during the class struggle, that was obviously better equipped to achieve a revolutionary transformation of society we would not stand in their way.  However, until that time arrives - if ever - the proposal of the SPGB still stands.



This is pettyfogging.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> The concept of vanguardist politics is very relevant to the idea of self-emancipation.  For the concept of self-emancipation actually means that the next revolution will not be minority revolution but a revolution composed of the majority thinking for themselves without any reliance on leadership.



Look there isn't agreement on what vanguardism or self-emancipation means. Let's talk without isms.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> Although your above description of the battle of ideas is fair comment is does not apply to the SPGB in the sense we are "finger waging moralists" for  our proposition for the establishment of socialism as the solution to the inequalities of capitalism is based on a materialist approach to class struggle.  And by implication our analysis does not include the ambiguity of moralism.



Your approach above is finger wagging moralism. The badness of vanguardism derives from it's lack of self-emancipatory goodness. There is no materialist meat in what you say. More to the point, when the SPGB does say something more meaty it's in the form "such and such a course of action will not achieve anything." Which is then backed up by abstract circular justifications.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> The SPGB is an organically working class movement always have been and always will be.  And after being in existence for 106 years it would be fair comment to label us as "die hards".  However, the inclusion of "idiotic ideas" in the same breath is  a disputable assertion.



Have you ever ditched any old daft ideas? Like the hostility clause for example?




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> If your claim that, "the masses are at their highest cultural point they've ever been", were true what are we to make of Big Brother and consumerism? They are after all a very real aspect of culture.



I think discussions of Big Brother are usually pretty sophisticated. Much more so than discussions of TV dramas.

As for consumerism, I don't think it's any worse than old fashioned stoical "that's not for the like's of us" attitudes.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> The main lesson activists have learned from the workers is that they have yet to understand that the fight for democracy was only the beginning of the struggle for self-emancipation.  Once they understand how to use democracy in order to achieve self-emancipation then they become a class for itself fighting for it own interests rather than the interests of a wealthy parasitical few.



Where and when did they learn that?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jun 30, 2010)

Knotted said:


> This is pettyfogging.



Bland assertions prove nothing by explaining nothing, whereas my explanation for your allegation that, "The SPGB don't believe the working class are capable of transforming society without the SPGB." is its false for the SPGB have always looked on itself as a vehicle to be used by the workers if they so wish.




> Look there isn't agreement on what vanguardism or self-emancipation means. Let's talk without isms.



You might like to think there is no agreement on what vanguardism or self-emancipation means but there are thousands who would disagree with you.  What is the fear over using 'isms' and have you tried talking without using them?  And why should I restrict myself just to suit your sense of detachment from reality?





> Your approach above is finger wagging moralism. The badness of vanguardism derives from it's lack of self-emancipatory goodness. There is no materialist meat in what you say. More to the point, when the SPGB does say something more meaty it's in the form "such and such a course of action will not achieve anything." Which is then backed up by abstract circular justifications.



And where is your evidence of this occurring?  A quote from any of our publications would be helpful.  But I'll be very suprised if you can find one!




> Have you ever ditched any old daft ideas? Like the hostility clause for example?



So you want us to shake hands with the class enemy and offer our profuse apologies and say it was all a mistake?  What makes you think that even if we did ditch the hostility clause anything would change in respect of our political commitment?  The truth is the hostility clause is dated in reference to the state-capitalists and reformists for they hate us more than we abhor them.   It is also dated in respect of its blanket application to all and sundry with the party willing to participate in forums with those from the libertarian sector.




> I think discussions of Big Brother are usually pretty sophisticated. Much more so than discussions of TV dramas.
> 
> As for consumerism, I don't think it's any worse than old fashioned stoical "that's not for the like's of us" attitudes.



If you are of the opinion that discussions of Big Brother are pretty sophisticated and constitute high culture I can safely assume you thoroughly enjoy the bread and circus type of entertainment which capitalism offers for mental stimulation?  Consumerism is a cultural phenomenon of capitalism where satisfaction is always elusive for those who have formed the impression that despite all its faults ignorance is bliss.




> Where and when did they learn that?



From struggling for the interests of my class.  Where else!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2010)

How come you've got less members than my locals crib team


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2010)

People - 
not like


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 30, 2010)

Knotted said:


> OK second question first. I have not said that the activists are apart from the working class. I am not saying that being working class gives you some sort of wisdom that you can only get by being working class. I'm talking about the class as a mass rather than individuals.
> 
> First question. Speaking very generally. Socialists need to learn how the class advances it's interests. They might have various theoretical ideas about this, but these ideas need to be put to the test. Working class instincts about work place struggles, community struggles etc. should be taken seriously. Working class fears about crime and drugs should be taken seriously. Working class fears about loss of community identity should be taken seriously.
> 
> If we're talking about the SPGB in particular, they need to learn how to understand the significance of small victories, they need to learn how to think without lumping ideas into various categories or isms, they need to learn how to stop shielding their ideas from reality, they need to learn how to stop shielding their strategy from the fact that their strategy has had no success nor any hint of partial success, they need to learn that the working class's problems do not stem from the ideas in working class people's heads. Basically the SPGB have to learn that being a socialist does not mean pretending you are from the planet zog.



Some good points here but others raise more questions than they answer.

I agree with the point about the significance of small victories but victories in regards to what? The SPGB  is notable for its stance against reformism by which is meant measures enacted by the state ostensibly with the aim of remedying some or other problem thrown up by capitalism.  Note that this does not mean opposition to reforms as such some of which can benefit workers; what it means simply is not advocating reforms. The SPGB argue quite rightly i think that this is to place oneself on a treadmill and that capitalism can never really be run in the interests of workers.  Reforms granted at one point in time can be whittled down or withdrawn at another - for example during an economic recession.  Not only that, reformism necesarily diverts attention from the need for a revolutionary transformation of society.  You cannot logically seek to both mend the system and end it.

So "small victories" to the well attuned antennae of your SPGBer could possibly imply an advocacy of reformism in which case he or she would respond that , given capitalism, you can just as easily talk of "small defeats" and the demoralising consequences that this can have.

However I suspect that it is not reformism that you are alluding to or seeking to promote. Its something else.  Direct action, community struggles and so on.  Here I think Im inclined to agree with you.  There is a significant gap in SPGB strategy on the way forward. Its not that the SPGB is wrong in what it is saying, its just that its simply not saying enough and its over dependence on abstract propagandism comes across as simplistic in the face of the buring question - "what are we to do in the meantime"? 


In practice though, and to be fair to the SPGB, I think many SPGBers  are probably doing the very things that you seem to suggesting - like being involved in their own communities in some way. Some SPGBers I can think of have been very active members in their trade unions. A number of them are in the IWW.  All this can be easily overlooked both by critics of the SPGB and members themselves given the all or nothing approach of the SPGB. But as i say, this approach is rooted in a critique of reformism; it does not necessarily apply to other forms of activity and the weakness in the SPGB position is that it does not adequately theorise these other forms of activity


Finally, I still do not quite follow your argument about the relationship between activists and the working class.  You say socialists are part of the working class and yet should take seriously the concerns of  the class which implies a kind of separation of sorts, does it not?  You see, SPGBers would respond to this point that they dont need to be told about the fears workers have overe things like drugs and crime and community decline.  As part of the working class they experience this themselves and in fact the pages of the Socialist Standard are full of this sort of stuff.  

The differences is that the SPGB would draw from this the conclusion that we  need to fundamentally change the nature of  society whereas the horizons of most workers remain limited to capitalism. In my view the answer lies not in rejecting what the SPGB has to say, nor in rejecting the kind of struggles you are referring to but how to combine both in a new synthesis


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 30, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Bland assertions prove nothing...



All the irony free correctness of a stopped clock; unfortunately also the same level of reflection and self awareness.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 30, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> The SPGB  is notable for its stance against reformism by which is meant measures enacted by the state ostensibly with the aim of remedying some or other problem thrown up by capitalism.  Note that this does not mean opposition to reforms as such some of which can benefit workers; what it means simply is not advocating reforms.



The SPGB is not notable for its stance against reformism; opposition to reformism is very common on the left (of which the SPGB is very much a tiny constitutionally ineffective part). Where it is notable is precisely in it's opposition to reforms; it doesn't just not advocate them it attacks such advocacy (roundabout, treadmill it's the same tire old acrid teeth rotting dismissal).  

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 30, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> On what justification am I a liar?
> 
> It has not been shown that the SPGB is a vanguardist party...
> 
> ...we admit we are a vanguard party with political ideas and proposals for socialism, for the workers to use as they so wish.... the SPGB - since its formation - have proposed the workers avoid vanguardism like the plague.



Vanguardism - 'the actions or thoughts of members of a vanguard'.

It would seem that you have been successful after all; workers have avoided the SPGB's vanguardism pretty much completely for over a century. Keep up the good work.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Knotted (Jun 30, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Some good points here but others raise more questions than they answer.
> 
> I agree with the point about the significance of small victories but victories in regards to what? The SPGB  is notable for its stance against reformism by which is meant measures enacted by the state ostensibly with the aim of remedying some or other problem thrown up by capitalism.  Note that this does not mean opposition to reforms as such some of which can benefit workers; what it means simply is not advocating reforms. The SPGB argue quite rightly i think that this is to place oneself on a treadmill and that capitalism can never really be run in the interests of workers.  Reforms granted at one point in time can be whittled down or withdrawn at another - for example during an economic recession.  Not only that, reformism necesarily diverts attention from the need for a revolutionary transformation of society.  You cannot logically seek to both mend the system and end it.
> 
> ...



Thanks for these thoughtful comments. I was indeed thinking of community and trade union struggles rather than state reforms, but that's mostly because I don't see the Labour Party or any other party as being a vehicle for progressive reforms. I've got no problem with reforms as such.

I should say that in past discussions I've had with SPGB members that they tend to see the progressive nature of reforms as illusory even as reforms. For example I've seen an SPGBer argue that free school dinners leads to downward pressure on wages and thus only redistributes wealth from the childless workers to workers with children. There is some truth in this, although I don't believe that the economics are that simple and besides it misses a bigger point - socialised child care places greater hope in the future, it gives you the freedom to have children. A good progressive reform is more than just a measure to alleviate poverty.




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> In practice though, and to be fair to the SPGB, I think many SPGBers  are probably doing the very things that you seem to suggesting - like being involved in their own communities in some way. Some SPGBers I can think of have been very active members in their trade unions. A number of them are in the IWW.  All this can be easily overlooked both by critics of the SPGB and members themselves given the all or nothing approach of the SPGB. But as i say, this approach is rooted in a critique of reformism; it does not necessarily apply to other forms of activity and the weakness in the SPGB position is that it does not adequately theorise these other forms of activity
> 
> 
> Finally, I still do not quite follow your argument about the relationship between activists and the working class.  You say socialists are part of the working class and yet should take seriously the concerns of  the class which implies a kind of separation of sorts, does it not?  You see, SPGBers would respond to this point that they dont need to be told about the fears workers have overe things like drugs and crime and community decline.  As part of the working class they experience this themselves and in fact the pages of the Socialist Standard are full of this sort of stuff.
> ...



The SPGB membership is largely working class and they engage in day to day struggles. I recognise this, and I wouldn't suggest otherwise. But they don't engage in day to day struggles as SPGB members. There is no link from the present to the socialist future. I think we're in agreement.


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 30, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> The SPGB is not notable for its stance against reformism; opposition to reformism is very common on the left (of which the SPGB is very much a tiny constitutionally ineffective part). Where it is notable is precisely in it's opposition to reforms; it doesn't just not advocate them it attacks such advocacy (roundabout, treadmill it's the same tire old acrid teeth rotting dismissal).
> 
> Louis MacNeice



I disagree. For one thing there is considerable confusion among the left as to what consitutes "reformism", many equating it with electoralism.  The specific definition of reformism i gave of being measures enacted by the state with a view to modifying some problem thrown up by capitalism is what I am talking about and it cannot be said  that the left by and large opposes this.  In fact the bulk of the Left in terms of that definition are clearly reformist and advocate state measures ostensibly to benefit the workers.

You also confuse opposition to reforms with opposition to reform*ism*. Ironically opposition to particular reforms is a kind of reformism.  The SPGB does not campiagn against particular reforms as far as I am aware.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2010)

Circular. What other reforms are there? Note the problom is always 'thrown up by capitalism' - this is politics as scalextric. Functionalist rubbish that the most naive 19th century positivist sociologist would blanch at.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 30, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> this is politics as scalextric.



I am definately using that one.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 30, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> I disagree. For one thing there is considerable confusion among the left as to what consitutes "reformism", many equating it with electoralism.  *The specific definition of reformism i gave of being measures enacted by the state with a view to modifying some problem thrown up by capitalism is what I am talking about* and it cannot be said  that the left by and large opposes this.  In fact the bulk of the Left in terms of that definition are clearly reformist and advocate state measures ostensibly to benefit the workers.
> 
> You also confuse opposition to reforms with opposition to reform*ism*. Ironically opposition to particular reforms is a kind of reformism.  *The SPGB does not campaign against particular reforms as far as I am aware.*



1. Good for you humpty.  

2. Given that the only campaiging the SPGB does is 'educational', then all it's words pointing out the uselessness of specific reforms under capitalism makes your statement look more than a little foolish.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2010)

Lenin/Kautsky said:
			
		

> The differences is that the RSDP would draw from this the conclusion that we need to fundamentally change the nature of society whereas the horizons of most workers remain limited to capitalism. In my view the answer lies not in rejecting what the RSDP has to say, nor in rejecting the kind of struggles you are referring to but how to combine both in a new synthesis


.


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 30, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Circular. What other reforms are there? Note the problom is always 'thrown up by capitalism' - this is politics as scalextric. Functionalist rubbish that the most naive 19th century positivist sociologist would blanch at.



I have no idea how what you say here connects with the point I made.  How is it circular? How is it "functionalist rubbish"? And what the hell are you taklkinbg about anyway.  You dont explain yourself very well

I gave a specific definition of reformism which conveyed the idea that its field of activity is the political sphere i.e. measures undertaken by the state.  The point that I think the SPGB quite rightly emphasises is that there is a basic incompatiblity between wanting to end capitalism and wanting to mend capitalism.  It is here , in the political sphere, that a line needs to be drawn in the sand. Are we going to to endlessly tinker with the system or we going overthrow it?


As usual youve got the wrong end of the stick.  It is not so much the problems that i was focussing on but how we approach them.  I concur with the SPGB in is opposition to reformism as a political mode of activity but I also concur with Knotted on the value of other approaches apart from the political one.  I was trying to say that the SPGB strategy while essentially correct was deficient.  Did  you not understand this?


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 30, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> 1. Good for you humpty.
> 
> 2. Given that the only campaiging the SPGB does is 'educational', then all it's word's pointing out the uselessness of specifc reforms uner capitalism makes your statement look more than a little foolish.
> 
> Louis MacNeice




Another poster with a penchant for making vague enigmatic statements that really mean sod all.  Do you mind perhaps trying to explain in plain english the point you are trying to make and how this connects up with the point I made.  Im buggered if I can see the connection.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> I have no idea how what you say here connects with the point I made.  How is it circular? How is it "functionalist rubbish"? And what the hell are you taklkinbg about anyway.  You dont explain yourself very well
> 
> I gave a specific definition of reformism which conveyed the idea that its field of activity is the political sphere i.e. measures undertaken by the state.  The point that I think the SPGB quite rightly emphasises is that there is a basic incompatiblity between wanting to end capitalism and wanting to mend capitalism.  It is here , in the political sphere, that a line needs to be drawn in the sand. Are we going to to endlessly tinker with the system or we going overthrow it?
> 
> ...



It's quite simple - you oppose reformism, all things that you don't support are therefore reformism. Church.

Yes, i do.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2010)

Nothing at all on the other points...



> Thrown up by capitalism


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 30, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> It's quite simple - you oppose reformism, all things that you don't support are therefore reformism. Church.
> 
> Yes, i do.



Bullshit. There are plenty of things I dont support which are not reformist. National chauvinism, racism , sexism and homophobia to mention just a few.  Interesting that you should say nothing about the things I do support which is not limited to advocating socialism.  I wonder why?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Bullshit. There are plenty of things I dont support which are not reformist. National chauvinism, racism , sexism and homophobia to mention just a few.  Interesting that you should say nothing about the things I do support which is not limited to advocating socialism.  I wonder why?



Name me a reform that you support


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 30, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Name me a reform that you support




Huh?  

Ive already explained several times I dont support reformism.  I do support other forms of activity that are not reformist (i.e. do not involve the state enacting certain measures with ithe framework of capitalism) and these are not limited to straightforward revolutionary politics

Reads my exchange with Knotted if you want a clearer idea


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2010)

Name me a reform that you support


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 30, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Name me a reform that you support



Already answered


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2010)

No, it wasn't.

Name me a reform that you support

Name names.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2010)

> Bullshit. There are plenty of things I dont support which are not reformist. National chauvinism, racism , sexism and homophobia to mention just a few.



What reforms do you support?


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 30, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No, it wasn't.
> 
> Name me a reform that you support
> 
> Name names.



duh duh and duh again.  Youre like a flippin ferret on speed darting from one thread to the next without pause to reflect.  I said I oppose reformism.  That means quite simply - please read my lips - that *I dont support reforms *and if you want to know what I mean by a reform go back to my earlier posts. It gets a bit tiresome you playing games


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2010)

You have been at pains to say that you don't oppose reforms but reformism. What reforms do you support?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2010)

SPGB said:
			
		

> I dont support reforms



None?


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 30, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You have been at pains to say that you don't oppose reforms but reformism. What reforms do you support?



Jesussssss christ.  How much more do i have to say it before the penny finally drops?  Not opposing reforms does *NOT *have to mean supporting reforms.  Geddit? Or do I really have to explain  it to you. If you support reforms that would make you a reformist and I have said umpteen times that I am not


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 30, 2010)

Did you support dropping the voting age back in the day?

No?

Did you support ending capital punishment?

No?

Did you support the creation of the NHS?

No?

Really?


----------



## Knotted (Jun 30, 2010)

I think robbo's position is abstentionist with respect to reforms. Never support, never oppose.

I want to talk about ferrets now. Aren't they great. Cheaky little bastards. I've got three.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Jesussssss christ.  How much more do i have to say it before the penny finally drops?  Not opposing reforms does *NOT *have to mean supporting reforms.  Geddit? Or do I really have to explain  it to you. If you support reforms that would make you a reformist and I have said umpteen times that I am not



Name me a reform that you support


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2010)

Knotted said:


> I think robbo's position is abstentionist with respect to reforms. Never support, never oppose.
> 
> I want to talk about ferrets now. Aren't they great. Cheaky little bastards. I've got three.



It's abstentionist of life, of politics really...


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 30, 2010)

Knotted said:


> I think robbo's position is abstentionist with respect to reforms. Never support, never oppose.
> 
> I want to talk about ferrets now. Aren't they great. Cheaky little bastards. I've got three.



Thank gawd someone's twigged!  Thats it - with regard to reforms (i.e. measure enacted by the state) I am "abstentionist".  Once you starting go down the road of supporting this reform or opposing that reform you end abandoning the idea of a revolutionary change altogether.  History has more than vindicated this claim. Look at the social democratic parties of the second international.  They thought they could combine the minimum programme with the maximum.  It can't be done.  Every single one of these organisations ended up either going down the pan or becoming a thoroughly capitalist outfit.

So I oppose reformism which means I do not support reforms or oppose them. I am an abstentionist with regard to reforms.  But that does not means as Butchers in his usual silly fashion asserts being _abstentionist of life, of politics really_ On the contrary!


----------



## Knotted (Jun 30, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Did you support dropping the voting age back in the day?
> 
> No?
> 
> ...



If I remember rightly the SPGB were abstentionist on the creation of the NHS, I don't know about capital punishment and the voting age.

They basically take an unupdated version of Marxism as a political-economic model. That is they think we are still living in 19th century England. Capitalism is always of a ferocious free market variety driving wages down to a minimum level and conceding nothing in terms of reforms. Things like the welfare state and the NHS are regarded as aberations that won't last and it's wrong to give workers the illusion that they can make meaningful gains under capitalism.


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 30, 2010)

Knotted said:


> If I remember rightly the SPGB were abstentionist on the creation of the NHS, I don't know about capital punishment and the voting age.
> 
> They basically take an unupdated version of Marxism as a political-economic model. That is they think we are still living in 19th century England. Capitalism is always of a ferocious free market variety driving wages down to a minimum level and conceding nothing in terms of reforms. Things like the welfare state and the NHS are regarded as aberations that won't last and it's wrong to give workers the illusion that they can make meaningful gains under capitalism.




No Knotted  this is a gross caricature. If you want to find out what the SPGB thinks on these matters I suggest you check out this http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/go!.pdf


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2010)

Name me a reform that you support


----------



## Knotted (Jun 30, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> No Knotted  this is a gross caricature. If you want to find out what the SPGB thinks on these matters I suggest you check out this http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/go!.pdf





> The introduction of the ‘welfare state’ in Britain under a Labour government after the Second World War brought in a comprehensive system of ‘free’ health care, unemployment benefits, state pensions and family allowances. However, contrary to popular belief, this legislation was not wanted for humanitarian reasons. It resulted from the realisation by politicians and industrialists that an allembracing scheme of social security would be cheaper to run than the existing piecemeal system and, above all, that healthier, more contented workers would make a more efficient, and therefore cheaper, labour force. Sir William Beveridge, who drew up the original plan, constantly argued in his Report that his proposals would be more economical to administer than previous methods, and in February 1943 Samuel Courtauld, millionaire Tory industrialist, said of the Report: “Social security of this nature will be about the most profitable long-term investment the country could make. It will not undermine the morale of the nations’ workers: it will ultimately lead to higher efficiency among them and a lowering of production costs” (Manchester Guardian, 19 February 1943). Most other employers
> were apparently of the same opinion, for in a poll conducted at the time, 75 per cent of them agreed that the Beveridge Report should be adopted (Susanne MacGregor, The Politics of Poverty, p.21.)



OK so the SPGB think the NHS and the welfare state were introduced in order to help capitalists make more profit. So when the NHS expands and gets more expensive, what do they say?



> The conclusion must be that to fulfil the professed aims of Bevan for a health service that would cover the needs of the working class was never more than a pipe dream.  No government will dare to upset their masters to the extent necessary to maintain a decent health service.  The most likely prognosis is that it will carry on much as now with an increasing bias towards private hospitals and treatment that is paid for at the point of consumption.


http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/apr05/page12and13.html

I think my characterisation was fair. The SPGB have a hard time even conceiving of the possibility of winning genuine gains for the working class outside of the workplace.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 30, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Thank gawd someone's twigged!  Thats it - with regard to reforms (i.e. measure enacted by the state) I am "abstentionist".  Once you starting go down the road of supporting this reform or opposing that reform you end abandoning the idea of a revolutionary change altogether.  History has more than vindicated this claim. Look at the social democratic parties of the second international.  They thought they could combine the minimum programme with the maximum.  It can't be done.  Every single one of these organisations ended up either going down the pan or becoming a thoroughly capitalist outfit.
> 
> So I oppose reformism which means I do not support reforms or oppose them. I am an abstentionist with regard to reforms.  But that does not means as Butchers in his usual silly fashion asserts being _abstentionist of life, of politics really_ On the contrary!



But when I pointed out you lot were abstentionist - like, months ago - you seemed to dispute this with some vigour. Yet now you are saying you are.

Will this be like the vanguard/vanguardist thing, Robbo? You abstain but you're not abstentionist?


----------



## robbo203 (Jun 30, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> But when I pointed out you lot were abstentionist - like, months ago - you seemed to dispute this with some vigour. Yet now you are saying you are.
> 
> Will this be like the vanguard/vanguardist thing, Robbo? You abstain but you're not abstentionist?



I have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about so you will have to refresh my memory. Im abstentionist on some things - like refroms - but not on others


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 30, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> I have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about so you will have to refresh my memory. Im abstentionist on some things - like refroms - but not on others



What are you not abstentionist on?

"Spreading the socialist gospel through pamphlets and meetings" - what else?


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 1, 2010)

Knotted said:


> OK so the SPGB think the NHS and the welfare state were introduced in order to help capitalists make more profit. So when the NHS expands and gets more expensive, what do they say?
> 
> 
> http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/apr05/page12and13.html
> ...




But hang on there - not so quick to jump to conclusions!

Firstly , I dont think the SPGB has ever said that it is not possible for the workers to make gains.  What they have said is that such gains are only likely to happen insofar as they do not conflict with the needs of the profit system as was definitely the case with the post war welfare state reforms which even prominent capitalists themselves judged to be in the interests of the system itself as the pamphlet amply demonstrates.

Secondly, you mention NHS which according to the SPGB  aided profitability  and increased efficiency. But you ask what happens when the NHS expands and gets more expensive.  Well the answer as you might expect is that it cannot do so indefinitely since it will then become an increasingly unaccepable  burden on the productive (or surplus-value producing) sector of the economy undermining its international competitiveness.  There is a limit to gains that workers can make and this limit is, moreover, variable and circumstance-dependent.  Come an economic recession, much if not all of the previous gains could well be wiped out.  I read a few months ago that a series of internal NHS documents recently revealed that tens of thousands of NHS workers could soon be sacked, hospital units closed and patients denied treatments under secret plans for £20 billion of health cuts in a bid to reduce Britains record £167 billion deficit  ("Hospital wards to shut in secret NHS cuts" Daily Telegraph Jon Swaine and Holly Watt, 26 Mar 2010.).

This is exactly what the SPGB model of the ecomony you refer to would have predicted.  According to this model, capitalism is inherently unstable veering between boom and depression.  The constraints built into this model means that any gains that workers make are likely to be transitory and that in the long run  it is fundamental economoc trends such as the growth in productivity that are really decisive in the rise in living standards rather than the political shenanigans of reformist politicans promising us the earth if we only put an X behind their name.  

The problem is that the unproductive sector (including the NHS) has been growiing at a rate above that of the prioductitve sector) for some time now and this is one of the reasons why we have reached crunch time and can expect a period of savage cutbacks to resore levels of priofitability with all that this entails for the gains that workers had previously made in their living standards


----------



## Knotted (Jul 1, 2010)

You're confirming what I said.

But let's examine this contradiction.

The SPGB have this line that gains such as the NHS are not really gains as they promote a downward pressure on wages. I don't think they oppose reforms for the reason you oppose reforms. Like reforms, trade union gains are limited and can be reversed and do not lead to socialism, but the SPGB do not have the same problem with trade union struggles. I don't believe they are afraid of reformist cooties because they aren't afraid of trade unionist cooties.

So what happens when the NHS becomes so clearly a gain for the working class? Do the SPGB defend it? No they talk as if it's demise is inevitable. They think we're powerless to prevent it. The gain like qualities of the NHS are some sort of fluke or a by-product of some other agenda. A sort of bank error in your favour that the administration haven't got round to fixing. Nevermind the NHS - we need socialism.


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 1, 2010)

Knotted said:


> You're confirming what I said.
> 
> But let's examine this contradiction.
> 
> ...




I think the economics behind the SPGB approach is basically sound.  There is no such thing as a free lunch in capitalism and it is quite true that the apparent gains in the social wage will exert a downward pressure on  money wages in other respects.  This is all set out in the pamphlet I referred to. If you disagree  with the economics of this approach I would be interested to hear your evidence.

On the question of trade unions vis a vis reforms, there is a reason why the SPGB approach to one is different from the other.  Its not that they are denying that gains in one can be reversed just as it can in the other.  Rather it has to do with the specific field in which each of these operate.  Politics is goal-oriented, trade unionism on the other hand is process-oriented and inherently defensive by its very nature.  In opting for reformism in the political filed, this *necessarily *precludes the revolutionary objective and I think the history of Social Democracy, as I said before, amply confirms the truth of this.  *That *is why the SPGB opposes reformism but not trade unionism


----------



## Knotted (Jul 1, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> I think the economics behind the SPGB approach is basically sound.  There is no such thing as a free lunch in capitalism and it is quite true that the apparent gains in the social wage will exert a downward pressure on  money wages in other respects.  This is all set out in the pamphlet I referred to. If you disagree  with the economics of this approach I would be interested to hear your evidence.



I think we're in agreement about character of the SPGB's position. If I find time I'll debunk the economics behind it. I should say that I'm not an economist and that my efforts will be amateurish. However, we're talking at the level of theory. If a theory doesn't ring true, I don't think the onus is on the sceptics to debunk it. Is the NHS a gain worth defending?




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> On the question of trade unions vis a vis reforms, there is a reason why the SPGB approach to one is different from the other.  Its not that they are denying that gains in one can be reversed just as it can in the other.  Rather it has to do with the specific field in which each of these operate.  Politics is goal-oriented, trade unionism on the other hand is process-oriented and inherently defensive by its very nature.  In opting for reformism in the political filed, this *necessarily *precludes the revolutionary objective and I think the history of Social Democracy, as I said before, amply confirms the truth of this.  *That *is why the SPGB opposes reformism but not trade unionism



This doesn't make much sense to me. Trade unionism is goal oriented, it's not necessarily defensive. You can defend reforms just as you can defend trade union gains.

In the past when I have debated/discussed this sort of question with SPGB members they don't come up with something like the above. They will usually talk about devaluing the value of labour and occasionally Engels' pamphlet on the housing question.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 1, 2010)

Thinking about it, it's easy to debunk.

Free healthcare means more use of healthcare services. _If_ the argument that free healthcare shifts the cost of providing healthcare from employers to taxpayers stands up, it doesn't take into account that use of healthcare facilities increases.

It shouldn't be a big revolation but the NHS really is a gain at the expense of the capitalist class.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 1, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Another poster with a penchant for making vague enigmatic statements that really mean sod all.  Do you mind perhaps trying to explain in plain english the point you are trying to make and how this connects up with the point I made.  Im buggered if I can see the connection.



Google humpty dumpty; you'll see that you have some thing in common with him and GD regarding your attitude to language.

If you can't see what my second point had to do with your post then you're even more intellectually blinkered or dishonest than I thought.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 1, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Name me a reform that you support



Democracy.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2010)

You support a reform brought in by the state to prop it up. Robbo doesn't.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 1, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> The SPGB is not notable for its stance against reformism; opposition to reformism is very common on the left (of which the SPGB is very much a tiny constitutionally ineffective part). Where it is notable is precisely in it's opposition to reforms; it doesn't just not advocate them it attacks such advocacy (roundabout, treadmill it's the same tire old acrid teeth rotting dismissal).
> 
> Louis MacNeice



The SPGB are not opposed to reforms and we do not necessarily attack their advocacy or dismiss them.  We judge each reform on its merits by considering its relevance, benefits, improvements, gains and possible advance it makes on the pursuit of class struggle.  If a particular reform meets this criteria we then analyse its content with emphasis on its rational, pointing out in the process the reason reforms are limitated to a capitalist solution.  And all the more reason why a socialist revolution remains on the agenda.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 1, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You support a reform brought in by the state to prop it up. Robbo doesn't.



Robbo is quite capable of explaining why he holds a certain opinion.  But lets not forget he's not a member of the SPGB and although he does support their general platform there can be occasions when even he forgets the nuances of the party position.  And in respect of supporting the creation of a democratic structure there is a very important nuance which is essential to a socialist revolution.  Namely, capitalism produces its own gravediggers and also arms them with the instruments to abolish it.  Hence, despite the fact that the representative democracy of capitalism is limited the political consciousness potentially embodied in the use of the ballot box contains the political power to bring about a revolutionary change in the social relationships.

I personally started digging the grave of capitalism when I became a socialist.  But we must recognise such activity is by necessity a collective effort and we will only bury the system of capitalism by arming ourselves with the tools and instruments essential to this task.  And in this respect a democratic structure is a prerequisite we can not ignore.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 1, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> ..despite the fact that the representative democracy of capitalism is limited the political consciousness potentially embodied in the use of the ballot box contains the political power to bring about a revolutionary change in the social relationships....



Despite the fact that the NHS working within capitalism is limited the political consciousness potentially embodied in 'free access at the time of need' contains a political power which can help bring about a revolutionary change in social relationships.

Do you support the NHS as well? Robbo will be dissapointed.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 1, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Despite the fact that the NHS working within capitalism is limited the political consciousness potentially embodied in 'free access at the time of need' contains a political power which can help bring about a revolutionary change in social relationships.
> 
> Do you support the NHS as well? Robbo will be dissapointed.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Interesting conjecture you pose irrespective of its ambiguity but worthy of speculation on possible scenarios for future class struggle. Although IMO we will have to wait and see what the future holds.  If the NHS is abandoned to the forces of the market or left to rot through lack of funding it will serve to underline what the SPGB have been saying in respect of reforms. 

In that the cost of reforms are continually under pressure from the accumulation of capital and when thought necessary by the powers that be, they are eroded in line with the dictates of the profit system.  Initially, the NHS was a stimulus for growth in the private sector.  Now however, the balance sheets don't add up - especially with an aging population - so we can expect a degree of reduction in the provision of certain NHS services, especially for the elderly.  

Which all the more reason why in the estimation of the SPGB the workers need to understand seeking improvements within capitalism, even when major reforms give the impression they are 'free access at the time of need', they are temporary measures which can be withdrawn when circumstances dictate.

A revolutionary party don't support or oppose reforms


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 1, 2010)

Over and over and over and over and over
Like a monkey with a miniature cymbal
The joy of repetition really is in you
Under and under and under and under and under
The smell of repetition really is on you
And when I feel this way I really am with you

Laid back
Laid back
Laid back, we'll give you laid back
Laid back
Laid back
Laid back, I'll give you laid back


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 1, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Interesting conjecture you pose irrespective of its ambiguity but worthy of speculation on possible scenarios for future class struggle. Although IMO we will have to wait and see what the future holds.  If the NHS is abandoned to the forces of the market or left to rot through lack of funding it will serve to underline what the SPGB have been saying in respect of reforms.
> 
> In that the cost of reforms are continually under pressure from the accumulation of capital and when thought necessary by the powers that be, they are eroded in line with the dictates of the profit system.  Initially, the NHS was a stimulus for growth in the private sector.  Now however, the balance sheets don't add up - especially with an aging population - so we can expect a degree of reduction in the provision of certain NHS services, especially for the elderly.
> 
> ...



This is not an impression; stop being dishonest.

Once again you've missed the point; what political consciousness is embodied in the NHS regarding the constitution of political subjects? Clue; the answer is  not a million miles away from that embodied in the democratic reforms you were signing the praises of (which was the point of my post).

Louis MacNeice


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 1, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Robbo is quite capable of explaining why he holds a certain opinion.  But lets not forget he's not a member of the SPGB and although he does support their general platform there can be occasions when even he forgets the nuances of the party position.  And in respect of supporting the creation of a democratic structure there is a very important nuance which is essential to a socialist revolution.  Namely, capitalism produces its own gravediggers and also arms them with the instruments to abolish it.  Hence, despite the fact that the representative democracy of capitalism is limited the political consciousness potentially embodied in the use of the ballot box contains the political power to bring about a revolutionary change in the social relationships..




I know very well the SPGB's position on obtaining basic democratic rights, actually.  However, i do not regard this as a reform in the sense in which we are talking  about under the rubric of reformism.  Reformism strictly has as its field the political sphere (that is to say it is carried out by the state) and ,as its focus, the economic sphere. Capitalism, after all is essentially defined in socio-economic terms rather than political-legal terms. What we are trying to "reform" via reformism is capitalism which , being a socio/economic construction, means that reformism itself logically speaking, must be socioeconomic in its orientation, its focus, as well.  The right to vote, assemble etc relates to the political sphere not the the economic sphere and are therefore not reforms in the sense implied by reformism.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2010)

Bizarre, they're only reforms if they're in economic sphere. We're back to nazism being the same as scando capitalism. Round and round you go. (never mind this crass and outdated separation)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2010)

I rule that not to be a reform 

I rule me not to contradict myself. Ever.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 1, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> I know very well the SPGB's position on obtaining basic democratic rights, actually.  However, i do not regard this as a reform in the sense in which we are talking  about under the rubric of reformism.  Reformism strictly has as its field the political sphere (that is to say it is carried out by the state) and ,as its focus, the economic sphere. Capitalism, after all is essentially defined in socio-economic terms rather than political-legal terms. What we are trying to "reform" via reformism is capitalism which , being a socio/economic construction, means that reformism itself logically speaking, must be socioeconomic in its orientation, its focus, as well.  The right to vote, assemble etc relates to the political sphere not the the economic sphere and are therefore not reforms in the sense implied by reformism.



Why you have gone to the trouble of making this distinction beats me when clearly the introduction of democracy impacted on the economic relations.  IMO this argument is immaterial to the difference between reform and reformism.  You need to take a step back and examine your argument for the relevance it makes regarding this discussion and how you are using the word 'logically' here.  Reformists use both political and socio-economic reforms to pursue their case.  For instance, the introduction of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly were a mixture of both.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 1, 2010)

Do not deviate from the sanctioned line.


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 1, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I rule that not to be a reform
> 
> I rule me not to contradict myself. Ever.



Look Mr Ferret if you haven't got anything useful or constructive to say, if you are not prepared to engage with the other person's arguments, then why bother.  You know you really dont have to meet that self imposed target of 25posts per day uttering inanities


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2010)

I just added something useful and constructive. You just don't like it, in fact you have no way around it - hence this guff.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 1, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> This is not an impression; stop being dishonest.
> 
> Once again you've missed the point; what political consciousness is embodied in the NHS regarding the constitution of political subjects? Clue; the answer is  not a million miles away from that embodied in the democratic reforms you were signing the praises of (which was the point of my post).
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Unlike yourself I've never studied cryptology and I have little patience for game theory.


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 1, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Why you have gone to the trouble of making this distinction beats me when clearly the introduction of democracy impacted on the economic relations.  IMO this argument is immaterial to the difference between reform and reformism.  You need to take a step back and examine your argument for the relevance it makes regarding this discussion and how you are using the word 'logically' here.  Reformists use both political and socio-economic reforms to pursue their case.  For instance, the introduction of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly were a mixture of both.



You are missing the point  completely.  We are talking about refromism are we not?  So what does the SPGB mean when it says "capitalism cannot be reformed" or "socialists are opposed to reformism".  What is meant by "reform" in this context? What precisely is being "reformed" if not capitalism and what is capitalism, if not an socio-economic construction?.

To say  that reform in this context includes political reforns actually weakens the whole case against reformism.  You need something that is tightly argued and clearly defined, not fuzzy.  The problem is that there is a regretable tendency within the SPGB to use the term reformism in a kind of sloppy catch-all fashion which obscures rather than clarifies the issue.  

Of course political reforms impact upon economic relations in various ways - thats not something I have ever denied - but again this is not the point is it.  If it was then why would the SPGB say its supports reforms that usher in basic democratic rights but does not support , for example, reformist campaigns to raise the state pension ? Part of the reason is that the SPGB says reformism distract from the revolutionary objective and yet it also says that basic democratic rigths are necessary for the revolution to happen. That in itself says something


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 2, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Unlike yourself I've never studied cryptology and I have little patience for game theory.



What does this have to do with my post? A very poor attempt at avoiding the gaping hole in your argument GD. Does the SPGB support the reformed health care system of the NHS?

Louis MacNeice

p.s. and while you're at it you could take back the nasty little piece of dishonesty about free access at the time of need.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 2, 2010)

I'm reading the Alan Clarke diaries at the moment and I was startled to see him quote you Louis...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 2, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I'm reading the Alan Clarke diaries at the moment and I was startled to see him quote you Louis...



We shared a liking for the odd glass or three. Apart from that I can't think of any link between us. He obviously had better taste in poetry than he  had judgment in politics.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 2, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> What does this have to do with my post? A very poor attempt at avoiding the gaping hole in your argument GD. Does the SPGB support the reformed health care system of the NHS?
> 
> Louis MacNeice
> 
> p.s. and while you're at it you could take back the nasty little piece of dishonesty about free access at the time of need.



The SPGB have neither supported or opposed the introduction of the NHS.  The SPGB is only interested in abolishing the system of capitalism not reforming it. Why you should need reminding of this every couple of weeks suggests you are either unable to grasp the implications of this or suffer from short-term memory loss.


----------



## dennisr (Jul 2, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> The SPGB have neither supported or opposed the introduction of the NHS.



And no-one else gave a feck about the SPGBs 'position' either way - then as now.

As self confessed fans of Marx - what about his simple point about *changing* the world rather than simply *interpreting* it


----------



## Knotted (Jul 2, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> The SPGB have neither supported or opposed the introduction of the NHS.  The SPGB is only interested in abolishing the system of capitalism not reforming it. Why you should need reminding of this every couple of weeks suggests you are either unable to grasp the implications of this or suffer from short-term memory loss.



Probably because you've just said:



Gravediggers said:


> The SPGB are not opposed to reforms and we do not necessarily attack their advocacy or dismiss them.  We judge each reform on its merits by considering its relevance, benefits, improvements, gains and possible advance it makes on the pursuit of class struggle.  If a particular reform meets this criteria we then analyse its content with emphasis on its rational, pointing out in the process the reason reforms are limitated to a capitalist solution.  And all the more reason why a socialist revolution remains on the agenda.



You've also written dismissively about the NHS. Why bother going to the trouble of pointing out the limits of NHS if the SPGB refused to support it's introduction on principle? Why not just explain the principle and be done with all this nonsense about free access at the time of need being merely an impression rather than a reality?

I can't blame robbo for being confused about your stance.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 2, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> You are missing the point  completely.  We are talking about refromism are we not?  So what does the SPGB mean when it says "capitalism cannot be reformed" or "socialists are opposed to reformism".  What is meant by "reform" in this context? What precisely is being "reformed" if not capitalism and what is capitalism, if not an socio-economic construction?.



I gained the impression that this particular discussion was over the distinction between activity for particular reforms and reformist activity.  And not about lumping all activity for reforms under the heading of 'reformist activity'.   Indeed, your past postings have clearly made this distinction and the reasons and rational why the SPGB pursue only a course of revolutionary activity rather than combine the two.




> To say  that reform in this context includes political reforns actually weakens the whole case against reformism.  You need something that is tightly argued and clearly defined, not fuzzy.  The problem is that there is a regretable tendency within the SPGB to use the term reformism in a kind of sloppy catch-all fashion which obscures rather than clarifies the issue.



By you trying to make a distinction between political and economic reforms you are actually making the argument 'fuzzy'.  The SPGB do not use the term reformism in a kind of sloppy catch-all fashion which obscures rather than clarifies the issue.  Which is the argument the left use, for in fact our case against the pursuit of reformism is always clarified with a definition of reformism, i.e. political action that will, allegedly, gradually transform capitalism into socialism. 




> Of course political reforms impact upon economic relations in various ways - thats not something I have ever denied - but again this is not the point is it.  If it was then why would the SPGB say its supports reforms that usher in basic democratic rights but does not support , for example, reformist campaigns to raise the state pension ? Part of the reason is that the SPGB says reformism distract from the revolutionary objective and yet it also says that basic democratic rigths are necessary for the revolution to happen. That in itself says something



Precisely, and all the more reason for you to abandon this particular argument


----------



## Knotted (Jul 2, 2010)

Does the SPGB think:

1) The NHS is a gain for the working class that nevertheless falls well short of socialism and is unnecessary for the SPGB's scheme to seize control of the state and thus it's introduction was not supportable nor is it's existence defendable.

2) The NHS only appears to be a gain for the working class as capitalist governments never hand out something for nothing.

3) Both the above.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 2, 2010)

Knotted said:


> You've also written dismissively about the NHS. Why bother going to the trouble of pointing out the limits of NHS if the SPGB refused to support it's introduction on principle? Why not just explain the principle and be done with all this nonsense about free access at the time of need being merely an impression rather than a reality?



The SPGB have never dismissed the NHS in the sense of it not being a gain for the working class.  We looked at its limitations and restrictions and highlighted the fact that if the costs of running the NHS overrun the benefits to be gained by the capitalist class they would be reduced or the service withdrawn.  And this is precisely the threat its presently under.

I've explained the principles involved over and over again yet many on this thread reject them because they are of the opinion there is no conflict between adopting a compromising position with the political structure and the pursuit of a revolution objective.  Which logically means, in effect, they have no political principles whatsoever for it involves engaging and collaborating with the class enemy.



> I can't blame robbo for being confused about your stance.



You can only blame robbo for his own confusion for attempting to make a distinction between political and economic reforms so he could argue that any reforms which involved appealing to the state were reformist.  Whereas the SPGB are not concerned to whom the reform is directed - workers or capitalist - for we merely point out no amount of reforms will make any fundamental difference to the social relationships of capitalism.  Which any way you look at it is a platform for revolution.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 2, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> The SPGB have never dismissed the NHS in the sense of it not being a gain for the working class.  We looked at its limitations and restrictions and highlighted the fact that if the costs of running the NHS overrun the benefits to be gained by the capitalist class they would be reduced or the service withdrawn.  And this is precisely the threat its presently under.



So it's not worth defending because it's doomed anyway. That's a cranky position to say the least, but it's coherent. But basically you have no problem in principle with supporting reforms, you've just got crazy theories to say it's not worthwhile.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> I've explained the principles involved over and over again yet many on this thread reject them because they are of the opinion there is no conflict between adopting a compromising position with the political structure and the pursuit of a revolution objective.  Which logically means, in effect, they have no political principles whatsoever for it involves engaging and collaborating with the class enemy.



I don't think that's the reason. I think that most here would read some of your statements such as "A revolutionary party don't [sic] support or oppose reforms" as being uncompromising. It's confusing when you then go on to say that in certain special cases you are willing to support certain reforms and implicitly argue that you have no principled problem with supporting other reforms per se.




			
				Gravedigger said:
			
		

> You can only blame robbo for his own confusion for attempting to make a distinction between political and economic reforms so he could argue that any reforms which involved appealing to the state were reformist.  Whereas the SPGB are not concerned to whom the reform is directed - workers or capitalist - for we merely point out no amount of reforms will make any fundamental difference to the social relationships of capitalism.  Which any way you look at it is a platform for revolution.



I can't blame him for that. He's just trying to rationalise the SPGB's position. It's not easy.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 2, 2010)

dennisr said:


> And no-one else gave a feck about the SPGBs 'position' either way - then as now.
> 
> As self confessed fans of Marx - what about his simple point about *changing* the world rather than simply *interpreting* it



And what makes you think that being involved in reformist activity will change the position of the working class?


----------



## Knotted (Jul 2, 2010)

Has anyone ever talked to a Jehova's Witness for so long that they end up making excuses and shuffling off?


----------



## dennisr (Jul 2, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> And what makes you think that being involved in reformist activity will change the position of the working class?



Your position certainly has not changed owt in over 100 years.

As I see it, the self-activity of working people in immediate struggles to achieve immediate (if limited...) demands, is the experience through which they are able to draw conclusions about the nature of the present system and its limitations. They are also better able to judge/compare and take up (or ignore...) the various 'revolutionary' ideas/traditions on offer.

Learning through action and practice out of necessity - its what humanity has always done.

If one stands on the sidelines poo-pooing 'reformist' limitations, one will remain ignored for another 100+ years. imo, revolutionaries should be the best reformists if they are going to  turn a 'nice' idea - of working class self-emancipation - into a conrete reality rather than an abstract discussion circle for 'nice' ideas. Marx was clear on this point.

After 100+ years - if one has not asked oneself why the small and irrelevant but 'nice' idea grouplet has remained nothing more than a small and irrelevant but 'nice' idea grouplet, then one has really ignored a central element of Marx's writing. One, it could be argued, is guilty of a much greater sin than anything anyone with illusions in reformist ideas is guilty of. After all 'what's the point?' otherwise.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 2, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> The SPGB have neither supported or opposed the introduction of the NHS.  The SPGB is only interested in abolishing the system of capitalism not reforming it. Why you should need reminding of this every couple of weeks suggests you are either unable to grasp the implications of this or suffer from short-term memory loss.



But why hasn't the SPGB supported the NHS when it has some of the same political potential as the democratic reforms you do support (reforms that have not abolished capitalism)? 

This is the third time I've asked the question. Perhaps you'll be able to answer it this time; given the weird ahistorical utopian cul de sac you've parked yourself in it may well be beyond you.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 2, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> And what makes you think that being involved in reformist activity will change the position of the working class?



Talking to my parents and grandparents.

Louis MacNeice

p.s. I await the inevitable attempt to limit what counts as the 'position of the working class' so as to make sense of GD' s well intentioned Edwardian world view. Come on humpty.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Jul 2, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Has anyone ever talked to a Jehova's Witness for so long that they end up making excuses and shuffling off?



So that's why they stopped visiting


----------



## Knotted (Jul 2, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> But why hasn't the SPGB supported the NHS when it has some of the same political potential as the democratic reforms you do support (reforms that have not abolished capitalism)?



Basically, they thought it wasn't worth supporting at the time ie. they assumed that it was just capitalism making itself more efficient. They realise they were wrong, but they can't admit that. So now they theorise that it's about to be scrapped (maybe not in the next few years but eventually - give it another century) and there's no use trying to defend it. We are afterall helpless until we abolish the wages system - then we can defend the NHS.

If you pay careful attention they never say that supporting reforms amounts to reformism. Unless someone else is doing it, that is.


----------



## dennisr (Jul 2, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Has anyone ever talked to a Jehova's Witness for so long that they end up making excuses and shuffling off?


----------



## Knotted (Jul 2, 2010)

By the way if anybody thinks I'm being unfair or sarcastic they should read this. It needs to be seen to be believed.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 2, 2010)

Knotted said:


> By the way if anybody thinks I'm being unfair or sarcastic they should read this. It needs to be seen to be believed.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 2, 2010)

Knotted said:


> By the way if anybody thinks I'm being unfair or sarcastic they should read this. It needs to be seen to be believed.



There's nothing really wrong with the analysis, in fact there's hardly anything to fault the SPGB's analysis. It's the behaviour of the group towards those outside it who are not convinced of the case for immediate money-abolition  that's the problem.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 2, 2010)

sihhi said:


> There's nothing really wrong with the analysis, in fact there's hardly anything to fault the SPGB's analysis. It's the behaviour of the group towards those outside it who are not convinced of the case for immediate money-abolition  that's the problem.



I couldn't care a less about their attitude to those outside their group. To be perfectly honest they've always struck me as being quite civil.

No there isn't anything wrong with the analysis. The problem is that the analysis blatantly doesn't support their conclusion. The author states:

"No doubt most workers will conclude that any deficiencies in the NHS can be put right by a change of government and that it lies within the power of the political process to achieve  a viable health system."

Well maybe, but I'll tell you something for nothing. Most workers will want to defend the NHS regardless of it's deficiencies.

As I say, the SPGB are not wooden ultra-revolutionaries who oppose reforms on principle. If they were they were, then they would have no problem saying, "the NHS despite it's problems is a gain for workers, but we are not intersted in such reforms we are interested in revolution."

That article is nothing but an anti-NHS screed. It's underfunded, it's too expensive for the capitalists, it's on it's way out, pity. But, nevermind the NHS never cured all diseases so it was a failure anyway. Now listen to us talk about socialism.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 2, 2010)

> I couldn't care a less about their attitude to those outside their group. To be perfectly honest they've always struck me as being quite civil.



I've felt sneered at, but there you go. I don't care. I'm off this thread.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 2, 2010)

> Knotted said:
> 
> 
> > So it's not worth defending because it's doomed anyway. That's a cranky position to say the least, but it's coherent. But basically you have no problem in principle with supporting reforms, you've just got crazy theories to say it's not worthwhile.
> ...


----------



## Knotted (Jul 2, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> It appears you are attempting a twisty here by saying, "in principle with supporting reforms", when you know full well we are not a reformist party.



But you know full well that you don't have to be reformist in order to support reforms. Stop trying to be slippery. Go look at your own definition.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> i.e. political action that will, allegedly, gradually transform capitalism into socialism.



I have nowhere alleged that your lack of a ban on supporting any reform means you believe reforms can gradually transform capitalism into socialism.

According to your definition, supporting reforms does not equate to reformism.

No go write that out 100 times.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> The SPGB have no position on defending particular reforms from the attacks of the profit system.  For we don't see our role to tell workers what to do under such circumstances, when they are quite capable of deciding for themselves and do not require self-appointed leaders to direct their activity.



Who said anything about being a self-appointed leader?

But again let's emphasise - you have no position on defending particular reforms ie. defending the NHS is compatable with SPGB politics. Why do you insist on rubbishing the NHS for not being perfect and thus not worth defending?




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> However, when the condition of the working class is generally under attack has what's occurring in Greece - and may well occur in the UK - it would be foolish for us to implore the workers to stay indoors and be passive and docile like their masters expect.  For the capitalists would most certainly take advantage of a lack of reaction and take the risk of imposing even more austerity measures.



Stop telling me what you won't do and tell me what you will do.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> It only becomes confusing when people like yourself make statements that fail to stand up to examination.  The only special case we have made for supporting a particular reform is the introduction of democracy, and we have never supported other reforms per se.



But you have no principled position against supporting other reforms per se. As you yourself pointed out earlier you examine each case for it's merits. As you yourself admit, the NHS was a gain. Conclusion - the SPGB were mistaken about the NHS. Why can't you admit it? What sort of democratic organisation are you if you can't correct your mistakes?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 2, 2010)

> dennisr said:
> 
> 
> > Your position certainly has not changed owt in over 100 years.
> ...


----------



## Knotted (Jul 2, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> And I've also made it clear in a previous post that both Marx and Engles made it quite clear in 1872 in that edition of the CM that theirs and your present position had become dated by events.  So that makes you 138 years out of date.



Two points.

1) Dennisr didn't mention the Communist Manifesto.

2) Have you even read the 1872 edition? In particular:



> One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.”


----------



## dennisr (Jul 2, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> This moralistic argument implies that despite your revolutionary veneer when you scratch the surface we find a born again liberal.



thats right.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 2, 2010)

Knotted said:


> But you know full well that you don't have to be reformist in order to support reforms. Stop trying to be slippery. Go look at your own definition.



I'm not trying to be slippery in the reasons why we don't support reforms.  For if we did start supporting reforms this would attract reform minded people to our platform and gradually lead to the demise of our revolutionary proposals.  And like I've said previously if we did start supporting reforms logically we would also be supporting the political system and all the compromise and collaboration this would involve.  No compromise with capitalism means exactly that for we stand for revolution and nothing but.




> I have nowhere alleged that your lack of a ban on supporting any reform means you believe reforms can gradually transform capitalism into socialism.



You are twisting again for the SPGB have effectively banned any support for reforms, with the exception of democracy.



> According to your definition, supporting reforms does not equate to reformism.



Correct.  But if the point you are trying to make here is that logically we should support reforms I not only beg to differ but refer you to what I've previously stated on this issue.




> But again let's emphasise - you have no position on defending particular reforms ie. defending the NHS is compatable with SPGB politics. Why do you insist on rubbishing the NHS for not being perfect and thus not worth defending?



You are deliberately trying another twisty here and in the process making a nonsense of your question(s) by putting them in contradistinction with one another.  We do not rubbish the NHS neither do we rubbish it for not being perfect.  In fact we don't expect anything from the NHS other than a limited service given the constrains of capitalism.  And we most certainly do not say the NHS is'nt worth defending.  That is a decision we leave to the workers.





> Stop telling me what you won't do and tell me what you will do.



Propose a revolutionary transformation of society.



> But you have no principled position against supporting other reforms per se.



Yet another twisty.  You are getting to sound like a dead parrot.



> As you yourself pointed out earlier you examine each case for it's merits. As you yourself admit, the NHS was a gain. Conclusion - the SPGB were mistaken about the NHS. Why can't you admit it? What sort of democratic organisation are you if you can't correct your mistakes?



You have drawn the wrong conclusion.  We welcome any improvements the working class can make on their condition but it would be a very big mistake on our part if we failed to remind the workers that any gains are of a temporary nature.  For like the trade union struggle reform activity is always on the defensive.  Whilst the revolutionary struggle is always on the offensive.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 2, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I'm not trying to be slippery in the reasons why we don't support reforms.  For if we did start supporting reforms this would attract reform minded people to our platform and gradually lead to the demise of our revolutionary proposals.  And like I've said previously if we did start supporting reforms logically we would also be supporting the political system and all the compromise and collaboration this would involve.  No compromise with capitalism means exactly that for we stand for revolution and nothing but.



I misread you earlier as you characterising others as characterising you as being class collaborationist. I didn't think you actually considered your support for democracy to be class collaborationism!

So let's see - supporting reforms is not reformism but it is compromise and class collaboration, although it could still be revolutionary. So this makes the SPGB class collaborationist proletarian revolutionaries.

I'll admit that I'm struggling to get my head round that one.

By the way the above is not a principled argument. It's thoroughly opportunistic. You are placing your party's internal concerns above class concerns.




			
				Gravedigger said:
			
		

> You are twisting again for the SPGB have effectively banned any support for reforms, with the exception of democracy.



"Effectively banned". You can't articulate the principle behind this "effective ban". As I keep saying this is because the principle doesn't exist. It's not part ot the Marxist tradition - not even the 19th century variety that you espouse.




			
				Gravedigger said:
			
		

> Correct.  But if the point you are trying to make here is that logically we should support reforms I not only beg to differ but refer you to what I've previously stated on this issue.



No, I'm saying that logically you should have no problem with supporting reforms. You may have various good reasons to reject various particular reforms.




			
				Gravedigger said:
			
		

> You are deliberately trying another twisty here and in the process making a nonsense of your question(s) by putting them in contradistinction with one another.  We do not rubbish the NHS neither do we rubbish it for not being perfect.  In fact we don't expect anything from the NHS other than a limited service given the constrains of capitalism.  And we most certainly do not say the NHS is'nt worth defending.  That is a decision we leave to the workers.



Come on. The SPGB screed is basically a long excuse for not defending the NHS. If you're not willing to defend it, then why should anybody else?




			
				Gravedigger said:
			
		

> Yet another twisty.  You are getting to sound like a dead parrot.



I'm not twisting your words. I am pointing out that you don't have a principled opposition to supporting reforms per se. You can prove me wrong by articulating that principle.




			
				Gravedigger said:
			
		

> You have drawn the wrong conclusion.  We welcome any improvements the working class can make on their condition but it would be a very big mistake on our part if we failed to remind the workers that any gains are of a temporary nature.  For like the trade union struggle reform activity is always on the defensive.  Whilst the revolutionary struggle is always on the offensive.



So do you refuse to support all trade union struggles?


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 2, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> You can only blame robbo for his own confusion for attempting to make a distinction between political and economic reforms so he could argue that any reforms which involved appealing to the state were reformist.  Whereas the SPGB are not concerned to whom the reform is directed - workers or capitalist - for we merely point out no amount of reforms will make any fundamental difference to the social relationships of capitalism.  Which any way you look at it is a platform for revolution.



I really cant make much sense of this.  I did not make a distinction between political and economic reforms in order to argue that "any reforms which involved appealing to the state were reformist" . Political refroms also involve appealing to the state but they do not fall under the rubric of "reformism" for the reason I gave i.e. they are not trying to reform capitalism as such as a distinct mode of mproduction but relate essentially to the political sphere.  Capitalism is a socioeconomic construction not a political entity and *that *is why a distinction needs to be made between political reforms and economic reforms. 

A further reason is implied in the very point you make above that " no amount of reforms will make any fundamental difference to the social relationships of capitalism". Exactly.  And in order to get rid of the "social relationship of capitalism" what does the SPGB propose? It proposes to democratically capture the state to abolish capitalism.  So political  reforms that enable it to do this do make a differences and for this reason have to be distinguised from economic refroms which is what refromism is about and, unlike political reforms, do nothing to threaten the existence of capitalism itself


----------



## Knotted (Jul 2, 2010)

If the SPGB were honest and articulated their real reasons (according to Gravedigger) for not defending the NHS, they wouldn't carp about the NHS not being perfect they would say:

"The NHS is a gain for the working class despite the limitations that necessarily follow from being a product of the capitalist state. There is no guarantee that the NHS will last for ever and we have no problem with workers who wish to defend it. Indeed we wish such workers the best of luck in their struggles, limited as they are. However, we are a revolutionary party and do not wish to be contaminated by reform minded people, so if you feel inclined to defend your local NHS trust from cuts, could please not try to join our ranks. I'm sure you're committed activists and all, but you would just bring the tone down at our meetings. We have to have _some_ standards."


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 2, 2010)

Knotted said:


> If the SPGB were honest and articulated their real reasons (according to Gravedigger) for not defending the NHS, they wouldn't carp about the NHS not being perfect they would say:
> 
> "The NHS is a gain for the working class despite the limitations that necessarily follow from being a product of the capitalist state. There is no guarantee that the NHS will last for ever and we have no problem with workers who wish to defend it. Indeed we wish such workers the best of luck in their struggles, limited as they are. However, we are a revolutionary party and do not wish to be contaminated by reform minded people, so if you feel inclined to defend your local NHS trust from cuts, could please not try to join our ranks. I'm sure you're committed activists and all, but you would just bring the tone down at our meetings. We have to have _some_ standards."




OK Knotted lets just follow through your line of thinking here.  If we accept you suggestions that reforms need to actively pursued at what point do you make the leap from this position to a revolutionary one , one that  argues that we should no longer strive to mend capitalism but end it.

You need to be honest here as well.  Effectively what you are saying is that there can really be no room for a revolutionary perspective because refroms must and always will take priority


----------



## Knotted (Jul 2, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> OK Knotted lets just follow through your line of thinking here.  If we accept you suggestions that reforms need to actively pursued at what point do you make the leap from this position to a revolutionary one , one that  argues that we should no longer strive to mend capitalism but end it.
> 
> You need to be honest here as well.  Effectively what you are saying is that there can really be no room for a revolutionary perspective because refroms must and always will take priority



There is no problem with combining support for reforms and a revolutionary perspective. Reformism is believing that reforms are the route to socialism. You can support reforms and still point out that these reforms will not establish socialism. It's not difficult. It's not a thin end of a wedge.

Think about it. If the SPGB's theory actually turns out to be correct and the NHS is about to be decimated then people will resist. The NHS is a huge thing in this country, we're talking massive upheaval - general strikes and more. A movement defending the NHS does not have to limit itself to defending the NHS. People can draw revolutionary conclusions. Not that I think the SPGB's theory is correct, mind.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 2, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Two points.
> 
> 1) Dennisr didn't mention the Communist Manifesto.
> 
> 2) Have you even read the 1872 edition? In particular:



I mentioned the CM to illustrate my point that his conception of revolutionary activity was dated.  And if you had cared to read the passage above the one mentioning the lessons of the Paris Commune you would have seen I'm correct.  However, if you understand the historical implications of this passage where Marx and Engles admitted their proposition for state-capitalist measures had been overtaken by the dynamics of class struggle and the development of capitalism - that is very doubtful - and suggests you enjoy the capitalist magic roundabout of reformist activity.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 2, 2010)

tbh if they tried to get rid of the nhs in this country there would probably be blood in the streets.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 2, 2010)

Knotted said:


> There is no problem with combining support for reforms and a revolutionary perspective. Reformism is believing that reforms are the route to socialism. You can support reforms and still point out that these reforms will not establish socialism. It's not difficult. It's not a thin end of a wedge.



But it is the thin edge of the wedge.  Don't you understand reforms and revolution are not only incompatible but also diametrically opposed.  You want your cake and eat it.



> Think about it. If the SPGB's theory actually turns out to be correct and the NHS is about to be decimated then people will resist. The NHS is a huge thing in this country, we're talking massive upheaval - general strikes and more. A movement defending the NHS does not have to limit itself to defending the NHS. People can draw revolutionary conclusions. Not that I think the SPGB's theory is correct, mind.


]

We have never suggested the NHS is about to be decimated.  You are letting conjecture dominate your reasoning if you think the capitalists are so stupid to do such a thing.  The course of action they will most probably take, in order not to kill the golden goose, is to reduce what they consider to be non-essential services to the bone.  Services like cosmetic surgery, mental health, varicose veins, rheumatology, etc will severely feel the pinch.  And of course they will try and trim the workforce as much has possible - especially in higher and middle management. 

They have to maintain the health of the workforce in preparation for an upturn in the economy so it is very unlikely they will decimate the NHS.  In particular they will be looking at what illnesses affect the workforce and what illnesses affect the elderly population, for the aged are surplus to requirements and an increasing burden on profits.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 2, 2010)

> Knotted said:
> 
> 
> > I misread you earlier as you characterising others as characterising you as being class collaborationist. I didn't think you actually considered your support for democracy to be class collaborationism!
> ...


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 2, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> I really cant make much sense of this.  I did not make a distinction between political and economic reforms in order to argue that "any reforms which involved appealing to the state were reformist" . Political refroms also involve appealing to the state but they do not fall under the rubric of "reformism" for the reason I gave i.e. they are not trying to reform capitalism as such as a distinct mode of mproduction but relate essentially to the political sphere.  Capitalism is a socioeconomic construction not a political entity and *that *is why a distinction needs to be made between political reforms and economic reforms.
> 
> A further reason is implied in the very point you make above that " no amount of reforms will make any fundamental difference to the social relationships of capitalism". Exactly.  And in order to get rid of the "social relationship of capitalism" what does the SPGB propose? It proposes to democratically capture the state to abolish capitalism.  So political  reforms that enable it to do this do make a differences and for this reason have to be distinguised from economic refroms which is what refromism is about and, unlike political reforms, do nothing to threaten the existence of capitalism itself



OK I might have got your drift wrong but your argument still does not hold up to examination.  For instance, the constitutional reforms in Scotland and Wales are political reforms, are they not?  Yet how many times have left wing politicians argued they are a gradual step towards socialism?  I know for a fact that a majority of labour supporters looked on these constitutional reforms as 'progressive' or a step in the right direction for self autonomy.  Now if that is not reformism what is?  Again come the referendum on PR what will be the chorus from the left?  I leave you to guess.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 3, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> tbh if they tried to get rid of the nhs in this country there would probably be blood in the streets.



Which is all the more reason why they wont try to get rid of the NHS especially when it serves and essential service and purpose.  And economically is one of the cheapest health providers on the planet, besides being under the direct political control of the capitalist class.  Getting rid of such a valuable asset would be detrimental to their interests, wont you say?  That is not to say that they will try to make the NHS even more cost effective than it already is.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 3, 2010)

Knotted said:


> If the SPGB were honest and articulated their real reasons (according to Gravedigger) for not defending the NHS, they wouldn't carp about the NHS not being perfect they would say:
> 
> "The NHS is a gain for the working class despite the limitations that necessarily follow from being a product of the capitalist state. There is no guarantee that the NHS will last for ever and we have no problem with workers who wish to defend it. Indeed we wish such workers the best of luck in their struggles, limited as they are. However, we are a revolutionary party and do not wish to be contaminated by reform minded people, so if you feel inclined to defend your local NHS trust from cuts, could please not try to join our ranks. I'm sure you're committed activists and all, but you would just bring the tone down at our meetings. We have to have _some_ standards."



A nice try at a caricature.  There is no chance of a reform minded person entering the SPGB for our membership questionnaire is designed to weed out those who attempt to enter with the impression we support reforms.  Some members would argue that socialists should have 'standards', but are rarely specific on what they entail, not that it bothers me for I find that socialist principles produce their own standards.  Namely, honesty, integrity and openness are sufficient standards in themselves for promoting the socialist case.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I mentioned the CM to illustrate my point that his conception of revolutionary activity was dated.  And if you had cared to read the passage above the one mentioning the lessons of the Paris Commune you would have seen I'm correct.  However, if you understand the historical implications of this passage where Marx and Engles admitted their proposition for state-capitalist measures had been overtaken by the dynamics of class struggle and the development of capitalism - that is very doubtful - and suggests you enjoy the capitalist magic roundabout of reformist activity.



It's a pity they don't say that, though.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> The SPGB are not opposed to reforms and we do not necessarily attack their advocacy or dismiss them.  We judge each reform on its merits by considering its relevance, benefits, improvements, gains and possible advance it makes on the pursuit of class struggle.  If a particular reform meets this criteria we then analyse its content with emphasis on its rational, pointing out in the process the reason reforms are limitated to a capitalist solution.  And all the more reason why a socialist revolution remains on the agenda.



I shan't twist your words. I'll just let them stand.

As I keep saying, if the SPGB had a principle that stated that reforms should never be supported, then they would just explain that principle. Read the Socialist Standard - they do exactly what Gravediggers states above ie. they examine reforms on their merits and just happen to conclude that they're not worth it. I've never seen this principle about banning support for reforms articulated.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Which is all the more reason why they wont try to get rid of the NHS especially when it serves and essential service and purpose.



Careful, you might admit that people's willingness to defend the NHS is the reason it continues to exist.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> And economically is one of the cheapest health providers on the planet, besides being under the direct political control of the capitalist class.  Getting rid of such a valuable asset would be detrimental to their interests, wont you say?  That is not to say that they will try to make the NHS even more cost effective than it already is.



Hurray for the capitalist class! You can't trust workers to defend their gains but you can trust the capitalist class.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> The SPGB have never dismissed the NHS in the sense of it not being a gain for the working class.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 3, 2010)

Supporting reforms is a "compromise with capitalism" in exactly the same sense that supporting trade union struggles is a "compromise with capitalism". Both accept the logic of capitalism, neither require the demand for the abolition of the wages system. Why won't Gravediggers say that trade union struggle is a form of class collaboration? Why won't Gravediggers say that supporting democratic reforms is a form of class collaboration? Why is defending the NHS from cuts a form of class collaboration? Can anyone make sense of this?


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 3, 2010)

Knotted said:


> There is no problem with combining support for reforms and a revolutionary perspective. Reformism is believing that reforms are the route to socialism. You can support reforms and still point out that these reforms will not establish socialism. It's not difficult. It's not a thin end of a wedge..




Im afraid your analysis is unsound on several counts.  There is a massive massive problem with combining support for reforms and a revolutionary perspective.  The one thing necessarily detracts from the other.  If you dont think this is the case look at what happened in history.  Look at the Second International.  The Social Democratic parties that comprised it sought to combine a minimum programme with the maximum revolutionary programme.  Every single one of these parties ended up abandoning the later altogether.  How do you explain that?

Reformism is not necessarily believing reforms are the route to socialism.  The Labour party is a reformist party but it it has never been socialist. It benevr advocate a maximum programme but unlike the old social democratic parties was 100% reformist from the start.  Yes you can technically support refroms and still point out that these reforms will not establish socialism although in that event what becomes of your claim that "Reformism is believing that reforms are the route to socialism"? However ,the whole point of the SPGB critique of reformism is that however well intended the actions of the reformists may be, refromism is not going to solve the problems that workers face.  So in effect if you advocate reforms you are basically putting yourself on a treadmill.  

Like water finding its own level the apparent  gains that workers achieve in one direction will be compensated for in another. You were going to present a critique of the economics behind the SPGB theory of reformism although I haven't seen this yet.  I think essentially the SPGB theory is correct.  The social wage is not something divorced from, or independent of, money wages.  There is an inverse relationship between them insofar as the share of  one will go up at the expense of the other. There is no such thing as a free lunch in capitalism. What we should be looking at instead is combined wage so to speak - money wages and the socal wage.  This is variable and can be pushed up to an extent but only within limits set by the structural needs of the system itself which, moreover, are cirumstance-dependent. In a recession for example this combined wage will almost inevitably go down in real terms which means that is you manage to hold on to the gains of the social wage,  this is almost certainly going to translate into a loss in money wages as the forces of market competition make themselves felt.

I have yet to hear a convincing counter argument against this and in fact what the SPGB has said about reformism has been born  about what is happening all around us.  In the case of the NHS, it is clearly starting to run up against the structural needs of system for capital accumulation which is financed out surplus value.  Since funding for the NHS comes from the same source (via taxation) clearly there comes a point where the latter can threaten the former.  Hence the talk of massive cuts in the NHS and the desparate scramble for more cost-effectiveness.  The purpose behind all  is to reduce some of the pressure on businesses and enhance their competitiveness.  From the the state's pioint of view the productive sector of the economy - those industires that produce surplus value rather than consume it  - is the  goose that lays the golden eggs and there is a distinct danger that if you overtax the goose, it will sicken and its egg production rate will dininish.  So there is always a balance that needs to be struck between the comparative benefits of the NHS in terms of efficiency (which is why the the capitalist class supported its introduction) and the needs of capital accumulation.

This is why at the end of the day reformism is a treadmill.  It holds out the illusory promise of a process of incremental improvements which some reformists (bot all) see as a material preparation for the socialist transformation of society.  The idea is that we solve capitalisms problems one by one till we reach the point where we are in a postion to seamlessly change over to socialism.  But it never ever happens like this  and never will and reformists need to wake up and smell the coffee and realise that if you really want to a revolutionary change you are going to have to abandon reformism. That may be an unpalatable fact but it is fact neverthless.




Knotted said:


> Think about it. If the SPGB's theory actually turns out to be correct and the NHS is about to be decimated then people will resist. The NHS is a huge thing in this country, we're talking massive upheaval - general strikes and more. A movement defending the NHS does not have to limit itself to defending the NHS. People can draw revolutionary conclusions. Not that I think the SPGB's theory is correct, mind.



If what you say is correct then something will have to give. You cant have your cake and eat it.  If the NHS is successfully defended against any cuts this will mean that British capitalism will have to find other ways to secure an adequatre rate of capital accumulation.  The obvious candidate is savage cuts in the money wages of workers to compensate for the huge tax burden placed on the capitalists for maintaining the NHS in its present form.


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> OK I might have got your drift wrong but your argument still does not hold up to examination.  For instance, the constitutional reforms in Scotland and Wales are political reforms, are they not?  Yet how many times have left wing politicians argued they are a gradual step towards socialism?  I know for a fact that a majority of labour supporters looked on these constitutional reforms as 'progressive' or a step in the right direction for self autonomy.  Now if that is not reformism what is?  Again come the referendum on PR what will be the chorus from the left?  I leave you to guess.





No, constitutional reforms are *not *reformist although that does not necessarily translate into a reason for supporting them.  it is not only because it is "reformist"  that something can be rejected; it can be rejected on other grounds as well!  So what if leftists politicans think such reforms are a step towards socialism?  That doesnt make them so, does it? Nor do your observations in any way address the fundamental argument I made for a  distinction between reformist-type reforms in trhe economic sphere and mere political reforms.  

In fact, I would argue that this defintion of refromism that I have  been putting forward which is muc more tightly formuated than the rather woolly usage you have employed is implict in the SPGB's position  itself.  See for example http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/articles/revorref.html   In fact the credibility of the SPGB 's critique of reformism *depends *on the assumption that is trying to be reformed is the economic behaviour of the system itself which as I say is itself a socio-economic construction not a political one (capitalism is not defined by whether or not it possesses a bourgeois representative democratic form).  

It really makes no sense to  include political reforms under the heading of reformism.  As I said the SPGB (quite rightly) argues that reformism detracts from a revolutionary perspective which is why it does not support reforms.  Yet it has said it would support (i.e. work for) certain political refroms such as basic democratic rights like the right to vote and assemble. It would be contradictory and incoherent therefore to include such reforms within a general critique of refromism, would it not?


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 3, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Supporting reforms is a "compromise with capitalism" in exactly the same sense that supporting trade union struggles is a "compromise with capitalism". Both accept the logic of capitalism, neither require the demand for the abolition of the wages system. Why won't Gravediggers say that trade union struggle is a form of class collaboration? Why won't Gravediggers say that supporting democratic reforms is a form of class collaboration? Why is defending the NHS from cuts a form of class collaboration? Can anyone make sense of this?



No there is a big difference and this stems from a crucial recognition of the role of the state in all this

Yes both reformism and trade unionism "_accept the logic of capitalism, neither require the demand for the abolition of the wages system_".  However whereas trade union is necessarily defensive and by its very nature cannot transcend the logic of capitalism, reformism employs the means by which the system can be trasncended - the state - but *chooses *in stead to use the state not to end capitalism but to perpetuate it. 

This comes back to what I said earlier about the distinction between goal-oriented action and process-oriented action. Political activity (whether reformist or irevolutionary) is goal oriented.  Trade unionism essentially is not


----------



## Knotted (Jul 3, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Im afraid your analysis is unsound on several counts.  There is a massive massive problem with combining support for reforms and a revolutionary perspective.  The one thing necessarily detracts from the other.  If you dont think this is the case look at what happened in history.  Look at the Second International.  The Social Democratic parties that comprised it sought to combine a minimum programme with the maximum revolutionary programme.  Every single one of these parties ended up abandoning the later altogether.  How do you explain that?



The minimum-maximum program deals with reforms under capitalism and the shaping of socialism. The problem is that it doesn't deal with the most important phase ie. the revolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism. The parties of the Second International systematically ignored Marx & Engels dictum that, "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes." The SPGB ignore this as well.




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> Reformism is not necessarily believing reforms are the route to socialism.  The Labour party is a reformist party but it it has never been socialist. It benevr advocate a maximum programme but unlike the old social democratic parties was 100% reformist from the start.



OK, fair point. My definition was too narrow.




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> Yes you can technically support refroms and still point out that these reforms will not establish socialism although in that event what becomes of your claim that "Reformism is believing that reforms are the route to socialism"? However ,the whole point of the SPGB critique of reformism is that however well intended the actions of the reformists may be, refromism is not going to solve the problems that workers face.  So in effect if you advocate reforms you are basically putting yourself on a treadmill.



What do you mean by "solve the problems that workers face"? Do you mean "completely solve all problems" or "partially solve at least some problems"?




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> Like water finding its own level the apparent  gains that workers achieve in one direction will be compensated for in another.



I see no theoretical nor empirical reason to suppose that this is true.




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> You were going to present a critique of the economics behind the SPGB theory of reformism although I haven't seen this yet.



What I was critiquing was this idea that there is no free lunch from reforms under capitalism. From what Gravediggers has said I'm not even sure if the SPGB believe this anyway. But it's a very straight forward I gave it here.




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> I think essentially the SPGB theory is correct.  The social wage is not something divorced from, or independent of, money wages.  There is an inverse relationship between them insofar as the share of  one will go up at the expense of the other.



I don't care for the term "social wage", but anyway this is a non-sequitur. I agree that they are not independent, but it doesn't follow that there is an inverse relationship between them.




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> There is no such thing as a free lunch in capitalism. What we should be looking at instead is combined wage so to speak - money wages and the socal wage.  This is variable and can be pushed up to an extent but only within limits set by the structural needs of the system itself which, moreover, are cirumstance-dependent. In a recession for example this combined wage will almost inevitably go down in real terms which means that is you manage to hold on to the gains of the social wage,  this is almost certainly going to translate into a loss in money wages as the forces of market competition make themselves felt.
> 
> I have yet to hear a convincing counter argument against this and in fact what the SPGB has said about reformism has been born  about what is happening all around us.  In the case of the NHS, it is clearly starting to run up against the structural needs of system for capital accumulation which is financed out surplus value.  Since funding for the NHS comes from the same source (via taxation) clearly there comes a point where the latter can threaten the former.  Hence the talk of massive cuts in the NHS and the desparate scramble for more cost-effectiveness.  The purpose behind all  is to reduce some of the pressure on businesses and enhance their competitiveness.  From the the state's pioint of view the productive sector of the economy - those industires that produce surplus value rather than consume it  - is the  goose that lays the golden eggs and there is a distinct danger that if you overtax the goose, it will sicken and its egg production rate will dininish.  So there is always a balance that needs to be struck between the comparative benefits of the NHS in terms of efficiency (which is why the the capitalist class supported its introduction) and the needs of capital accumulation.



This sort of fatalistic anaylsis has a couple of curious upshots. If the NHS were scrapped, according to this theory this would be no loss for the working class as their wages would sky-rocket in proportion to that loss.

The other curious upshot is that successful reformism would lead to the collapse of capitalism. This is why I tend to think of the SPGB as revolutionary in word, but reformist in deed. They retain a formal revolutionary stance, but nevertheless pretend that deteremined reformist party can destroy the logic of capitalism.




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> This is why at the end of the day reformism is a treadmill.  It holds out the illusory promise of a process of incremental improvements which some reformists (bot all) see as a material preparation for the socialist transformation of society.  The idea is that we solve capitalisms problems one by one till we reach the point where we are in a postion to seamlessly change over to socialism.  But it never ever happens like this  and never will and reformists need to wake up and smell the coffee and realise that if you really want to a revolutionary change you are going to have to abandon reformism. That may be an unpalatable fact but it is fact neverthless.
> 
> If what you say is correct then something will have to give. You cant have your cake and eat it.  If the NHS is successfully defended against any cuts this will mean that British capitalism will have to find other ways to secure an adequatre rate of capital accumulation.  The obvious candidate is savage cuts in the money wages of workers to compensate for the huge tax burden placed on the capitalists for maintaining the NHS in its present form.



See above.

By the way, you haven't quite go the hang of Marxist economics. The argument isn't that the capitalists will try to compensate for their losses. The argument is that providing free health care reduces the value of labour as it becomes easier to maintain the working class and this leads to downward pressure on wages.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 3, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> No there is a big difference and this stems from a crucial recognition of the role of the state in all this
> 
> Yes both reformism and trade unionism "_accept the logic of capitalism, neither require the demand for the abolition of the wages system_".  However whereas trade union is necessarily defensive and by its very nature cannot transcend the logic of capitalism, reformism employs the means by which the system can be trasncended - the state - but *chooses *in stead to use the state not to end capitalism but to perpetuate it.
> 
> This comes back to what I said earlier about the distinction between goal-oriented action and process-oriented action. Political activity (whether reformist or irevolutionary) is goal oriented.  Trade unionism essentially is not



I'm not talking about socialists in government implementing reforms. I'm just talking about recognising gains as gains and supporting/defending them.


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 3, 2010)

Knotted said:


> The minimum-maximum program deals with reforms under capitalism and the shaping of socialism. The problem is that it doesn't deal with the most important phase ie. the revolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism. The parties of the Second International systematically ignored Marx & Engels dictum that, "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes." The SPGB ignore this as well.
> .



Not quite sure what the above has to do with the issue. Marx was talking about the  need to lop off certain aspects of the state in order for the workers to wield it. My point about the max and min programmes was to point out their essential incompatibility and that the minimum of reformist programme would always win out in the end at the expesne of the max programme





Knotted said:


> What do you mean by "solve the problems that workers face"? Do you mean "completely solve all problems" or "partially solve at least some problems"?.



Reforms can have some effect - this is not denied- but I would say the effect is marginal and circumstances dependent. Reforms can be ignored, whittled down or simply withdrawn come the (inevitable) recession. Many of the apparent gains that workers have made - such as in living stadards - have litte to do with refroms as such - notwithstanding the politicans' patter about how much they have done for us



Knotted said:


> I see no theoretical nor empirical reason to suppose that this is true.



Well its pretty simple really. If you accept there is a limit to the level of wages that a firm can afford to pay then exceeding this limit impairs the profitability of the firm in question which may then lead to layoffs and the like.  Increased unemployemt then reduces the bargaining power of workers and hence the level of wages they can expect to receive.  Like I said - its like water finding its own level



Knotted said:


> What I was critiquing was this idea that there is no free lunch from reforms under capitalism. From what Gravediggers has said I'm not even sure if the SPGB believe this anyway. But it's a very straight forward I gave it here.
> .




But there is no such thing as a free lunch under capitalism.  Everything has to be paid for in the end - including free subsidised services - out of tax revenues.  I cant see how you can possibly deny this



Knotted said:


> I don't care for the term "social wage", but anyway this is a non-sequitur. I agree that they are not independent, but it doesn't follow that there is an inverse relationship between them.
> .



Of course there is an inverse relationship. This is simple logic.  If both quantities are combined into a single value then it obviously follows that the share of one must increase only at the expense of the other.  This is a tautolgy.  Im not talking about their absolute values but their relative values. Their combined value can go up or down but their relative share goes up or down in inverse relationship to the share of the other




Knotted said:


> This sort of fatalistic anaylsis has a couple of curious upshots. If the NHS were scrapped, according to this theory this would be no loss for the working class as their wages would sky-rocket in proportion to that loss..



Yes thats correct - wages would rise to compensate but I am not suggest this would happen automatically. I am not fatalistic in that respect.  Workers would still have to struggle - capitalists are not goping to give it to them on a plate -but the circumstances would have changed making it easier for them to demand higher wages to pay for increased health costs.  



Knotted said:


> The other curious upshot is that successful reformism would lead to the collapse of capitalism. This is why I tend to think of the SPGB as revolutionary in word, but reformist in deed. They retain a formal revolutionary stance, but nevertheless pretend that deteremined reformist party can destroy the logic of capitalism.
> ..



No this is quite mistaken.  Capitalism wont collapse in the absence of a revolutionary majority determined to abolish it.  In fact what will happen is that long before refromism stood any chance of becoming "successful" in these terms, irresistable pressure would mount up meaning the reforms would simply be rolled back and whittled down to reduce the burden on capitalist enterprises and restore profitability




Knotted said:


> By the way, you haven't quite go the hang of Marxist economics. The argument isn't that the capitalists will try to compensate for their losses. The argument is that providing free health care reduces the value of labour as it becomes easier to maintain the working class and this leads to downward pressure on wages.




I think that is a touch pedantic because it really amounts to the same thing. Providing free health care is a cost burden on the capitalist class which has to be paid for somehow. I dont see any great problem with saying this increased cost is "compensated" for by downward pressure on wages resulting a reduced wages bill


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 3, 2010)

What we've got from robbo here, is in essence, the Lassallean 'iron law of wages' extended across the whole of society. It's something that the w/c developed beyond a few centuries ago.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 3, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Not quite sure what the above has to do with the issue. Marx was talking about the  need to lop off certain aspects of the state in order for the workers to wield it. My point about the max and min programmes was to point out their essential incompatibility and that the minimum of reformist programme would always win out in the end at the expesne of the max programme



Your question was about why the Second International degenerated into reformism. I've given you my answer so I'm forced to agree with your answer about the incompatability of supporting reforms and supporting a revolutionary program.




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> Reforms can have some effect - this is not denied- but I would say the effect is marginal and circumstances dependent. Reforms can be ignored, whittled down or simply withdrawn come the (inevitable) recession. Many of the apparent gains that workers have made - such as in living stadards - have litte to do with refroms as such - notwithstanding the politicans' patter about how much they have done for us



I don't care how minimal or circumstantial gains are from reforms. If they are gains then they should be defended.




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> Well its pretty simple really. If you accept there is a limit to the level of wages that a firm can afford to pay then exceeding this limit impairs the profitability of the firm in question which may then lead to layoffs and the like.  Increased unemployemt then reduces the bargaining power of workers and hence the level of wages they can expect to receive.  Like I said - its like water finding its own level



Firstly I don't think there is necessarily a limit although I accept that wage gains are limited. Secondly we're not talking about a single firm. I tell you what you should look up - Marx's counter to the theory of the iron law of wages. If wages increase accross the board then companies which are heavily dependent on labour will be at a relative dissadvantage. The economy is dynamic - there are no clear maximum levels of wages. Thirdly "social wages" are only loosely analagous to ordinary wages - you can't simply extend arguments from one to the other.




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> But there is no such thing as a free lunch under capitalism.  Everything has to be paid for in the end - including free subsidised services - out of tax revenues.  I cant see how you can possibly deny this



Paid for by whom? Capitalists can afford to pay even if they don't like it.




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> Of course there is an inverse relationship. This is simple logic.  If both quantities are combined into a single value then it obviously follows that the share of one must increase only at the expense of the other.  This is a tautolgy.  Im not talking about their absolute values but their relative values. Their combined value can go up or down but their relative share goes up or down in inverse relationship to the share of the other



If what you say is a tautology then you are saying nothing at all. If the combined value isn't a constant, then there is no reason to think that an increase in one leads to a decrease in the other.




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> Yes thats correct - wages would rise to compensate but I am not suggest this would happen automatically. I am not fatalistic in that respect.  Workers would still have to struggle - capitalists are not goping to give it to them on a plate -but the circumstances would have changed making it easier for them to demand higher wages to pay for increased health costs.



So the relation isn't an inverse one.




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> No this is quite mistaken.  Capitalism wont collapse in the absence of a revolutionary majority determined to abolish it.  In fact what will happen is that long before refromism stood any chance of becoming "successful" in these terms, irresistable pressure would mount up meaning the reforms would simply be rolled back and whittled down to reduce the burden on capitalist enterprises and restore profitability



Yes, this is the formal revolutionary stance. But if you or the SPGB are really arguing that progressive economic reforms are impossible under capitalism, then it follows that reformism is a genuine threat to capitalism.




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> I think that is a touch pedantic because it really amounts to the same thing. Providing free health care is a cost burden on the capitalist class which has to be paid for somehow. I dont see any great problem with saying this increased cost is "compensated" for by downward pressure on wages resulting a reduced wages bill



It isn't pedantic. I think understanding the economic theory is important. I think you are looking at what you imagine the conclusions of the economic theory to be. I really think it would be worthwhile for you to study Marx a bit more carefully.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 3, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Yes, this is the formal revolutionary stance. But if you or the SPGB are really arguing that progressive economic reforms are impossible under capitalism, then it follows that reformism is a genuine threat to capitalism.



On this their logic is very similar to the sort of trotskysim of the original 4th International and the 'transitional demands'  approach - but like so many of their positions they don't have the consistency to follow the logic through into coherent political positions.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> On this their logic is very similar to the sort of trotskysim of the original 4th International and the 'transitional demands'  approach - but like so many of their positions they don't have the consistency to follow the logic through into coherent political positions.



The transitional program is about linking immediate struggles up with the conquest of power. Whatever you think about it, it doesn't raise demands with the express purpose of making life impossible for the capitalists, it raises demands with the express purpose of raising class consciousness and promoting workers' power. (Workers' power by itself is not socialism of course.)

The Communist Party of Great Britain (Weekly Worker) have a maximalist minimum program which is geared to making capitalism impossible in practice.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 3, 2010)

That raising of class consciousness suggested in that approach is predicated on the inability of capital to offer the meaningful reforms demanded though. It's the same basic logic of 'how things happen' at play. The trots have followed the logic through and developed it into a political position - the SPGB just chop off the conclusion.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> That raising of class consciousness suggested in that approach is predicated on the inability of capital to offer the meaningful reforms demanded though. It's the same basic logic of 'how things happen' at play. The trots have followed the logic through and developed it into a political position - the SPGB just chop off the conclusion.



Not really. It is perhaps predicated on the inability of capital to continue without economic and military catastrophe - it was written in 1938 remember. But the demands in the program are not there to emphasise that capitalism leads to economic and military catastrophe. The demands are not there to point to the failings of capitalism but to prepare workers for power. For example setting up factory committees is perfectly compatible with the continued rule of capital.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 3, 2010)

I think you're just wrong there, the demands are ones that have been developed by the leadership partly to reflect (or push further) real actual w/c aspirations to the point at which capital cannot afford them - if it ever could. The inability of capital to reform itself in short (the system was not only rotting but already dead according to this perspective remember). What you're saying about TDs being intended to act as a bridge is correct, but it's a bridge built originally on what i argue above. The workers councils are built when the system shows to the workers through its inability to enact 'their' transitional demands that they need to act on their own power to do so. There's two parts to the position.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 3, 2010)

If you read the original transitional program, there isn't even very much in the way of demands for reforms. What could be regarded as reforms in the program - eg. sliding scale of wages are not supposed to be impossible under capitalism. All the time it emphasises working class organisation and workers' control. If we look at, say, CWI versions of the transitional program then you probably have a point.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 3, 2010)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravediggers View Post
I mentioned the CM to illustrate my point that his conception of revolutionary activity was dated. And if you had cared to read the passage above the one mentioning the lessons of the Paris Commune you would have seen I'm correct. However, if you understand the historical implications of this passage where Marx and Engles admitted their proposition for state-capitalist measures had been overtaken by the dynamics of class struggle and the development of capitalism - that is very doubtful - and suggests you enjoy the capitalist magic roundabout of reformist activity.



Knotted said:


> It's a pity they don't say that, though.



OK if they do not say that what is your take on this passage?


----------



## Knotted (Jul 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Gravediggers View Post
> I mentioned the CM to illustrate my point that his conception of revolutionary activity was dated. And if you had cared to read the passage above the one mentioning the lessons of the Paris Commune you would have seen I'm correct. However, if you understand the historical implications of this passage where Marx and Engles admitted their proposition for state-capitalist measures had been overtaken by the dynamics of class struggle and the development of capitalism - that is very doubtful - and suggests you enjoy the capitalist magic roundabout of reformist activity.
> 
> ...



Here's the passage:


> However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.”


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm

"Here and there some detail might be improved."

That's hardly supporting your claim that M&E regarded the demands in the Manifesto as class collaborationist, state capitalist measures.

"...this programme has in some details been antiquated."

That implies that they regarded some details as not being antiquated. All those demands fall short of abolishing the wages system and are thus in your view "state capitalist". You might think M&E were state capitalist, class collaborationist, reformists in 1848, but they clearly remained state capitalist, class collaborationst, reformists in 1872. Plus they said that the working class could not simply lay hold of the state machinery and wield it for it's own purpose. So they had also become anti-democratic Leninist, vanguardist swine by 1872.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 3, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> No, constitutional reforms are *not *reformist although that does not necessarily translate into a reason for supporting them.  it is not only because it is "reformist"  that something can be rejected; it can be rejected on other grounds as well!  So what if leftists politicans think such reforms are a step towards socialism?  That doesnt make them so, does it? Nor do your observations in any way address the fundamental argument I made for a  distinction between reformist-type reforms in trhe economic sphere and mere political reforms.
> 
> In fact, I would argue that this defintion of refromism that I have  been putting forward which is muc more tightly formuated than the rather woolly usage you have employed is implict in the SPGB's position  itself.  See for example http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/articles/revorref.html   In fact the credibility of the SPGB 's critique of reformism *depends *on the assumption that is trying to be reformed is the economic behaviour of the system itself which as I say is itself a socio-economic construction not a political one (capitalism is not defined by whether or not it possesses a bourgeois representative democratic form).
> 
> It really makes no sense to  include political reforms under the heading of reformism.  As I said the SPGB (quite rightly) argues that reformism detracts from a revolutionary perspective which is why it does not support reforms.  Yet it has said it would support (i.e. work for) certain political refroms such as basic democratic rights like the right to vote and assemble. It would be contradictory and incoherent therefore to include such reforms within a general critique of refromism, would it not?



Robbo this argument of yours is not the position of the SPGB for we do not make a distinction between political and economic reforms, indeed IMO and other members there is so much overlap and ambiguity between the two it is not worth the effort and there is nothing to be gained.  For instance, the introduction of PR whilst it is clearly a political reform our position is what it always has been in we neither support no oppose such reforms.  We made the same stand on the legalisation of homosexuality, which IMO questions your argument for a distinction to be made for it is neither political or economic.  Whether or not political reforms are part of the reformists gambit is neither here no there for they are still reforms.  If by chance a particular political reform is by its nature reformist I'm sure we shall point this out to the working class.

This whole business stems from the fact that butchers asked you for a reform we would support, and I replied after it was obvious you were being hesitant in replying.  Butchers being the political animal he is knew the SPGB supported the introduction of democracy and I don't think he was after a justification, only an explanation, and if I'm wrong on this I'm sure he will correct me.  But it seems that way because he hasn't come back on it.

The case for the SPGB stands or falls on democracy and I'm sure the posters on this thread understand that and accept it.  We don't have to justify our support by making a distinction that muddies the waters when an explanation will suffice.  But let us not forget the struggle for democracy was not only a hard and long fought battle but was also an essential part of class struggle and the battle for ideas.  That battle still continues with the SPGB at the forefront.


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 3, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Your question was about why the Second International degenerated into reformism. I've given you my answer so I'm forced to agree with your answer about the incompatability of supporting reforms and supporting a revolutionary program.
> .



OK so do I take it, then, that in supporting the reformist programme you logically reject the revolutionary programme? Put differently you accept as unalterable the fact of capitalism's existence and have no interest therefore in a socialist alternative?  Is this a fair summary?






Knotted said:


> Firstly I don't think there is necessarily a limit although I accept that wage gains are limited. Secondly we're not talking about a single firm. I tell you what you should look up - Marx's counter to the theory of the iron law of wages. If wages increase accross the board then companies which are heavily dependent on labour will be at a relative dissadvantage. The economy is dynamic - there are no clear maximum levels of wages. Thirdly "social wages" are only loosely analagous to ordinary wages - you can't simply extend arguments from one to the other.



Marx's counter to the iron law of wages was essentially that increased wages would eat into the capitalists share of product and the idea that capitalists could respond to increased wages by simply putting up prices was a myth - market competition precluded that oiption.  However, this does not mean that there is no limit to how much wages could rise.  If that were the case then by the logic of your argument business could continue to pay workers more and more with impunity which is obviously nonsense. The bottom line is that if a firm cannot make a profit, if its operatimng (including wage) costs exceed its revenue it goes bust in which case the workers are laid off.  So there is a limit and that limit is set by by the need to maintain profitability.

I dont get your point about the "social wage".  The social wage has to be paid for just like the money wages that workers receive directly.  Both therefore represent a cost to the capitalists so there are indeed strong prima facie grounds for extending arguments from one to the other contrary to what you say







Knotted said:


> Paid for by whom? Capitalists can afford to pay even if they don't like it.




But capitalists are in competition with one another not just locally but on a global level.  They need to be competitive to compete.  Amongst other things that means reducing or externalising their costs including the social wage. You seem to suggesting that you can somehow have capitalism without the basic structural pressures that go with it - like the need to accummulate capital out of surplus value.  The cost of the social wage clearly enters into this picture.  Why do you think the politicos are talking so much about the need to reduce the budget deficit through sweeping cuts. Its not just idle talk.  It is in response to very real structural constraints.  The productive or surplus value-producing sector of the ecnomy is under severe pressure  and the capitalist state needs to find ways to reduce the burden on this sector while juggling with other considerations as well.  Its a balancing act



Knotted said:


> If what you say is a tautology then you are saying nothing at all. If the combined value isn't a constant, then there is no reason to think that an increase in one leads to a decrease in the other.



But I said quite clearly I wasnt talking about an absolute increase in one leading to a decrease in the other.  I was talking about their relative share of the combined value. Yes its a tautolgy to say an increase in one means a decrease in the other but a tautology by defintion is correct even if it adds nothing to the argument.  The real thrust of my argument was to get you to focus on the combined value of money wagses and the social wage.  It is this combined value that is subject to structural constraints so that if the combined value as limited by these constrains were to amount to, say, £40k pa per worker then an increase in the money wage would necessarily result in a reduction of the social wage within this limit - and of course vice versa.  But as I said before, this is not something that happens automatically.  The workers have to struggle to maintain their share of the social product.





Knotted said:


> So the relation isn't an inverse one.




It is and for the reason explained. You have confused an absolute increase with a relative increase



Knotted said:


> Yes, this is the formal revolutionary stance. But if you or the SPGB are really arguing that progressive economic reforms are impossible under capitalism, then it follows that reformism is a genuine threat to capitalism.



Thats absurd!  For starters how can reformism which after all seeks to refrom the way capitalism functions be a threat to its existence?  Secondly no one has said progressive economic reforms are not possible under capitalism.  What has been said is that they will necessarily be limited (long terms increase in living standards have very little to do with refroms as such) and circumstance-dependent.  A reform granted at one point in time can be withdrawn at another. Or just ignored.  Reforms like the NHS were not a threat to capitalism in any way shape or form.  In fact , it was some of the big capitalists including Tory capitalists who were in the forefront in pushing for the kind of changes advocated in the Beveridge Report.  Would they do that if they thought the welfare state was some kind of genuine threat to capitalism? I think not


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> That battle still continues with the SPGB at the forefront.



Bless


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 3, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Here's the passage:
> 
> http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm
> 
> ...



I knew you would not accept the implications of that passage and attempt to place them entirely out of their historical context.  For to place this passage in its historical context means accepting the struggle for certain reforms to improve the condition of the working class has been dated by events.  So in your mind the class struggle and capitalism has not moved on since 1848 and we can safely ignore the fact of the dynamics of class struggle and stick with the old scripts for they justify your position to support reforms and be a revolutionary.  Like I've previously pointed out this position is not only incompatible but also denies that the two positions are diametrically opposed.

It is you who is implying that M&E had, "become anti-democratic Leninist, vanguardist swine by 1872", not us.   In fact we take the view that what they were explaining here is the state machinery is only for the benefit of the minority class and the sooner it is transformed, converted or fashioned into an instrument of self-emancipation the sooner the revolution becomes a fact.  Leninist insist on retaining the state we say the first act of the revolutionary delegates will be to abolish it for the simple reason it do not suit our purpose.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 3, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> OK so do I take it, then, that in supporting the reformist programme you logically reject the revolutionary programme? Put differently you accept as unalterable the fact of capitalism's existence and have no interest therefore in a socialist alternative?  Is this a fair summary?



Oops, there should have been a "not" in there, as in:




			
				Knotted said:
			
		

> I've given you my answer so I'm *not* forced to agree with your answer about the incompatability of supporting reforms and supporting a revolutionary program.






			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> Marx's counter to the iron law of wages was essentially that increased wages would eat into the capitalists share of product and the idea that capitalists could respond to increased wages by simply putting up prices was a myth - market competition precluded that oiption.  However, this does not mean that there is no limit to how much wages could rise.  If that were the case then by the logic of your argument business could continue to pay workers more and more with impunity which is obviously nonsense. The bottom line is that if a firm cannot make a profit, if its operatimng (including wage) costs exceed its revenue it goes bust in which case the workers are laid off.  So there is a limit and that limit is set by by the need to maintain profitability.



But the limit is dependent on the market, on technology, on overheads and probably other factors I can't think of. Non of which are set in stone. So yes wage increases are limited, but you cannot pinpoint a limit.




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> I dont get your point about the "social wage".  The social wage has to be paid for just like the money wages that workers receive directly.  Both therefore represent a cost to the capitalists so there are indeed strong prima facie grounds for extending arguments from one to the other contrary to what you say



It isn't a wage. It might be a cost to the capitalists, but it isn't a wage. Increases in wages have certain effects, increases in the social wage have other effects. Remember that the limit to wages is not set in stone.




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> But capitalists are in competition with one another not just locally but on a global level.  They need to be competitive to compete.  Amongst other things that means reducing or externalising their costs including the social wage. You seem to suggesting that you can somehow have capitalism without the basic structural pressures that go with it - like the need to accummulate capital out of surplus value.  The cost of the social wage clearly enters into this picture.  Why do you think the politicos are talking so much about the need to reduce the budget deficit through sweeping cuts. Its not just idle talk.  It is in response to very real structural constraints.  The productive or surplus value-producing sector of the ecnomy is under severe pressure  and the capitalist state needs to find ways to reduce the burden on this sector while juggling with other considerations as well.  Its a balancing act



Well yes. Let's stop all this talk the "social wage" and talk about taxes. These are the costs that the capitalists are paying to the state. This includes taxes for military expenditure. They can pay it and survive. They will indeed complain that high taxes make them uncompetative. But still they tend to survive - especially the big capitalists.




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> But I said quite clearly I wasnt talking about an absolute increase in one leading to a decrease in the other.  I was talking about their relative share of the combined value. Yes its a tautolgy to say an increase in one means a decrease in the other but a tautology by defintion is correct even if it adds nothing to the argument.



If one increases relatively compared to the combined value then it has a greater share of the combined value. Yep definately a tautology. I don't know what this has to do with "inverse relations".




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> The real thrust of my argument was to get you to focus on the combined value of money wagses and the social wage.  It is this combined value that is subject to structural constraints so that if the combined value as limited by these constrains were to amount to, say, £40k pa per worker then an increase in the money wage would necessarily result in a reduction of the social wage within this limit - and of course vice versa.  But as I said before, this is not something that happens automatically.  The workers have to struggle to maintain their share of the social product.



I see no theoretical or empirical reason to believe that the limit to the combined value is fixed or independent of increases in either value.




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> It is and for the reason explained. You have confused an absolute increase with a relative increase



I'm pretty sure I understand what you are saying.




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> Thats absurd!  For starters how can reformism which after all seeks to refrom the way capitalism functions be a threat to its existence?  Secondly no one has said progressive economic reforms are not possible under capitalism.  What has been said is that they will necessarily be limited (long terms increase in living standards have very little to do with refroms as such) and circumstance-dependent.  A reform granted at one point in time can be withdrawn at another. Or just ignored.  Reforms like the NHS were not a threat to capitalism in any way shape or form.  In fact , it was some of the big capitalists including Tory capitalists who were in the forefront in pushing for the kind of changes advocated in the Beveridge Report.  Would they do that if they thought the welfare state was some kind of genuine threat to capitalism? I think not



If the reforms break these strict limits, you seem to be suggesting that capitalism will collapse of it's own accord.

The NHS has come a long way from the Beveridge Report by the way. To put it simply - if the NHS were purely about creating an efficient working class, then they wouldn't treat pensioners.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 3, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I knew you would not accept the implications of that passage and attempt to place them entirely out of their historical context.  For to place this passage in its historical context means accepting the struggle for certain reforms to improve the condition of the working class has been dated by events.  So in your mind the class struggle and capitalism has not moved on since 1848 and we can safely ignore the fact of the dynamics of class struggle and stick with the old scripts for they justify your position to support reforms and be a revolutionary.  Like I've previously pointed out this position is not only incompatible but also denies that the two positions are diametrically opposed.



I'm just reading the words. It's what they say. They say nothing about "the struggle for certain reforms to improve the condition of the working class being dated". The Communist Manifesto did not say anything about struggling for reforms to improve the condition of the working class, they talk about "despotic inroads on the rights of property" by the working class after it has seized power.




			
				Gravedigger said:
			
		

> It is you who is implying that M&E had, "become anti-democratic Leninist, vanguardist swine by 1872", not us.   In fact we take the view that what they were explaining here is the state machinery is only for the benefit of the minority class and the sooner it is transformed, converted or fashioned into an instrument of self-emancipation the sooner the revolution becomes a fact.  Leninist insist on retaining the state we say the first act of the revolutionary delegates will be to abolish it for the simple reason it do not suit our purpose.



You can't take them at their word. You have to, as you would put it, "twist their words". They are not talking about who benefits from state machinery they are talking about whether the working class should seize the state machinery as it is.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 3, 2010)

Knotted said:


> I'm just reading the words. It's what they say. They say nothing about "the struggle for certain reforms to improve the condition of the working class being dated". The Communist Manifesto did not say anything about struggling for reforms to improve the condition of the working class, they talk about "despotic inroads on the rights of property" by the working class after it has seized power.



Yes its pretty well obvious that you are just reading the words and has such completely failing to put them into their historical context.  When M&E wrote the _Communist Manifesto_ they wrote in the context of a developing capitalism and in recognition that capitalism had not yet reached the stage of producing an abundance of products.  They therefore suggested the state-capitalist measures in Section II as a means of shortening this stage of development in the knowledge that without an abundance of products socialism would be incapable of meeting human needs.

By 1872 the picture had changed entirely and to such an extent that Section II had been largely made redundant.  Admittedly, capitalism was not yet fully developed into a globalised integrated production unit, but they had formed the impression it was developed sufficiently to produce an abundance in products, and also to admit the measures laid down in the manifesto had been made _'antiquated'_ by historical developments.

Since 1848 (and 1872) capitalism is now fully developed in the sense of becoming a globalised integrated production unit and in respect of the political dominance of the state machinery.  Which means in effect that with capitalism having served its purpose by producing an abundance, and unable to deliver this abundance, it has made itself redundant. Therefore, the measures proposed by M&E are now completely out of date and bear no relevance to the present day class struggle, other than like M&E urged their writings have to be put into their historical context.  Which by the way is the Marxian tradition.




> You can't take them at their word. You have to, as you would put it, "twist their words". They are not talking about who benefits from state machinery they are talking about whether the working class should seize the state machinery as it is.



Its you who is twisting words yet again.  Of course they are talking about who benefits from the state machinery in the knowledge that the state is not neutral.  And therefore for the working class to abolish the instrument of their oppression.


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 4, 2010)

Knotted said:


> But the limit is dependent on the market, on technology, on overheads and probably other factors I can't think of. Non of which are set in stone. So yes wage increases are limited, but you cannot pinpoint a limit..



Well like I said the bottom line is can an enterprise continue to make profit in the face of increased costs. That is a a prret definite limit isnt it?



Knotted said:


> It isn't a wage. It might be a cost to the capitalists, but it isn't a wage. Increases in wages have certain effects, increases in the social wage have other effects. Remember that the limit to wages is not set in stone..



I know it isnt a wage strictly speaking but it is not called a social wage for no reason.  Both an increase in the social wage and an increase in the money wage have an effect in common in that they both have to be paid for and so represent a cost - even if there is a difference in how the cost is paid for in each case



Knotted said:


> Well yes. Let's stop all this talk the "social wage" and talk about taxes. These are the costs that the capitalists are paying to the state. This includes taxes for military expenditure. They can pay it and survive. They will indeed complain that high taxes make them uncompetative. But still they tend to survive - especially the big capitalists...



Sure they tend to survive but like I said the state has to juggle with a number of considerations.  It cant afford to impose a tax burden so great that it kills the goose that lays the golden eggs.  So it curbs the tax burden at some point and so limits what it can afford to pay out in terms of the social wage



Knotted said:


> I see no theoretical or empirical reason to believe that the limit to the combined value is fixed or independent of increases in either value.



The bottom line is profit. Without profit, enterprises can offer no further wage increases becuase the enterprises will be no more.  They will have gone bust.  Its as simple as that. Similarly governments can offer no furher increases in the social wage for the reason that the wherewithal to pay for it will no longer be forthcoming. In point of fact long befpore this end game has even been arrived at, increasing counter pressue on both money wages and the social wage will have begun to take effect if industry is to compete efffectively



Knotted said:


> If the reforms break these strict limits, you seem to be suggesting that capitalism will collapse of it's own accord..



I am saying that there is not a snowball's chance in hell of this happening. Of course tecnbically if the costs faced by businesses ]everywhere exceeded their revenue  then I guess ca[pitalism would collapse.  But capitalism simply does not operate like that does?.  Well before such a completely hypothetical situation wagses would begin falling as the growing toll of unemployment made itself felt



Knotted said:


> The NHS has come a long way from the Beveridge Report by the way. To put it simply - if the NHS were purely about creating an efficient working class, then they wouldn't treat pensioners.



True there are other considerations here beside creating an efficient working class.  Apart from anything else pensioners are voters too.  Also they are what we will all end up becoming if we dont peg it on the way.  Nevertheless this does not in any way detract from the fact that findings of the Beverrdge Report had the support of significant sections of the capitalist class who saw state welfare as a more cost effective solution than the haphazrad peiucemeal  solutions offered by private enterprise.  That remains the case today and that is why all the main capitalist parties -  labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories - have committed themselves to the maintenance of the NHS in some form despite growing concern  about the rising costs it faces


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 4, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Robbo this argument of yours is not the position of the SPGB for we do not make a distinction between political and economic reforms, indeed IMO and other members there is so much overlap and ambiguity between the two it is not worth the effort and there is nothing to be gained.  For instance, the introduction of PR whilst it is clearly a political reform our position is what it always has been in we neither support no oppose such reforms.  We made the same stand on the legalisation of homosexuality, which IMO questions your argument for a distinction to be made for it is neither political or economic.  Whether or not political reforms are part of the reformists gambit is neither here no there for they are still reforms.  If by chance a particular political reform is by its nature reformist I'm sure we shall point this out to the working class.
> 
> This whole business stems from the fact that butchers asked you for a reform we would support, and I replied after it was obvious you were being hesitant in replying.  Butchers being the political animal he is knew the SPGB supported the introduction of democracy and I don't think he was after a justification, only an explanation, and if I'm wrong on this I'm sure he will correct me.  But it seems that way because he hasn't come back on it.
> 
> The case for the SPGB stands or falls on democracy and I'm sure the posters on this thread understand that and accept it.  We don't have to justify our support by making a distinction that muddies the waters when an explanation will suffice.  But let us not forget the struggle for democracy was not only a hard and long fought battle but was also an essential part of class struggle and the battle for ideas.  That battle still continues with the SPGB at the forefront.



Actually this confrims precisely the point I was making that the SPGB tends to use the term reformism in a rather vague sloppy catchall fashion and that that far from a clear cut distinction between economic refroms and political refroms "muddying the waters"  it is precisely this apporach to the question of reformism that does that.  

My argument is that the SPGB seriously undermines it own case case against reformism by doing this.  You have not confronted, but only skirted around, the basic question I asked at the outset - what precisely is being "reformed" when we talk about refromism?  The logical answer is that reformism is an attempt to reform capitalism and that capitalism being a socio economic constructiuon,  not a political or legal entity, this means that reforms that come under the rubric of reformism must essentially be economic reforms. Introducing PR is not reformist , it is simply a political reform.  Whether it is worth supporting is another argument altogether but you cannot coherenty oppose it on the vague grounds that it is somehow reformist

Its the same with the legalisation of homosexuality.  True this is not a political reform nor  an economic reform but it another kind of reform - a social reform - which, like political reforms, are not reformist.

The SPGB needs to rethink this question of reformism, it is one of a number of areas where it is very vulnerable to criticism


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 4, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Actually this confrims precisely the point I was making that the SPGB tends to use the term reformism in a rather vague sloppy catchall fashion and that that far from a clear cut distinction between economic refroms and political refroms "muddying the waters"  it is precisely this apporach to the question of reformism that does that.
> 
> My argument is that the SPGB seriously undermines it own case case against reformism by doing this.  You have not confronted, but only skirted around, the basic question I asked at the outset - what precisely is being "reformed" when we talk about refromism?  The logical answer is that reformism is an attempt to reform capitalism and that capitalism being a socio economic constructiuon,  not a political or legal entity, this means that reforms that come under the rubric of reformism must essentially be economic reforms. Introducing PR is not reformist , it is simply a political reform.  Whether it is worth supporting is another argument altogether but you cannot coherenty oppose it on the vague grounds that it is somehow reformist
> 
> ...



So now we find social reforms are added to the rubric of reforms?  What next will we find if we dig a little bit deeper?   But will it make any difference what so ever when basically the SPGB do not support or oppose  reforms and also we make it quite that not all reforms are of a reformist nature.  You are typically making a mountain out of a molehill in a rather poor attempt to keep your ego intact because you failed to detect that all butchers was after was an explanation and not a justification.

Isn't far simpler and easier to get off your high horse and admit you are making a mistake and on a hiding to nothing?  But knowing you, you have decided to take the bit between your teeth and run with it come hell or high water, just to prove your obstinacy.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 4, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Yes its pretty well obvious that you are just reading the words and has such completely failing to put them into their historical context.  When M&E wrote the _Communist Manifesto_ they wrote in the context of a developing capitalism and in recognition that capitalism had not yet reached the stage of producing an abundance of products.  They therefore suggested the state-capitalist measures in Section II as a means of shortening this stage of development in the knowledge that without an abundance of products socialism would be incapable of meeting human needs.
> 
> By 1872 the picture had changed entirely and to such an extent that Section II had been largely made redundant.  Admittedly, capitalism was not yet fully developed into a globalised integrated production unit, but they had formed the impression it was developed sufficiently to produce an abundance in products, and also to admit the measures laid down in the manifesto had been made _'antiquated'_ by historical developments.
> 
> Since 1848 (and 1872) capitalism is now fully developed in the sense of becoming a globalised integrated production unit and in respect of the political dominance of the state machinery.  Which means in effect that with capitalism having served its purpose by producing an abundance, and unable to deliver this abundance, it has made itself redundant. Therefore, the measures proposed by M&E are now completely out of date and bear no relevance to the present day class struggle, other than like M&E urged their writings have to be put into their historical context.  Which by the way is the Marxian tradition.



It's a pity they don't say that.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> Its you who is twisting words yet again.  Of course they are talking about who benefits from the state machinery in the knowledge that the state is not neutral.  And therefore for the working class to abolish the instrument of their oppression.



It's a pity they don't say that either.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 4, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Well like I said the bottom line is can an enterprise continue to make profit in the face of increased costs. That is a a prret definite limit isnt it?



You're trying to do an "all other things being equal" type of argument. It might just work for a single company, but if we are talking about wage increases accross the board then we are probably talking about price increases, different investments, different business strategies, different companies being affected in differenet ways etc. You can't talk about wage increases and fix everything else. Economics just isn't that easy.




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> I know it isnt a wage strictly speaking but it is not called a social wage for no reason.  Both an increase in the social wage and an increase in the money wage have an effect in common in that they both have to be paid for and so represent a cost - even if there is a difference in how the cost is paid for in each case



You could increase the social wage at the expense of military expenditure ie. without the capitalists having to pay an extra penny. But besides that, the repercussions of increases the social wage will have different repercussions of increases in wages. It's all a bit more complicated than you might think.




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> Sure they tend to survive but like I said the state has to juggle with a number of considerations.  It cant afford to impose a tax burden so great that it kills the goose that lays the golden eggs.  So it curbs the tax burden at some point and so limits what it can afford to pay out in terms of the social wage
> 
> 
> The bottom line is profit. Without profit, enterprises can offer no further wage increases becuase the enterprises will be no more.  They will have gone bust.  Its as simple as that. Similarly governments can offer no furher increases in the social wage for the reason that the wherewithal to pay for it will no longer be forthcoming. In point of fact long befpore this end game has even been arrived at, increasing counter pressue on both money wages and the social wage will have begun to take effect if industry is to compete efffectively



How close is the state from killing the goose that lays the golden eggs? Is it absolute necessity that drives state policy? I don't think so. I think there is considerable give. Capitalism can survive in states with high expenditure, it can survive in war zones, it can survive social upheaval. It's not the fragile creature you make it out to be.





			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> I am saying that there is not a snowball's chance in hell of this happening. Of course tecnbically if the costs faced by businesses ]everywhere exceeded their revenue  then I guess ca[pitalism would collapse.  But capitalism simply does not operate like that does?.  Well before such a completely hypothetical situation wagses would begin falling as the growing toll of unemployment made itself felt



I think we're getting closer to your real point. Don't struggle for any advances - you won't win.





			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> True there are other considerations here beside creating an efficient working class.  Apart from anything else pensioners are voters too.  Also they are what we will all end up becoming if we dont peg it on the way.  Nevertheless this does not in any way detract from the fact that findings of the Beverrdge Report had the support of significant sections of the capitalist class who saw state welfare as a more cost effective solution than the haphazrad peiucemeal  solutions offered by private enterprise.  That remains the case today and that is why all the main capitalist parties -  labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories - have committed themselves to the maintenance of the NHS in some form despite growing concern  about the rising costs it faces



I agree that this is part of it. However, if I remember correctly, the Beveridge report was also concerned about the possibility of post war upheaval. The welfare state was introduced under pressure from the working class.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 4, 2010)

For Gravediggers:



> During the subsequent regimes, the government, placed under parliamentary control – that is, under the direct control of the propertied classes – became not only a hotbed of huge national debts and crushing taxes; with its irresistible allurements of place, pelf, and patronage, it became not only the bone of contention between the rival factions and adventurers of the ruling classes; but its political character changed simultaneously with the economic changes of society. At the same pace at which the progress of modern industry developed, widened, intensified the class antagonism between capital and labor, the state power assumed more and more the character of the national power of capital over labor, of a public force organized for social enslavement, of an engine of class despotism.


Marx, The Civil War in France.

If we're talking about historical context, let's be clear that when Marx and Engels were talking about the gigantic strides made by modern industry since 1848, they weren't implicitly saying that the socialist revolution could march straight to socialism overnight without having to go throught a phase of "despotic inroads on the rights of property". If you can think for yourself for a minute rather than think as an SPGB propaganda machine, it should be obvious that if Marx and Engels had come to such an important conclusion then they would have taken the trouble to spell it out rather than leave it as some sort of cryptic note that only the SPGB code breakers can see.

But also in the passage quoted above it is clear that Marx saw the development of modern industry as shaping the character of the state. Here you don't see cryptic messages in Marx and Engels, here you can't even read what they say. Shall I quote it again?



> One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.”



This isn't anarchist or maximalist anti-statism ie. states are bad 'mkay. It is a comment about the character of the bourgeois state and whether it can be used by the working class.

Why did Marx draw this conclusion. Well if we read on:



> Paris, the central seat of the old governmental power, and, at the same time, the social stronghold of the French working class, had risen in arms against the attempt of Thiers and the Rurals to restore and perpetuate that old governmental power bequeathed to them by the empire. Paris could resist only because, in consequence of the siege, it had got rid of the army, and replaced it by a National Guard, the bulk of which consisted of working men. This fact was now to be transformed into an institution. The first decree of the Commune, therefore, was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people.



This is what Marx had learnt. You don't try to capture the state through the electoral process in order to neutralise the army and the police or use them for your own purposes - you need to substitute the forces of the state for the armed people.

Did the commune immediately abolish the wages system and establish socialism in one city? No. Did Marx raise any criticism of them for not doing this? No. Did they make despotic inroads on the rights of property? Yes. Did Marx complain? No. Was the commune what you inanely call "state capitalism"? Yes. Did Marx have any problem with "state capitalism"? No.

Now of course Marx and Engels could have been wrong. If you had the courage of your convictions you would argue your case regardless of what Marx and Engels had said. You wouldn't have pretend they say one thing whereas in fact they say the opposite.


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 4, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> So now we find social reforms are added to the rubric of reforms?  What next will we find if we dig a little bit deeper?   But will it make any difference what so ever when basically the SPGB do not support or oppose  reforms and also we make it quite that not all reforms are of a reformist nature.  You are typically making a mountain out of a molehill in a rather poor attempt to keep your ego intact because you failed to detect that all butchers was after was an explanation and not a justification.
> 
> Isn't far simpler and easier to get off your high horse and admit you are making a mistake and on a hiding to nothing?  But knowing you, you have decided to take the bit between your teeth and run with it come hell or high water, just to prove your obstinacy.




Thats a bit rich.  Instead of getting all haughty and dismissive about it, how about actually dealing with arguments I have been trying to present.  Your gratuitous ad hoiminens sniff of evasion.  I do think there is a serious problem with the way in which the the SPGB goes about dealing with the question of reformism and if you think this is making a mountain out of a molehill then, evidently, you havent a clue.

Considering that the "reform or revolution" question is arguably *the *central question around which the whole impossibilist tradition emerged  your whole _laissez faire _approach to this matter is frankly shocking.  Oh it doesn matter, you say, cos we neither support nor oppose refroms anyway.  Not the point Gravedigger.  The point is *WHY*do you oppose them.  Whats the rationale for this oppposition?  It is surely to assert that capitalism cannot be run in the interests of the working class, that the dynamics of the system, its inner economic "laws", resist the attempts of reformist political parties , however well meaning, to induce the leopard to change its spots.

*This crucial point begins to be lost once you start including under the rubric of reformism, reforms that are not of an essentially economic nature*.  You are the one who is muddying the water not me in this instance.  And its not a molehill that we are looking at either.  It is part of the very reason why the SPGB came into existence

In an early post you commented 

_Robbo this argument of yours is not the position of the SPGB for we do not make a distinction between political and economic reforms, indeed IMO and other members there is so much overlap and ambiguity between the two it is not worth the effort and there is nothing to be gained._

This  however does not prevent you from now saying that you make it quite clear that 

_not all reforms are of a reformist nature._

Which is what I have been trying to tell you all along!

Like I said your whole approach to the question of refromism is muddled, and sloppy.  I dont know if its just you or the SPGB in general , I suspect some members would not agree with your comments above. So what reforms. in you esteemed opinion, are "not of a reformist nature".  Wait, let me guess.  Ah yes, its reforms like the institutionalisation of basic democratic rights which the SPGB has committed itself to supporting. Political reforms in short.  So its not true that that "SPGB do not support or oppose  reforms", is it?  It does support some reforms notably these.   And yet you can say that _we do not make a distinction between political and economic reforms, _ becuase there is  _so much overlap and ambiguity between the two it is not worth the effort and there is nothing to be gained_ Spot the contradiction!

Look, all I am trying to say is that the SPGB case against reformism is based on an economic analysis of capitalism and that logically speaking that means that the kind of refroms that it is talking about here are essentially economic reforms.  Political reforms like PR or social refroms like the legalisation of gay rights are *not *refromist in this sense and just becuase they are not refromist does not mean you must neccesarily support or oppose them. You dont  need to invoke the bogey of "refromism" on each and every occasion you know.

If you had tried to engage with the argument I have tried to present here instead of airly dismissing it in your usual fashion you might have begun to have gasped the significance of making a distinction between _reformist _reforms and _non-reformist _reforms.  The irony is that you now finally concede that _not all reforms are of a reformist nature_.  But if I understand you correctly you simply can't be arsed to explain the differnence cos there is _so much overlap and ambiguity between the two it is not worth the effort and there is nothing to be gained_ 

Thats a bit pathetic dont you think?  Basically you are saying that we must just accept what the SPGB says _ex cathedra _that "not all reforms are of a reformist nature" without being given any kind of coherent explanation as to *why *this must be so!


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 4, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> > Considering that the "reform or revolution" question is arguably *the *central question around which the whole impossibilist tradition emerged  your whole _laissez faire _approach to this matter is frankly shocking.  Oh it doesn matter, you say, cos we neither support nor oppose refroms anyway.  Not the point Gravedigger.  The point is *WHY*do you oppose them.  Whats the rationale for this oppposition?  It is surely to assert that capitalism cannot be run in the interests of the working class, that the dynamics of the system, its inner economic "laws", resist the attempts of reformist political parties , however well meaning, to induce the leopard to change its spots.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 4, 2010)

Knotted said:


> For Gravediggers:
> 
> 
> Marx, The Civil War in France.
> ...



Why should they have to spell it out when they were stating the obvious?



> But also in the passage quoted above it is clear that Marx saw the development of modern industry as shaping the character of the state. Here you don't see cryptic messages in Marx and Engels, here you can't even read what they say. Shall I quote it again?





> Quote:
> One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.”





> This isn't anarchist or maximalist anti-statism ie. states are bad 'mkay. It is a comment about the character of the bourgeois state and whether it can be used by the working class.



This is exactly the point I made and emphasised that the state can not be used by the workers.



> Why did Marx draw this conclusion. Well if we read on:





> Quote:
> Paris, the central seat of the old governmental power, and, at the same time, the social stronghold of the French working class, had risen in arms against the attempt of Thiers and the Rurals to restore and perpetuate that old governmental power bequeathed to them by the empire. Paris could resist only because, in consequence of the siege, it had got rid of the army, and replaced it by a National Guard, the bulk of which consisted of working men. This fact was now to be transformed into an institution. The first decree of the Commune, therefore, was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people.





> This is what Marx had learnt. You don't try to capture the state through the electoral process in order to neutralise the army and the police or use them for your own purposes - you need to substitute the forces of the state for the armed people.



You again fail to place this passage in its historical context and forgetting that since then we have seen the introduction of democracy.  And in the process also forgetting that M&E endorsed democracy as an instrument for self-emancipation.  In fact Engles made the point that democracy had made the days of the barricades obsolete.  If we were to take the implication of your argument, albeit out of its historical context, how long do you think this substitute of the state would last against the modern armed forces?



> Did the commune immediately abolish the wages system and establish socialism in one city? No. Did Marx raise any criticism of them for not doing this? No. Did they make despotic inroads on the rights of property? Yes. Did Marx complain? No. Was the commune what you inanely call "state capitalism"? Yes. Did Marx have any problem with "state capitalism"? No.
> 
> Now of course Marx and Engels could have been wrong. If you had the courage of your convictions you would argue your case regardless of what Marx and Engels had said. You wouldn't have pretend they say one thing whereas in fact they say the opposite.




We do argue our case "regardless of what Marx and Engels had said" and some socialist do argue that on many occasions M&E were wrong to propose certain measures and even that they drew the wrong conclusions from the lessons to be learned from class struggle.  Others, myself included, argue that the Marxian tradition places Marx thoughts in their historical context, which Marx himself argued for.  By adopting this platform we place M&E in the circumstances of the time and see an explanation for the positions they adopted are appertaining to that era of class struggle.  

This enables us to then state, _'Yes there are lessons to learned from past class struggles, but those lessons will only be learned if we place them in a modern context'._  I suggest this is the very point you are ignoring.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 4, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Why should they have to spell it out when they were stating the obvious?



Do you really expect me to treat such bluster with anything but contempt?




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> This is exactly the point I made and emphasised that the state can not be used by the workers.



See it's not me twisting your words but you, look what you actually said:




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> In fact we take the view that what they were explaining here is the state machinery is only for the benefit of the minority class and the sooner it is transformed, converted or fashioned into an instrument of self-emancipation the sooner the revolution becomes a fact.



You wish to transform, convert or fashion the state into an instrument of self-emancipation. That sounds like using it to me.

Again Marx and Engels:


> One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.”



Perhaps you wish to transform, convert or fashion it first before you lay hold of it?




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> You again fail to place this passage in its historical context and forgetting that since then we have seen the introduction of democracy.  And in the process also forgetting that M&E endorsed democracy as an instrument for self-emancipation.



The passage says nothing about democracy. What are you on about? Do you mean parliamentary democracy?




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> In fact Engles made the point that democracy had made the days of the barricades obsolete.



If Engels said somewhere that Democracy makes the days of the barricades obsolete, then he forgot to tell the Paris commune.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> If we were to take the implication of your argument, albeit out of its historical context, how long do you think this substitute of the state would last against the modern armed forces?



I'm not making any argument. I'm just pointing out what Marx and Engels said. I'm just curious why you are so keen to distort their words. But to answer your question - it rather depends on whether sections of the soldiers can be won over.

How long do you think a revolutionary socialist party heading parliment can last without a military coup? Or is that just not cricket?




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> We do argue our case "regardless of what Marx and Engels had said" and some socialist do argue that on many occasions M&E were wrong to propose certain measures and even that they drew the wrong conclusions from the lessons to be learned from class struggle.  Others, myself included, argue that the Marxian tradition places Marx thoughts in their historical context, which Marx himself argued for.  By adopting this platform we place M&E in the circumstances of the time and see an explanation for the positions they adopted are appertaining to that era of class struggle.
> 
> This enables us to then state, _'Yes there are lessons to learned from past class struggles, but those lessons will only be learned if we place them in a modern context'._  I suggest this is the very point you are ignoring.



But you think that advocating reforms is class collaboration. How do you place that in historical context? See for example:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 4, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> The whole crux of you tedious argument is that we are opposed to reforms when you know full well that is not the case.  Indeed, there have been numerous occasions when you have argued this on this thread. .




Really? So you think that I said the SPGB is "opposed to reforms" when I have been at pains to point that there is big difference between opposing reforms and opposing reformism and that this is precisely the point that the SPGB constantly makes. Goes to show that you haven't been paying a soddin bit of attention to what I have been arguing, so intent have you been on haughtily putting down poor old robbo.  Next time I rise to the defence of the SPGB remind me not to do so  





Gravediggers said:


> And you knew all along that this in fact is our position yet you insist on making a distinction which in our opinion is unnecessary, just because we support the introduction of democracy..




This gets from bad to worse.  You say you know that it is the SPGB's  position that "_not all reforms are of a reformist nature._"  and yet you ask why am I making distinction (between these reforms and reforms that are of a reformist nature) when it is all so "unecessary".  Curious that.  If it is so unneccesary why on earth would you say not all reforms are of a reformist nature in the the first place. eh? This *is *precisely to make a distinction between these reforms and those that are of a "reformist nature". To say your argument is completely confused and contradictory would be an understatement.




Gravediggers said:


> There is no contradiction between not supporting and not opposing reforms and supporting the introduction of democracy.  If we failed to support the introduction of democracy that would be in contradiction to our case for our whole case rests or falls on democracy.
> .



There certainly is a contradiction! If you say you dont support reforms then there is no way you can say  you support a political refrom like the introduction of democracy (which incidentally i support thought this is not reformist) without this involving a contradiction.  What you really mean to say is that you dont support *reformist *refroms i.e. economic reforms  and that is something I would go along with too.  However you think it is not "necessary" to make a distinction between these and other reforms  and it is precisely because of this that your whole postion comes across as completely incoherent and muddled.  How can you possibly support the "introduction of democracy" without making it clear that this reform is distinguishable form other reforms beats me.




Gravediggers said:


> Robbo it is you who is invoking the bogey of reformism on each and every occasion viz this silly distinction you think is vital to our case.  We're of the opinion the only distinction necessary is between reforms and reformism..




Well evidently this is not true is it?   Youve just admitted on this forum that "not all reforms are of a reformist nature" meaning that you distinguish between these reforms and those reforms that are of a reformist nature.  So clearly you dont think the _only distinction necessary is between reforms and reformism._. You actually distingiush between different kinds of reforms as well which is what I have been saying all along is what the SPGB needs to do and yet you have the nerve to upbraid for saying that!


----------



## Knotted (Jul 4, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Considering that the "reform or revolution" question is arguably *the *central question around which the whole impossibilist tradition emerged  your whole _laissez faire _approach to this matter is frankly shocking.  Oh it doesn matter, you say, cos we neither support nor oppose refroms anyway.  Not the point Gravedigger.  The point is *WHY*do you oppose them.  Whats the rationale for this oppposition?  It is surely to assert that capitalism cannot be run in the interests of the working class, that the dynamics of the system, its inner economic "laws", resist the attempts of reformist political parties , however well meaning, to induce the leopard to change its spots.



Tell you what you might find interesting, have a read of the original SPGB manifesto from 1905. It's not much of a manifesto, but it critiques other nominally socialist tendencies. Note that it doesn't mention reform or reformism once. It's good stuff - it's not formulaic, it looks at each of these tendencies in their own right and gives a fair criticism.

All this stuff about never supporting or opposing reforms is surely just a latter day add-on after the party became a hopeless, formulaic, braindead sect.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 4, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Do you really expect me to treat such bluster with anything but contempt?



The facts of the matter are it had already been spelled out in, _The Civil War in France_ so I'm not blustering but pointing out that the lessons of that struggle had confirmed that capitalism had taken great strides in development.  And M&E underlined this development in the 1872 preface to the CM.   The purpose of a preface is to give very broad strokes not lengthy details!




> See it's not me twisting your words but you, look what you actually said:





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Gravediggers
> In fact we take the view that what they were explaining here is the state machinery is only for the benefit of the minority class and the sooner it is transformed, converted or fashioned into an instrument of self-emancipation the sooner the revolution becomes a fact.





> You wish to transform, convert or fashion the state into an instrument of self-emancipation. That sounds like using it to me.



And I also said previously, that the first act of the socialist delegates is to abolish the state'.  So how can we use the state when it no longer exists?



> Again Marx and Engels:
> 
> Quote:
> One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.”



And I've also said previously that the key word here is, 'simply'.  The state is not neutral and can only represent ruling class interests so the sooner it is abolished the sooner the capitalist are denied using it for their own purposes.



> Perhaps you wish to transform, convert or fashion it first before you lay hold of it?



Putting the cart before the horse again.



> The passage says nothing about democracy. What are you on about? Do you mean parliamentary democracy?



Of course the passage says nothing about democracy.  I was pointing out that the development of capitalism since 1872 had included the introduction of democracy which entirely changed the dynamics of class struggle.  You are again ignoring the historical context.



> If Engels said somewhere that Democracy makes the days of the barricades obsolete, then he forgot to tell the Paris commune.



He did not forget to tell the Paris Commune because democracy had not been introduced at that time.  This again illustrates you are either twisting or deliberately ignoring the historical context.

I'm not sure which particular article or correspondence Engles mentions this but unlike you he did put it into historical context by say that the lessons of the Paris Commune had illustrated the days of the barricades were over and that the introduction of democracy in Germany had shown that socialism could be brought about by peaceful means.



> I'm not making any argument. I'm just pointing out what Marx and Engels said. I'm just curious why you are so keen to distort their words. But to answer your question - it rather depends on whether sections of the soldiers can be won over.
> 
> How long do you think a revolutionary socialist party heading parliment can last without a military coup? Or is that just not cricket?



I'm not distorting their words just putting their various writings in the context of the circumstances they found themselves in.  What makes you think a military coup is a probability?  Its possible, but unlikely, given that in such a situation we could expect the members of the armed forces to be affected by socialist ideas



> But you think that advocating reforms is class collaboration. How do you place that in historical context? See for example:
> http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm



I'm not disagreeing with your previous description of Marx.  Obviously, this is another example of Marx trying to speed up the development of capitalism.  That development is now complete so the sooner we move onto socialism the better.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 4, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> The facts of the matter are it had already been spelled out in, _The Civil War in France_ so I'm not blustering but pointing out that the lessons of that struggle had confirmed that capitalism had taken great strides in development.  And M&E underlined this development in the 1872 preface to the CM.   The purpose of a preface is to give very broad strokes not lengthy details!



Firstly, try to keep your story straight. Either they didn't need to spell it out because it was obvious or they did actually spell it out. You can't say both.

I've discussed this already. What am I to do? Quote it again so that you won't comprehend it again. I give up.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> And I also said previously, that the first act of the socialist delegates is to abolish the state'.  So how can we use the state when it no longer exists?



But you didn't say that. I showed you didn't say that. What am I to do? You can't even comprehend what you've written. Is English your first language?




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> And I've also said previously that the key word here is, 'simply'.  The state is not neutral and can only represent ruling class interests so the sooner it is abolished the sooner the capitalist are denied using it for their own purposes.



I don't believe you did say that previously. The quote says nothing about abolishing the state. I pointed this out before. Check the quote. Do you want me to quote it a third time? Will you understand this time? What am I to do with you?




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> Putting the cart before the horse again.



You wish to transform the state into an instrument of self-emancipation without using it. All this transforming business seems like a waste of time.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> Of course the passage says nothing about democracy.  I was pointing out that the development of capitalism since 1872 had included the introduction of democracy which entirely changed the dynamics of class struggle.  You are again ignoring the historical context.
> 
> He did not forget to tell the Paris Commune because democracy had not been introduced at that time.  This again illustrates you are either twisting or deliberately ignoring the historical context.
> 
> I'm not sure which particular article or correspondence Engles mentions this but unlike you he did put it into historical context by say that the lessons of the Paris Commune had illustrated the days of the barricades were over and that the introduction of democracy in Germany had shown that socialism could be brought about by peaceful means.



Found the quote for you:



> For here, too, the conditions of the struggle had changed fundamentally. Rebellion in the old style, street fighting with barricades, which decided the issue everywhere up to 1848, had become largely outdated.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1895/03/06.htm

Engels is talking about 1848 not 1871, so you've got the historical context wrong. Also note that he say's "largely outdated".




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> I'm not distorting their words just putting their various writings in the context of the circumstances they found themselves in.  What makes you think a military coup is a probability?  Its possible, but unlikely, given that in such a situation we could expect the members of the armed forces to be affected by socialist ideas



A military coup is a certainty. Absolute certainty. Look at Chile 1973 or Indoneasia 1965, and that wasn't even in response to a revolutionary party. Your revolution would be drowned in blood. Being in control of parliament makes not a jot of difference.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> I'm not disagreeing with your previous description of Marx.  Obviously, this is another example of Marx trying to speed up the development of capitalism.  That development is now complete so the sooner we move onto socialism the better.



No it isn't. Read the damn thing.

Plus you were saying that the development of capitalism was sufficient in 1871 to the extent that calling for reforms was obsolete then. How come it wasn't obsolete nine years later?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 4, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Found the quote for you:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Some more historical context here - this was from an article that Engels wrote for  for publication in the SPD paper. Kautsky and Liebknecht edited it so that it seemed to offer an argument closer to what Kautsky and Liebknecht were trying to impose on the SPD - the necessity for a _solely_ peaceful parliamentary approach - rather than engels own, which included things like the search for better tactics in street fighting - i.e . stuff like



> This is the main point which must be kept in view, also when examining the outlook _for possible *future* street fighting_



was omitted. 

Engels was furious when he found out, and demanded full publication - the SPF agreed to but lied again.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 4, 2010)

Wow, didn't know about that one. Shocking stuff, especially as the old boy was on his last legs.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 4, 2010)

> robbo203 said:
> 
> 
> > Really? So you think that I said the SPGB is "opposed to reforms" when I have been at pains to point that there is big difference between opposing reforms and opposing reformism and that this is precisely the point that the SPGB constantly makes. Goes to show that you haven't been paying a soddin bit of attention to what I have been arguing, so intent have you been on haughtily putting down poor old robbo.  Next time I rise to the defence of the SPGB remind me not to do so
> ...


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 4, 2010)

Knotted said:


> All this stuff about never supporting or opposing reforms is surely just a latter day add-on after the party became a hopeless, formulaic, braindead sect.




I dont think that is fair comment, Knotted. Though there are times when I get exasperated with the sheer dogmatism and knee jerkism of some of its members, the SPGB is very far from being a "hopeless, formulaic, braindead sect".  You are saying this without any knowlege of the Party. Ive been there. done it and have the T shirt to prove it.  Despite what impressions you might have gleaned to the contrary, the SPGB is no monolith and it does indeed have a thriving internal democracy that is second to none. No sect would ever be so at odds with itself over every nuance of party policy.  And calling it braindead is just dumb frankly


----------



## Knotted (Jul 4, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> I dont think that is fair comment, Knotted. Though there are times when I get exasperated with the sheer dogmatism and knee jerkism of some of its members, the SPGB is very far from being a "hopeless, formulaic, braindead sect".  You are saying this without any knowlege of the Party. Ive been there. done it and have the T shirt to prove it.  Despite what impressions you might have gleaned to the contrary, the SPGB is no monolith and it does indeed have a thriving internal democracy that is second to none. No sect would ever be so at odds with itself over every nuance of party policy.  And calling it braindead is just dumb frankly



OK the braindead comment is probably over the top.

They are very sectish. It's not even to do with the hostility clause, although that doesn't help. It's examplarfied by this:




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to be slippery in the reasons why we don't support reforms. For if we did start supporting reforms this would attract reform minded people to our platform and gradually lead to the demise of our revolutionary proposals.



I would note that this is not just Gravediggers, s/he is borrowing from one of the old SPGB documents on the Beveridge report.

The reason it is so perfectly sectarian is that it places internal SPGB concerns ahead of class concerns.


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 4, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> What you actually said is copied below, of which the key sentences are: *Oh it doesn matter, you say, cos we neither support nor oppose refroms anyway. Not the point Gravedigger. The point is WHYdo you oppose them. Whats the rationale for this oppposition? * What more can I say other here it is in black and white that you did say we are opposed to reforms.



Fair enough. That was a simple mistake on my part made in haste.  I should have said "why do you oppose *reformism*" not  "why do you oppose reforms".  I think that this would have been obvious from the context and from what I have said previously on the reforms/reformism issue.  Of course i realise full well that the SPGB does not "oppose reforms" because, as I pointed out earlier, opposing reforms would ironically amount to a kind of reformism in itself

However, the basic argument still stands.  The rationale for its anti/refromist stance _is surely to assert that capitalism cannot be run in the interests of the working class, that the dynamics of the system, its inner economic "laws", resist the attempts of reformist political parties , however well meaning, to induce the leopard to change its spots_ Incorporating non economic reforms under the rubric of reformism just confuses the issue


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 4, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Firstly, try to keep your story straight. Either they didn't need to spell it out because it was obvious or they did actually spell it out. You can't say both.



I'm not saying both, just pointing out that the preface underlines the conclusions of, _The Civil War in France._



> I've discussed this already. What am I to do? Quote it again so that you won't comprehend it again. I give up.



I have understood what M&E are saying, however the obvious problem is that your understanding is different to mine.  And the reason for this is because you fail to put M&E in their historical context.  All I'm trying to explain is that the modern day class struggle is entirely different from when they were recording the events of class struggle during their time.  Whilst it seems you are saying nothing has changed.



> But you didn't say that. I showed you didn't say that. What am I to do? You can't even comprehend what you've written. Is English your first language?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe you did say that previously. The quote says nothing about abolishing the state. I pointed this out before. Check the quote. Do you want me to quote it a third time? Will you understand this time? What am I to do with you?



OK this is what I said from post 1948: Leninist insist on retaining the state we say the first act of the revolutionary delegates will be to abolish it for the simple reason it do not suit our purpose.   And yes the quote does not say about abolishing the state but when you put it into historical context and apply it to the present day the key word of 'simply' takes on far more significance than you give it credit for!





> You wish to transform the state into an instrument of self-emancipation without using it. All this transforming business seems like a waste of time.



What gives you the impression that the workers can use the state for their own purpose?



> Found the quote for you:
> 
> 
> http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1895/03/06.htm
> ...



I may have got the date wrong but my argument for historical context still stands.  Of course he said, 'largely outdated' can't fault him on that score because he's applying the dynamics of class struggle.  And if we apply it to the present day ...... .....?





> A military coup is a certainty. Absolute certainty. Look at Chile 1973 or Indoneasia 1965, and that wasn't even in response to a revolutionary party. Your revolution would be drowned in blood. Being in control of parliament makes not a jot of difference.



None of the examples you give apply to a socialist revolution where we are looking at a majority of the workers the gaining class consciousness and taking political power.  The logic of your argument disregards the power of the ballot box and the necessity for measuring socialist support.




> No it isn't. Read the damn thing.
> 
> Plus you were saying that the development of capitalism was sufficient in 1871 to the extent that calling for reforms was obsolete then. How come it wasn't obsolete nine years later?



I've read it and clearly it was an appeal to the French workers to speed up the development of capitalism and possibly an attempt to stave of the forces of reaction.  I'm not suprised Marx switched position in this respect.  He could be an entirely pragmatic reformist when the occasion demanded.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 4, 2010)

> robbo203 said:
> 
> 
> > Fair enough. That was a simple mistake on my part made in haste.  I should have said "why do you oppose *reformism*" not  "why do you oppose reforms".  I think that this would have been obvious from the context and from what I have said previously on the reforms/reformism issue.  Of course i realise full well that the SPGB does not "oppose reforms" because, as I pointed out earlier, opposing reforms would ironically amount to a kind of reformism in itself
> ...


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 4, 2010)

1


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 4, 2010)

Knotted said:


> I would note that this is not just Gravediggers, s/he is borrowing from one of the old SPGB documents on the Beveridge report.
> 
> The reason it is so perfectly sectarian is that it places internal SPGB concerns ahead of class concerns.



Since when is it not the concern of the workers not to seek a revolutionary transformation in the social relationships?  And since when is it in the interests of the workers to seek reforms from capitalism?  Your attempt to claim that revolution and reforms are compatible is not worthy of discussion.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 5, 2010)

Fact of the matter is that most people (well here anyway, and in this historical/economic setting) would rather have reforms and the odd strike than violent riots with molotov coctails being thrown, blood in the streets, etc. Until you get your head round this basic fact, the SPGB will be doomed to failure Im afraid (that's leaving aside the slight possibility that the revolutions and riots DO come and they refuse to support them because of disagreeing on some trivial little point of doctrine)


----------



## FreddyB (Jul 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Since when is it not the concern of the workers not to seek a revolutionary transformation in the social relationships?  And since when is it in the interests of the workers to seek reforms from capitalism?  Your attempt to claim that revolution and reforms are compatible is not worthy of discussion.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 5, 2010)

Another thing your building needa a makeover:


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Fact of the matter is that most people (well here anyway, and in this historical/economic setting) would rather have reforms and the odd strike than violent riots with molotov coctails being thrown, blood in the streets, etc. Until you get your head round this basic fact, the SPGB will be doomed to failure Im afraid (that's leaving aside the slight possibility that the revolutions and riots DO come and they refuse to support them because of disagreeing on some trivial little point of doctrine)



The proposals of the SPGB do not include a violent revolution, on the contrary we propose a majority revolution through the ballot box.   There are two main reasons for this: Firstly, the use of the ballot box in the hands of a politically conscious and organised working class who are committed and serious on capturing political power for themselves means that in all probability the revolutionary transformation will mainly be of a non-violent nature.  If a recalcitrant violent minority attempt to usurp this legitimate majority expression of the workers they have to dealt with.  Secondly, any society which is brought into existence by violence only continues to exist by the use of further violence.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Another thing your building needa a makeover:



It has had a makeover just recently, both inside and out.  I shall get an upto date photo posted tomorrow.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Secondly, any society which is brought into existence by violence only continues to exist by the use of further violence.



Can you actually back up this assertion?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 5, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Can you actually back up this assertion?



America, Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan, DR Congo, Iraq, Iran, Algeria, Afghanistan, Syria to name but a few.


----------



## editor (Jul 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> It has had a makeover just recently, both inside and out.  I shall get an upto date photo posted tomorrow.


I bet that had a lovely shop front once. Looks like a botched DIY job now.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> America, Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan, DR Congo, Iraq, Iran, Algeria, Afghanistan, Syria to name but a few.



But that doesn't come close to proving your point at all.

You imply a certain inevitability in your first assertion. Is it inevitable?


----------



## dennisr (Jul 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Firstly, the use of the ballot box in the hands of a politically conscious and organised working class who are committed and serious on capturing political power for themselves means that in all probability the revolutionary transformation will mainly be of a non-violent nature.



harry perkins


----------



## Knotted (Jul 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> America, Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan, DR Congo, Iraq, Iran, Algeria, Afghanistan, Syria to name but a few.



Don't forget Belgium.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I'm not saying both, just pointing out that the preface underlines the conclusions of, _The Civil War in France._
> 
> 
> 
> I have understood what M&E are saying, however the obvious problem is that your understanding is different to mine.  And the reason for this is because you fail to put M&E in their historical context.  All I'm trying to explain is that the modern day class struggle is entirely different from when they were recording the events of class struggle during their time.  Whilst it seems you are saying nothing has changed.



I think a lot has changed since the 1870's. I don't think this is the reason we understand the words of M&E differently. The reason is that you are ignoring the words and imagining what you think they should be given what you imagine you would say in that historical context.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> OK this is what I said from post 1948: Leninist insist on retaining the state we say the first act of the revolutionary delegates will be to abolish it for the simple reason it do not suit our purpose.   And yes the quote does not say about abolishing the state but when you put it into historical context and apply it to the present day the key word of 'simply' takes on far more significance than you give it credit for!



I'm sure there's a point in the above somewhere.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> What gives you the impression that the workers can use the state for their own purpose?



What gives you the impression I have that impression?




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> I may have got the date wrong but my argument for historical context still stands.  Of course he said, 'largely outdated' can't fault him on that score because he's applying the dynamics of class struggle.  And if we apply it to the present day ...... .....?



The argument as you presented it doesn't stand. And yes we do have to think for ourselves.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> None of the examples you give apply to a socialist revolution where we are looking at a majority of the workers the gaining class consciousness and taking political power.



This is true.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> The logic of your argument disregards the power of the ballot box and the necessity for measuring socialist support.



This is also true. I don't know what point you are making.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> I've read it and clearly it was an appeal to the French workers to speed up the development of capitalism and possibly an attempt to stave of the forces of reaction.



Read the pamphlet. I mean the words on the page, not the words in your head.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> I'm not suprised Marx switched position in this respect.  He could be an entirely pragmatic reformist when the occasion demanded.



You mean a class collaborationist, pragmatic reformist who was still wedded to the idea of workers' militias replacing the standing army despite the awesome power of the ballot box? Surely a man whom the SPGB should treat with hostility?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Another thing your building needa a makeover:



brutalist chic, comrade. What do you want- a decadent western construction of chrome and glass with interactive screens like some shrine to capitalism? My pen is hovering over the List here


----------



## Knotted (Jul 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Since when is it not the concern of the workers not to seek a revolutionary transformation in the social relationships?  And since when is it in the interests of the workers to seek reforms from capitalism?  Your attempt to claim that revolution and reforms are compatible is not worthy of discussion.



What does the SPGB's declaration of principles say about reforms and reformism?

The reason it's not worthy of discussion, is that the idea that supporting reforms is incompatable with calling for revolution is an idea that the SPGB have sneaked in under their own noses. They have no theory, no principle, no argument on this score. It's just a topic that it's impolite to raise.

I would suggest that this idea is part of the SPGB's attempt to explain their own failure. It's those reformist ideas that are contaminating the minds of the workers. The SPGB have to counter this by preaching against anything that could be taken to be a product of a "reformist mindset". There is no good reason for all this preaching, but it gives the members hope.


----------



## JimN (Jul 5, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> brutalist chic, comrade. What do you want- a decadent western construction of chrome and glass with interactive screens like some shrine to capitalism? My pen is hovering over the List here


----------



## JimN (Jul 5, 2010)

Sorry folks, I'm having difficulty uploading an image of the new head office frontage on here.


----------



## fractionMan (Jul 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Another thing your building needa a makeover:



Utopia beckons!


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 5, 2010)

editor said:


> I bet that had a lovely shop front once. Looks like a botched DIY job now.



When it was bought in the early 50's it was a wreck both inside and out.  Apparently, like most of the properties on Clapham High St, it was a converted town house.  The reason for the DIY resulted from an arson attempt by the National Front.

P.s. Can you help JimN to get present photo uploaded?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 5, 2010)

dennisr said:


> harry perkins



Hmm am I to assume that harry perkins would only be satisfied with a violent revolution?  What a crockhead.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 5, 2010)

Knotted said:


> What does the SPGB's declaration of principles say about reforms and reformism?
> 
> The reason it's not worthy of discussion, is that the idea that supporting reforms is incompatable with calling for revolution is an idea that the SPGB have sneaked in under their own noses. They have no theory, no principle, no argument on this score. It's just a topic that it's impolite to raise.
> 
> I would suggest that this idea is part of the SPGB's attempt to explain their own failure. It's those reformist ideas that are contaminating the minds of the workers. The SPGB have to counter this by preaching against anything that could be taken to be a product of a "reformist mindset". There is no good reason for all this preaching, but it gives the members hope.



There is a very good reason for being opposed to a "reformist mindset" mainly, has you well know the tactic of reformism has been tried over and over again and failed.  For we are still stuck with capitalism despite all the time and effort devoted to enacting countless reforms.  If all that energy and activity had on the other hand been concentrated on a "revolutionary mindset" how long do you think capitalism would have lasted?


----------



## Knotted (Jul 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> There is a very good reason for being opposed to a "reformist mindset" mainly, has you well know the tactic of reformism has been tried over and over again and failed.  For we are still stuck with capitalism despite all the time and effort devoted to enacting countless reforms.  If all that energy and activity had on the other hand been concentrated on a "revolutionary mindset" how long do you think capitalism would have lasted?



You see this is the problem debating with you. Sometimes for you a "reformist mentality" merely means willingness to support or defend certain reforms. At other times it means getting rid of capitalism by using reforms. The terms you use change meaning from post to post. There is no consistency, no logic holding your arguments together, just free-floating standard SPGB rhethoric.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 5, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Don't forget Belgium.



Plenty more examples beside Belgium where private and state capitalism used violence to enforce its domination.  And 'inevitably' continues to do so.  Granted violence comes in many variety's and once capitalism becomes established it takes on a legalised form examplified with the killers in uniform.

Nevertheless, the violence of poverty alone, is a big enough stick to keep the workers in line.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 5, 2010)

Knotted said:


> You see this is the problem debating with you. Sometimes for you a "reformist mentality" merely means willingness to support or defend certain reforms. At other times it means getting rid of capitalism by using reforms. The terms you use change meaning from post to post. There is no consistency, no logic holding your arguments together, just free-floating standard SPGB rhethoric.



This allegation is totally unfounded, indeed where is the evidence on this thread or in our publications that we lump reforms and the tactic of reformism together?  The fact of the matter is we consistently make the distinction between the two, for the very reasons and explanations provided in previous posts.  

Whereas, it's noticeable your second sentence is inconsistent in its twisty assumption and conclusion that you can get rid of capitalism by using reforms e.g. reformism.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> This allegation is totally unfounded, indeed where is the evidence on this thread or in our publications that we lump reforms and the tactic of reformism together?  The fact of the matter is we consistently make the distinction between the two, for the very reasons and explanations provided in previous posts.



I wasn't talking about the SPGB but you, Gravediggers.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> Whereas, it's noticeable your second sentence is inconsistent in its twisty assumption and conclusion that you can get rid of capitalism by using reforms e.g. reformism.



Huh? My writings skill might not be great, but your comprehension skills are terrible. If you're unsure about what I'm saying, just ask and I'll try to clarify.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 5, 2010)

Knotted said:


> I wasn't talking about the SPGB but you, Gravediggers.



Either way where is the evidence?




> Huh? My writings skill might not be great, but your comprehension skills are terrible. If you're unsure about what I'm saying, just ask and I'll try to clarify.



OK here's the sentence, "At other times it means getting rid of capitalism by using reforms".  How else can I comprehend this other than the presumption being, its possible to get rid of capitalism by using reforms.  If on the other hand the word 'attempt' or 'try' were inserted in the sentence it would reflect our position.  By omitting either word you are twisting our position so it appears to fit your allegation.

Nice try but completely off track.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Either way where is the evidence?



Let's have a look at your previous pronouncements.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to be slippery in the reasons why we don't support reforms. For if we did start supporting reforms this would attract reform minded people to our platform and gradually lead to the demise of our revolutionary proposals. And like I've said previously if we did start supporting reforms logically we would also be supporting the political system and all the compromise and collaboration this would involve. No compromise with capitalism means exactly that for we stand for revolution and nothing but.



Supporting particular reforms leads means the party attracts "reform minded people" and means supporting the political system, compromise and collaboration.

This is not adopting a reformist stance, remember. This is just supporting certain reforms.

Another one:


Gravediggers said:


> Since when is it not the concern of the workers not to seek a revolutionary transformation in the social relationships?  And since when is it in the interests of the workers to seek reforms from capitalism?  Your attempt to claim that revolution and reforms are compatible is not worthy of discussion.



Supporting reforms is incompatable with revolution. Remember this is not saying reformism is incompatable with revolutionary politics. It's just about supporting certain reforms.

Now contrast:



			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> This allegation is totally unfounded, indeed where is the evidence on this thread or in our publications that we lump reforms and the tactic of reformism together? The fact of the matter is we consistently make the distinction between the two, for the very reasons and explanations provided in previous posts.



If you don't literally lump together support for particular reforms with reformism, it's pretty difficult to understand the distinction you make between them. You (I'm talking about you, not the SPGB) regard both of them as incompatable with revolutionary politics, you regard both of them as a form of compromise and collaboration with the political system.

What's this distinction you are talking about? Of course you recognise the difference between reforms and reformism. But that's just a matter of understanding the meanings of the terms. A reform is a political act whereas reformism is a political program. The two are not even comparable. Perhaps you mean politically favouring certain reforms is distinct from reformism. But as we've seen you don't make that distinction in practice. That is except when the "reforms are reformist", of course. But this whole business of reformist reforms and non-reformist reforms is just a self-serving circular argument.

All in all what you say is as clear as mud and it appears to change with every post.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> OK here's the sentence, "At other times it means getting rid of capitalism by using reforms".  How else can I comprehend this other than the presumption being, its possible to get rid of capitalism by using reforms.  If on the other hand the word 'attempt' or 'try' were inserted in the sentence it would reflect our position.  By omitting either word you are twisting our position so it appears to fit your allegation.
> 
> Nice try but completely off track.



Yes, alright, you can have your pedantic point. I should have said "attempting to get rid of capitalism by using reforms." As I say, my writing skills need a lot to be desired. You needn't be so paranoid.


----------



## pfbcarlisle (Jul 5, 2010)

Work in progress -


----------



## whichfinder (Jul 5, 2010)

editor said:


> I bet that had a lovely shop front once. Looks like a botched DIY job now.



It did but it had to be bricked up in the seventies following repeated attacks by the National Front and other anti-democrats.

http://prolerat.org/HOfront.html


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 5, 2010)

> Knotted said:
> 
> 
> > Let's have a look at your previous pronouncements.
> ...


----------



## prolerat (Jul 5, 2010)




----------



## Knotted (Jul 5, 2010)

So the distinction you are making is just that reforms are political actions and that reformism is a political program. That is your constant reminders of this distinction are just reminding us how the English language works. Fair enough.

By the way, assumptions of disingenuity, twisting words and so forth are characteristic of someone who's natural reaction is to be disingenuous and twist words themselves. People tend to accuse others of their own faults. Nobody wants to be treated how they treat others. Really, I am not accusing you of trying to get rid of capitalism by reforms. How on earth you come to this conclusion after all I have written, is beyond me. You seem genuinely paranoid.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 5, 2010)

Knotted said:


> So the distinction you are making is just that reforms are political actions and that reformism is a political program. That is your constant reminders of this distinction are just reminding us how the English language works. Fair enough.
> 
> By the way, assumptions of disingenuity, twisting words and so forth are characteristic of someone who's natural reaction is to be disingenuous and twist words themselves. People tend to accuse others of their own faults. Nobody wants to be treated how they treat others. Really, I am not accusing you of trying to get rid of capitalism by reforms. How on earth you come to this conclusion after all I have written, is beyond me. You seem genuinely paranoid.



OK I'll take your word for it that you are genuinely interested in the case for socialism.  So what in fact are you accusing us of?


----------



## Knotted (Jul 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> OK I'll take your word for it that you are genuinely interested in the case for socialism.



Did I give you my word that I am genuinely interested in the case for socialism?




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> So what in fact are you accusing us of?



I'm accusing you of inventing a principle saying, "we must never support nor oppose any reforms," without justifying this principle except in the most craven, "it would be bad for the SPGB" type of way.

(Of course you also apply the principle inconsistently - although you have some sort of excuse saying some reforms aren't reformist or some such. I'm not so interested in this little wrinkle.)

Perhaps there is a confusion. Supporting reforms need not be supporting them as a parlimentary party collaborating with other parliamentary parties to push legislation through. "Supporting" could be just pointing out the benefits of a reform and attending rallies in it's favour.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 5, 2010)

> Knotted said:
> 
> 
> > Did I give you my word that I am genuinely interested in the case for socialism?
> ...


----------



## Knotted (Jul 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Lets be clear I didn't invent this principle.  In fact it is the principle reason for the formation of the SPGB.  You kindly made a link to our original manifesto of 1905 which includes a record of the class collaboration that took place within the SDF at that time, and although the manifesto fails to specifically mention reforms or reformism, and neither does the Declaration of Principles (DoP), the party was formed on the platform of socialism and only socialism.  So right from the outset we adopted an attitude of no compromise with capitalism, other than the introduction of democracy.



Exactly, it's a real criticism. It doesn't just lump the SDF into a ready made category.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> The experience of the class collaboration within the SDF is reflected in Clause 7. of the DoP which is commonly referred to has our 'hostility clause'.  But this clause also gives the reasons why we are hostile to all other political parties, viz 'expression of class interests' and 'diametrically opposed'.  Hence, our position towards reforms in general and reformism in particular is the logical conclusion of this clause in practice.



You're doing what you do with Marx and Engels. You're reading in what isn't there.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> We do not support reforms just because it would be 'bad for the party' by attracting reform minded people to its ranks. For any support for reforms would also dilute the meaning of a socialist revolution.



Don't be daft.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> Support for reforms also implies the instruments for self-emancipation are to found through working with the political structure of capitalism.  Whereas, we say its essential the workers forge their own instruments out of the self-activity of the class struggle.



That's simply not true. You don't have to say that reforms lead to self-emancipation - you can explicitly deny it if need be.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> The SPGB considers itself to be the standard bearer for a socialist revolution and as such it provides a choice for those members of the working class who have come to an understanding that a socialist revolution is the only solution to the problems which confront their class.



But you're not the only ones...





			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> And if we were to do that we would no longer be a revolutionary party.  You can't have your cake and eat it.  Like I've said no compromise.



Why???


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 5, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Exactly, it's a real criticism. It doesn't just lump the SDF into a ready made category.
> 
> 
> 
> You're doing what you do with Marx and Engels. You're reading in what isn't there.



That being the case so is the party.  Look up:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/spe(2000).pdf



> Don't be daft.



Obviously, in your opinion there's a link between reform and revolution, OK explain.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Gravediggers
> Support for reforms also implies the instruments for self-emancipation are to found through working with the political structure of capitalism. Whereas, we say its essential the workers forge their own instruments out of the self-activity of the class struggle.





> That's simply not true. You don't have to say that reforms lead to self-emancipation - you can explicitly deny it if need be.



I'm not saying reforms lead to self-emancipation.  I'm saying the 'instruments' for self-emancipation are not to be found within the capitalist political structure.



> But you're not the only ones..


.

Names.






> Why???


[/QUOTE]

Why not?


----------



## Knotted (Jul 5, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> That being the case so is the party.  Look up:
> 
> http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/spe(2000).pdf



Yeah, I know. I'm criticising the party not just you here. They've lost their old revolutionary spirit for the sake of preserving revolutionary formalities.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> Obviously, in your opinion there's a link between reform and revolution, OK explain.



That doesn't follow.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> I'm not saying reforms lead to self-emancipation.  I'm saying the 'instruments' for self-emancipation are not to be found within the capitalist political structure.



You're misreading me again. I'll try again.

It is simply not true that support for reforms implies that the instruments for self-emancipation are to be found within the political structure of capitalism. This is because when you support a reform you do not have to make any claims about that reform leading to self-emancipation. You can even explicitly deny that that reform or reforms in general lead to self-emancipation if you need to.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> Names.



Everyone who calls themself a revolutionary socialist. 




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> Why not?



That question doesn't make sense in context.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 7, 2010)

It's fun to go through these SPGB contradictions as I was doing above, but I want to have a look at something more important. Going back to something Gravediggers said earlier in the thread:



Gravediggers said:


> The objective economic conditions for socialism already exist in that capitalism has shewn the working class how to produce an abundance in excess of its needs, it fails in that it is unable to distribute that abundance to meet human needs. On the other hand the subjective conditions, which I gather is the point you are trying to make still remains at the stage which Marx described as, "The class in itself". In my estimation the workers have grasped a broad understanding of democracy but have failed in understanding how to use democracy for their own ends and in their own interests. This is precisely the barrier the SPGB are trying to break down.



I think this is exactly where the SPGB go wrong in terms of their theory. I should say that what really characterises the SPGB is not some sort of original sin - a bad idea expressed in 1904. There are real conditions that keep the SPGB attached to these flawed ideas, but I shan't explore that here.

So to address this flawed theory...

Marxist theory states that the forces of production need to develop to a degree as a prequisite for socialism. If this prerequisite is fulfilled it does not follow that the objective conditions for socialism already exist and that socialists should only address the subjective factor - that is to focus entirely on propaganda for socialism and education about socialism.

We live in a world where the working class is stratified, where rich nations exploit poor nations, where productive forces are concentrated in certain areas to the neglect of other areas, where agriculture is still not everywhere modernised, where large sections of the population languish in shanty towns, where globalisation pits worker against worker. The problem is that capitalism stalls throughout most of the third world and throws up new inequalities. The transformation to socialism is not merely a matter of grabbing the means of production. It is also a matter of transforming the means of production so that they meet human needs, it is also a matter of transforming society particularly rural society in the third world, it is also a matter of bringing equality between nations. All this takes time and effort - it doesn't arrive overnight.

It should be regarded as a matter of fact that the objective condions for socialism have not been met, and that there are still tasks that have not and can not be achieved by capitalism. The working class really do have a role in history beyond simply seizing power and declaring socialism.

There is also the question of how to organise to deal with 21st century problems. Politics deals in terms of priorities and so must working class politics.

I should also say that it is very odd to see talk of objective factors divorced from subjective factors. I don't often bang on about the dialectic, but it is starkly anti-dialectical to talk in this way. It should be ringing alarm bells. It implies that the working class are deluded about objective reality.

I should also say that this rigid distinction between class in itself and class for itself, is more nonsense. We've had two centuries of working class organisation which really does struggle on behalf of itself. You can't address the subjective and the objective seperately because in reality it is impossible to identify them as seperate entities.

---

What I think is interesting about the SPGB, is that it draws such a stark conclusion and applies them consistently. In doing so it provides us with a living experiment to observe and draw conclusions from. Trotskyists, for example, often talk in terms of the objective factor and the subjective factor. In doing so, we can see the sterility of the SPGB as the logical conclusion of this tendency to seperate objective from subjective.


----------



## whichfinder (Jul 9, 2010)

For the first time ever; a peep inside the bunker at 52. 


http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/HO_Inside/insideth.html


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 9, 2010)

Knotted said:


> It's fun to go through these SPGB contradictions as I was doing above, but I want to have a look at something more important. Going back to something Gravediggers said earlier in the thread:





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Gravediggers View Post
> The objective economic conditions for socialism already exist in that capitalism has shewn the working class how to produce an abundance in excess of its needs, it fails in that it is unable to distribute that abundance to meet human needs. On the other hand the subjective conditions, which I gather is the point you are trying to make still remains at the stage which Marx described as, "The class in itself". In my estimation the workers have grasped a broad understanding of democracy but have failed in understanding how to use democracy for their own ends and in their own interests. This is precisely the barrier the SPGB are trying to break down.





> I think this is exactly where the SPGB go wrong in terms of their theory. I should say that what really characterises the SPGB is not some sort of original sin - a bad idea expressed in 1904. There are real conditions that keep the SPGB attached to these flawed ideas, but I shan't explore that here.
> 
> So to address this flawed theory...
> 
> Marxist theory states that the forces of production need to develop to a degree as a prequisite for socialism. If this prerequisite is fulfilled it does not follow that the objective conditions for socialism already exist and that socialists should only address the subjective factor - that is to focus entirely on propaganda for socialism and education about socialism.



If has you argue, the prerequisite is fulfilled but the objective conditions - the creation of an abundance - remain unfulfilled how do you explain a global glut of products and a global over capacity?  The means and forces of production are fully developed sufficiently for the working class to use them in meeting their needs.  In which respect are the objective conditions unfulfilled?




> We live in a world where the working class is stratified, where rich nations exploit poor nations, where productive forces are concentrated in certain areas to the neglect of other areas, where agriculture is still not everywhere modernised, where large sections of the population languish in shanty towns, where globalisation pits worker against worker. The problem is that capitalism stalls throughout most of the third world and throws up new inequalities. The transformation to socialism is not merely a matter of grabbing the means of production. It is also a matter of transforming the means of production so that they meet human needs, it is also a matter of transforming society particularly rural society in the third world, it is also a matter of bringing equality between nations. All this takes time and effort - it doesn't arrive overnight.



And if you think that capitalism will bring these about think again.



> It should be regarded as a matter of fact that the objective condions for socialism have not been met,



Utter balderdash capitalism has created an abundance it will take a socialist society to distribute it.




> ... and that there are still tasks that have not and can not be achieved by capitalism. The working class really do have a role in history beyond simply seizing power and declaring socialism


.

Quite true, and that role is being played out at this very moment with more and more of the working class realising that capitalism is not for them.



> There is also the question of how to organise to deal with 21st century problems. Politics deals in terms of priorities and so must working class politics.



Exactly.



> I should also say that it is very odd to see talk of objective factors divorced from subjective factors. I don't often bang on about the dialectic, but it is starkly anti-dialectical to talk in this way. It should be ringing alarm bells. It implies that the working class are deluded about objective reality.




The objective and subjective factors are not divorced from each other, despite what you imagine.



> I should also say that this rigid distinction between class in itself and class for itself, is more nonsense. We've had two centuries of working class organisation which really does struggle on behalf of itself. You can't address the subjective and the objective seperately because in reality it is impossible to identify them as seperate entities.



If indeed like you assert the workers are a class for itself how come capitalism is still with us?

---



> What I think is interesting about the SPGB, is that it draws such a stark conclusion and applies them consistently. In doing so it provides us with a living experiment to observe and draw conclusions from. Trotskyists, for example, often talk in terms of the objective factor and the subjective factor. In doing so, we can see the sterility of the SPGB as the logical conclusion of this tendency to seperate objective from subjective.



Where is the evidence for this conclusion?


----------



## Knotted (Jul 10, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> And if you think that capitalism will bring these about think again.



Of course I don't. These are exactly the objective conditions for socialism that capitalism will not fulfill. The working class is confronted with real (objective) obstacles in it's path. It isn't a lack of education that's the problem.

The creation of abundance and to an extent the socialisation of labour are the only two objective conditions for socialism that capitalism fulfills.

Lenin once observed that when socialists talk about "socialism" they are merely talking about public ownership of the means of production rather than a society completely rid of all the features of capitalism and where the slogan "from each according to their ability and to each according to their needs" applies. I think this is in effect true of the SPGB with the proviso that the SPGB think that public ownership of the means of production automatically produces such a society overnight.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> If indeed like you assert the workers are a class for itself how come capitalism is still with us?



Look up how Marx used that phrase. Hint - it's from Poverty of Philosophy.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 10, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> If has you argue, the prerequisite is fulfilled but the objective conditions - the creation of an abundance - remain unfulfilled how do you explain a global glut of products and a global over capacity?  The means and forces of production are fully developed sufficiently for the working class to use them in meeting their needs.  In which respect are the objective conditions unfulfilled?



In general I'm not going to reply to this sort of circular argument. You start by declaring that you are right ie. that the objective conditions for socialism is the creation of an abundance. You then conclude that I must be denying that there is a global glut of products even though I've stated the opposite. Are you trying to convince me of something or are you trying to convince yourself of something?

You can't convince anyone by simply declaring that you are right. Even Jehova Witnesses don't do this.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 10, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Of course I don't. These are exactly the objective conditions for socialism that capitalism will not fulfill. The working class is confronted with real (objective) obstacles in it's path. It isn't a lack of education that's the problem.
> 
> The creation of abundance and to an extent the socialisation of labour are the only two objective conditions for socialism that capitalism fulfills.



So if there are no more objective conditions for capitalism to fulfill what is the problem?



> Lenin once observed that when socialists talk about "socialism" they are merely talking about public ownership of the means of production rather than a society completely rid of all the features of capitalism and where the slogan "from each according to their ability and to each according to their needs" applies. I think this is in effect true of the SPGB with the proviso that the SPGB think that public ownership of the means of production automatically produces such a society overnight.



That is not the SPGB position.  Look in our pamphlet section for: From Capitalism to Socialism.



> Look up how Marx used that phrase. Hint - it's from Poverty of Philosophy.



Playing games why not spit it out?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 10, 2010)

Knotted said:


> In general I'm not going to reply to this sort of circular argument. You start by declaring that you are right ie. that the objective conditions for socialism is the creation of an abundance. You then conclude that I must be denying that there is a global glut of products even though I've stated the opposite. Are you trying to convince me of something or are you trying to convince yourself of something?
> 
> You can't convince anyone by simply declaring that you are right. Even Jehova Witnesses don't do this.



Its your circular argument not mine.  For its you who is stating the objective conditions are fulfilled and also there are other objective conditions that are not fulfilled.  How do you square this circle?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> So if there are no more objective conditions for capitalism to fulfill what is the problem?



He didn't say that _all_ the objective conditions were fulfilled - he said that _the only two objective conditions that capitalism could fulfill_ have been met. The same goes for your next post.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> He didn't say that _all_ the objective conditions were fulfilled - he said that _the only two objective conditions that capitalism could fulfill_ have been met. The same goes for your next post.



But there's no mention what these other objective conditions are.  And why, if they exist, they are thought to be necessary for a revolutionary transformation.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 10, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> So if there are no more objective conditions for capitalism to fulfill what is the problem?



Because there are other objective conditions for full socialism that will have to be met.

Perhaps look at it this way. Does capitalism create an abundance everywhere? Look at Haiti for example. If all the wealth were shared out equally in Haiti, it wouldn't make much difference to living standards. Only poverty would be shared out.

There will need to be a great deal of economic development and a great deal of restructuring the world economy before the last vestiges of capitalism are abolished. This is not to say that the capitalist class will carry out this task.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> That is not the SPGB position.  Look in our pamphlet section for: From Capitalism to Socialism.



Will do.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> Playing games why not spit it out?



1) This obscure terminology that Marx once used is not particularly relevant in my opinion.
2) If you're interested I'd rather encourage you to think about it for yourself.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> But there's no mention what these other objective conditions are.  And why, if they exist, they are thought to be necessary for a revolutionary transformation.



So what? It doesn't change what he said or that you misread what he said.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 10, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> That is not the SPGB position.  Look in our pamphlet section for: From Capitalism to Socialism.



I've just read the last section of that, and it's not enlightening me. I'm going by the SPGB's object:


> The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.



Edit: To spell it out: The SPGB think that a form of ownership (common ownership) will exist in a socialist society. Even this egalitarian and democratic concept has the imprint of capitalist property relations.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 10, 2010)

> Knotted said:
> 
> 
> > Because there are other objective conditions for full socialism that will have to be met.
> ...


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 10, 2010)

Knotted said:


> I've just read the last section of that, and it's not enlightening me. I'm going by the SPGB's object:
> 
> 
> Edit: To spell it out: The SPGB think that a form of ownership (common ownership) will exist in a socialist society. Even this egalitarian and democratic concept has the imprint of capitalist property relations.



If in your opinion this is indeed the case you need to make your case.   Think on this:  Where you have common ownership the whole concept of 'ownership' becomes a non issue and irrelevant to the changed circumstances.  And your preferred description is ....  .....?


----------



## Knotted (Jul 10, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Good point you make above in reference to the redistribution of poverty, but not much in regards to the subject matter of the creation of an abundance and the potential of distributing needs.  Its the absurd circumstances of poverty and inequality amongst plenty that socialism will address.  It follows the redistribution of wealth is not on the agenda.



It is not just a question of an unequal distribution of needs but also a question of the unequal global distribution of productive power.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> What is on the agenda is the understanding that whilst capitalism is capable of producing an abundance its incapable of distributing that abundance because of the profit motive.  Resulting in millions dying through lack of money.  The example of Haiti is not an objective condition but an example of uneven development.



It is an objective fact that will need to be overcome for the full development of socialism.

But besides that it is an objective fact that influences the class struggle in the immediate.





			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> The means of production are sufficiently developed for the purposes of common ownership.  Although there will be a drastic turnaround in what will be produced we do not envisage that economic growth is a necessity in the long term when socialism will be aiming for a steady state economy.



You can have common ownership which doesn't satify everyone's needs, so of course the means of production are sufficiently developed for the purposes of common ownership - they always have been. That's not the point. However common ownership presupposes the expropriation of small producers and we still have small producers.

There are all sorts of difficulties in establishing socialism beyond the development of the productive forces and class consciousness.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> It may seem obscure and irrelevant to you but the distinction between a class in itself and a class for itself is pretty well apparent to me.  And I'm sure you don't need me to spell it out for you!
> 
> I know exactly what is in my class interests.



Of course you do, you're in the SPGB.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 10, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> > I know exactly what is in my class interests.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Knotted (Jul 10, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> If in your opinion this is indeed the case you need to make your case.   Think on this:  Where you have common ownership the whole concept of 'ownership' becomes a non issue and irrelevant to the changed circumstances.



This isn't really the case because it is still required to be democratic ie. bourgeois equality still reins as each member of society has an equal say in how things are run and it is still necessary to subjugate the minority to the majority.

William Morris deals with this sort of question very nicely in News from Nowhere.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> And your preferred description is ....  .....?



A free association of producers where the development of each is the condition for the development of all and where we live by the maxim, "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs".

This is full socialism. Common ownership is merely the first phase of socialism.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Jul 10, 2010)

Knotted said:


> This is full socialism. Common ownership is merely the first phase of socialism.



It's the negation of private property and therefore a necessary political goal.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 10, 2010)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> It's the negation of private property and therefore a necessary political goal.



Yes, it is. But this is also what Stalin did. Getting rid of private property in the means of production is not in itself socialist. The SPGB make a big fuss about this.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 10, 2010)

> Knotted said:
> 
> 
> > It is not just a question of an unequal distribution of needs but also a question of the unequal global distribution of productive power.
> ...


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 10, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Yes, it is. But this is also what Stalin did. Getting rid of private property in the means of production is not in itself socialist. The SPGB make a big fuss about this.



Stalin replaced some private property with state property or state capitalism.  We advocate getting rid of all property relationships.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 10, 2010)

Knotted said:


> This isn't really the case because it is still required to be democratic ie. bourgeois equality still reins as each member of society has an equal say in how things are run and it is still necessary to subjugate the minority to the majority.



How you can compare representative democracy with participatory democracy confounds me.  And of course the minority will be subject to the majority decision.  If the majority do not have the final say its not a democracy!  Obviously, the minority view will be taken on board if their suggestions are valid and are not in direct confrontation with common ownership.  For example, if a bunch of capitalist minded people wish to set up a commune to put their ideas into practice, I'm sure we can find them a small island in the North Atlantic which will suit their purpose.

Unlike capitalist democracy the minority in participatory democracy will have equal recourse to state their case through the democratic channels.  Nevertheless, there is no reason to suggest that this minority will be of a static entity, with a certain amount of flexibility and overlap between ideas deserving discussion.



> William Morris deals with this sort of question very nicely in News from Nowhere.



I'm sure he does.



> A free association of producers where the development of each is the condition for the development of all and where we live by the maxim, "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs".



And the shorthand is - common ownership.



> This is full socialism. Common ownership is merely the first phase of socialism.



Not strictly true.  The first phase will be the political revolution, then the economic revolution, followed by the social revolution and finally the cultural revolution.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Jul 10, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Yes, it is. But this is also what Stalin did. Getting rid of private property in the means of production is not in itself socialist. The SPGB make a big fuss about this.



But he didn't make them common property; only state property.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 11, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> How you can compare representative democracy with participatory democracy confounds me.  And of course the minority will be subject to the majority decision.  If the majority do not have the final say its not a democracy!  Obviously, the minority view will be taken on board if their suggestions are valid and are not in direct confrontation with common ownership.  For example, if a bunch of capitalist minded people wish to set up a commune to put their ideas into practice, I'm sure we can find them a small island in the North Atlantic which will suit their purpose.
> 
> Unlike capitalist democracy the minority in participatory democracy will have equal recourse to state their case through the democratic channels.  Nevertheless, there is no reason to suggest that this minority will be of a static entity, with a certain amount of flexibility and overlap between ideas deserving discussion.



Full socialism means the abolition of all government, including democratic government. This includes direct democracy.

(Minorities have recourse to state their case in all forms of democracy.)




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> And the shorthand is - common ownership.



Ownership should be meaningless in full socialism - including common ownership.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> Not strictly true.  The first phase will be the political revolution, then the economic revolution, followed by the social revolution and finally the cultural revolution.



Political revolution certainly is not the first phase of socialism. Check your own literature on the Paris commune.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 11, 2010)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> But he didn't make them common property; only state property.



The point is he liquidated the capitalist class. I don't see very much difference between democratically controlled common property and democratically controlled state property. It seems like only a semantic difference to me.

Of course Stalin's regime was anything but democratic. There is also the fact that the USSR in it's isolation did not have the resources to adequately provide for it's population.



Gravediggers said:


> Stalin replaced some private property with state property or state capitalism.  We advocate getting rid of all property relationships.



You advocate keeping common property and therefore some of the vestiges of capitalism. If _in your terms_ the USSR was state capitalist, what you advocate is a category that's very similar - perhaps we could call it communal capitalism?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 11, 2010)

> Knotted said:
> 
> 
> > Full socialism means the abolition of all government, including democratic government. This includes direct democracy.
> ...


----------



## Knotted (Jul 11, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Governments are not democratic in the sense they are neutral institutions.  But it seems you are asserting here that the abolition of the state also means the abolition of (direct) democracy.  If so you are talking utter hogswash or deliberately misleading.  For you know full well that the establishment of socialism will be on the premise of participatory democracy.  Indeed, not only are they inseparable but is the whole issue behind class struggle.



I agree that the _establishment_ of socialism will be on the premise of participatory democracy. But I wasn't talking about the establishment of socialism. I was talking about full socialism.

Even direct democracy is flawed. A democratic ruling will tend to support a majority even if that majority only has a small stake in the ruling whereas the minority might have a large stake in the ruling. The question is whether it is necessary to subjugate minorities to the will of the majority. Democracy is a tool for a purpose, not the perfect form of goverment/administration.

I could say check Lenin or perhaps check various anarchist writers. But that would give you the heebeejeebees (or at least the espeejeebees!). So check Morris. You lot like Morris don't you?




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> If you are so certain on this why is it you have failed to provide a link to back your argument up that the first phase of socialism will be common ownership?  This argument is plainly incorrect for it implies the economic takes precedent over the political and also assumes its possible to have a socialist economy running in parallel with a capitalist economy.  Hmmm an island of socialism, don't be daft.



Alright. Common ownership is necessary for the establishment of socialism but by itself it is insufficient.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 11, 2010)

Knotted said:


> The point is he liquidated the capitalist class. I don't see very much difference between democratically controlled common property and democratically controlled state property. It seems like only a semantic difference to me.



Stalin did not liquidate the *whole* of the private capitalist class for he allowed small businesses to remain more or less intact.  Which was confirmed after he died.



> Of course Stalin's regime was anything but democratic. There is also the fact that the USSR in it's isolation did not have the resources to adequately provide for it's population.



Which is short hand for saying that the objective conditions and the subjective conditions were not present in the USSR.




> You advocate keeping common property and therefore some of the vestiges of capitalism. If _in your terms_ the USSR was state capitalist, what you advocate is a category that's very similar - perhaps we could call it communal capitalism?



What are these vestiges of capitalism which will be retained in socialism?  And what are the similarities between state capitalism and socialism?  Blind assertions say nothing.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 11, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Stalin did not liquidate the *whole* of the private capitalist class for he allowed small businesses to remain more or less intact.  Which was confirmed after he died.



I think you might be confusing Stalin with Lenin.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> Which is short hand for saying that the objective conditions and the subjective conditions were not present in the USSR.



It was long hand not short hand, but yes.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> What are these vestiges of capitalism which will be retained in socialism?



According to Marx - bourgeois equal right. That is equality that does not take into account the unequal circumstances and abilities of the people. I would include the retention of democratic rule as being an example of bourgeois equal right.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> And what are the similarities between state capitalism and socialism?



That depends on what you mean by state capitalism.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> Blind assertions say nothing.



Indeed.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 11, 2010)

Knotted said:


> I agree that the _establishment_ of socialism will be on the premise of participatory democracy. But I wasn't talking about the establishment of socialism. I was talking about full socialism.
> 
> Even direct democracy is flawed. A democratic ruling will tend to support a majority even if that majority only has a small stake in the ruling whereas the minority might have a large stake in the ruling. The question is whether it is necessary to subjugate minorities to the will of the majority. Democracy is a tool for a purpose, not the perfect form of goverment/administration.



True democracy is the will of the majority over the minority.  And if you are unable to accept that fact of life you are not a democrat.  But it also goes without saying that in a true democracy e.g. participatory or direct the views of a minority will be given full access to the democratic channels and if possible be accommodated if they are valid and not in conflict with the principles of common ownership.  

Lets also not be forgetful that the minority and majority are in a state of flux and divided over the nuances of their ideas.  This in itself suggests that the minority will be given every opportunity to become the majority.  For a very extreme example of this occurring it is possible for socialism to turn back the clock and re-establish capitalism.  If that's what the majority wants that is what they will get.



> I could say check Lenin or perhaps check various anarchist writers. But that would give you the heebeejeebees (or at least the espeejeebees!). So check Morris. You lot like Morris don't you?



Checking Morris and various anarchist writers do not give me or other socialists much to be concerned about and we are well aware that some anarchists (but I'm glad to say not all) become slightly irrational over the prospect of true democracy and how it might impinge on their individual freedom of expression.  We try to reassure them that there will be full scope for indulging in such pursuits and also for fully participating in the creation of the democratic structure to ensure that minority views are provided full consideration before a decision of the majority is enacted.  



> Alright. Common ownership is necessary for the establishment of socialism but by itself it is insufficient.



I can not fault you on that score but although we are aware what the main problems will be in the distribution of human needs, especially in coordinating a common effort, we wont know what other problems will arise until we get there.  Then it will be upto the majority to decide what is the most viable solution to suit their circumstances.  And for either of us to speculate on what these problems would entail would IMO be thoroughly undemocratic.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 11, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Checking Morris and various anarchist writers do not give me or other socialists much to be concerned about and we are well aware that some anarchists (but I'm glad to say not all) become slightly irrational over the prospect of true democracy and how it might impinge on their individual freedom of expression.  We try to reassure them that there will be full scope for indulging in such pursuits and also for fully participating in the creation of the democratic structure to ensure that minority views are provided full consideration before a decision of the majority is enacted.



How about Engels:



> "... For Marx and myself," continued Engels, "it was therefore absolutely impossible to use such a loose term to characterize our special point of view. Today things are different, and the word ["Social-Democrat"] may perhaps pass muster [mag passieren], inexact [unpassend, unsuitable] though it still is for a party whose economic programme is not merely socialist in general, but downright communist, *and whose ultimate political aim is to overcome the whole state and, consequently, democracy as well.* The names of real political parties, however, are never wholly appropriate; the party develops while the name stays."



Quoted from Lenin's State and Revolution.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 11, 2010)

]





Knotted said:


> I think you might be confusing Stalin with Lenin.



I'm not confusing either just pointing out that what you stated was incorrect.



> The point is he liquidated the capitalist class.



Lenin and Stalin were quite aware they had to retain the small capitalists and the capitalists with technical knowledge.  For it was essential to the development of the economy.



> It was long hand not short hand, but yes.



So what is your argument, if that is with this admission you have one?



> According to Marx - bourgeois equal right. That is equality that does not take into account the unequal circumstances and abilities of the people. I would include the retention of democratic rule as being an example of bourgeois equal right.



You are assuming, and grasping at straws, that unequal circumstances and abilities will not be taken into account under true democracy.  Whereas, equality of free access to the democratic channels will be one of the principles of participatory democracy.  The very absence of this principle will make our understanding of democracy a sham.  Whereas, all concerned parties will be involved in reaching a majority decision.




> That depends on what you mean by state capitalism.



State ownership of the principal means of production and distribution along with wide-scale planning activity, allocating supplies and directing products within the sphere of heavy industry, setting production targets, fixing prices and directing the flows of capital


----------



## Knotted (Jul 11, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I'm not confusing either just pointing out that what you stated was incorrect.
> 
> Lenin and Stalin were quite aware they had to retain the small capitalists and the capitalists with technical knowledge.  For it was essential to the development of the economy.



In the 20's, yes.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> So what is your argument, if that is with this admission you have one?



We're in agreement. I'm not some sort of contrarian who insists on always disagreeing you know.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> You are assuming, and grasping at straws, that unequal circumstances and abilities will not be taken into account under true democracy.  Whereas, equality of free access to the democratic channels will be one of the principles of participatory democracy.  The very absence of this principle will make our understanding of democracy a sham.  Whereas, all concerned parties will be involved in reaching a majority decision.



Different people have different needs. Democracy is based on everyone having the same democratic rights regardless of their circumstance. I've explained the argument already.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> State ownership of the principal means of production and distribution along with wide-scale planning activity, allocating supplies and directing products within the sphere of heavy industry, setting production targets, fixing prices and directing the flows of capital



There's a start, then, socialism doesn't direct capital.

This is not an interesting question to me. I've not talked about state capitalism.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 11, 2010)

I don't get this definition of state-capitalist as a catch-all term. Majority state ownership combined with a market driven economy, fair enough, but applying it willy nilly to primarily planned economies would seem to render the term capitalism redundant. Capitalism, surely, needs to be applied as a term when there is at least one of the following: significant private ownership of the MOP, and/or a primarily market driven economy. Capitalism does not just mean 'not socialism'.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 11, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Look Mr Ferret if you haven't got anything useful or constructive to say, if you are not prepared to engage with the other person's arguments, then why bother.  You know you really dont have to meet that self imposed target of 25posts per day uttering inanities


ehem>



sihhi;10821464]This is about to enter the Top 5 of most replied threads on uk p&p ever.[QUOTE=butchersapron said:


> ...and not once have the SPGB caught on to what's going on. Well, the SPGBers not posting have.


[/QUOTE]


It's sad really.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 11, 2010)

Knotted said:


> How about Engels:
> 
> 
> 
> Quoted from Lenin's State and Revolution.



Any quotes from Lenin I take with a pinch of salt until they have been absolutely verified.  Not that this quote has anything to do with what I have previously stated, in respect of trying to reassure anarchists of the individual bent they have nothing to fear from participatory democracy.  In many respects individual anarchism fails to take into account that rules of conduct are essential to civilised and classless society and without these rules of conduct there is no society.  You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 11, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Any quotes from Lenin I take with a pinch of salt until they have been absolutely verified.



I would indeed prefer to quote from the original, but it's not on the internet. If you have a copy of Marx & Engels collected works lying about, you can find it for yourself.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> Not that this quote has anything to do with what I have previously stated, in respect of trying to reassure anarchists of the individual bent they have nothing to fear from participatory democracy.  In many respects individual anarchism fails to take into account that rules of conduct are essential to civilised and classless society and without these rules of conduct there is no society.  You can't have it both ways.



Now this really is disingenuous.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 11, 2010)

Knotted said:


> In the 20's, yes.



And after, in fact all the way until the demise of the USSR.  





> We're in agreement. I'm not some sort of contrarian who insists on always disagreeing you know.



Glad to hear that, because they piss me right off.



> Different people have different needs. Democracy is based on everyone having the same democratic rights regardless of their circumstance. I've explained the argument already.



You might have explained that argument but there is no sign here that you accept my explanations on how minority views will be accommodated in a socialist society.




> There's a start, then, socialism doesn't direct capital.
> 
> This is not an interesting question to me. I've not talked about state capitalism.



There will be no capital in a socialist society.  And although you are not interested in the theory of state capitalism you did say it depended on what was meant by the term.  So to make it clear to you and other posters I've posted what the SPGB means by the term.  And in this respect already one poster is disagreeing with our explanation and seems to have formed the opinion that there are no markets under state capitalism.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 11, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Now this really is disingenuous.



If you think that, an explanation would be appropriate by relating from your understanding that individual anarchism is not in conflict with the rules of conduct of civilised society.  Surely, individual anarchism suggests that the individual has primacy over the rest of society?


----------



## Knotted (Jul 11, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> And after, in fact all the way until the demise of the USSR.



Private ownership of the means of production was reintroduced in 1985 if I remember correctly.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> You might have explained that argument but there is no sign here that you accept my explanations on how minority views will be accommodated in a socialist society.



Of course I accept it. It's even formally true of democracy now. It doesn't address my point, though.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> There will be no capital in a socialist society.  And although you are not interested in the theory of state capitalism you did say it depended on what was meant by the term.  So to make it clear to you and other posters I've posted what the SPGB means by the term.  And in this respect already one poster is disagreeing with our explanation and seems to have formed the opinion that there are no markets under state capitalism.



Fair enough.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 11, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> If you think that, an explanation would be appropriate by relating from your understanding that individual anarchism is not in conflict with the rules of conduct of civilised society.  Surely, individual anarchism suggests that the individual has primacy over the rest of society?



You're having a little debate with yourself. I haven't mentioned individual anarchism.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 11, 2010)

Knotted said:


> You're having a little debate with yourself. I haven't mentioned individual anarchism.



OK just say what you find disingenuous with my explanation.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 11, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> OK just say what you find disingenuous with my explanation.



The fact that you thought you were addressing some point of mine was disinguous. The fact that you've tried to distract from my argument by changing the subject is disingenuous.

Perhaps you're not being disingenuous. Perhaps you're really a computer program not a human being. You see the word "anarchists" and it triggers a certain spiel regardless of its relevance...


----------



## Knotted (Jul 11, 2010)

With regards the existence of private property in the USSR, I might be confusing the legal status with the actuality. I'd have to look it up.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 11, 2010)

Knotted said:


> With regards the existence of private property in the USSR, I might be confusing the legal status with the actuality. I'd have to look it up.



I think what you'll find is a merger took place.  The state took over the ownership and made the former owner(s) managers or regional directors with membership to the party a must, with the party role adding to their income.    Some private capitalists became state capitalists overnight, others spent time in the gulag until such time their skills and experience were required.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 11, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I don't get this definition of state-capitalist as a catch-all term. Majority state ownership combined with a market driven economy, fair enough, but applying it willy nilly to primarily planned economies would seem to render the term capitalism redundant. Capitalism, surely, needs to be applied as a term when there is at least one of the following: significant private ownership of the MOP, and/or a primarily market driven economy. Capitalism does not just mean 'not socialism'.


State Capitalism - Part 2 - Discussion 
Tony Cliff 2004 
Comment


US, Japan, Germany and State Capitalism
Kostas Cossis 1992 
Comment


State Capitalism in Crisis
Chris Harman 1987 
Comment


State Capitalism - Discussion 
John Molineux 2004 
Comment


State Capitalism and Russia Under Stalin
Sean Vernell 2006 
Comment


The theory of state capitalism
Ben Selwyn 2008 
Comment


State Capitalism in Russia
Simon Guy 2009 - Length: 01-04-57 minutes
Comment


State Capitalism in Eastern Europe
Mike Haynes 2009 - Length: 01-10-55 minutes
Comment


http://www.resistancemp3.org.uk/cgi-bin/namekeysearch.pl


----------



## Knotted (Jul 11, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I think what you'll find is a merger took place.  The state took over the ownership and made the former owner(s) managers or regional directors with membership to the party a must, with the party role adding to their income.    Some private capitalists became state capitalists overnight, others spent time in the gulag until such time their skills and experience were required.



OK I get what you are saying. Stalin didn't liquidate all the capitalists as individual people - but you agree that he abolished private property. That was my little point anyway - he liquidated the capitalist class as a class not literally each and every indivdual. Nevermind.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 11, 2010)

Can we rewind to this discussion?


Knotted said:


> Edit: To spell it out: The SPGB think that a form of ownership (common ownership) will exist in a socialist society. Even this egalitarian and democratic concept has the imprint of capitalist property relations.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I think you make some very good points against the SPGB Knotted, but IMHO you APPEAR to fail to appreciate the nature of the property relationships, is defined by the class relations.

Sure, Stalin eliminated a capitalist class, but then replaced it with another one, surely????  That the Stalinists state bureaucracy was capitalist, was defined by their relationship to the means of production.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 11, 2010)

Knotted said:


> OK I get what you are saying. Stalin didn't liquidate all the capitalists as individual people - but you agree that he abolished private property. That was my little point anyway - he liquidated the capitalist class as a class not literally each and every indivdual. Nevermind.


The church in feudal society eliminated private property, in that the means of production controled by the church was controlled by a bureaucracy, rather than individuals like the King, Lords etc.  but the church controled mode of production was still feudalism, because their class relationship to the means of production was the same as the Kings.

What Stalin did was no different.  He abolished private property, in name only.  As far as the class relationships were concerned, they remained exactly the same.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 11, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Can we rewind to this discussion?
> I think you make some very good points against the SPGB Knotted, but IMHO you APPEAR to fail to appreciate the nature of the property relationships, is defined by the class relations.
> 
> Sure, Stalin eliminated a capitalist class, but then replaced it with another one, surely????  That the Stalinists state bureaucracy was capitalist, was defined by their relationship to the means of production.



Do you think all state bureaucrats are capitalists? Are you saying that the British civil service is a capitalist class and a distinct capitalist class from the ordinary capitalist class?



ResistanceMP3 said:


> The church in feudal society eliminated private property, in that the means of production controled by the church was controlled by a bureaucracy, rather than individuals like the King, Lords etc.  but the church controled mode of production was still feudalism, because their class relationship to the means of production was the same as the Kings.
> 
> What Stalin did was no different.  He abolished private property, in name only.  As far as the class relationships were concerned, they remained exactly the same.



Are you saying feudalist class relations are the same as capitalist class relations?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 11, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I think what you'll find is a merger took place.  The state took over the ownership and made the former owner(s) managers or regional directors with membership to the party a must, with the party role adding to their income.    Some private capitalists became state capitalists overnight, others spent time in the gulag until such time their skills and experience were required.


 what I can say is, that this state of affairs ^ was true with the fall of the Berlin Wall, when there was a supposed 'transformation' from 'socialism' to capitalism.

How true this was at the time of the revolution, I honestly don't know.  Sure, those with skills, managers, that the workers needed to run the factory, were often forced to contribute to the production process at gun by the workers, but the playboy capitalist's etc???


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 11, 2010)

Knotted said:


> OK I get what you are saying. Stalin didn't liquidate all the capitalists as individual people - but you agree that he abolished private property. That was my little point anyway - he liquidated the capitalist class as a class not literally each and every indivdual. Nevermind.



Not sure whether he or Lenin for that matter abolished *all* private property.  Small enterprises like some retail outlets, and cafes. etc were allowed to continue to trade but with restrictions on the number of employees.  But this policy was in line with the distinction they made between state socialism = small enterprises and state capitalism = large enterprises.  

State capitalism meant for the Bolsheviks the lower phase of socialism and originated from Lenin's misquotation of 'The Gotha Program', where he made a distinction between socialism being the lower phase and communism being the higher phase.  M&E never made such a distinction for both terms meant the same thing.

And strictly speaking Lenin or Stalin never liquidated the capitalist class, they still remained in political power under the guise of state capitalists, which effectively consisted of the party bosses.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 11, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Do you think all state bureaucrats are capitalists? Are you saying that the British civil service is a capitalist class and a distinct capitalist class from the ordinary capitalist class?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying feudalist class relations are the same as capitalist class relations?



I think for a Marxist, a mode of production, is defined by the class relationships to the means of production.  Whether that property/means of production is held privately by individuals acting as a warring band of brothers, a class, or collectively by a bureaucracy acting as a warring band of brothers, a class, does not negate the nature of the mode of production.  Marx said as much, I have been told.

So what I am asking is, did the church's collective ownership of property, negate the nature of it's fudal mode of production?  If no, why does the same change under capitalism negate the capitalist mode of production?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 11, 2010)

Knotted said:


> The fact that you thought you were addressing some point of mine was disinguous. The fact that you've tried to distract from my argument by changing the subject is disingenuous.
> 
> Perhaps you're not being disingenuous. Perhaps you're really a computer program not a human being. You see the word "anarchists" and it triggers a certain spiel regardless of its relevance...



Hey hold your horses my explanation was only following through the argument of the individual anarchists that the introduction of participatory democracy would impinge on their freedom of expression and mentioning some possible contradictions.  



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Gravediggers View Post
> If you think that, an explanation would be appropriate by relating from your understanding that individual anarchism is not in conflict with the rules of conduct of civilised society. Surely, individual anarchism suggests that the individual has primacy over the rest of society?



This is not changing the subject just merely enlarging the discussion.  You alleged this was disingenuous to detract IME from answering the question in my last sentence.  Back in your twisty mode I gather?


----------



## Knotted (Jul 11, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Not sure whether he or Lenin for that matter abolished *all* private property.  Small enterprises like some retail outlets, and cafes. etc were allowed to continue to trade but with restrictions on the number of employees.  But this policy was in line with the distinction they made between state socialism = small enterprises and state capitalism = large enterprises.



I'll take your word for it.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> State capitalism meant for the Bolsheviks the lower phase of socialism and originated from Lenin's misquotation of 'The Gotha Program', where he made a distinction between socialism being the lower phase and communism being the higher phase.  M&E never made such a distinction for both terms meant the same thing.



This is just complete nonsense. Lenin never made a distinction between socialism and communism. He just noted that very often when socialists talked about socialism they really meant the lower phase of socialism/communism. As I've shown this includes the SPGB.

edit:
Lenin:


> Marx not only most scrupulously takes account of the inevitable inequality of men, but he also takes into account the fact that the mere conversion of the means of production into the common property of the whole society (commonly called “socialism”) does not remove the defects of distribution and the inequality of "bourgeois laws" which continues to prevail so long as products are divided "according to the amount of labor performed".


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm

Lenin had EXACTLY the same definition of socialism as the SPGB. He merely noted the defects still inherent in this first stage of socialism/communism - something the SPGB fail to do.

This is the problem you have learning from the SPGB without reading the original texts. You just learn all the self-serving SPGB distortions.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> And strictly speaking Lenin or Stalin never liquidated the capitalist class, they still remained in political power under the guise of state capitalists, which effectively consisted of the party bosses.



Yeah, yeah.

Edit: I can't take this theory seriously. I'm not particularly interested in it anymore. I've looked at four or five different versions, and I've spotted flaws in all of them. They're all the product of extemely tortured reasoning. Just try thinking it through for yourself. Who are the capitalists? Where is the capital? Is there any market competition? If not what drives the economy? If so how so? Just ask yourself these questions.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 11, 2010)

Knotted said:


> This is just complete nonsense. Lenin never made a distinction between socialism and communism. He just noted that very often when socialists talked about socialism they really meant the lower phase of socialism/communism. As I've shown this includes the SPGB.



Afraid not on both counts.  I'm sure RMP3 will correct me if I'm wrong but I think he made the distinction in, 'The State and Revolution'.  And when he's referring to socialists, if he does, he's referring to himself.  For has far as I know there is no evidence of anybody in the Social Democratic Movement/Party who even faintly made this distinction between socialism and communism.  They like M&E used both words to mean the same thing.  I don't recall the SPGB ever referring to the establishment of socialism or either the revolutionary process in terms of higher and lower phases.  If this is indeed the case would appreciate a reference or link.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 11, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Afraid not on both counts.  I'm sure RMP3 will correct me if I'm wrong but I think he made the distinction in, 'The State and Revolution'.  And when he's referring to socialists, if he does, he's referring to himself.  For has far as I know there is no evidence of anybody in the Social Democratic Movement/Party who even faintly made this distinction between socialism and communism.  They like M&E used both words to mean the same thing.  I don't recall the SPGB ever referring to the establishment of socialism or either the revolutionary process in terms of higher and lower phases.  If this is indeed the case would appreciate a reference or link.



Have you read State and Revolution?

You're not understanding. When socialists talked about socialism, they might not have been making any distinction between socialism and communism, but in effect they were refering to the first phase of socialism/communism. It has become the standard convention. Not only that but the SPGB's definition of socialism is the first phase of socialism/communism ie. common ownership of the means of production.

See my edit in my last post. Lenin has exactly the same definition of socialism as the SPGB does.

Please read State and Revolution before you criticise it.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 11, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I don't recall the SPGB ever referring to the establishment of socialism or either the revolutionary process in terms of higher and lower phases.  If this is indeed the case would appreciate a reference or link.



Of course they don't. They just refer to what is the lower phase, even if they don't call it that.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 11, 2010)

Knotted said:


> > edit:
> > Lenin:
> > Quote:
> > Marx not only most scrupulously takes account of the inevitable inequality of men, but he also takes into account the fact that the mere conversion of the means of production into the common property of the whole society (commonly called “socialism”) does not remove the defects of distribution and the inequality of "bourgeois laws" which continues to prevail so long as products are divided "according to the amount of labor performed".
> ...


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 11, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Of course they don't. They just refer to what is the lower phase, even if they don't call it that.



So what do we call it?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 11, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> State Capitalism - Part 2 - Discussion
> Tony Cliff 2004
> Comment
> 
> ...



You see, what you've done there, RMP3, is post up a load of SWP links on the mere mention of state-capitalism. Of course, if you'd have read my post you'd have realised that I was arguing against SPGB's blanket definition of state capitalism, not the SWP's, which is a little bit more selective. As it happens, the swappies theory of state-cap is also bollocks, but that is another debate.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 12, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> State Capitalism - Part 2 - Discussion
> Tony Cliff 2004
> Comment



But you forgot to mention: State Capitalism: The wages system under new management, by Adam Buick and John Crump, Macmillan (1986).  Which covers the theory empirically and its written by a member of the SPGB and a former member.  Here's a review from the _Socialist Standard_ which may cause other posters to reconsider their present political position of supporting state capitalism.  But there again most on the left automatically reject anything the SPGB have to say because it undermines their whole outlook on socialist understanding.  Whatever, have a good read.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/overview/state.pdf


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm
> 
> Lenin is just reiterating what Marx confirmed that the wages system and bourgeois law would continue under state capitalism.



This is one of those occassions where you have to read the words on the page and not the words in your head.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> I'm afraid not.  For Lenin state capitalism was socialism, or socialism equaled state capitalism.  And if you so wish I can get you the text where he states this.



No you can't. This is because the text isn't written on the page, but only in your head.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> Blustering nonsense.



I believe it.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> The tortured reasoning you are complaining of are from those Leninist who try to square the circle on the theory of state capitalism and socialism.  All the SPGB have done is originated the theory on state capitalism and consistently provided an explanation for its existence.



You'll have to talk to somebody who cares about the wacky theory of state capitalism.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> So what do we call it?



You do indeed call the lower phase of socialism/communism socialism. Although recently you (Gravediggers) have taken to calling the common ownership of the means of production (ie. socialism) state capitalism. Which is weird. The higher phase of socialism/communism is not mentioned at all by the SPGB.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

Gravediggers, I do not have to recognise your terminology. If you wish to call something "state capitalist", you have to accept that I might find that label unsatisfactory. If you wish to call common ownership of the means of production "socialist", you have to accept that I might regard this as merely the first or lower phase of socialism.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Jul 12, 2010)

Knotted said:


> The point is he liquidated the capitalist class. I don't see very much difference between democratically controlled common property and democratically controlled state property. It seems like only a semantic difference to me.



Genuine common ownership, as opposed to only the idea of it.

Common ownership is meaningless unless it means collective control.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> Genuine common ownership, as opposed to only the idea of it.
> 
> Common ownership is meaningless unless it means collective control.



I agree.

I think common ownership - realised through direct democracy - is (in a new and minimal form) a form of state. If it is genuinely democratic it means that minorities have to give way to majorities ie. there are still some coercive methods that the majority have recourse to. This I would call a state. According to Marxist theory this state, minimal and novel as it already it is, will whither away. I tend to agree with this contention - if the source of anatagonism in society are removed then even direct democracy should become antiquated. I think William Morris is worth reading on this score, he was bold enough to imagine a fully socialist society where all vestiges of capitalism have been abolished. There are many idiosyncratic features of Morris's utopia, but in terms of what it lacks it makes for very interesting reading.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Jul 12, 2010)

Knotted said:


> I think common ownership - realised through direct democracy - is (in a new and minimal form) a form of state. If it is genuinely democratic it means that minorities have to give way to majorities ie. there are still some coercive methods that the majority have recourse to. This I would call a state.



Your idea of what makes a 'state' is far more rudimentary than my own. As long as it might ever be necessary to use force/restraint of some kind against any kind of minority do we already have a state..?

Direct democracy is direct precisely because it is unmediated i.e _stateless_. The 'walls' that remain aren't really walls because there's nothing outside the garden... as it were.

A bit like how common ownership isn't really ownership. The commons are taken as they are given... but in advancing a political project it may only be possible to go from points of reference derived from class society. "From each according to ability, to each according to need" is far more difficult to explain than collective ownership.



> According to Marxist theory this state, minimal and novel as it already it is, will whither away. I tend to agree with this contention - if the source of anatagonism in society are removed then even direct democracy should become antiquated. I think William Morris is worth reading on this score, he was bold enough to imagine a fully socialist society where all vestiges of capitalism have been abolished. There are many idiosyncratic features of Morris's utopia, but in terms of what it lacks it makes for very interesting reading.



The kind of state that withers away is the revolutionary "people's state" with institutions it has retained such as police, courts, armed forces, administrations etc. that is in the process of being transformed democratically, dismantled basically, but it still a state as such (and it's just about possible for there to be a counter-revolution).

[The Socialist Party reject DOTP, btw, something I think is still fully prescient, if not in full content.]

Morris' utopia is quite of his time, but he has the right idea. I think when technological accumulation has begun (after the first phase, the socialist pattern of distribution has taken shape and replaces capitalist infrastructure - also political) then everyone can be mostly self-sufficient in smaller scale (if not individual) terms, so questions like 'who will share this produce... blahblahblah' won't be much of a problem.

And post-boxes will be tangerine imo.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> Your idea of what makes a 'state' is far more rudimentary than my own. As long as it might ever be necessary to use force/restraint of some kind against any kind of minority do we already have a state..?
> 
> Direct democracy is direct precisely because it is unmediated i.e _stateless_. The 'walls' that remain aren't really walls because there's nothing outside the garden... as it were.
> 
> A bit like how common ownership isn't really ownership. The commons are taken as they are given... but in advancing a political project it may only be possible to go from points of reference derived from class society. "From each according to ability, to each according to need" is far more difficult to explain than collective ownership.



What I call a state and what you call a state might be different things, but this is just a semantic disagreement. I think we are in agreement that democracy of any form assumes measures of force/restraint (your terms) coercion (my term) against minorities.




			
				Ibn Khaldoun said:
			
		

> The kind of state that withers away is the revolutionary "people's state" with institutions it has retained such as police, courts, armed forces, administrations etc. that is in the process of being transformed democratically, dismantled basically, but it still a state as such (and it's just about possible for there to be a counter-revolution).
> 
> [The Socialist Party reject DOTP, btw, something I think is still fully prescient, if not in full content.]



The dictatorship of the proletariat is something quite different from the first phase of socialism. DOTP is the transition from capitalism to socialism. The SPGB systematically confuse terms. I'm trying to unmuddle the SPGB's mess.




			
				Ibn Khaldoun said:
			
		

> Morris' utopia is quite of his time, but he has the right idea. I think when technological accumulation has begun (after the first phase, the socialist pattern of distribution has taken shape and replaces capitalist infrastructure - also political) then everyone can be mostly self-sufficient in smaller scale (if not individual) terms, so questions like 'who will share this produce... blahblahblah' won't be much of a problem.
> 
> And post-boxes will be tangerine imo.



Morris' utopia is very influenced by Ruskin. But I don't think that's relelvant to this particular question. Decision making should be just and equitable. Why should majority decisions necessarily be the most just and equitable?

I'll explain again. A decision might agrieve a minority greatly while providing the majority with a small benefit. If the free development of each is a condition for the free development of all then democracy should be irrelevant in such cases.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Jul 12, 2010)

Well, coercion is going to be a last resort i.e crime. However, democratic planning is absolutely necessary for many industries/forms of production.

I don't see the problem as decisions are inevitably based on objective criteria. Participatory democracy means things can be considered carefully and rationally, giving full scope for compromises.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> Well, coercion is going to be a last resort i.e crime. However, democratic planning is absolutely necessary for many industries/forms of production.



I'm not even necessarily talking about crime. What if a minority refuses to accept a majority decision?




			
				Ibn Khaldoun said:
			
		

> I don't see the problem as decisions are inevitably based on objective criteria. Participatory democracy means things can be considered carefully and rationally, giving full scope for compromises.



Do you not see that this means that democratic decisions become a rule of thumb rather than an absolute rule. In Morris' utopia the minority has the right to veto the majority decision and the decision is put off for further discussion.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Jul 12, 2010)

Knotted said:


> The dictatorship of the proletariat is something quite different from the first phase of socialism. DOTP is the transition from capitalism to socialism. The SPGB systematically confuse terms. I'm trying to unmuddle the SPGB's mess.



What gets called 'lower phase of socialism' has more to do with labour time vouchers (entirely outdated), not the existence of the state.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Jul 12, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Do you not see that this means that democratic decisions become a rule of thumb rather than an absolute rule. In Morris' utopia the minority has the right to veto the majority decision and the decision is put off for further discussion.



Sure.

But the condition for the development of each being the condition for the development of all is bound to govern production (why hog metal when you won't be able to mine it later?).

Even in a so-called 'lower phase of socialism' what real antagonisms are even imaginable?


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> What gets called 'lower phase of socialism' has more to do with labour time vouchers (entirely outdated), not the existence of the state.



Not really. It is to do with bourgeois equal right - this may or may not include labour time vouchers (or some other voucher). The SPGB want to reduce the question to labour time vouchers and the productive forces (which is all very stalinist btw). But as I've been trying to point out there is more to the question than productive forces.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> Sure.
> 
> But the condition for the development of each being the condition for the development of all is bound to govern production (why hog metal when you won't be able to mine it later?).
> 
> Even in a so-called 'lower phase of socialism' what real antagonisms are even imaginable?



Is this some sort of joke? Antagonisms based exactly on the operation of bourgeois right.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> Sure.
> 
> But the condition for the development of each being the condition for the development of all is bound to govern production (why hog metal when you won't be able to mine it later?).
> 
> Even in a so-called 'lower phase of socialism' what real antagonisms are even imaginable?



There will be certain stratifications in society, uneven development, relative poverty and relative wealth. There will be agrarian questions. There will be a need to modernise much of the world. There will also be the habits and ethics that will be retained from the old era to some degree.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Jul 12, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Not really. It is to do with bourgeois equal right - this may or may not include labour time vouchers (or some other voucher). The SPGB want to reduce the question to labour time vouchers and the productive forces (which is all very stalinist btw). But as I've been trying to point out there is more to the question than productive forces.



The antagonisms are, in any case, to do with remuneration basically, not democracy. As far as democracy goes - what other mediating principle is there ever going to be, unless we live in something like the Venus Project where no such thing is necessary? Democracy will serve to resolve any disputes that may occur.

But you also mention:



> There will be certain stratifications in society, uneven development, relative poverty and relative wealth. There will be agrarian questions. There will be a need to modernise much of the world. There will also be the habits and ethics that will be retained from the old era to some degree.



All of this necessitates democracy (and socialism in the first place)!

In the SPGB about three years' ago there was being discussed the idea put forward that those who currently live in poverty under capitalism could be 'compensated' by those who are in relatively in better conditions. Basically that there'll be a redistribution within the initial stage of socialism.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> All of this necessitates democracy (and socialism in the first place)!
> 
> In the SPGB about three years' ago there was being discussed the idea put forward that those who currently live in poverty under capitalism could be 'compensated' by those who are in relatively in better conditions. Basically that there'll be a redistribution within the initial stage of socialism.



This may happen, but it takes the form of a charitable resolution. It is not necessarily in the immediate interests of those in more affluent areas to compensate the more poverty stricken areas. You cannot assume everyone will share this moral motivation.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 12, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Not really. It is to do with bourgeois equal right - this may or may not include labour time vouchers (or some other voucher). The SPGB want to reduce the question to labour time vouchers and the productive forces (which is all very stalinist btw). But as I've been trying to point out there is more to the question than productive forces.



Untrue, the SPGB reject the use of LTV.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 12, 2010)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> In the SPGB about three years' ago there was being discussed the idea put forward that those who currently live in poverty under capitalism could be 'compensated' by those who are in relatively in better conditions. Basically that there'll be a redistribution within the initial stage of socialism.



Untrue, and utter fantasy.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Untrue, the SPGB reject the use of LTV.



I know. The point is that you think the first phase of socialism as characterised by Marx in the Critique of the Gotha Program is entirely about the use of labour time vouchers.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> The antagonisms are, in any case, to do with remuneration basically, not democracy. As far as democracy goes - what other mediating principle is there ever going to be, unless we live in something like the Venus Project where no such thing is necessary? Democracy will serve to resolve any disputes that may occur.
> 
> But you also mention:
> 
> ...



There's precisely nothing wrong with the idea of equalisation funds. But why make stuff up? Can we have less theology on this thread too please.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 12, 2010)

> Knotted said:
> 
> 
> > Have you read State and Revolution?
> ...


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 12, 2010)

Knotted said:


> I know. The point is that you think the first phase of socialism as characterised by Marx in the Critique of the Gotha Program is entirely about the use of labour time vouchers.



No the point is we reject the use of LTV, along with his other suggestions in the Gotha Program.  These suggestions were just a thought of his contained in a letter to a comrade and were not cast in stone and the 'Gotha Program' was never published by Marx.  In fact the Gotha Program was part of a private correspondence which we now would refer to has brain storming.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Jul 12, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Untrue, and utter fantasy.



I'm pretty damn sure I'm right.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 12, 2010)

Knotted said:


> This may happen, but it takes the form of a charitable resolution. It is not necessarily in the immediate interests of those in more affluent areas to compensate the more poverty stricken areas. You cannot assume everyone will share this moral motivation.



The very reason why its unnecessary.  Especially in the circumstances of an abundance.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Jul 12, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Untrue, and utter fantasy.



Robbo can verify it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

It was 'marginal notes' and clearly of burning immediate political importance - hence it's existence. Please don't in the future fall back on it to defend your position as regards the state if you're going to take this approach.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 12, 2010)

Knotted said:


> There will be certain stratifications in society, uneven development, relative poverty and relative wealth. There will be agrarian questions. There will be a need to modernise much of the world. There will also be the habits and ethics that will be retained from the old era to some degree.



And these are all problems and issues which will have to be dealt with through participatory democracy to cater for the minority who do not wish for 'modernisation' fostered upon them.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Jul 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> There's precisely nothing wrong with the idea of equalisation funds. But why make stuff up? Can we have less theology on this thread too please.



I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, just pointing out they've taken this matter into consideration.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

That's nice of them. Is there an appeal process?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 12, 2010)

> Knotted said:
> 
> 
> > This is one of those occassions where you have to read the words on the page and not the words in your head.
> ...


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

SPGB's object:


> The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.



What Lenin said was commonly called socialism:


> The [mere] conversion of the means of production into the common property of the whole society.



There are no differences here, except the more complete SPGB definition which includes a phrase about democratic control. But even there are no differences.

Lenin:


> Democracy means equality. The great significance of the proletariat's struggle for equality and of equality as a slogan will be clear if we correctly interpret it as meaning the abolition of classes.



It is clear that Lenin regarded the first phase of socialism as taking the form of equality and democracy. It's not that I have to search very hard for quotes like this, State and Revolution is awash with them.

There is simply no difference between what the SPGB call "socialism" and what Lenin called the "first phase of socialism". When I say there is no difference, there is not even differences in the terms used. I don't have to make any inferences. They are literally and exactly the same.

Of course you might regard Lenin cynically and say he didn't really mean what he said. But you cannot deny what he said. It is simply a matter of undeniable fact that what Lenin called the "first phase of socialism" is exactly what the SPGB call "socialism".

It shouldn't be too surprising either. It is not some sort of coincidence. Both Lenin & the Bolsheviks and the SPGB had their origins in the Second International. They both took their conceptions from the same source. What's particularly interesting and exciting about State and Revolution is that it brings to fore all those little neglected revolutionary themes that Marx and Engels explored. Lenin doesn't distort anything, he just puts back the bits that were taken out by Kautsky, Plekhanov, Liebknecht (snr) & co.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Lol.  What a ridiculous suggestion.  One minute you are complaining that I write like a robot and the next you are suggesting I become one.



Reading and accepting what has been said is not the same as agreeing with what has been said. You are not allowed an opinion about what was said and what was not said, because it is a matter of fact, it is a matter of record. You are of course completely free to reject or criticise what has been said.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 12, 2010)

Knotted said:


> You do indeed call the lower phase of socialism/communism socialism. Although recently you (Gravediggers) have taken to calling the common ownership of the means of production (ie. socialism) state capitalism. Which is weird. The higher phase of socialism/communism is not mentioned at all by the SPGB.



Wrong on both counts. I've never called or equated common ownership with state capitalism.  In fact its you whose equating the two.  If the higher phase is not mentioned at all by the SPGB and they also don't put a name to the lower stage it appears you are going way off beam so your twisted logic fits your assumptions and conclusions.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 12, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Gravediggers, I do not have to recognise your terminology. If you wish to call something "state capitalist", you have to accept that I might find that label unsatisfactory. If you wish to call common ownership of the means of production "socialist", you have to accept that I might regard this as merely the first or lower phase of socialism.



This has been obvious right from the start.  Indeed its all part of your game plan to confuse the issue.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

Is knotted also an operative do you think?


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> This has been obvious right from the start.  Indeed its all part of your game plan to confuse the issue.



Everything I say could be wrong. But regardless, you have to acknowledge that I have opinions which differ from yours. There is no reason to think that my beliefs can be translated into SPGB terminology. You have to engage me on my own terms - at least to _some_ extent.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

By the way, you're sounding paranoid again.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Jul 12, 2010)

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/aug07/



> The compensation model suggests that, in return for having to put up with living under these relatively disadvantageous circumstances, such individuals should be compensated in terms of having priority access to those goods at the luxury or frivolous end of the socially agreed hierarchy of production of goals. This is not only a question of natural justice; it will help to ease some of latent tensions that might arise in the development towards a fully rounded and mature socialist society.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 12, 2010)

Knotted said:


> What I call a state and what you call a state might be different things, but this is just a semantic disagreement. I think we are in agreement that democracy of any form assumes measures of force/restraint (your terms) coercion (my term) against minorities.



Which you are against?



> The dictatorship of the proletariat is something quite different from the first phase of socialism. DOTP is the transition from capitalism to socialism. The SPGB systematically confuse terms. I'm trying to unmuddle the SPGB's mess.



You are in fact trying to unmuddle the mess the left have made for themselves and in the process making an arse of it.



> Morris' utopia is very influenced by Ruskin. But I don't think that's relelvant to this particular question. Decision making should be just and equitable. Why should majority decisions necessarily be the most just and equitable?



Because that's what the majority think at the time.   A democracy are not going to get it right every time and if they are wrong there will be every opportunity to correct the decision.



> I'll explain again. A decision might agrieve a minority greatly while providing the majority with a small benefit. If the free development of each is a condition for the free development of all then democracy should be irrelevant in such cases.



So you are not a democrat I take it?  The end of society as we know it.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

Look, I've explained why I think democracy is of limited use twice. You've ignored my explanation twice. I'm not doing it third time.

But you make the mistake of assuming that I take a moral stand against democracy. It is not a question of saying democracy is always good or democracy is always bad. A society based on direct democracy with the means of production in the hands of the people would be a huge step forward from what we have today. Saying this does not mean that even this democratic socialist society would be the ultimate achievement.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 12, 2010)

Knotted said:


> I'm not even necessarily talking about crime. What if a minority refuses to accept a majority decision?



They will have to accept the consequences of the majority decision.



> Do you not see that this means that democratic decisions become a rule of thumb rather than an absolute rule.



It depends on the circumstances.  Murder for instance is an absolute while the erection of a camp site is a rule of thumb for natural disasters.



> [/
> In Morris' utopia the minority has the right to veto the majority decision and the decision is put off for further discussion.



And Morris is wrong.  In this scenario nothing gets done because there is continual stalemate.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

Every now and then I think being trained in the use of the dialectic is necessary. This sentiment doesn't usually last. but I at least think it helps some people a great deal. It would help Gravediggers. Yay, yay - nay, nay.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> They will have to accept the consequences of the majority decision.



What if their complicity is required?




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> It depends on the circumstances.  Murder for instance is an absolute while the erection of a camp site is a rule of thumb for natural disasters.



You're not understanding the point. Following majority decisions should not be an absolute rule.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> And Morris is wrong.  In this scenario nothing gets done because there is continual stalemate.



Only if all sides are beligerent. I don't think Morris was assuming the continued existence of the SPGB for example.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 12, 2010)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> I'm pretty damn sure I'm right.



OK name of speaker, venue, title, date, etc, and I'll check a.s.a.p..  No problem.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Jul 12, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> OK name of speaker, venue, title, date, etc, and I'll check a.s.a.p..  No problem.



That letter section I posted.

It's a sound idea (though it had more to do with productive planning than I suggested). I was just responding to Knotted; it's not important or anything...


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 12, 2010)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> Robbo can verify it.



That explains it.  More than likely that is Robbo's position or suggestion and not the position of the SPGB.  Probably the question of the satisfaction of needs in the immediate term was being discussed on the WSM Forum and Robbo suggested his solution to compensate relative poverty.

Of course only he can verify this.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> That letter section I posted.
> 
> It's a sound idea (though it had more to do with productive planning than I suggested). I was just responding to Knotted; it's not important or anything...



That letter frames the question very nicely, in my opinion.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 12, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Everything I say could be wrong. But regardless, you have to acknowledge that I have opinions which differ from yours. There is no reason to think that my beliefs can be translated into SPGB terminology. You have to engage me on my own terms - at least to _some_ extent.



And that works both ways and goes without saying.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

Of course.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2010)

Sorry i don't understand any of this stuff. Can i pose a more theoretical question - what happens when there is a shortage of something like water or fuel in an SPGB-approved socialist society?


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Jul 12, 2010)

Knotted said:


> That letter frames the question very nicely, in my opinion.



Indeed. That's probably why I remembered it.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

Is Robin Cox an SPGB member?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 12, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Reading and accepting what has been said is not the same as agreeing with what has been said. You are not allowed an opinion about what was said and what was not said, because it is a matter of fact, it is a matter of record. You are of course completely free to reject or criticise what has been said.



And your retort to my opinion on what Lenin said was just accept what he said has fact, and stay stumm.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 12, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You see, what you've done there, RMP3, is post up a load of SWP links on the mere mention of state-capitalism. Of course, if you'd have read my post you'd have realised that I was arguing against SPGB's blanket definition of state capitalism, not the SWP's, which is a little bit more selective. As it happens, the swappies theory of state-cap is also bollocks, but that is another debate.



lolage, such wordage, on what was again a piss take.

BTW.  What *I* was actually winding up about was your definition;


Proper Tidy said:


> [snip]Majority state ownership combined with a market driven economy, fair enough, [snip]. Capitalism, surely, needs to be applied as a term when there is at least one of the following: significant private ownership of the MOP, and/or a primarily market driven economy. Capitalism does not just mean 'not socialism'.



ETA
Join in this property debate, if you want. IMO this 'misunderstanding' of Marxism is prevalent.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> And your retort to my opinion on what Lenin said was just accept what he said has fact, and stay stumm.



Has fact??

All I am saying is that it is a matter of record what Lenin wrote. You can't deny the record. You can disagree with Lenin. You can claim Lenin was engaging in some sort of deception. But you have to accept the matter of record of what was written. Facts are stubborn things...


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 12, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Is Robin Cox an SPGB member?



No.  And that's a fact and for the record and you can hold any opinion you like, its immaterial, irrelevant and has bugger all bearing on what is being discussed at this moment in time.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> No.  And that's a fact and for the record and you can hold any opinion you like, its immaterial, irrelevant and has bugger all bearing on what is being discussed at this moment in time.



Calm down. I was just curious if the letter Ibn refered to was from an SPGB member. Thank you for informing me.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

He was for many years. Robin used to take part in the Discussion Bulletin that Frank Girad used to put out - it was full of impossibilists who had manged to keep their feet on terra firma -actual real struggles and issues being discussed.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

Is that the Libertarian Communist (if I remember what they called themselves correctly) faction/split?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

DB was a forum for impossiblists to discuss stuff before the internet - which basically meant canadians, yanks, aussies and brits. The non-brits were a great example of w/c auto-dicatctism and were always trying to get things onto real ground because of their own life conditions not as some mental exercise. The SPGB were frequently out of their depth as a result. Frank's dead  now and the the internet took over anyway.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 12, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> lolage, such wordage, on what was again a piss take.
> 
> BTW.  What *I* was actually winding up about was your definition;
> 
> ...



What are you waffling on about?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 12, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Both Lenin & the Bolsheviks and the SPGB had their origins in the Second International. They both took their conceptions from the same source. What's particularly interesting and exciting about State and Revolution is that it brings to fore all those little neglected revolutionary themes that Marx and Engels explored. Lenin doesn't distort anything, he just puts back the bits that were taken out by Kautsky, Plekhanov, Liebknecht (snr) & co.



Untrue.  The SPGB did not originate from the Second International.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

I'm not sure rmp3 is the person to school anyone in 'marxism'.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Untrue.  The SPGB did not originate from the Second International.



You did and so do your intellectual origins. You're sort of the the ultimate proof of creationsim.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 12, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Do you think all state bureaucrats are capitalists? Are you saying that the British civil service is a capitalist class and a distinct capitalist class from the ordinary capitalist class?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Knotted said:


> Edit: I can't take this theory seriously. I'm not particularly interested in it anymore. I've looked at four or five different versions, and I've spotted flaws in all of them. They're all the product of extemely tortured reasoning. Just try thinking it through for yourself. Who are the capitalists? Where is the capital? Is there any market competition? If not what drives the economy? If so how so? Just ask yourself these questions.


 you are making a big mistake IMPO IF you think that this issue about property, is just about state capitalism.  For me the whole question about inanimate objects such as property [and not yet mentioned money] determining social relations and so the mode of production, is none Marxist. However, the answers to all your questions about state-capitalism, have been answered.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 12, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> you are making a big mistake IMPO IF you think that this issue about property, is just about state capitalism.  For me the whole question about inanimate objects such as property [and not yet mentioned money] determining social relations and so the mode of production, is none Marxist. However, the answers to all your questions about state-capitalism, have been answered.



Explain your view of what constitutes state-capitalism, rmp3


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Explain your view of what constitutes state-capitalism, rmp3



Oh don't


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 12, 2010)

two sheds said:


> Sorry i don't understand any of this stuff. Can i pose a more theoretical question - what happens when there is a shortage of something like water or fuel in an SPGB-approved socialist society?



The establishment of socialism does not need the approval of the SPGB, but I get your drift.  In the likely hood of shortages occurring either alternatives will have to be used or created.  The supply of water will not be a problem with the earths surface consisting of 70% of it.  Shortages of fuel on the other hand depends on what particular fuel you are talking about and where those particular shortages are occurring.

The present problems with possible fuel shortages i.e. peak oil, and other fossil fuels do not necessarily equate into a fuel shortage for socialism.  Socialism will be using wherever possible clean and natural energy.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> you are making a big mistake IMPO IF you think that this issue about property, is just about state capitalism.  For me the whole question about inanimate objects such as property [and not yet mentioned money] determining social relations and so the mode of production, is none Marxist. However, the answers to all your questions about state-capitalism, have been answered.



I don't really want to get into all this now.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

In regard to the above -the SPGB mirror market equilibrium theory. It's a theology.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

Especially not on this thread with you. I'll only end up pointing out what I think is wrong with the SWP's version of state capitalism. This thread is about the SPGB.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I'm not sure rmp3 is the person to school anyone in 'marxism'.



And you are?  Give you self a medal for such paternalistic hogwash.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

It's not hogwash, it's eyewash.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You did and so do your intellectual origins. You're sort of the the ultimate proof of creationsim.



You are the ultimate proof of the creation of untruths.  So easy to make an untrue assertion by providing no proof of the allegation.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

Are you really going to argue the SPGB is unconnected to the second international in any way at all?  Please, be my guest...


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> In the likely hood of shortages occurring either alternatives will have to be used or created.



Suggesting some form of control - we'll need to set up factories to do this. Won't the SPBG have disbanded by then, so who decides what to set up and where? 



> The supply of water will not be a problem with the earths surface consisting of 70% of it.  Shortages of fuel on the other hand depends on what particular fuel you are talking about and where those particular shortages are occurring.
> 
> The present problems with possible fuel shortages i.e. peak oil, and other fossil fuels do not necessarily equate into a fuel shortage for socialism.  Socialism will be using wherever possible clean and natural energy.


Yes but we need the infrastructure to do that - isn't there going to have to be a transition period when reforms will need to be made and the CSP plants constructed before we can all start working whenever we feel like it? That would seem a bit 'reformist', though.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 12, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Especially not on this thread with you. I'll only end up pointing out what I think is wrong with the SWP's version of state capitalism. This thread is about the SPGB.



gd WILL agree IME you are making a big mistake IF you think that this issue about property, is just about state capitalism. The whole question about inanimate objects such as property [and not yet mentioned money] determining social relations and so the mode of production, is none Marxist.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 12, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Explain your view of what constitutes state-capitalism, rmp3


 LOLage.  Fuck off you twot.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> gd WILL agree IME you are making a big mistake IF you think that this issue about property, is just about state capitalism. The whole question about inanimate objects such as property [and not yet mentioned money] determining social relations and so the mode of production, is none Marxist.



Is this in relation to something I've said?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 12, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Is this in relation to something I've said?



Ye.
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10865768&postcount=2060
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10865786&postcount=2061
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10865939&postcount=2065
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10868088&postcount=2139


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 12, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> LOLage.  Fuck off you twot.



Minutiae, wordage, twot. Lol.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Ye.
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10865768&postcount=2060
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10865786&postcount=2061
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10865939&postcount=2065
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10868088&postcount=2139



Trying work out what you're getting at is going to be hard work, and I have feeling the rewards won't be worth it.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 12, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Trying work out what you're getting at is going to be hard work, and I have feeling the rewards won't be worth it.



If you look at concepts and understanding in isolation of the bigger picture of the social relationships they most certainly wont be rewarding.   Wage labour and a market confirms there is a social relationship between buyer and seller of labour power and the creation of surplus value.  This relationship exists under state capitalism.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 12, 2010)

Knotted said:


> SPGB's object:
> 
> 
> What Lenin said was commonly called socialism:
> ...





> Lenin, Selected works , Vol 2, Page 11 *"given a really
> revolutionary-democratic state, state-monopoly capitalism inevitably and
> unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step, towards socialism!"*



If this is not a distortion by Lenin what is?  And how is this 'first phase of socialism', exactly what the SPGB call socialism?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Are you really going to argue the SPGB is unconnected to the second international in any way at all?  Please, be my guest...



Small change in words from 'originate' to 'unconnected'.  And no butchers I'm not going to argue over an assertion you made which is blatantly untrue.  And if you want to call me a liar its up to you to prove it.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> If this is not a distortion by Lenin what is?  And how is this 'first phase of socialism', exactly what the SPGB call socialism?



This is a distortion of what exactly?

What is this to do with what the SPGB call "socialism"? Well I'll show you.

Here's Marx:


> The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with, and under it. Centralization of the means of production and socialization of labour at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. This integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htm

Centralisation of the means of production and socialisation of labour reaches a point where it is incompatible with their capitalist integument. If the state has already introduced the fullest democracy then it is a very small step to the democratic common ownership of the means of production.

The only thing original here is Lenin's idea of a revolutionary-democratic state. This is an idea that he later dropped anyway.

By the way I thought you were arguing that Lenin said that state capitalism was identical to socialism. By your own quote, you've proved yourself wrong.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Small change in words from 'originate' to 'unconnected'.  And no butchers I'm not going to argue over an assertion you made which is blatantly untrue.  And if you want to call me a liar its up to you to prove it.



Well that's informative.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

By the way here's a more juicy quote for you:



> For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.



I'm surprised you didn't use it. It's only a few paragraphs below the one you quoted. It's the usual one the SPGB quotes.

Note that you can clip down to make Lenin sound ridiculous:



> ...socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people...


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

See, I know your tricks better than you do.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> If you look at concepts and understanding in isolation of the bigger picture of the social relationships they most certainly wont be rewarding.   Wage labour and a market confirms there is a social relationship between buyer and seller of labour power and the creation of surplus value.  This relationship exists under state capitalism.



That's because a free market is required for state capitalist features of the economy.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

Gravediggers, why don't you address some of the points raised in Robin Cox's letter rather than plough this tired furrough of quote mining Lenin and blathering about "state capitalism"? I think it would be much more interesting.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htm

By the way, Gravediggers, make sure you read all of that. It's got a few surprises for you.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

Surprises don't count. The boat is steady.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

Even during protracted, violent, and difficult transformations?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

Especially then - haven't you read the lit?


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

Am I right in thinking that

1) Social Democratic Federation was part of the Second International
2) The SPGB was a split from the SDF


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 12, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Am I right in thinking that
> 
> 1) Social Democratic Federation was part of the Second International
> 2) The SPGB was a split from the SDF



Yep


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

Thought so. What was that big fuss kicked up by GD about??


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 12, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Thought so. What was that big fuss kicked up by GD about??



I assumed he was being pedantic, in as much as the SPGB as a party didn't originate directly in the 2nd International - which ignores how their tradition came about, of course.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 12, 2010)

That was some aggressive pedantry!


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 12, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Thought so. What was that big fuss kicked up by GD about??



The fuss has you put it was over an untruth you stated.



> Both Lenin & the Bolsheviks and the SPGB had their origins in the Second International. They both took their conceptions from the same source.



The SPGB was formed because of the Second International endorsing the class collaboration of the european and british members (the SDF) and the reformism of the SDF.  They may have taken some of their conceptions from the Second International but they most certainly did not endorse their activity.

I think a retraction is appropriate.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 12, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Gravediggers, why don't you address some of the points raised in Robin Cox's letter rather than plough this tired furrough of quote mining Lenin and blathering about "state capitalism"? I think it would be much more interesting.



I detect a control freak at work here.  Try Robbo perhaps he would oblige your gratification.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 12, 2010)

Knotted said:


> That's because a free market is required for state capitalist features of the economy.



State capitalism does not require a 'free market' just a market and competition between enterprises will do.  The market is not free, indeed state regulation and competition ensures capitalism sets its own boundaries on how the market operates.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 13, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> The fuss has you put it was over an untruth you stated.
> 
> The SPGB was formed because of the Second International endorsing the class collaboration of the european and british members (the SDF) and the reformism of the SDF.  They may have taken some of their conceptions from the Second International but they most certainly did not endorse their activity.
> 
> I think a retraction is appropriate.



You agree with me that the SPGB took some of their conceptions from the SI, but you think I should retract?

I've no idea what you're so worked up about.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 13, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I detect a control freak at work here.  Try Robbo perhaps he would oblige your gratification.



Kinky.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 13, 2010)

Gd, if you're going to snear at robbo, you should appreciate that he has been the best defender of the SPGB on this thread. He might not be completely accurate when it comes to the SPGB's positions but he has defended them far better than you have and far less evasively than the other SPGB members have. You ought to be thanking him for his help.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 13, 2010)

> Originally Posted by Gravediggers  View Post
> The fuss has you put it was over an untruth you stated.
> 
> The SPGB was formed because of the Second International endorsing the class collaboration of the european and british members (the SDF) and the reformism of the SDF. They may have taken some of their conceptions from the Second International but they most certainly did not endorse their activity.
> ...






Knotted said:


> You agree with me that the SPGB took some of their conceptions from the SI, but you think I should retract?
> 
> I've no idea what you're so worked up about.



Here is your original comment.



> Of course you might regard Lenin cynically and say he didn't really mean what he said. But you cannot deny what he said. It is simply a matter of undeniable fact that what Lenin called the "first phase of socialism" is exactly what the SPGB call "socialism".
> 
> It shouldn't be too surprising either. It is not some sort of coincidence. Both Lenin & the Bolsheviks and the SPGB had their origins in the Second International. They both took their conceptions from the same source.



The use of the word, 'origins' clearly implies the SPGB are an ofshoot of the SI when in fact we were not even members of that organisation who we had condemned has a bunch of renegades and class collaborators.   Agreed, we took *some* of the conceptions regarding socialism from the SI but by no means all, for other individual socialist organisations also had an impact on our formation. In fact there was common agreement amongst working class organisations on socialism being a, 'classless, stateless, moneyless and common ownership society.  

Our origins come directly from the Workers International Association, commonly referred to has the 'First International',  where Clause 5. of our principles, 'That this emancipation must be the work of the working class itself ' can be traced back to that organisation.

The fallout in the SI came over the arguments on how to get from capitalism to socialism.  Like now it was basically over the question of reforms or revolution.  And to the credit of the SPGB they resolved the problem by accepting reforms were necessary for the working class to improve their conditions and circumstances, but this did not mean a revolutionary organisation had to support or oppose reforms.  And to deviate from this position involved accepting the political structure of capitalism and by default involvement across class lines.  

Or to put it another way going to bed with the class enemy.  The dangers of taking sides were apparent even then.  With class collaboration becoming the norm and inevitably put the prospect of revolution by the working class on the back burner.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 13, 2010)

But you were an offshoot of a group in the SI?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 13, 2010)

two sheds said:


> Suggesting some form of control - we'll need to set up factories to do this. Won't the SPBG have disbanded by then, so who decides what to set up and where?



The community as a whole, who else?



> Yes but we need the infrastructure to do that - isn't there going to have to be a transition period when reforms will need to be made and the CSP plants constructed before we can all start working whenever we feel like it? That would seem a bit 'reformist', though.



The transition is taking place in the here and now with socialists planning and preparing for the transformation.  And the nearer we get to socialism the more detail will go into this planning and preparation.  So your question on reforms wont arise with socialists more concerned on adapting the means of production to meet our needs.

P.s I've no idea what CSP stands for.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 13, 2010)

Knotted said:


> But you were an offshoot of a group in the SI?



Yes the SDF but even the SDF did not originate from the SI.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 13, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Gd, if you're going to snear at robbo, you should appreciate that he has been the best defender of the SPGB on this thread. He might not be completely accurate when it comes to the SPGB's positions but he has defended them far better than you have and far less evasively than the other SPGB members have. You ought to be thanking him for his help.



I'm not in the habit of snearing at people with whom I have a common interest, robbo being one of them.  I have in a past post thanked him for his intervention on this and other threads.  Note I did use the word 'perhaps' in my original comment on your attempt at control freakery in the knowledge what the response from Robbo is likely to be.   He's well known for picking his own subject matter without being dictated to from other sources.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2010)

He is legend


----------



## Knotted (Jul 13, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> I'm not in the habit of snearing at people with whom I have a common interest, robbo being one of them.  I have in a past post thanked him for his intervention on this and other threads.  Note I did use the word 'perhaps' in my original comment on your attempt at control freakery in the knowledge what the response from Robbo is likely to be.   He's well known for picking his own subject matter without being dictated to from other sources.



I have no idea what Robbo's response is likely to be.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 13, 2010)

Fair point about working class self-emancipation btw.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 13, 2010)

Knotted said:


> I have no idea what Robbo's response is likely to be.



Which means you've got a bit of a problem.  Can't help you with that I'm afraid.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 13, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Fair point about working class self-emancipation btw.



Where exactly, because I'm in the habit of mention the subject pretty frequently.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 13, 2010)

Gravediggers said:
			
		

> Which means you've got a bit of a problem. Can't help you with that I'm afraid.



Huh?


----------



## Knotted (Jul 13, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Where exactly, because I'm in the habit of mention the subject pretty frequently.



The bit about clause 5 being traced back to the first International.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 13, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Huh?



Lol.  The classic response of a control freak whose hit the wall when nobody is willing to respond to their freakery.   I wonder if there's any link with participatory democracy and the arguments for the minority to veto the decisions of the majority?   Going by what's occurred here it seems the majority decision is that you stew in your own juices.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 13, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Going by what's occurred here it seems the majority decision is that you stew in your own juices.



No, it is just that Knotted arrived late to the party. The rest of us realised about forty pages ago that debating with squeegees is like trying to harness flies.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 13, 2010)

Knotted said:


> The bit about clause 5 being traced back to the first International.



Which is one of the reasons why I joined the SPGB, for self-emancipation is essential to acquiring an understanding capitalism and socialism.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 13, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Going by what's occurred here it seems the majority decision is that you stew in your own juices.



That's one giant leap for GD, but still nowhere near big enough to get him out of the hole he's dug.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Knotted (Jul 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> No, it is just that Knotted arrived late to the party. The rest of us realised about forty pages ago that debating with squeegees is like trying to harness flies.



I'm a sucker for sects - religious or political.

This conversation's turned weird, though.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 13, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Which is one of the reasons why I joined the SPGB, for self-emancipation is essential to acquiring an understanding capitalism and socialism.



But not literacy it seems.

Louis MacNeice

p.s. Don't think the attempt to steal 'self-emancipation' for the SPGB went unnoticed you little scamp.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 13, 2010)

Knotted said:


> I'm a sucker for sects - religious or political.
> 
> This conversation's turned weird, though.



Some of the stuff in this thread has been great, but the only squeegees who seem to be worth debating with are Robbo (who isn't technically a squeegee and who appears to upset GD with his daring ability to think) and some chap from Carlisle, but he didn't hang about unfortunately.


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 13, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> That explains it.  More than likely that is Robbo's position or suggestion and not the position of the SPGB.  Probably the question of the satisfaction of needs in the immediate term was being discussed on the WSM Forum and Robbo suggested his solution to compensate relative poverty.
> 
> Of course only he can verify this.



Sure I can verify it.  The *compensation model *seems to me to be the fairest and the most effective and streamlined form of rationing available to a post-capitalist than any other I can think of.  The traditional *labour voucher *scheme doesnt really do much for me.  It is too cumbersome and unwieldy and there is always the possibility that it might degenerate into a money based system.  The *point system *advocated by Buick and Crump is better but a bit imprecise in its focus if it envisages multiple criteria being used to determine priority access.  

I advocate the compensation model because it uses the single criterion of housing stock quality as the criterion for determining  priority access to rationed goods.  Sure, grading housing stock is to an extent arbitrary but is not likely to be that imperfect.  The quality of housing stock inherited from capitalism will probaby be the single most important aspect of spatial inequalities inherited from capitalism and so lends itself to being a suitable criterion for a system of rationing.  Including other criteria  might make the system much more difficult to administer becuase it involves the relative weighting of several criteria against each other.

In socialism the allocation of resoruces will be subject to several influences including a braodly defined social hierarchy of production goals.  This means that if any goods are likely to be starved of resources would be those goods low down in the production hierarchy. It is these goods that are therefore most likely to be scarce and therefore most in need of being rationed e.g. luxuries.  There would thus be rationing of these goods and free access to other goods of a higher priority nature.  

In rationing them I am suggesting there should be a discriminatory system in place which gives perferences to individuals who live in poor or substandard accommodation (for the time being) to "compensate" for the conditions they live in.  Vouchers for rationed goods can be allocated in  proportion to the grading value that a particular property received so that you would get more vouchers the lower the grading your property receives

I recommend this scheme to the SPGB.  It deals constructively with a particular problem that has not really been seriously addressed in the party's literature - how does a socialist society deal with the problem of spatial inequalities inherited from capitalism


----------



## Knotted (Jul 13, 2010)

How does the compensation model work? Do you have any links?


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 13, 2010)

*On Lenin and "socialism"...*


For a start, Lenin was not always consistent in what he meant by "socialism".  In  The State and Revolution, for  example, he claimed: "_But the scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear. What is usually called socialism was termed by Marx the “first”, or lower, phase of communist society. Insofar as the means of production becomes common property, the word “communism” is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that this is not complete communism."  _In fact, this "scientific distinction" an actually an invention of Lenin himself; it was certainly not something ever entertained by Marx who, along with most of his contemporaries tended to use the expressions communism and socialism interchangeably.  It should also be noted that Lenin's depiction of this _lower phase of communism _bore little relation to Marx's own.   Where Marx advocated a system of Labour vouchers, Lenin talked of "_all citizens being transformed into hired employees of the state_".  On the other hand, in The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It, Lenin also maintained that  "_socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly_".  How socialism can be both the lower phase of communism and a mere state capitalist monopoly (albeit one allegedly made to serve the interests of the whole people) is, to say the least, puzzling.  

It would be difficult to underestimate the importance Lenin attached to developing state capitalism - embarassing though this may be to those Leninists who continue to deny the state capitalist nature of the Soviet Union.  In "Left Wing" Childishness and the Petty Bourgeois Mentality  he insisted that "_state capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will become invincible in our country_".  Incredibly enough and just to demonstrate how far he had moved from a traditional marxian conception of socialism Lenin included such eminently capitalist institutions as the big banks into his own conception of "socialism" As he put it: "_Without big banks socialism would be impossible.  The big banks are the "state apparatus" which we need to bring about socialism, and which we take ready-made from capitalism;..A single State Bank, the biggest of the big, with branches in every rural district, in every factory, will constitute as much as nine-tenths of the socialist apparatus_" (Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power? October 1, 1917 Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, Volume 26, 1972, pp. 87-136).  

As with the earlier  quotation from The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It  Lenin seemed to be suggesting that a distinction can be made between different kinds of state capitalism.  Elsewhere in the same publication he expanded on this point:
_But state capitalism in a society where power belongs to capital, and state capitalism in a proletarian state, are two different concepts. In a capitalist state, state capitalism means that it is recognised by the state and controlled by it for the benefit of the bourgeoisie, and to the detriment of the proletariat. In the proletarian state, the same thing is done for the benefit of the working class, for the purpose of withstanding the as yet strong bourgeoisie, and of fighting it_.
That in my view is a distinction without any real difference.  I prefer to stick with the intuition that if something waddles like a duck and quacks  like a duck then it is reasonable to assume it probably is a duck.  If the bourgeoisie continued to exist in Lenin's  so called proletarian state they could only meaningfully exist as an exploiting class that exploited the proletariat.  

Which calls into question the whole idea of a proletariat state.  If the proletariat truly controlled the state why would they allow the bourgeoisie to continue exploiting them?  Insofar as the proletariat continues to exist as an exploited class the so called proletarian state can be nothing more than a facade behind which a new class of state capitalist bourgeoisie governed supposedly in the name of the proletariat but in reality against the interests of the latter.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 13, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Sure I can verify it.  The *compensation model *seems to me to be the fairest and the most effective and streamlined form of rationing available to a post-capitalist than any other I can think of.  The traditional *labour voucher *scheme doesnt really do much for me.  It is too cumbersome and unwieldy and there is always the possibility that it might degenerate into a money based system.  The *point system *advocated by Buick and Crump is better but a bit imprecise in its focus if it envisages multiple criteria being used to determine priority access.
> 
> I advocate the compensation model because it uses the single criterion of housing stock quality as the criterion for determining  priority access to rationed goods.  Sure, grading housing stock is to an extent arbitrary but is not likely to be that imperfect.  The quality of housing stock inherited from capitalism will probaby be the single most important aspect of spatial inequalities inherited from capitalism and so lends itself to being a suitable criterion for a system of rationing.  Including other criteria  might make the system much more difficult to administer becuase it involves the relative weighting of several criteria against each other.
> 
> ...



There are quite a few things I thought were interesting regarding this subject.  But what I found concerning was where do you start and where do you end.   Firstly, it assumes such a scheme is necessary to address those needs that are going to take some time to fulfill. But what if the community decides it is far too complicated to implement, due to the total amount of planning involved.  And there is also the danger of the scheme putting the priority of needs on the back burner rather than facing it head on, besides heading for the terrors of central planning.  And ending in the compensation scheme encouraging the production of luxury items rather than human needs.  

Just a few thoughts but worthy of discussion.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 13, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> That in my view is a distinction without any real difference.  I prefer to stick with the intuition that if something waddles like a duck and quacks  like a duck then it is reasonable to assume it probably is a duck.  If the bourgeoisie continued to exist in Lenin's  so called proletarian state they could only meaningfully exist as an exploiting class that exploited the proletariat.



The bourgeosie continued to exist in 1920's Russia. There is no need to talk about ducks. They really existed as an exploiting class. Private ownership of the means of production continued. Nobody has ever pretended otherwise. Lenin was explicit that Russia was not yet socialist. He explicitly said socialism could not be built in a backward country in isolation from the rest of the world. (State capitalism does not mean that the state is an exploiting class though - the state isn't the class, the bourgeoisie is the class).

This whole dispute that the SPGB have with Bolshevism is to do with the dictatorship of the proletariat and the transitional society. It has nothing to do with the nature of socialism, which is a completely different question. Lenin never claimed that socialism was a transitional society. The SPGB confuse this all the time (as do stalinists). This is a pity because the SPGB might have something interesting say about Russia if they weren't so obsessed with this idea that they are only ones who know what "socialism" means.

I'm so bored of this. It's just haggling over semantics.

I should add that the duck argument is always a terrible argument even when you happen to be right. The duck argument is one of the great evils of our time.


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 13, 2010)

Knotted said:


> How does the compensation model work? Do you have any links?




I dont really have any links relating to the compensation model because, to be honest, its just a term I coined myself  while developing ideas about forms of rationing that might be appropriate within a broadly free access economy. I touched on Buick and Crumps points system in an article I wrote several years back http://www.cvoice.org/cv3cox.htm and of course there is Buick and Crumps book itself which is well worth a read - State Capitalism : the Wages System under New Management. I think if you pay a visit to the SPGB website and do a bit of searching around you might find some reference to rationing in the early stages of socialism but nothing to the compensation model. 

My intuition tells me - though I may be wrong -  that many comrades in the SPGB would probably be biased against the model because of a widespread prejudice against anything that smacks of "morality" or "justice".  You cant talk about "compensation"  because that is tantamount to "idealism".  Such silly prejudices are a further reason for my reservations about the SPGB.  I think the Party needs a thorough overhaul in so many ways if it  is really going to constitute itself as a serious revolutiuonary force in society in my view (though having said that I still think it is streets ahead of any other political party I can think of)

On how the compensation model works - well, here's my take on it.  First of all you have to determine what needs to be rationed and as I explained it is goods that are likely to be low down in the hierachy of production goals that are likely to be scarce and hence most likely to be subject to rationing.  The compensation model provides for a way of rationing such goods by discrimminate between people on the grounds of quality of houysing stock they live in.  Since we cannot all live in good quality housing straight after the revolution - it will take time to upgrade the housing, perhaps years  - many of us will have to continue living in fairly poor housing stock in the meanwhile. Such individuals should be "compensated" for this.  

The proposal is that individuals be issued vouchers by their local community in proportion to the quality of the accommodation they live in.  Assuming housing stock can be graded into 5 categories ranging from high quality (grade 1)  to low quality (grade 5) . Grade 1 housing attracts vouchers worth shall we say 100 points per year and grade 5 , 500 points.  Correspondingly rationed goods could be assigned a numerical value calibrated to ensure all goods are cleared so to speak i.e. taken up by the community at large.  You can do this by raising or lowering the points value of the individual rationed items so as to ensure a steady uptake. 

Its like a price system responding to supply and demand except that these vouchers, like labour vouchers, do not circulate and do not constitute money. Unlike the labour voucher scheme, however, they apply to only a small range of  goods - i.e rationed goods - and not right across the board so to speak

I hope this helps to clarify things somewhat...


----------



## Knotted (Jul 13, 2010)

You're Robin Cox! That makes sense of Gravediggers' odd behaviour.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 13, 2010)

It's an interesting model I have several off the top of my head criticisms.

1) There is not necessarily a connection between need for scarce resource and general relative poverty. Remember we are talking world socialism. The problem we face is providing for the areas that can't provide for themselves due to their relative under-development - it's not necessarily an issue of resources.

2) This is a charitable/consumption model. I think it has the similar defects as charitable relief efforts under capitalism. What's need is a redistribution/development of productive forces. It papers over the problem rather than solving the problem.

3) The problem you suspect the SPGB would raise. I think they would be right if they did. There is a material loss for people living in affluent areas. I appreciate that people can be motivated by their ideals, but you cannot guarantee that.


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 13, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> There are quite a few things I thought were interesting regarding this subject.  But what I found concerning was where do you start and where do you end.   Firstly, it assumes such a scheme is necessary to address those needs that are going to take some time to fulfill. But what if the community decides it is far too complicated to implement, due to the total amount of planning involved.  And there is also the danger of the scheme putting the priority of needs on the back burner rather than facing it head on, besides heading for the terrors of central planning.  And ending in the compensation scheme encouraging the production of luxury items rather than human needs.
> 
> Just a few thoughts but worthy of discussion.



The point is that socialism will face a potentially serious problem of huge spatial inqualities in the quality of housing stock.  This could give rise massive resentments and social dislocation which we have to deal with in some way. How?

We cannot all live in good quality housing all at once.  Manyof us are going to live probably  for many years in fairly poor quality housing.  This situation is crying our for some system of "compenstaion".  It cannot be ignored

The compensation model is adminstratively simple to operate. It bears absolutely no comparison to central planning at all which is a totally different proposition and relates to coordination of inputs and outputs across the entire economy.  In fact the closest analogy might be the way in which local authorities used to put properties within graded bands for taxation purposes.  I dont know what the present arrangement is as its years since I lived in the UK

One final thing - the compensation model will definitely not "_encourage the production of luxury items rather than human needs_"  precisely becuase they can only make use of *residual *resources - that is after resources have been allocated to high priority goods within the overall hierarchy of production goals. That hierarchy by defintion prioritises the allocation oif inputs to high priority goods so low propriority goods such as luxuries have to do with whatever is left over.  Which is not to say of course that there will be no luxury goods, just that such goods are more likely to be scarce and hence subject to rationing.


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 13, 2010)

Knotted said:


> It's an interesting model I have several off the top of my head criticisms.
> 
> 1) There is not necessarily a connection between need for scarce resource and general relative poverty. Remember we are talking world socialism. The problem we face is providing for the areas that can't provide for themselves due to their relative under-development - it's not necessarily an issue of resources..



I dont quite follow this. How does tackling under-development not involve resources




Knotted said:


> 2) This is a charitable/consumption model. I think it has the similar defects as charitable relief efforts under capitalism. What's need is a redistribution/development of productive forces. It papers over the problem rather than solving the problem..




No this is not charity at all.  In fact charity is based on a totally different set of assumptions as  Marcel Mauss pointed out is his seminal work The Gift.  Apparently disinterested charitable giving has its mirror image in completely self interested economic transaction.  Charity in this sense is really only  meaningful within a capitalist context. 

Compensation in the sense that I am talking is not charity; it is a matter of equity in the face of spatial inequalities we will inevitably inherit from capitalism.  It is not papering over the problem rather than solving it either since it is entirely feasible to effect a degree of compensation while at the same time taking steps to solve the problem of poor quality housing




Knotted said:


> 3) The problem you suspect the SPGB would raise. I think they would be right if they did. There is a material loss for people living in affluent areas. I appreciate that people can be motivated by their ideals, but you cannot guarantee that.



But the point is that a socialist society presupposes that people want and understand it.  That means they recognise that we all depend upon each other that we need to pull together for the common good becuase our own welfare depends upon it.  Material loss is a loaded term.  It depends on how much weight we attach to things like consumer durables. So much of what we materially desire today is really motivated by a need for status which no longer be linked to the accumulation of material possessions in a free access economy.  Status based omn material consumption will in fact become meanigless.  I suspect very much that there will be a degree of material "sacrifice" entailed for some - certainly the capitalists and a sizeable chunk of the labour aristocracy.  What are currently two-car familiies might have to do with just one, for example.  But this too has its compensations in terms of things like a much enhanced  quality of life
which will vastly outweigh any material losses sustained in my opinion.  Hardy , an eminent writer on economic matters in SPGB  circles said something rather similar some years ago  if I recall


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 13, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> The point is that socialism will face a potentially serious problem of huge spatial inqualities in the quality of housing stock.  This could give rise massive resentments and social dislocation which we have to deal with in some way. How?
> 
> We cannot all live in good quality housing all at once.  Manyof us are going to live probably  for many years in fairly poor quality housing.  This situation is crying our for some system of "compenstaion".  It cannot be ignored



Just a quick thought on housing assessment.  In last few years there has been the introduction of the Housing Quality Standard (HQS) for the social housing sector which from my own experience in housing could be a useful framework to be applied to all housing.  To see how this is operating in practice do a search for 'RCT Homes' and also search for 'Welsh Quality Housing Standards' (WHQS) to see what is meant by 'quality' and how it is panning out in the here and now.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 13, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> I dont quite follow this. How does tackling under-development not involve resources



Sorry, should have been "scarce resources". Abundance is relative to need/want. If there is an abundance of resources relative to the needs of the population and the population desire more than is necessary and there is an unequal distribution of that resource then it is possible for there to be an abundance relative to need but not distributed to satisfy everyone's need. The question isn't really abundance or scarcity, it is distribution.




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> No this is not charity at all.  In fact charity is based on a totally different set of assumptions as  Marcel Mauss pointed out is his seminal work The Gift.  Apparently disinterested charitable giving has its mirror image in completely self interested economic transaction.  Charity in this sense is really only  meaningful within a capitalist context.
> 
> Compensation in the sense that I am talking is not charity; it is a matter of equity in the face of spatial inequalities we will inevitably inherit from capitalism.  It is not papering over the problem rather than solving it either since it is entirely feasible to effect a degree of compensation while at the same time taking steps to solve the problem of poor quality housing



I'm not sure this really answers my point. I don't really care if you call it charity or not. The point is that it is compensatory produce for consumption not production. It doesn't solve the problem, but it might help alleviate the problem while the problem is being solved.




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> But the point is that a socialist society presupposes that people want and understand it.  That means they recognise that we all depend upon each other that we need to pull together for the common good becuase our own welfare depends upon it.  Material loss is a loaded term.  It depends on how much weight we attach to things like consumer durables. So much of what we materially desire today is really motivated by a need for status which no longer be linked to the accumulation of material possessions in a free access economy.  Status based omn material consumption will in fact become meanigless.  I suspect very much that there will be a degree of material "sacrifice" entailed for some - certainly the capitalists and a sizeable chunk of the labour aristocracy.  What are currently two-car familiies might have to do with just one, for example.  But this too has its compensations in terms of things like a much enhanced  quality of life
> which will vastly outweigh any material losses sustained in my opinion.  Hardy , an eminent writer on economic matters in SPGB  circles said something rather similar some years ago  if I recall



Just like you, I could give you an argument suggesting that people would be willing to do it. I can't give you an argument guaranteeing it. (cf butchers on theology)

There is deeper problem here. It's not just sharing out. It is the fact that some areas which retain greater forces of production and will have greater economic power and therefore greater economic political power. Remember we have not yet abolished politics - we still have democracy at this stage.

There is something of the white man's burden about the SPGB's socialism. The working class in the advanced industrial nations declare their socialism on mass and the rest of the world gets hand outs (they're not allowed to declare socialism because their productive forces have yet to develop to a sufficient degree).


----------



## Knotted (Jul 13, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> No this is not charity at all.  In fact charity is based on a totally different set of assumptions as  Marcel Mauss pointed out is his seminal work The Gift.  Apparently disinterested charitable giving has its mirror image in completely self interested economic transaction.  Charity in this sense is really only  meaningful within a capitalist context.



To turn this arugment around - isn't the fact that we are using charitable measures an indication that we have still retained some elements of a capitalist context?


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 13, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> The point is that socialism will face a potentially serious problem of huge spatial inqualities in the quality of housing stock.  This could give rise massive resentments and social dislocation which we have to deal with in some way. How?



Resentment on needs being unmet is always a possibility, but lets not treat it as a probability, when the fact is that there is every possibility that the community will be doing it for themselves.  Especially, when we take into consideration what socialist consciousness actually entails in regards to a change in attitude and the amount of planning and preparation going on before the actual transformation.

For instance: Housing stock will have to assessed against housing needs;  Standards will have to made and adhered to; Maintenance teams set up to improve each estate, or sections of large estates; The community being part and parcel of the whole project.  

I could go on but you get my drift.  Instead of like now where councils and HA's or private residents have the responsibility to maintain the housing stock it will become the responsibility of that specific community in that locality, be it consisting of 200 houses or 2000 to ensure a standard is met by such and such date.  With this type of planning and preparation well advanced there is every possibility that the resentment you and others may envisage happening is going to be little to say the least.

Thoughts on the above would be appreciated.


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 13, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Just a quick thought on housing assessment.  In last few years there has been the introduction of the Housing Quality Standard (HQS) for the social housing sector which from my own experience in housing could be a useful framework to be applied to all housing.  To see how this is operating in practice do a search for 'RCT Homes' and also search for 'Welsh Quality Housing Standards' (WHQS) to see what is meant by 'quality' and how it is panning out in the here and now.



Cheers, will do. I think its is useful to flesh out ideas like the compensation model of rationing with actually existing examples


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 14, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Sorry, should have been "scarce resources". Abundance is relative to need/want. If there is an abundance of resources relative to the needs of the population and the population desire more than is necessary and there is an unequal distribution of that resource then it is possible for there to be an abundance relative to need but not distributed to satisfy everyone's need. The question isn't really abundance or scarcity, it is distribution.).



But distributional issues would in fact  already be taken into account in devising some broad hierarchy of production goals to guide the allocation of resources. This is not really what we are talking about here. We are talking about those goods that are more likely to end being scarce  by virtue of being low priority goods and are therefore more likely to be subject to rationing than high priority goods. My point is about what particular criterion or principle  we chose to employ in rationing out these goods




Knotted said:


> I'm not sure this really answers my point. I don't really care if you call it charity or not. The point is that it is compensatory produce for consumption not production. It doesn't solve the problem, but it might help alleviate the problem while the problem is being solved.
> .



There is a big differeence between charity and compensation.  Compensation implies a moral right to something, charity does not. The whole point about charity is that it is in theory carried out as a matter of free will by individuals who are not morally obliged to do what they do.

Compensation in the form of discriminatory rationing of scarce goods in favour of the materially disadvantaged doesnt solve the problem of social discontent arising fromn spatial inequalities but it does as you say "help alleviate the problem while the problem is being solved".  Thats good enough for me.




Knotted said:


> Just like you, I could give you an argument suggesting that people would be willing to do it. I can't give you an argument guaranteeing it. (cf butchers on theology)
> 
> There is deeper problem here. It's not just sharing out. It is the fact that some areas which retain greater forces of production and will have greater economic power and therefore greater economic political power. Remember we have not yet abolished politics - we still have democracy at this stage.).



Yes but production today is a globalised process which means different areas are vitally dependent on each  other.  Appreciating this and knowing that the welfare of one area depends on the welfare of others will help to overcome the problem you allude to




Knotted said:


> There is something of the white man's burden about the SPGB's socialism. The working class in the advanced industrial nations declare their socialism on mass and the rest of the world gets hand outs (they're not allowed to declare socialism because their productive forces have yet to develop to a sufficient degree).




I dont think this is the SPGB postion at all.  I have never heard it suggested  at any time in SPGB circles that undeveloped  countires are not allowed  declare socialism becuase their productive force are insuffiently developed. In fact, it would be a matter of indifference to the SPGB where the revolutiuon broke out first since they argue that capitalism is a global system and can only be replaced by another global system.  Being a global system this means that if socialist ideas are sufficently widely held in one part of the world they are likely to be not far behind elsewhere for various reasons (eg global telecommunications and the proactive endeavours of the world socialist movement to even out spatial imbalances)


----------



## Knotted (Jul 14, 2010)

I think there is something to be said for your model in terms of the day to day running of things. I don't think it helps transform society.

You're concerned about scarcity and the calculation problem. I think you've done some good work on this. But at the minute I'm more concerned about structural problems. As I said before the SPGB tend to reduce all problems that socialism will face down to questions of scarcity and abundance.

When the SPGB talk about Marx's contention that socialism will have to go through "birth pangs" ie. an early stage they usually:

1) Reduce the question to Marx's point about the individual producer receiving back from society exactly what he gives to it (after certain deductions). (ie. Labour time vouchers)

2) Reduce the problem to a problem of scarcity and abundance.

3) Reduce the problem of scarcity and abundance to the state of development of the productive forces.

I think all three reductions are spurious.

---

I should also say that the distinction between charity and compensation that you give is entirely subjective. The concept of compensation surely rests on bourgeois equal right at least as much as the concept of charity.

I think in absolute terms some people will always have a harder time than others. People will always have illnesses, disabilities or mishaps for example. Compensation cannot reverse their circumstance. I would prefer to see it not in terms of compensation but in terms of allowing each individual to live their lives to the fullest given their circumstance.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 14, 2010)

Here's another way to put it. Recall Marx's famous slogun, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." This slogun has two parts. It isn't simply about satisfying people's needs and some trivial stuff about everyone contributing the best they can. The society we live in does not utilise people's abilities. Being stuck in a menial job or being unemployed is depressing and demoralising beyond the fact that you struggle to pay your bills. It should be our want and our right to employ our abilities for the benefit of society. I think this is a very natural desire. If it is only a question of productive forces, scarcity and alleviating poverty (via the compensation model or other models) then we are missing half of what's important. I don't think allowing people to utilise their abilities to the full is a trivial problem.

Marx gives a short list of preconditions for a fully socialist/communist society:
1) No more enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour.
1') The above includes the antithesis between mental and physical labour.
2) Labour has become not only a means to life but life's prime want.
3) After the productive forces have increased with the all-round development of the individual.
4) All springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly.

I don't want to be dogmatic about what Marx said, I certainly don't want to suggest that these are the only preconditions. I don't want to insist that Marx was right about these being preconditions. But there is no doubt in my mind that what Marx says here is superior to what the SPGB typically say.

Only preconditions 3) and 4) are about productive forces and abundancy.

Precondition 3) is itself conditional on the all round development of the individual.

Precondition 4) is quite distinct from saying that society can produce abundancy relative to needs - it insists on "*all* springs" flowing "*more* abundantly". As I read it, it is not so much about producing an abundancy as it is about utilising our abilities and technologies to the fullest.

All in all, for the maximal purposes of creating a fully socialist society, I would suggest that the emphasis of Marx's slogun should be on the first half. From each according to their abilities... This is the really difficult bit. With today's technology, we can probably give hand-outs to satisfy the needs of all without too much bother. But that misses an important part of the point.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 14, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> I dont think this is the SPGB postion at all.  I have never heard it suggested  at any time in SPGB circles that undeveloped  countires are not allowed  declare socialism becuase their productive force are insuffiently developed. In fact, it would be a matter of indifference to the SPGB where the revolutiuon broke out first since they argue that capitalism is a global system and can only be replaced by another global system.  Being a global system this means that if socialist ideas are sufficently widely held in one part of the world they are likely to be not far behind elsewhere for various reasons (eg global telecommunications and the proactive endeavours of the world socialist movement to even out spatial imbalances)



I can discuss the SPGB's rejection of different phases of socialism, but when it comes to the SPGB's rejection of a transitional period to even get to socialism or the SPGB's educational road to socialism, it is so alien to me that I struggle to make sense of it at all.

You can't guarantee that the entire working class everywhere will have a perfect understanding of what they are doing. You can't guarantee that a small majority might make their move before the vast majority are with them. You can't guarantee success everywhere at the same time. You can't guarantee that revolutions will not be partial and isolated. There is a lot of difficult business getting from A to B. So when the SPGB finger wag at working class revolutions for being in backward countries before workers in advanced industrialised nations are ready and when the SPGB seem to think that the British parliament will somehow herald world socialism it's difficult not to conclude that this is a very imperialist concept of socialism.


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 14, 2010)

Knotted said:


> I think there is something to be said for your model in terms of the day to day running of things. I don't think it helps transform society.
> .



But it is not meant to.  It simply addresses and seeks to alleviate a situation of massive spatial inequalities (in housing stock) in order to prevent social discontent arising.  Its a question of natural justice in other words.  If some goods are going to have to be rationed anyway, why not this way?  This does not stop determined effort being made in a socialist society to upgrade poor quality housing stock in the meanwhile.




Knotted said:


> You're concerned about scarcity and the calculation problem. I think you've done some good work on this. But at the minute I'm more concerned about structural problems. As I said before the SPGB tend to reduce all problems that socialism will face down to questions of scarcity and abundance..



I am not too sure that this is the case.  Where did you get this idea from? The question of producing enough is important, yes, becuase free access depends on it but there are a range of other issues that the SPGB has also addressed from the need to tackle environmental problems through to the nature of work itself and how it can be made more satisafying.  With respect, I think you need to dig a bit deeper before drawing stark conclusions about what the SPGB thinks.  I have the advantage of having once been a member but even i know that the SPGB is not a static entity nor a monolithic one.  On some issues particularly relating to future socialist society there is actually quite a variety of opinion within the SPGB - from hi tech cornucopians intent upon full scale automation  to William Morris arty crafty types.



Knotted said:


> When the SPGB talk about Marx's contention that socialism will have to go through "birth pangs" ie. an early stage they usually:
> 
> 1) Reduce the question to Marx's point about the individual producer receiving back from society exactly what he gives to it (after certain deductions). (ie. Labour time vouchers)..



See, this is what I mean.  If you did a bit of searching around you would discover that the SPGB is distinguishable  from other socialist organisations  of a de leonist persuasion precisely by the fact that it decisively *rejects *labour time vouchers



Knotted said:


> I should also say that the distinction between charity and compensation that you give is entirely subjective. The concept of compensation surely rests on bourgeois equal right at least as much as the concept of charity..



Sure but then the same logic applies here as Marx applied to his lower phase of communism.  We are inheriting the spatial inequalities in housing stock from capitalism so not unreasonably a residual bourgeois notion of equal right should therefore also come into play in early socialism/communism.  I dont see any great problem with this....




Knotted said:


> I think in absolute terms some people will always have a harder time than others. People will always have illnesses, disabilities or mishaps for example. Compensation cannot reverse their circumstance. I would prefer to see it not in terms of compensation but in terms of allowing each individual to live their lives to the fullest given their circumstance.




But there is a big difference between living in a shitty towerblock apartment and having to contend with a lifelong disability.  There is not much you can do about the latter but one would hope a decent society would do evrything it can to ease the situation and enable the individual to fulfil as far as possible his or her potential.  You can do something about living in a shitty tower block apartment however.  True, compensation per se  and almost by definition does not in itself change this situation but it certainly helps to know that society is acknowleding the inequity of spatial inequalities inherited from capitalism  by "compensating" individuals in the interim  in the way I have suggested.  It is saying something about the worth of such individuals and signalling its intent to do something about the predicament in which they find themselves


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 14, 2010)

Knotted said:


> I can discuss the SPGB's rejection of different phases of socialism, but when it comes to the SPGB's rejection of a transitional period to even get to socialism or the SPGB's educational road to socialism, it is so alien to me that I struggle to make sense of it at all..



Well I actually think the SPGB has a good point here. The idea of a transitional period *between *capitalism and communism is theoretically incoherent.  Rather what has been argued in the SPGB is that if you must talk about a transition then in a sense we are already in the transition.  In other words the transition is something that happens *before *not after the *revolution *and the revolution is just the culimination of this transformative process.

One of my criticisms of the SPGB however is that it does not adequately flesh out what it means by this and focusses simply on its role as a propagandist organisation. When I was a member some years ago, my branch in Guildford put out an internal circular called "The Road to Socialism" which sought to radically overhaul the party's "big bang" approach to revolution by envisaging the development of alternative grass roots economic , social and cultural institutions  of a "socialistic" nature in line with the growth of the socialist movement itself. This is by way of analogy with the way capitalist relations developed within the interstices of a feudal society prior to the onset of bourgeois revolutions themselves.  The party unfortunately rejected this scenario but it did go some way to acknowleging changes would happen prior to the revoliution but confined these to the cultural and social realms.  For example it began to talk increasingly about the way we would begin planning for socialist production prior to the establishment of socialism.  That is simply not enough in my opinion though...



Knotted said:


> You can't guarantee that the entire working class everywhere will have a perfect understanding of what they are doing. You can't guarantee that a small majority might make their move before the vast majority are with them. You can't guarantee success everywhere at the same time. You can't guarantee that revolutions will not be partial and isolated. There is a lot of difficult business getting from A to B. So when the SPGB finger wag at working class revolutions for being in backward countries before workers in advanced industrialised nations are ready and when the SPGB seem to think that the British parliament will somehow herald world socialism it's difficult not to conclude that this is a very imperialist concept of socialism.



You can't guarantee anything but that does not mean you cannot make  informed statements on the  basis of statistical porbability


You repeat again the assertion  that the "SPGB finger wag at working class revolutions for being in backward countries before workers in advanced industrialised nations are ready".  Frankly I have never heard of this before.  Where did you get this information from? Can you cite a source. 

I repeat-  it is a matter of indifference to the SPGB as to where the revolution breaks out first. What matters is that the revolution should be a genuine socialist one and not just another bourgeois revolution.  To the SPGB - and I think their logic is sound here - if the revolution breaks out in one part of the world that it implies that other parts of the workd are almost ready for a socialist revolution themselves.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 14, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> But it is not meant to.  It simply addresses and seeks to alleviate a situation of massive spatial inequalities (in housing stock) in order to prevent social discontent arising.  Its a question of natural justice in other words.  If some goods are going to have to be rationed anyway, why not this way?  This does not stop determined effort being made in a socialist society to upgrade poor quality housing stock in the meanwhile.



Fair enough.




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> I am not too sure that this is the case.  Where did you get this idea from?



What I am concerned about is how the SPGB deal with this question of the early and later stages of socialism. It is on this that there is a clear reduction to questions of productive forces and scarcity.

For example here, here, here, or here.

If we look at the third one of the above:


> In any event, later on in his criticism of the Gotha Programme Marx made it quite clear that if labour-time vouchers were used in Socialism this would be a temporary measure imposed by the comparatively low level of technology. In time, he saw, when the "springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly" Socialist society could abandon labour-time
> vouchers (or whatever) and go over to "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", that is, to free access to consumer goods.



It is typical in all of these little pieces that the SPGB never discuss anything about what Marx considered the characteristics of the first stages of socialism except these labour time vouchers. And yes I know the SPGB reject LTV's but they still reduce what Marx said here down to a question of LTV's.

Then we have this idea that LTV's are there because of comparatively low technology and so the material basis for socialism is not entirely established. There is also this idea the LTV's are needed for the purposes of rationing. These reductions are not found in Marx.

Finally we have this idea that we do not need LTV's when we have reached the point of development where we can provide for all. This is a third reduction not found in Marx.




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> The question of producing enough is important, yes, becuase free access depends on it but there are a range of other issues that the SPGB has also addressed from the need to tackle environmental problems through to the nature of work itself and how it can be made more satisafying.  With respect, I think you need to dig a bit deeper before drawing stark conclusions about what the SPGB thinks.  I have the advantage of having once been a member but even i know that the SPGB is not a static entity nor a monolithic one.  On some issues particularly relating to future socialist society there is actually quite a variety of opinion within the SPGB - from hi tech cornucopians intent upon full scale automation  to William Morris arty crafty types.



It is possible that I am debating various individuals' opinions rather than the SPGB's position.




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> Sure but then the same logic applies here as Marx applied to his lower phase of communism.  We are inheriting the spatial inequalities in housing stock from capitalism so not unreasonably a residual bourgeois notion of equal right should therefore also come into play in early socialism/communism.  I dont see any great problem with this....



I agree with you. However, this is exactly the sort of reasoning I never see the SPGB do.




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> But there is a big difference between living in a shitty towerblock apartment and having to contend with a lifelong disability.  There is not much you can do about the latter but one would hope a decent society would do evrything it can to ease the situation and enable the individual to fulfil as far as possible his or her potential.  You can do something about living in a shitty tower block apartment however.  True, compensation per se  and almost by definition does not in itself change this situation but it certainly helps to know that society is acknowleding the inequity of spatial inequalities inherited from capitalism  by "compensating" individuals in the interim  in the way I have suggested.  It is saying something about the worth of such individuals and signalling its intent to do something about the predicament in which they find themselves



I'm not sure if it does recognise the worth of such individuals. It could be regarded as patronising.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 14, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Well I actually think the SPGB has a good point here. The idea of a transitional period *between *capitalism and communism is theoretically incoherent.  Rather what has been argued in the SPGB is that if you must talk about a transition then in a sense we are already in the transition.  In other words the transition is something that happens *before *not after the *revolution *and the revolution is just the culimination of this transformative process.
> 
> One of my criticisms of the SPGB however is that it does not adequately flesh out what it means by this and focusses simply on its role as a propagandist organisation. When I was a member some years ago, my branch in Guildford put out an internal circular called "The Road to Socialism" which sought to radically overhaul the party's "big bang" approach to revolution by envisaging the development of alternative grass roots economic , social and cultural institutions  of a "socialistic" nature in line with the growth of the socialist movement itself. This is by way of analogy with the way capitalist relations developed within the interstices of a feudal society prior to the onset of bourgeois revolutions themselves.  The party unfortunately rejected this scenario but it did go some way to acknowleging changes would happen prior to the revoliution but confined these to the cultural and social realms.  For example it began to talk increasingly about the way we would begin planning for socialist production prior to the establishment of socialism.  That is simply not enough in my opinion though...



"Big bang" is a good name for the SPGB's approach. However if it is incoherent to talk about a transition from capitalism to socialism, then it's incoherent to talk about establishing sociailsm at all surely!?




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> You can't guarantee anything but that does not mean you cannot make  informed statements on the  basis of statistical porbability



I think we would have to wait several millenia before the SPGB's road to socialism will come about. It requires far too much in the way of coincidence. Very simple objection - if we require a vast majority, what happens in the inevitable period before this where there is a small socialist majority? Suppose the SPGB is voted into power but with only by 35% of the vote (first past the post). What will they do. Nothing? Hand over power to a capitalist party? Push forward with a minority revolution?




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> You repeat again the assertion  that the "SPGB finger wag at working class revolutions for being in backward countries before workers in advanced industrialised nations are ready".  Frankly I have never heard of this before.  Where did you get this information from? Can you cite a source.



I'm going by the SPGB's analysis of the Russian revolution where they argue that socialist revolution was impossible because revolution was not on the cards (according to the SPGB) in Europe.

I can't find the exact reference at the minute. I'm not sure this is something I've read in the literature or heard in discussion with SPGB members.




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> I repeat-  it is a matter of indifference to the SPGB as to where the revolution breaks out first. What matters is that the revolution should be a genuine socialist one and not just another bourgeois revolution.  To the SPGB - and I think their logic is sound here - if the revolution breaks out in one part of the world that it implies that other parts of the workd are almost ready for a socialist revolution themselves.



This seems like a matter of faith to me.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 14, 2010)

Knotted said:


> It is possible that I am debating various individuals' opinions rather than the SPGB's position.



It depends on the subject matter when discussing the conditions and preferences of future society.  In many instances these discussions are part of the ongoing debate amongst members and many may refer to the party position as a starting point.  For instance, how could socialist society alleviate the circumstances of alienation?   

Such a discussion presumes that certain aspects of alienation would still be present in socialism, given that the cause of alienation is the division of labour, and it is the division of labour which effectively delivers the objective conditions of an abundance.

Some members argue that one solution would be the rapid introduction of technology and automation through robots in the workplace.  Other members suggest a possible partial solution would be the increase in leisure time and the opportunity for each individual to express themselves in the products they produced.  Whilst others would see a mix of both, with some communities deciding too much technology was not their cup of tea.

However, IMO most socialists would agree that the introduction of technology is a must in respect of strenuous and dangerous work.  We are in agreement that such discussion is necessary despite the fact a fair proportion of it is speculation and conjecture.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 15, 2010)

Knotted said:


> The bourgeosie continued to exist in 1920's Russia. There is no need to talk about ducks. They really existed as an exploiting class. Private ownership of the means of production continued. Nobody has ever pretended otherwise. Lenin was explicit that Russia was not yet socialist. He explicitly said socialism could not be built in a backward country in isolation from the rest of the world. (State capitalism does not mean that the state is an exploiting class though - the state isn't the class, the bourgeoisie is the class).



Of course the state is not the exploiting class, it is the instrument that represents the interests of the exploiting  class.  In the case of state capitalist Russia the exploiting class were the party nomenklatura.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 15, 2010)

Knotted said:


> "Big bang" is a good name for the SPGB's approach. However if it is incoherent to talk about a transition from capitalism to socialism, then it's incoherent to talk about establishing sociailsm at all surely!?



The "Big bang" label is a label the SPGB rejects completely for it insinuates that the transition involving planning and preparation before the revolution takes place is of no consequence on the outcome of the revolutionary process.  The label of "Big bang" put the members backs up straight away and unfortunately deflected the discussion away from the problem 'of a lack of a socialist economic model prior to the transformation'.  Which the Guildford paper was actually on about.

IMO if Guildford Branch had not used any label whatsoever to describe their concerns the party members would have been far more agreeable to discussing these concerns appertaining to the problem 'of a lack of a socialist economic model prior to the transformation'.  If that is there is a problem.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 15, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Of course the state is not the exploiting class, it is the instrument that represents the interests of the exploiting  class.  In the case of state capitalist Russia the exploiting class were the party nomenklatura.



If we're talking about state capitalism, I'm going to insist that we are talking about actual capitalism ie. private ownership of the means of production for the sake of profit with at least some elements of genuine economic competition. As far as I am concerned the term is a micro-economic term rather than a marcro-economic term. It is about the nature of state controlled monopolies. It is not an economic system in it's own right. Total state capitalism ie. total monopolistic capitalism would not be exploitative in any Marxist sense. There would be no working class under total state capitalism. Exploitation could just as easily take the form of raising prices rather than lowering wages. There would be no incentives to develop the productive forces - in fact there would be negative incentives to develop the productive forces (tendency of profit rate to fall). Stalinist Russia was nothing like total state capitalism. Not even vaguely. Even using the duck argument, Stalinist Russia was quacking and waddling like a minky whale - it was not a duck. Stalinist Russia was quacking and waddling much more like ordinary capitalism than total state capitalism.

So I'm not going to adopt your terms.


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 15, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> The "Big bang" label is a label the SPGB rejects completely for it insinuates that the transition involving planning and preparation before the revolution takes place is of no consequence on the outcome of the revolutionary process.  The label of "Big bang" put the members backs up straight away and unfortunately deflected the discussion away from the problem 'of a lack of a socialist economic model prior to the transformation'.  Which the Guildford paper was actually on about..



This is complete and utter nonsense and only demonstrates that GD has totally missed the point that is being made.  

What the "big bang"£ label alludes to has got *abolutely nothing *to with whether or not in the run up to socialism there would be some process of _planning and preparation before the revolution takes place _.  Nor has it ever been suggested by anyone, Guildford Branch included, that this process would be of no consequence.  Where on earth did GD get this daft idea?  It goes to show that he has really not attended at all to what was actually being said in the original circular after all this time.

What in fact the Big bang label is alluding to is the implied suggestion that in the run up to socialism *the extent and scope of capitalist economic relations *will remain completely unaffected by the growth of a world wide socialist movement.  On the contrary, the Guildford circular argued forcibly that such growth would indeed precipitate an expansion in non capitalist or "socialistic" type economic arrangements (a number were suggested) which would grow in size in comparison with the capitalist sector.  This argument takes as its point of departure the way in which capitalist economic relations themselves in similar fashion spread incrementally within the interstices of a feudalistic society.  This is how revolutions happen  - through the collision of competing sets of social relationships resulting ultimately in the triumph of those relationships that are most closely aligned to the further development of the productive forces.  The Big bang theory presumes there are no competing sets of relationships and that society will be homogenously and totalistically capitalist in its econoic structure right up until the very day it is "abolished".  Thats totally unrealistic


Im frankly appalled that GD could have got it so worng and it bears out my suspicion that some (by no means all) SPGB comrades were more intent upon shoring up their own prejudices rather than engaging with the argument that had been put before them




Gravediggers said:


> IMO if Guildford Branch had not used any label whatsoever to describe their concerns the party members would have been far more agreeable to discussing these concerns appertaining to the problem 'of a lack of a socialist economic model prior to the transformation'.  If that is there is a problem.




In other words you are more or less conceding here that the response of these members was a knee jerk one,  not a considered one.  They simply looked at the label and were not prepared to look further.  Which is precisely my point...


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 15, 2010)

> Knotted said:
> 
> 
> > If we're talking about state capitalism, I'm going to insist that we are talking about actual capitalism ie. private ownership of the means of production for the sake of profit with at least some elements of genuine economic competition. As far as I am concerned the term is a micro-economic term rather than a marcro-economic term. It is about the nature of state controlled monopolies. It is not an economic system in it's own right.
> ...


----------



## Knotted (Jul 15, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> You can insist as much has you like but it wont get you very far.  Especially when your description for 'state capitalism' in fact refers to a mixed economy of state and private enterprises coexisting under a multi-party political system.  This model is pretty well prevalent in most of the developed, developing and undeveloped countries.   Whereas, the the state capitalism which existed in Russia was distinctively different from the mixed economy model by the fact that the Bolsheviks party were the only party and it had a monopoly on the control of the economy where the state owned a majority of the enterprises.



No this is the state capitalilsm that existed in Russia in the early years. It is the state capitalism that Lenin is talking about. It is also the SPGB's original theory of state capitalism - which was cribbed directly from Lenin. State controlled private capital. State capitalism in Russia declined throughout the 1920's.

The SPGB invented another theory of state capitalism around 1930 (I believe) where the exploiting class are bond holders. This is bad theory - bond holders don't own the state or even any state enterprises, they have no say in how the economy is run. They could be seen as a parasitic caste in their own right, though. The SPGB used to make a big song and dance about soviet millionaires...

Then there is your theory that the exploiting class are party nomenclatura. This is even sillier.

Then there is robbo's theory where the exploiting class is the state itself. This is probably the best total state capitalist theory. It's error seems glaring from a marxist point of view, but it's slightly harder to refute. Again, there are several versions of this theory.

You are preaching to the unconvertable. I've looked at this question too closely for you to stand any chance of convincing me.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 15, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> This issue was dealt with by Marx in, 'Value, prices and profit' or the alternative title of, 'Wages, prices and profits'.  And shown to be false.



Pay attention, I'm not talking about ordinary capitalism, but total state capitalism, where private ownership of the means of production is replaced by a capitalist conglomarate owned by the state.

Check Marx's reasoning.

Remember that there is only one capitalist in total state capitalism - the state. If there is a general rise in wages, then the sections of the economy which doesn't produce necessities for the workers will not be compensated by a rise in prices. But since it is just one company that produces everything, all that is required is to shift production more to workers' necessities. And here the state could raise prices as much as it needs to in order to claw back gains from the workers.

With total monopoly you get the iron law of wages.

But this only goes to show that total state capitalism has never existed nor has it ever been close to existing. In fact the USSR used to keep food prices artificially low. This is because although the state is a parasitic entity, it is not an exploiting entity.

When talking about state capitalism, theorists never bother to check what their model implies. It is just a label that tells you nothing that isn't plainly true already ie.

1) The USSR sucked.
2) It retained features of capitalism.
3) The state ran the economy.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 15, 2010)

> Knotted said:
> 
> 
> > Pay attention, I'm not talking about ordinary capitalism, but total state capitalism, where private ownership of the means of production is replaced by a capitalist conglomarate owned by the state.
> ...


----------



## Knotted (Jul 15, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> If you were to pay attention perhaps you would have noticed nobody else is talking about, 'total state capitalism'.    We are just not interested in a non-entity.   Also it has never been implied by anyone that Russia post 1917 was a total state capitalist model.  Indeed, if you remember a few posts back I explained how the private capitalists in Russia were absorbed into the state capitalist economy.



But that's a tiny component of the economy. The problem is that the theory doesn't even approximate reality. It's a million miles away from the reality. If you called the USSR capitalist without the "state" part then you would be closer to the mark.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 15, 2010)

Knotted said:


> > No this is the state capitalilsm that existed in Russia in the early years. It is the state capitalism that Lenin is talking about. It is also the SPGB's original theory of state capitalism - which was cribbed directly from Lenin. State controlled private capital. State capitalism in Russia declined throughout the 1920's.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 15, 2010)

> Knotted said:
> 
> 
> > But that's a tiny component of the economy.
> ...


----------



## Shevek (Jul 15, 2010)

anarchism is the way!


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 15, 2010)

Knotted said:


> No this is the state capitalilsm that existed in Russia in the early years. It is the state capitalism that Lenin is talking about. It is also the SPGB's original theory of state capitalism - which was cribbed directly from Lenin. State controlled private capital. State capitalism in Russia declined throughout the 1920's.
> 
> The SPGB invented another theory of state capitalism around 1930 (I believe) where the exploiting class are bond holders. This is bad theory - bond holders don't own the state or even any state enterprises, they have no say in how the economy is run. They could be seen as a parasitic caste in their own right, though. The SPGB used to make a big song and dance about soviet millionaires...
> 
> ...



Knotted I dont really understand your objections to the theory of state capitalism.  Actually I think this is an area - one of several - where i would concur more or less completely with the views of the SPGB. 

State capitalism simply denotes capitalism as run by the state. It is easy enough to define what we mean by capitalism . Its a system based on generalised wage labour , commodity production, capital accumulation and extraction of surplus value out of which capital is accumulated.  All of these feature were to be found in the Soviet union.  

The differences lay simply in the architectiure of administration. In western capitalism you have privately owned conpanies competing on the market.  In the Soviet Union you had state enterprises obliged to keep profit and loss accunts with the state acting as intermediary in their dealing with other state enterrpises.  Certainly profit and losses reverted in the end to the state but it was for this very reason that the the state had an interest in ensuring the profitability of enterrpises in general and indeed put pressure on state enterprises to that end.  Its funding depended  upon this as did the many privileges  enjoyed by its ruling class

The notion that the Soviet Union was a genuinely centrally planned economy as opposed to a market economy is bollocks.  Society wide planning in its classical sense is utterly unrealistic in any case and in practice the Soviet economy could hardly be said to have been dictated by GOSPLAN.  There was not a single plan in the history of the Soviet union that was ever truly "fulfilled".  Plans were in practice simply rough guidelines almost always adjusted retrospectively to fit in with the changing economic realities.  Some  of the plans were not even made available to state enterprises until well into the implementation period

The (state) capitalist class in the Soviet union was not the "state" as such but rather those who effectively controlled the state apparatus - the nomneklatura.  They  effectively owned the economy via their control of the political state and indeed many of them were extremely wealth in their own right (as revealed for example in a pamphlet Soviet Millionaries written by  a pro-soviet supporter , Reg Bishop, in the mnid 1940s)  It was they who had the final say in the allocation of the surplus product and the distribution of wealth .  Ultimate control  is in fact the same thing as de facto ownership.  

Trotsky amongst others betrayed the bourgeois roots of his outlook in setting so much store by the *de jure  *or legalistic defintion of the capitalist classs as only those individuals who have legal title to capital.  He denied the existence of a state capitalist class in the Soviet union.  Marxists on the other hand - like the SPGB, it should be said - take a more thoroughgoing materialistic perspective looking at the question of class in *de facto *terms. 

I recommend you do the same. I recommend also that you get hold of Buick and Crumps well written book  State Capitalism : the Wages System under New Managemenrt (google it).  It is a very useful reference indeed.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 15, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> > What in fact the Big bang label is alluding to is the implied suggestion that in the run up to socialism *the extent and scope of capitalist economic relations *will remain completely unaffected by the growth of a world wide socialist movement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 15, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> You are forgetting a very important nuance here, for what we have said is that yes we expect the growth in the socialist movement to affect the extent and scope of capitalists economic relations.  It would be plain daft not to and deny the historical evidence to the contrary.  What we envisage occurring is that with the growth in the world socialist movement there would be a parallel growth in the 'free access reforms' on offer from the capitalist class with the intention of diverting the class struggle.   ...



Several points.  

First of all, you are backpeddling in the face of my early point that by my saying the SPGB subscribed to the big bang theory  this emphatically did *not *mean I was saying the party did *not *envisage planning and preparing for socialism as you had ignorantly suggested previously.  I pointed out precisely what was actually meant by the "big bang theory of revolution" .  It was the view that capitalism would remain unchanged in the scope and extent of its economic  relationship right up until it was abolished and irrespective of size of the socialist movement determined to overthow it. It is quite possible to hold this view *and *believe in the necessity of "planning and preparing" for socialism before socialism was actually establihsed,.  

Secondly you now assert that the SPGB does indeed expect the growth in the socialist movement to affect the extent and scope of capitalists economic relations. This you say is evidenced by the fact that the SPGB expects along with the growth of a socialist movement a _parallel growth in the 'free access reforms' on offer from the capitalist class with the intention of diverting the class struggle. _

Well this may well happen but again this  still is not what is meant by a rejectiing a big bang theory of revolution.  In fact I am rather surprised by your remark.  Taken at face value it would seem to suggest that as socialists what we should be doing is supporting developments like the welfare state on the grounds that it is somehow pushing back the boundaries of capitalism so to speak.  This is to succumb to a reformist illusion that there such a thing as a free lunch under capitalism.  Your free access refroms do not as you seem to imagine transcend capitalism, they would actually have to be paid as all subsidised services are paid for under capitalism by taxing the productive or surplus value producing sector of the economy.  The "socialistic " transcendance of the commodity relationship  envisaged by the Guildford circular is something quite different.  You have failed completely to see this point.






Gravediggers said:


> [
> 
> And your arguments for havens of a "socialistic" type of economy was shown to be unrealistic and a non-starter by the counter circulars by party members.  But you don't mention this and I wonder why?...



Really?  Pray do tell - where exactly have they been "shown" to be unrealistic and a non starter?  This is more a case of wishful thinking on your part and the authors of the one or two counter circulars you mention who demonstared their deliberate incomprehension of the argument being  put to them by their insistance  on barking up the wrong tree - despite this having been pointed out to them on several ocacasions.  *Saying *something is unrealistic is not at all the same thing as *demonstrating *that it is.

But lets look at your claim shall we? What are these socialistic "havens" you refer to. The Guildford cicular referred to a range of institutions which would provide a suitable medium in which grasssroots socialistic type economic relations could take root as opposed to your preferred top down capitalist "free access" refroms.  These insititutions include inter alia mutual aid projects, intentional communities , LETS, "freeeconomy" type intiatives and so on

Are these things a non starter as you claim?  Well they exist -  dont they? - and on scale that dwarves the revolutionary *many many* times over. The Guildfords cicular  was saying .(and this is the point you and others have completely missed even up to the present day ) that the growth of the socialist movement would not only have the effect of 1) massively expandimng the extent and influence of such insititutions but also 2) of fundamentally reorientatng their outlook in a spocialist direction, infusing them with a socialist consciousness.  



Gravediggers said:


> Of course all previous revolutions have been in essence economic revolutions and nobody is arguing about this.  But this does not mean to say that socialism requires an economic model as a necessary prerequisite.  Indeed, it could be argued that socialist class consciousness makes such a model unnecessary and even if it were possible for such a model to exist they would be so small to be of little practical benefit to a global socialist community.
> .




Thus is a bit muddled.  How does *socialist class consciousness makes such a model unnecessary*? If you accept the argument that revolution entails the collision of one set of economic relations with another then how can socialist consciousness not involve the existence of some kind of prefigurative model? Your postion is  frankly ahistorical and idealist. Ultimately for you socialism will come becuase it is a "nice idea"




Gravediggers said:


> I've explained above this is not strictly true.
> .




How does some capitalist top-down "free access" reforms which *by your own admission *will offered by the capitalists as a sop to the workers, represent a competing set of econonomic relationships to the dominant capitalist relationships?



Gravediggers said:


> All I'm saying is that you done yourselves no favours by calling it the, 'Big bang theory'.  In fact if you had put, 'Is an economic model of socialism necessary before the abolishment of capitalism' down for an item of discussion at ADM or Conference it would have received much more accord from the members than your supposition.
> 
> .



Again this is a wriggle to cover up the fact that you were so way off beam in your understanding of what the big bang theory was actually about in the first place



Gravediggers said:


> Yes but whose fault is that ... ...?



If is fault of those who make the knee yerk reponse rather than a considered one


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 16, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Several points.
> 
> First of all, you are backpeddling in the face of my early point that by my saying the SPGB subscribed to the big bang theory  this emphatically did *not *mean I was saying the party did *not *envisage planning and preparing for socialism as you had ignorantly suggested previously.



The very point I'm trying to make is that the party have never subscribed to the big bang theory.  We do not say it will be capitalism one day and socialism the next.


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 16, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> The very point I'm trying to make is that the party have never subscribed to the big bang theory.  We do not say it will be capitalism one day and socialism the next.




And yet you say the party (or rather its mainstream) rejected the Guildford circular which precisely advocated that the party reject the big bang theory!!!! It seems to me that you are very very confused and dont really grasp the point that is being made here.  What does it mean to say there will not be  "capitalism one day and socialism the next"? Could it be that you really think that your top down " free access"  reforms introduced *by the capitalists themselves *as a sop to the workers constitute a kind of partial or limited "socialism"? 

If this is what you saying then ironically I turn out to be more of an SPGBer than you in pointing out that you dont properly understand the economics of reformism in that case and that there is really no such thing as free lunch in capitalism.  Payments in kind such as free health care are taken into account in the determination of wage levels.  This has to be so becuase at the end of the day they have to be paid for out of general taxation.  This is not to say there are not distinct benefits in having health care free at the point of delivery e.g. peace of mind but to imagine that you could have free access to health care without this affecting your wage levels shows a very poor understanding of capitalist economics.

I am sure that the capitalists will increasingly throw sops to the workers of this nature in the face of a determined and growing socialist movement.  *But this is not what a rejection of the big bang theory is about*.  The SPGB needs to be a little more imaginative about the historical possibilities and stop rejecting in knee-yerk fashion what it ludicrously calls a "non starter".  (ludicrous because such things I referred to already exist and on a scale many many times bigger than the socialist movement itself).

It needs to recognise that the historical possiblities of what can be done open up and expand as the movement itself itself grows and that it is only a conservative ahistoricism that would want to deny this.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 16, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Knotted I dont really understand your objections to the theory of state capitalism.  Actually I think this is an area - one of several - where i would concur more or less completely with the views of the SPGB.



The main objection is that it isn't a theory it's the duck argument. It involves pointing and saying, "Look! State capitalism!" When you ask what is meant by "state capitalism", the answer is, "can't you see what I'm pointing at?" It tells you nothing new.




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> State capitalism simply denotes capitalism as run by the state. It is easy enough to define what we mean by capitalism . Its a system based on generalised wage labour , commodity production, capital accumulation and extraction of surplus value out of which capital is accumulated.  All of these feature were to be found in the Soviet union.
> 
> The differences lay simply in the architectiure of administration. In western capitalism you have privately owned conpanies competing on the market.  In the Soviet Union you had state enterprises obliged to keep profit and loss accunts with the state acting as intermediary in their dealing with other state enterrpises.  Certainly profit and losses reverted in the end to the state but it was for this very reason that the the state had an interest in ensuring the profitability of enterrpises in general and indeed put pressure on state enterprises to that end.  Its funding depended  upon this as did the many privileges  enjoyed by its ruling class



Read the first sentence of the above and the last. Nowhere do you identify the capitalist class. You identify the "ruling class" and you claim that this class are running capitalism, but you do not claim that the ruling class own the means of production. Unlike the capitalist class, the ruling class have privileges. Unlike the capitalist class, the rulilng class do not extract surplus value. The ruling class were parasitic, not exploitative.

Quite literally you have denied that the capitalist class were the ruling class in the former Soviet Union. So what on earth do you mean when you say is was "state capitalist"? The term tells you nothing.

[There is, of course, the problem that this ruling class were not really a class at all. They could pass on privileges to their children - wealth, the best education etc. - but they couldn't pass on their supposedly class position in the party nomenclatura.]

Did commodity production continue to exist in the former Soviet Union? Did the wage system still exist? Did capital exist? Did money convert to capital? Was surplus value extracted from the workers? Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. All this existed (in a modified form). You are not telling me anything I don't know already. Were economic decisions taken in order to maximise profits? No. Profits were defined by the state in order to carry out economic decisions.




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> The notion that the Soviet Union was a genuinely centrally planned economy as opposed to a market economy is bollocks.  Society wide planning in its classical sense is utterly unrealistic in any case and in practice the Soviet economy could hardly be said to have been dictated by GOSPLAN.  There was not a single plan in the history of the Soviet union that was ever truly "fulfilled".  Plans were in practice simply rough guidelines almost always adjusted retrospectively to fit in with the changing economic realities.  Some  of the plans were not even made available to state enterprises until well into the implementation period



So? You are telling me nothing I don't know already. What has the above got to do with the Soviet Union having a market economy?




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> The (state) capitalist class in the Soviet union was not the "state" as such but rather those who effectively controlled the state apparatus - the nomneklatura.  They  effectively owned the economy via their control of the political state and indeed many of them were extremely wealth in their own right (as revealed for example in a pamphlet Soviet Millionaries written by  a pro-soviet supporter , Reg Bishop, in the mnid 1940s)  It was they who had the final say in the allocation of the surplus product and the distribution of wealth .  Ultimate control  is in fact the same thing as de facto ownership.



Effective control + wealth = effective ownership? This is where we start bastardising economic categories.




			
				robbo203 said:
			
		

> Trotsky amongst others betrayed the bourgeois roots of his outlook in setting so much store by the *de jure  *or legalistic defintion of the capitalist classs as only those individuals who have legal title to capital.  He denied the existence of a state capitalist class in the Soviet union.  Marxists on the other hand - like the SPGB, it should be said - take a more thoroughgoing materialistic perspective looking at the question of class in *de facto *terms.
> 
> I recommend you do the same. I recommend also that you get hold of Buick and Crumps well written book  State Capitalism : the Wages System under New Managemenrt (google it).  It is a very useful reference indeed.



I haven't read Buick and Crumps' book. In my opinion the best attempt at theorising state capitalism (or statised capitalism as it's author calls it) that I've read was by Walter Daum.

I'm really not that interested. Theories of state capitalism just throw up all manner of theoretical problems once you start to take them seriously. And for what? All of them are based on impressionistic conclusions from observations about various factors of the various statlinist economies. I can observe quite happily for myself without getting entangled with some sort of theory that it's all really just capitalist anyway.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 16, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> When Lenin is talking about the mixed economy he's using it has a basis for the introduction of even more state capitalism and not as the actual model he envisages.  The SPGB's original theory came directly out of the events in Russia after 1917 and had nothing to do with events previous to that time.  And our theory for state capitalism came directly from our understanding of the labour theory of value and not like you claim from Lenin.  And state capitalism in Russia became even more entrenched after the 1920's.



Have a read of this.

The SPGB at this time agree with every dot and every comma of what Lenin was saying. Admitedly they were agreeing in a "we told you so" sort of way, but that does not count as disagreement. You will not find one word of criticism. What the SPGB meant by state capitalism at this time was not wholesale nationalisation, but state run private capitalism.

Did the SPGB accept Lenin's distinction between "state capitalism" and "state socialism"? Yes. You do not hear one word of protest.

Did the SPGB accept Lenin's contention that state capitalism is a step torwards socialism? Yes, with only the proviso that this strategy was not appropriate in advanced nations.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> We've only ever had one theory on state capitalism.



You've had at least three.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> Well if you think its silly how do explain the privileges of the party nomenclatura?



Think for yourself for one second. Capitalism is not a system of privilege, it is a system of profit.




			
				Gravediggers said:
			
		

> And its pretty apparent you've not noticed that we are not out to convert you but to take the opportunity for explaining our position.



Explain it someone who's interested. I don't know, maybe try Mikhail Gorbachev. Stop bothering me with this nonsense.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 16, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> This argument takes as its point of departure the way in which capitalist economic relations themselves in similar fashion spread incrementally within the interstices of a feudalistic society.  This is how revolutions happen  - through the collision of competing sets of social relationships resulting ultimately in the triumph of those relationships that are most closely aligned to the further development of the productive forces.



Did you know that this theory was first thought up by Eduard Bernstein? I think the SPGB are right on this score. You should check out Rosa Luxemburg on this.


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 16, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Did you know that this theory was first thought up by Eduard Bernstein? I think the SPGB are right on this score. You should check out Rosa Luxemburg on this.



Sorry but this is nonsense. Bernstein's revisionist approach and his advocacy of the minimum programme has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what is being proposed here.  We are not talking here about reforms enacted by the state supposedly for the benefit of the workers


----------



## Knotted (Jul 16, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Sorry but this is nonsense. Bernstein's revisionist approach and his advocacy of the minimum programme has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what is being proposed here.  We are not talking here about reforms enacted by the state supposedly for the benefit of the workers



That's only one aspect of what Bernstein was proposing. I recognised that you are not saying exactly the same thing. However, the analogy with capitalism growing within feudal society is straight out of Bernstein.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 16, 2010)

I'm perhaps being unfair to the Guilford branch. I'm not clear on what exactly they were proposing. At a glance it sounds like the cooperative movement.


----------



## robbo203 (Jul 16, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Read the first sentence of the above and the last. Nowhere do you identify the capitalist class. You identify the "ruling class" and you claim that this class are running capitalism, but you do not claim that the ruling class own the means of production. Unlike the capitalist class, the ruling class have privileges. Unlike the capitalist class, the rulilng class do not extract surplus value. The ruling class were parasitic, not exploitative..



If you care to read what I wrote a little more carefully you will see that I said the capitalist class in the Soviet Union equates with that class - the ruling class - who effectively own the means of prpoduction as a class via their absolute control of the state apparatus.  The ruling class in other words IS the capitalist class and their relationship to the Soviet working class was both exploitative and parasitic.  Its a bit more complicated in the West where there is more of a differentiation or overlap between those who control the state and the capitalist class.  For the most part, the latter do not directly control the state although the state obviously functions in the interests of that class.

The difference is thus one of form not substance.



Knotted said:


> Quite literally you have denied that the capitalist class were the ruling class in the former Soviet Union. So what on earth do you mean when you say is was "state capitalist"? The term tells you nothing...



On the contrary i am saying that the soviet ruling class was the same thing as the soviet capitalist class.  Its economic function stems from its political position



Knotted said:


> [There is, of course, the problem that this ruling class were not really a class at all. They could pass on privileges to their children - wealth, the best education etc. - but they couldn't pass on their supposedly class position in the party nomenclatura.]..



How class is a recruited is really a secondary matter.  The catholic church in the middle ages was an extensive landowner and many monastic orders were hives of small scale industry.  Individual clerics did not not have individual title to this property but this did not mean it was not owned by the Church which in effective terms means the Church hierarchy who controlled everything and in particular the allocation of the surplus product.



Knotted said:


> Did commodity production continue to exist in the former Soviet Union? Did the wage system still exist? Did capital exist? Did money convert to capital? Was surplus value extracted from the workers? Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. All this existed (in a modified form). You are not telling me anything I don't know already. Were economic decisions taken in order to maximise profits? No. Profits were defined by the state in order to carry out economic decisions.




Not quite sure what you mean by this.  Profit is a component of surplus value.  It technically relates to the excess of revenue over costs of prpoduction.  How else is it defined?  The Soviet state had an interest in encouraging state enterprises to maiximise their profit - their revenue depended on it - but this does not mean that profit maximisation was the only consideration any more than it does in the West




Knotted said:


> Effective control + wealth = effective ownership? This is where we start bastardising economic categories
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Knotted (Jul 16, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Well , no, I dont agree.  If you take such in line then I think that makes you vulnerable to stalinist counterarguments that the Soviet union was not really a capitalist economy at all.  You have to know *why *it was in order to rebut such arguments.  if you are not really interested in doing so will then thats fair enough but it kind of limits the possibilities of engaging in debate with such people



Very briefly, you have just articulated exactly why I have no time for state capitalist theories, they only state that capitalist forms existed. They never explain why. They lack the theoretical juice to explain anything and fall back on bland observations.

Part of the problem with theories of state capitalism is that they encourage you not to analyse these soviet style economies properly. You see Gravediggers' approach. He is only interested in the conclusion - "it's state capitalist!" He is not interested in the actual development of the system or the different types of state intervention. Real distinctions are bulldozed - it is all just state capitalism anyway. 1920's=1930's=1940's=1950's=...=1980's. It doesn't matter state capitalism is as state capitalism does. The reason I'm reluctant to get into this is because I'm talking to someone who isn't interested in the actual USSR, I'm talking to someone promoting the party boilerplate.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 16, 2010)

> Knotted said:
> 
> 
> > Have a read of this.
> ...


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 16, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Part of the problem with theories of state capitalism is that they encourage you not to analyse these soviet style economies properly. You see Gravediggers' approach. He is only interested in the conclusion - "it's state capitalist!" He is not interested in the actual development of the system or the different types of state intervention. Real distinctions are bulldozed - it is all just state capitalism anyway. 1920's=1930's=1940's=1950's=...=1980's. It doesn't matter state capitalism is as state capitalism does. The reason I'm reluctant to get into this is because I'm talking to someone who isn't interested in the actual USSR, I'm talking to someone promoting the party boilerplate.



The article you linked provided quite clearly the actual development of the system of state capitalism.  And it seems you're ignoring my post 2228 where I listed the the different types of state intervention. The SPGB analysed the events in Soviet Russia has they unfolded from beginning to end.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 16, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> The article you linked provided quite clearly the actual development of the system of state capitalism.  And it seems you're ignoring my post 2228 where I listed the the different types of state intervention. The SPGB analysed the events in Soviet Russia has they unfolded from beginning to end.



You clearly have no interest in the subject you are talking about.


----------



## whichfinder (Jul 16, 2010)

Knotted said:


> You clearly have no interest in the subject you are talking about.



And it's clear you have little or no knowledge about the subject.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 16, 2010)

Inform me then. Tell me something I don't know already.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 16, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> Not quite sure what you mean by this.  Profit is a component of surplus value.  It technically relates to the excess of revenue over costs of prpoduction.  How else is it defined?  The Soviet state had an interest in encouraging state enterprises to maiximise their profit - their revenue depended on it - but this does not mean that profit maximisation was the only consideration any more than it does in the West



Of course they needed to maintain and increase revenues - they needed to increase costs. They were pushing the economy to expand. Surplus value extracted from the workers was ploughed straight back into production. The state didn't need to maintain total profits at a certain level - it had no competition. Profit for individual enterprises featured as a form of accounting. There needed to be a way to quantify successes and failures. Of course the manager could make profits by fiddling the figures.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 16, 2010)

robbo203 said:


> > Originally Posted by Gravediggers  View Post
> > All I'm saying is that you done yourselves no favours by calling it the, 'Big bang theory'. In fact if you had put, 'Is an economic model of socialism necessary before the abolishment of capitalism' down for an item of discussion at ADM or Conference it would have received much more accord from the members than your supposition.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2015)

Socialist Party of Great Britain worth £1.3m, accounts show



> The Socialist Party of Great Britain, which has 300 members, has cash reserves of £452,250 and property worth £900,000, its latest accounts say.





> It bought the South London shop premises in 1951 for about £3,000.
> 
> But it has benefited from the boom in the capital's property prices, with the value of its assets increasing by £400,000 in a single year, according to its accounts.



Maybe time for a new shopfront then?


----------



## Lurdan (Jul 14, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe time for a new shopfront then?


Do you look at the mantelpiece while you're stoking the furnace of socialism ?


----------



## Belushi (Jul 14, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Socialist Party of Great Britain worth £1.3m, accounts show
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It looks much better nowadays tbf, it used to look like a shed.


----------



## belboid (Jul 14, 2015)

This is the problem with a party full of odd loners - when they die, they've no one else to leave the money too, so the party totters on, with no support, but plenty of dosh.  We'll never be rid of them!


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 14, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Socialist Party of Great Britain worth £1.3m, accounts show
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's an old pic. The new shopfront isn't much better.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 14, 2015)

belboid said:


> This is the problem with a party full of *odd loners* - when they die, they've no one else to leave the money too, so the party totters on, with no support, but plenty of dosh.  We'll never be rid of them!



Damn, it's always the most interesting, fascinating and most popular individuals who make that point.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 14, 2015)

imposs1904 said:


> That's an old pic. The new shopfront isn't much better.



Nah, that is the new frontage, this is the old one


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 14, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Nah, that is the new frontage, this is the old one



No, this is the new frontage. Sadly, it's not that much of an improvement.



No website address on a sign that's seen by thousands of people every day? Priceless


----------



## Belushi (Jul 14, 2015)

oh wow they've got a new sign!

Last time I was down that way they'd had the windows put in but still had the old yellow sign up.  Big improvement on the days it looked like a shed.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 14, 2015)

They've been there a while..


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 14, 2015)

Belushi said:


> oh wow they've got a new sign!
> 
> Last time I was down that way they'd had the windows put in but still had the old yellow sign up.  Big improvement on the days it looked like a shed.



The front was bricked up for so many years because it was subject to a series of attacks by 'unruly elements' in the seventies.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 15, 2015)

imposs1904 said:


> No, this is the new frontage. Sadly, it's not that much of an improvement.
> 
> View attachment 74034
> 
> No website address on a sign that's seen by thousands of people every day? Priceless



web addresses are very 2002, who needs them with google?


----------

