George Monbiot on "Wales' unreported revolution"

[dennisr]

However, the idea is not to lead the working class blindly; but to educate workers in addition to radicalising, or leading into struggle if you will. A dual process, not one or the other.

In fact one can take this point further from the original caricature the SPGB wished to paint.

Through the process of workers own self activity - even in fighting for limited demands those workers can rapidly draw their own conclusions, learn from their own practice what is necessary - what tactics and strategies are required - to achieve those immediate aims and draw conclusions that rapidly go much further than the initial aims they may have started out with.

I think PT and me would both agree that revolutionaries would recognise they also learn a damn site more in the process of such self-activity alongside other workers than they ever could reading a few socialist tomes.

That's not to condemn self-education, reading and real discussion. Far from it, but it is an understanding of how and why folk learn and educate themselves and it certainly shows a lot more confidence in the ability of working people to work things out for themselves - draw their own conclusion's from thier own experiences and through their own self-activity - than the hectoring, do-nothing hypocricy of an irrelevant 105 year old group of clowns. A theory is only any use when tested and developed in practice. One cannot remain stuck in 1905 and still claim they have something of interest to add to the experiences of working people.

Don't just shout 'leninism' - answer the essence of what is being raised here or expect to be taken as 'seriously' as you have been for the rest of the thread.

 

[dennisr]

He hates them more than you hate the SPGB.

You think too highly of yourselves - the idea the fella 'hates' says more about your self-delusions than the actual views of the other folk here.

i'm guessing most of the critical folk on this thread don't think much about the SPGB one way or the other

 

[Proper Tidy]

You think too highly of yourselves - the idea the fella 'hates' says more about your self-delusions than the actual views of the other folk here.

i'm guessing most of the critical folk on this thread don't think much about the SPGB one way or the other

You would be correct!

Cracking post before this btw

 

[TomR77]

I do think you over-egg the idea of leading the working class, although there is an element of that.

However, the idea is not to lead the working class blindly; but to educate workers in addition to radicalising, or leading into struggle if you will. A dual process, not one or the other.

In effect, this is no different to your strategy - you attempt to educate workers with a socialist consciousness; as do we. You, however, reject the notion of attempting to help create the necessary conditions. Ergo, your criticism - that other socialists do not instill a socialist consciousness - falls down.

More to the point, you must accept that the conditions neccesary for socialism are not going to come about spontaneously. So how do you reach that point?

If I may say so, and this isn't an insult, your approach does not seem to be very Marxian. In fact, it appears to contradict some of the most fundamental aspects of Marxism, hence Butchers criticism that you are utopian; a view I share. I would further add that SPGB is impossibilist.

I appreciate SPGB are hostile to the various forms of Leninism and vangaurdism but you also appear to be hostile to classical Marxism.

I really think that in the above comments you have distilled and presently succinctly everything that is wrong with the vanguardist case. You cannot lead people to socialism. We are almost in the realm of scientific fact in that assertion.

Does the S.P.G.B. try to softly lead, as you claim? My impression is that they do not. The S.P.G.B. does not see itself as the main agent of revolutionary change. This is very clear from the Party's own statements. Putting aside the constitutional details, so far as I can see, the Party's essential, practical purpose is to disseminate of the case for socialism. That's it.

The S.P.G.B. will not bring about socialism, nor does it want to. Rather, the S.P.G.B. encourages socialist understanding, and therefore self-reliance, in the working class (who include nearly-all S.P.G.B. members). That is how the conditions will arise, by the working class bringing about socialism for themselves. Yes, through struggle and political organisation, as you rightly say, but also through a parliamentary process that will legitimise the revolution, confirming it is the democratic will of the overwhelming majority of workers. I never said the conditions will arise 'spontaneously'. You're just making that up.

Only when the workers themselves understand socialism, want socialism, and are willing and able to bring it about for themselves, will socialism happen. You cannot lead people to their own emancipation, and your attempts to do so, while admirable perhaps, are largely futile.

Turning to your other points, as you suggest, there may be an argument that the S.P.G.B. is 'pre-Marxist' and more reflective of the William Morris brand of socialism, but these are academic cliches. I don't know, and I don't claim to be an academic Marxist.

 

[butchersapron]

Is this welsh gene SPGB party policy then?

 

[TomR77]

Yeah - I didn't mean insults. I mean the fact that all your previous responses have been text-book automaton preachy statements that haven't actually answered any of the criticisms made. You do at least seem to have rectified this, although GD ruined this effect somewhat by bringing up something called 'the Cymro gene'. Anyhoo.

Also, I only joined this board a few days back, and (as far as I know) I don't know any other posters in the real world. This isn't a group of friends ganging up on you; it is a group of strangers who disagree with you.

I did answer your criticism. All of them. Clearly. Precisely.

And what gives you and others the right to insult me? Would you care to say it to my face? I suspect not. It's easy for someone engaged in "revolutionary struggles" to hide behind a keyboard, typing sweary insults and messages like a spoilt little brat.

And what makes your views, as expressed, any less preachy than mine?

 

[dennisr]

You cannot lead people to socialism. We are almost in the realm of scientific fact in that assertion.

I see you were ready with your pre-written "this is what leninists are" and "this is why we are not".

I'd refer you to the simple points i raised above about - the questions of the HOW and WHY of workers drawing socialist conclusions.

if you wish to critisise us 'vanguardists' you have to answer the actual questions we/they are raising rather than some book learnt caricature of what you think we think.

 

[TomR77]

By the way, I seem to recall from my reading of Marx that he dismissed the vanguardist argument in his writings on the Paris Commune. You claim that the S.P.G.B. are not Marxists. This may or may not be the case. Given that Marx himself was not a Marxist, I am not sure why the S.P.G.B. should care either.

 

[TomR77]

I see you were ready with your pre-written "this is what leninists are" and "this is why we are not".

I'd refer you to the simple points i raised above about - the questions of the HOW and WHY of workers drawing socialist conclusions.

if you wish to critisise us 'vanguardists' you have to answer the actual questions we/they are raising rather than some book learnt caricature of what you think we think.

I don't dismiss your points at all. Your points above are lucid and entirely valid. I have not dismissed any argument by name-calling. That is your friends' tactic, not mine. I have simply pointed to the problems of any leadership strategy which is purportedly trying to achieve socialism. Remember that people need to be aware of the socialist case in order to crystallise their struggles.

 

[Proper Tidy]

I really think that in the above comments you have distilled and presently succinctly everything that is wrong with the vanguardist case. You cannot lead people to socialism. We are almost in the realm of scientific fact in that assertion.

Does the S.P.G.B. try to softly lead, as you claim? My impression is that they do not. The S.P.G.B. does not see itself as the main agent of revolutionary change. This is very clear from the Party's own statements. Putting aside the constitutional details, so far as I can see, the Party's essential, practical purpose is to disseminate of the case for socialism. That's it.

The S.P.G.B. will not bring about socialism, nor does it want to. Rather, the S.P.G.B. encourages socialist understanding, and therefore self-reliance, in the working class (who include nearly-all S.P.G.B. members). That is how the conditions will arise, by the working class bringing about socialism for themselves. Yes, through struggle and political organisation, as you rightly say, but also through a parliamentary process that will legitimise the revolution, confirming it is the democratic will of the overwhelming majority of workers. I never said the conditions will arise 'spontaneously'. You're just making that up.

Only when the workers themselves understand socialism, want socialism, and are willing and able to bring it about for themselves, will socialism happen. You cannot lead people to their own emancipation, and your attempts to do so, while admirable perhaps, are largely futile.

Turning to your other points, as you suggest, there may be an argument that the S.P.G.B. is 'pre-Marxist' and more reflective of the William Morris brand of socialism, but these are academic cliches. I don't know, and I don't claim to be an academic Marxist.

But - even if I accept the flimsy claim that you do not intend to play any role in bringing about socialism [which begs the question of a) why you are a party and b) why you stand in elections under a socialist banner] - and given you accept that socialism will be achieved through struggle, what is your objection to participating in struggle?

As Dennis had pointed out, workers will learn far more whilst engaged in struggle - will become more engaged with class struggle and the need for socialism - than they ever will from a pamphlet.

I genuinely don't get the objection vis a vis 'leading' the working class. Socialists are part of the working class too; if the conditions are correct, should socialists sit back and refuse to participate in struggle and revolution for fear of being accused of 'leading' the working class?

For a party which rejects what you perceive to be reformism so vehemently, why do you place so much emphasis - and faith - in the (capitalist) parliamentary process?

And you are correct - you are not a Marxist party. Why advertise yourselves as such?

 

[Gravediggers]

What does genetics have to do with an individual's sense of nationality though?

None what so ever in the sense that individuals may well identify themselves coming from a particular region or country. Their genetic heritage on the other hand can confirm they may well have originated in an entirely different part of the globe. The Cymro has a distinct *people* have long gone. For example the modern day Welsh are composed of a variety of different *peoples*. My local pit for instance had during its 50 years of production 15 different nationalities working there. And they all left their mark on the local population with sons and daughters passing on their genes down through the generations.

Who not suprisingly define and identify themselves as Welsh. When you mention their true heritage this is taken has an insult. Which to me is a denial of our common humanity.

 

[Proper Tidy]

I did answer your criticism. All of them. Clearly. Precisely.

And what gives you and others the right to insult me? Would you care to say it to my face? I suspect not. It's easy for someone engaged in "revolutionary struggles" to hide behind a keyboard, typing sweary insults and messages like a spoilt little brat.

And what makes your views, as expressed, any less preachy than mine?

Yeah - you're not so blameless yourself when it comes to dishing out the insults. I believe you have, this far, claimed everybody who disagrees with you is a middle-class Guardian reading student liberal (noticeable that you throw the same insults as those who object to socialism) and spoilt brats.

And I am not, not have I claimed, to be engaged in revolutionary struggles, given we are not in the midst of a revolution.

 

[TomR77]

But - even if I accept the flimsy claim that you do not intend to play any role in bringing about socialism [which begs the question of a) why you are a party and b) why you stand in elections under a socialist banner] - and given you accept that socialism will be achieved through struggle, what is your objection to participating in struggle?

As Denise had pointed out, workers will learn far more whilst engaged in struggle - will become more engaged with class struggle and the need for socialism - than they ever will from a pamphlet.

I genuinely don't get the objection vis a vis 'leading' the working class. Socialists are part of the working class too; if the conditions are correct, should socialists sit back and refuse to participate in struggle and revolution for fear of being accused of 'leading' the working class?

For a party which rejects what you perceive to be reformism so vehemently, why do you place so much emphasis - and faith - in the (capitalist) parliamentary process?

And you are correct - you are not a Marxist party. Why advertise yourselves as such?

I do not represent the S.P.G.B. When you speak of 'your Party', I cannot answer. All I can tell you is my understanding or impression of the Party's position on one issue or another.

The objection is not to leadership as a general concept for all time and for forever. A child has to be led across the road, otherwise they may get run over. People have to be led in certain things by experts.

The objection is that socialism cannot be achieved by leading non-socialists in a revolutionary struggle. Socialism will only occur when people know, accept, understand and want it. And when people want socialism, they will neither want nor need to be led to it because political leadership is irrelevant to socialism, and would be irrelevant in a socialist society under which all resources are under democratic control. The child will still need to be led across the road, and people will still need to learn and train in new skills and so on. Leadership, as such, would not necessarily disappear. I hope that goes some way to explaining it.

I must go now - I am not giving up, I just have other things to do, but this debate has been educational. Thank you.

 

[dennisr]

I don't dismiss your points at all. Your points above are lucid and entirely valid. I have not dismissed any argument by name-calling. That is your friends' tactic, not mine. I have simply pointed to the problems of any leadership strategy which is purportedly trying to achieve socialism. Remember that people need to be aware of the socialist case in order to crystallise their struggles.

A friend is someone I know - PT is a stranger too me.

Anyway... I think the role of socialists - folk who are in your terms 'aware of the socialist case' - in those everyday immediate struggles of working people (something you seem to dismiss with a simplistic caricature/label - 'vanguardism') is precisely the point where an increasing awareness of that case can be most rapidly drawn out through the process of thought, discussion and self-activity of those involved. Where what may have semed like abstract ideas can begin to make sense of one's lived experience. That is the point of the 'leadership strategy' I'm raising

I think this point is one on which 'socialist ideas' succeed or fail - through practice. Reading the right books in your book club/reading circle and therefore feeling 'socialist' in and of itself - which is all your organisation seems to be offering workers in the here and now - seems much more a delusional "acceptance of dominant ideas while claiming to be the opposite" than anything other leftists have done

Its a simple point - one' that is drawn more from my own experience of struggle than the writings of marx or the SPGB or trotsky or whoever. The problem I have with the SPGB is not their differences with my idea of socialism - it is primarily with their abstentionism (combined, it seems increasingly, - I would like to be proven wrong - with what comes across as a seemingly sectarian arrogance towards any other individuals with progressive ideas that are not 100% the same views as that of your wee sect).

 

[Proper Tidy]

By the way, I seem to recall from my reading of Marx that he dismissed the vanguardist argument in his writings on the Paris Commune. You claim that the S.P.G.B. are not Marxists. This may or may not be the case. Given that Marx himself was not a Marxist, I am not sure why the S.P.G.B. should care either.

That is very weak.

Marx stated he wasn't a Marxist in the context of rejecting the politics of those who claimed to be his political heirs.

I cannot safely say, nor can you, whether Marx would approve or disapprove of the form of socialism I pursue or the form you pursue. What I can say is that SPGB's passive approach to socialism is in contradiction to Marxian theory.

I'm not convinced by your claim that "Marx... dismissed the vanguardist argument in his writings on the Paris Commune". What are you citing?

But let's not fall in to the trap of exchanging quotes. My point was that participation in struggle is a fundamental tenet of Marxism, emphasised throughout his work.

 

[Proper Tidy]

None what so ever in the sense that individuals may well identify themselves coming from a particular region or country. Their genetic heritage on the other hand can confirm they may well have originated in an entirely different part of the globe. The Cymro has a distinct *people* have long gone. For example the modern day Welsh are composed of a variety of different *peoples*. My local pit for instance had during its 50 years of production 15 different nationalities working there. And they all left their mark on the local population with sons and daughters passing on their genes down through the generations.

Who not suprisingly define and identify themselves as Welsh. When you mention their true heritage this is taken has an insult. Which to me is a denial of our common humanity.

But what does genetics matter? Unless you take the view that we are not all descendants of the same common ancestor.

 

[TomR77]

Yeah - you're not so blameless yourself when it comes to dishing out the insults. I believe you have, this far, claimed everybody who disagrees with you is a middle-class Guardian reading student liberal (noticeable that you throw the same insults as those who object to socialism) and spoilt brats..

I have not claimed that. You are just twisting things. I made a joke, whereas you have insulted me in plain sight. You did it deliberately to try and bully me in the hope I would go away. No big deal, happens all the time - but not really adult behaviour.

 

[editor]

They are Welsh by residency only. According to Professor Steven Jones - a Taffy from Swansea - and a renowned expert in DNA the Cymro gene has been so diluted by the immigration of people from the four corners of the globe it hardly exists.

No, really:

 

[dennisr]

No, really:

i bet you feel enlightened

 

[Proper Tidy]

I have not claimed that. You are just twisting things. I made a joke, whereas you have insulted me in plain sight. You did it deliberately to try and bully me in the hope I would go away. No big deal, happens all the time - but not really adult behaviour.

You have a very strange view on this.

You asked, on two occasions, to be insulted, and I duly obliged.

I called you 'cuntybollocks' and 'twatmonkey' - I think most people would recognise those as silly insults rather than malicious. If I had merely called you a cunt and told you to fuck off, you might have a point. But I didn't.

 

[Proper Tidy]

I do not represent the S.P.G.B. When you speak of 'your Party', I cannot answer. All I can tell you is my understanding or impression of the Party's position on one issue or another.

The objection is not to leadership as a general concept for all time and for forever. A child has to be led across the road, otherwise they may get run over. People have to be led in certain things by experts.

The objection is that socialism cannot be achieved by leading non-socialists in a revolutionary struggle. Socialism will only occur when people know, accept, understand and want it. And when people want socialism, they will neither want nor need to be led to it because political leadership is irrelevant to socialism, and would be irrelevant in a socialist society under which all resources are under democratic control. The child will still need to be led across the road, and people will still need to learn and train in new skills and so on. Leadership, as such, would not necessarily disappear. I hope that goes some way to explaining it.

I must go now - I am not giving up, I just have other things to do, but this debate has been educational. Thank you.

See, you still essentially take a big leap from now to a future world of communism, with nothing in between.

Sounds like utopianism to me.

What is the SPGB view on the dictatorship of the proletariat?

Sounds to me like the squeegees are more Common Wealth than revolutionary socialists.

 

[existentialist]

Perhaps we should just point and laugh at physicists too. Disabled as they are by the weight of all this Newtonian rubbish. Having said that, if you could take a running jump from a very tall building, that would be a powerful statement for the reformist case. It would at least make us all think twice.

The point about physicists, though, is that in the last century or so, they've managed just a tiny smidgen more than a handful of pamphlets.

Detail, I know.

Oh, and talking of sophistry, your first post on this thread seemed to be very much in a "From what I know...*blah*" space which looked as if it was trying to imply that you were a casual wanderer who happened across this thread.

Your rash of subsequent posts seem to imply a rather more intimate connection with the subject matter, viz SPGB.

Would my cynicism at what looks like plausible deniability in that first post be justified? And are you actually an SPGB member yourself?

At this rate, Urban's going to have to get its own SPGB subforum...but perhaps we'd better wait just a little while, until we have, say, 10% of the SPGB's membership frantically blowing smoke, all 33 of them .

 

[existentialist]

Fair do's but Gravediggers did come in here first and call everyone a liar and it sort of went downhill after that.

Next will be "Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help, help I'm being repressed".

That's already happened. Why do you think the "all hands" call went out?

And half a dozen increasingly prickly nobheads seems to be the result.

 

[existentialist]

No I've enjoyed this. I think we should have more threads on Plaid.

ROFL

 

[existentialist]

Indeed there are butchers. We have requested the SPEW to a public debate on several occasions to my knowledge. Three times in the North East and two times in London. With no reply to any of them.

They really gave themselves the acronym "SPEW"?

Do you think you could persuade the Visionaries Of Marxist Indecisive Trotskyites to share a platform with them?

Or maybe go for the hat trick and get the Communist Harpies United Nietzschean Diversity and Eco-Revolutionaries to come along too?

 

[butchersapron]

You're being a bit creepy mind. Calm down.

 

[existentialist]

You're being a bit creepy mind. Calm down.

THis looked like a busy thread. I wasn't expecting my four contributions to line themselves up all neatly at the end. Tomwotsit must have rushed off to shave his beard a bit after his own carpetbombing effort

 

[Proper Tidy]

They really gave themselves the acronym "SPEW"?

No. It is the Weekly Worker's (CPGB) one good joke, albeit one that got tired a long time ago. I assume the erstwhile comrades from SPGB use it because they are still smarting that those naughty Millies stole their name.

SPEW is meant to be for Socialist Party in England and Wales, although it is actually just the Socialist Party. If we want to differentiate ourselves from the SPGB, SP in Ireland, or god forbid from the French New Labourites (technically PS) then it is SP (CWI in England and Wales).

 

[chilango]

Couple of quick points.

1/ Given as the SPGB's entire raison d'etre is to educate the workers in the case for socialism, surely the onus lies on their contributors here to convince the doubters rather than the other way around.

2/ This was a thread on Plaid Cymru that SPGB members/supporters chose to 'intervene' in.

 

[dennisr]

1/ Given as the SPGB's entire raison d'etre is to educate the workers in the case for socialism, surely the onus lies on their contributors here to convince the doubters rather than the other way around.

Indeed