George Monbiot on "Wales' unreported revolution"

[Louis MacNeice]

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.

The SPGB contributions on here seem to show an understanding of education which prioritises rote learning (hence the regurgitation of a limited number of straw men and stock replies), rather than the development of critical faculties. Perhaps they need to revisit their entrance exam?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[butchersapron]

I think we need to get them listed on http://www.ratemyteachers.com/

 

[Gravediggers]

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.

It appears Plaid have either lost interest or made for the hills to take a closer look at their manifesto? Or perhaps its due to their arguments on political economy being shot down in flames?

I do miss them.

 

[chilango]

It appears Plaid have either lost interest...

you think?

 

[lewislewis]

It appears Plaid have either lost interest or made for the hills to take a closer look at their manifesto? Or perhaps its due to their arguments on political economy being shot down in flames?

I do miss them.

Definitely 'lost interest'.

I don't know about the SPGB, it isn't relevant to our communities here.

 

[pfbcarlisle]

So, er, is this the thread for bottom-baring and willy-waving?
Hello there; newbie post.
I’d better declare my interests though – I’m another SPGBer *, outraged by the implicit anti-beardism of some posters on here. I used to have the full Marx type beard, but it got to the stage where cheeky youths were commenting on the bus that my head was on upside down; I knew then it was time to shave.
*Actually, we SPGBers are all in fact one person (cloned in the Clapham High Street laboratory), which is just as well because our office contains only one copy of ‘How to Make Friends and Influence People’ – and guess what, it’s in bloody Welsh!
(insert ‘no offence intended’ and ‘yes, it’s a joke’ icons)
p.s. May I also point out that even though he’s long dead, my dad’s bigger than yours? Cheers.
p.s.2 I wonder what George Monbiot would make of all this if he were sad enough to trawl the web for his name...

 

[pfbcarlisle]

So where was I? Oh yeah, politics innit.
In response to the last couple of posts (541 & 554) by Dennis R, I think he’s made some interesting and pertinent comments, (many of which I’d agree with), and I’d like to add some thoughts.
Obviously all of us in our various parties are also workers as well, and as such we are involved in the class struggle in its many and varied forms. Would you say it’s a mixture of our class struggle experiences and the encounter with socialist ideas that leads people to accept socialist conclusions? After all, most of our fellow workers do not accept such conclusions, so it’s perfectly possible for someone to be involved in a lifetime of battles and struggles without ever coming to the conclusion that the abolition of the wages system is a damn fine idea!
I do sometimes wonder if the Left has a far too narrow definition of what constitutes ‘struggle’ and ‘proper’ activity. The process of self-education through propaganda is also part of the class struggle, the battle of ideas. Being on here, believe it or not, is part of the class struggle too. So the SPGB’s ideas *are* tested and developed in practice – the practice of being workers, and living with and working besides our fellow workers and arguing for an end to capitalism etc. What we are not doing as a Party, of course, is propagandising in support of reforms, except that as individuals we may well be involved in such things. (I realise this may be regarded as an artificial distinction).
On the whole big issue of vanguardism, what I object to about it is where you have parties who are perfectly willing to seize an opportunity to stage a coup/ ‘revolution’ when it arises *regardless* of whether or not such action has the conscious understanding and support of the majority. And I’d reject the idea that an enlightened minority must rule on behalf of the majority – hopefully nobody on here would support such an idea.

 

[dennisr]

So, er, is this the thread for bottom-baring and willy-waving?
Hello there; newbie post.
I’d better declare my interests though – I’m another SPGBer *, outraged by the implicit anti-beardism of some posters on here. I used to have the full Marx type beard, but it got to the stage where cheeky youths were commenting on the bus that my head was on upside down; I knew then it was time to shave.
*Actually, we SPGBers are all in fact one person (cloned in the Clapham High Street laboratory), which is just as well because our office contains only one copy of ‘How to Make Friends and Influence People’ – and guess what, it’s in bloody Welsh!
(insert ‘no offence intended’ and ‘yes, it’s a joke’ icons)
p.s. May I also point out that even though he’s long dead, my dad’s bigger than yours? Cheers.
p.s.2 I wonder what George Monbiot would make of all this if he were sad enough to trawl the web for his name...

oh goodie its the acceptable - human - face of the SPGB complete with comedy turns

 

[dennisr]

On the whole big issue of vanguardism, what I object to about it is where you have parties who are perfectly willing to seize an opportunity to stage a coup/ ‘revolution’ when it arises *regardless* of whether or not such action has the conscious understanding and support of the majority. And I’d reject the idea that an enlightened minority must rule on behalf of the majority – hopefully nobody on here would support such an idea.

As someone who would definately be called a vanguardist by you folk I would disagree with the approach you have outlined above as much as you do.

With all due respect - I think you have simply avoided the points I raised (by agreeing vaguely with them and attempting to clumsily steer the conversation back to an old 'anti-leninist v leninist' arguement that you think you already have some off pat answers on). And of course I would agree it is a mixture of both practical activity and encounters with such ideas (in different levels I guess at different times - i was lucky enough to grow up, if that's the right term, during the 84-5 miner's strike and the liverpool dispute)

I've been watching that sort of approach to politics over the last weeks with the three wise capitalist monkies on the tv doing their "debates" over how best to manage the huge cuts they are all in agreement on and about to impose on us. That method of debate leaves me cold and wary rather than open to whatever original ideas you would genuinely like to discuss with your fellow man.

You are an honest bloke in stating up front what your beliefs are etc - wouldn't you like the opportunity to defend your organisations approach rather than this "nothing to see here, move along now" approach to debate? The floor is clearly open to you.

 

[Proper Tidy]

So, er, is this the thread for bottom-baring and willy-waving?
Hello there; newbie post.
I’d better declare my interests though – I’m another SPGBer *, outraged by the implicit anti-beardism of some posters on here. I used to have the full Marx type beard, but it got to the stage where cheeky youths were commenting on the bus that my head was on upside down; I knew then it was time to shave.
*Actually, we SPGBers are all in fact one person (cloned in the Clapham High Street laboratory), which is just as well because our office contains only one copy of ‘How to Make Friends and Influence People’ – and guess what, it’s in bloody Welsh!
(insert ‘no offence intended’ and ‘yes, it’s a joke’ icons)
p.s. May I also point out that even though he’s long dead, my dad’s bigger than yours? Cheers.
p.s.2 I wonder what George Monbiot would make of all this if he were sad enough to trawl the web for his name...

Crikey. Humour. You're not really an SPGBer are you?

So where was I? Oh yeah, politics innit.
In response to the last couple of posts (541 & 554) by Dennis R, I think he’s made some interesting and pertinent comments, (many of which I’d agree with), and I’d like to add some thoughts.
Obviously all of us in our various parties are also workers as well, and as such we are involved in the class struggle in its many and varied forms. Would you say it’s a mixture of our class struggle experiences and the encounter with socialist ideas that leads people to accept socialist conclusions? After all, most of our fellow workers do not accept such conclusions, so it’s perfectly possible for someone to be involved in a lifetime of battles and struggles without ever coming to the conclusion that the abolition of the wages system is a damn fine idea!

Granted, but nobody has made the case for one or t'other (well, except for Tom), but for both.

I do sometimes wonder if the Left has a far too narrow definition of what constitutes ‘struggle’ and ‘proper’ activity. The process of self-education through propaganda is also part of the class struggle, the battle of ideas. Being on here, believe it or not, is part of the class struggle too. So the SPGB’s ideas *are* tested and developed in practice – the practice of being workers, and living with and working besides our fellow workers and arguing for an end to capitalism etc. What we are not doing as a Party, of course, is propagandising in support of reforms, except that as individuals we may well be involved in such things. (I realise this may be regarded as an artificial distinction).

Well, yes, it does seem to be a false distinction. What is the actual objection to organising within these struggles as an overtly revolutionary socialist movement?

It also still seems (and forgive me if I'm misrepresenting you) to ignore the wider point of what the actual objection is to 'propagandising' for immediate reforms in tandem with a revolutionary programme? Indeed, I would still make the case that by placing transitional demands - demands that are categorically not reformist as they are only achievable under socialism - at the forefront, it is the clearest and most direct way of demonstrating the need for socialism.

Whilst nobody on the far left (not withstanding SPGB's rejection of the term 'left') has too much to brag about, it would appear transitional demands do indeed have a greater effect, given that, since the fall of Stalinism, it has been Trotskyism that has fared the best (relative to the far left) in terms of winning support.

On the whole big issue of vanguardism, what I object to about it is where you have parties who are perfectly willing to seize an opportunity to stage a coup/ ‘revolution’ when it arises *regardless* of whether or not such action has the conscious understanding and support of the majority. And I’d reject the idea that an enlightened minority must rule on behalf of the majority – hopefully nobody on here would support such an idea.

Quite - and it would seem to still be based on a mis-interpretation of what is meant by vanguard.

What is the official SPGB position on the dictatorship of the proletariat?

 

[lewislewis]

No, really:

Haha, "Taffy", Jesus. Really.

 

[dennisr]

transitional demands

I guess what PT is raising extends the debate that can be had over the HOW and WHY questions - how and why workers come to draw socialist conclusions.

transitional demands is how imho concious socialists interveine in disputes and raise those socialist ideas we both agree we need to get to a wider audience - taking up the initial demands for BREAD and linking this in the minds of workers (already drawing their own conclusions through their own self-activity...) with the need for ROSES (something they will already be drawing conclusions about themselves given half the chance and opportunity to consider and if I can use an old analogy...). That's how such ideas are tested - in front of working people.

Its a world away from the abstentionist approach of the SPGB. Its basic ABCs to be drawn from the ideas of Marx and folk like him as far as I can see - otherwise we are left with just another philosophical interpretation which folk like Marx in their own writings argued was not the point

*this post has been bought to you by cliches are us*

 

[pfbcarlisle]

Thanks for the replies, DennisR and Proper Tidy. I'll get back to you later - my old gums take a long time to chew over such matters, and more importantly it's my tea-time and nurse says I've got to to stop playing on the p.c. for now.

 

[chilango]

I'm not in a Party. I think communism is a good idea, but also think reforms are good.

Squeegies? What you say? Persuade me that your approach is correct.

 

[Gravediggers]

I'm not in a Party. I think communism is a good idea, but also think reforms are good.

Squeegies? What you say? Persuade me that your approach is correct.

We would go along with you in so far to say that *some* reforms are good or to be more precise not all reforms are of benefit to the workers. Some prime examples of that are ID cards, anti-trade union laws, the restrictions on demonstrations, S&S, to name but a few.

Has I've stated previously, we judge reforms on their merits.

 

[existentialist]

Definitely 'lost interest'.

I don't know about the SPGB, it isn't relevant to our communities here.

I don't think the SPGB is relevant to anyone's communities, anywhere.

Except, perhaps, a bunch of about 327 (and falling rapidly, I'll bet) beardy navel-gazers in Clapham somewhere.

 

[Proper Tidy]

We would go along with you in so far to say that *some* reforms are good or to be more precise not all reforms are of benefit to the workers. Some prime examples of that are ID cards, anti-trade union laws, the restrictions on demonstrations, S&S, to name but a few.

Has I've stated previously, we judge reforms on their merits.

Your definition of reforms may well be different to the rest of us here.

By reforms, I think most of us would mean reforms in the interest of the working class and brought about by struggle from below rather than laws and acts passed down from above.

 

[Gravediggers]

Your definition of reforms may well be different to the rest of us here.

By reforms, I think most of us would mean reforms in the interest of the working class and brought about by struggle from below rather than laws and acts passed down from above.

That distinction I find interesting, although its in need of further clarification. For instance could you name the reforms your organisation have been directly involved with, and clearly knew they were *only* in the interest of the working class?

 

[Proper Tidy]

That distinction I find interesting, although its in need of further clarification. For instance could you name the reforms your organisation have been directly involved with, and clearly knew they were *only* in the interest of the working class?

If it is in the interests of the working class, it does not matter if it is *only* the working class who benefit. It just matters that it is in the interests of the working class.

The anti-poll tax federations and refusal to pay campaign which brought down both the poll tax and Thatcher, for which many Militant members went to prison.

The Liverpool 47, who created jobs & built council houses and could have achieved a lot more if Kinnock and the LP bureaucracy had of supported their own councillors and not come down on the side of the Tories.

The Irish anti-bin tax campaign (similar to poll tax), for which Joe Higgins, then a TD, now an MEP, went to prison, along with Clare Daly.

Three of the more noted victories.

 

[pfbcarlisle]

Hi DennisR,
When I was reading your two posts previously mentioned, (541 & 554) I was writing some comments as I went along, then ended up amalgamating them into one post without any quotes from you. So yes perhaps it was vague over what I agreed with.

I actually agreed with most of what you said in terms of how people learn from their experiences – but I made my post because I didn’t think that these points of agreement led logically to the criticisms which followed of the SPGB.

From your posts I wasn’t sure if you were making what I can now see we both would regard as an artificial separation between one type of learning and another. I never intended to steer the debate, clumsily or otherwise, into a ‘Leninist v anti-Leninist’ thing; I was just agreeing that there’s more to this issue of vanguardism than meets the eye.

So I’m not sure how I ‘avoided the points you raised’ given that I argued that the SPGB is not abstentionist and is not merely promoting an abstract propagandism. So that’s the start of my defence of the Party’s approach. Perhaps I should have picked up on another comment you made, which is relevant here.

“The problem I have with the SPGB is not their differences with my idea of socialism - it is primarily with their abstentionism”

I’d say these issues are related in that our idea of what socialism is – how it can be obtained, and what sort of Party is most useful for this purpose – informs what we think our role should be. Rather than it being ‘abstentionism’, to us it’s about clearly stating the case for socialism at any and every opportunity, and not becoming bogged down in the billion and one single issues which society gives rise to.

This is beginning to overlap with Proper Tidy’s questions and criticisms, so I’ll try not to (pre-emptively) repeat myself ;>) (Wow, that's a neat dialectical trick). And if you are right in detecting an attitude of "nothing to see here, move along now" in my post, I can only say it stems from my own inexperience and shortcomings at this kind of debate. Sleep well.

 

[pfbcarlisle]

Hey Proper Tidy,

“Crikey. Humour. You're not really an SPGBer are you?”

Er, well, I *am* regarded with suspicion in our ranks.

“What is the actual objection to organising within these struggles as an overtly revolutionary socialist movement?”

(See below).

“It also still seems (and forgive me if I'm misrepresenting you) to ignore the wider point of what the actual objection is to 'propagandising' for immediate reforms in tandem with a revolutionary programme? Indeed, I would still make the case that by placing transitional demands - demands that are categorically not reformist as they are only achievable under socialism - at the forefront, it is the clearest and most direct way of demonstrating the need for socialism.”

Well no offence old bean, but isn’t putting forth demands you know are not achievable within capitalism sort of pointless and, er, not telling the truth? Do we really have to rub our fellow worker noses in it? If it’s purpose is to enrage people at the State’s failure to play ball, thus leading them to want to go further and say ‘scrap it all – abolish the money system’, then I don’t see that being a likely outcome.

The thing is, I’m not sure it’s possible to promote both immediate reforms and a revolutionary programme. I’d be concerned that immediate demands – by definition – are seen as more pressing and more practical to deal with, and that the bigger picture – what socialism is all about – gets shoved on to the backburner.

And why be so convoluted, with a 2 or is it 3 layered raft of demands? (Immediate, transitional, full-on revolution). Isn’t it simpler to pose the need for the abolition of the wages system from the start?

I’m a worker, I can grasp it – why not our fellows? I ain’t special, (no, really!), and bless your cotton socks neither are you, (oh, ok we’re ALL special), yet we declare ourselves ‘socialist’ no problem. Did you have to go through a 2-3 stage induction programme to become a socialist? (For my part, I got abducted by Impossiblists and forced to grow a beard until I gave in and joined)

And as part of the working class ourselves, isn’t self-organisation what is needed, not a benign Party offering to do it for us? We prefer a doormat approach – ‘we are here, use us if you wish’.

“Whilst nobody on the far left (not withstanding SPGB's rejection of the term 'left') has too much to brag about, it would appear transitional demands do indeed have a greater effect, given that, since the fall of Stalinism, it has been Trotskyism that has fared the best (relative to the far left) in terms of winning support.”

By itself the winning of support for Trotskyism doesn’t imply a greater understanding of / and demand for socialism as I’d define it. Various Trotskyist groups and non-Trot ones have had much greater support in the past but I don’t see that we were nearer to socialism then than we are now.

But again I must ask why not pose socialism itself rather than ‘transitional demands’? At what stage do you think it’s appropriate to raise the issue of replacing capitalism with a classless, moneyless, stateless society – world of free access etc?

Given that humanity has the material resources, and technology already in place, such a call is the only necessary immediate one.

“What is the official SPGB position on the dictatorship of the proletariat?”

Crikey Charlie, I’ll be here til Christmas ;>) Well, we don’t go in for many ‘official positions’ as such, but I’ll look into after my injections. Back tomorrow.

 

[Gravediggers]

If it is in the interests of the working class, it does not matter if it is *only* the working class who benefit. It just matters that it is in the interests of the working class.

The anti-poll tax federations and refusal to pay campaign which brought down both the poll tax and Thatcher, for which many Militant members went to prison.

The Liverpool 47, who created jobs & built council houses and could have achieved a lot more if Kinnock and the LP bureaucracy had of supported their own councillors and not come down on the side of the Tories.

The Irish anti-bin tax campaign (similar to poll tax), for which Joe Higgins, then a TD, now an MEP, went to prison, along with Clare Daly.

Three of the more noted victories.

None of these you mention were reforms actually. The British and Irish campaigns were for a reversal to the status quo, so how does that equate with revolution through activity for reforms? I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make with the Liverpool 47 for I fail to remember any reforms being involved there. But please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Proper Tidy]

None of these you mention were reforms actually. The British and Irish campaigns were for a reversal to the status quo, so how does that equate with revolution through activity for reforms? I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make with the Liverpool 47 for I fail to remember any reforms being involved there. But please correct me if I'm wrong.

Rolling back attacks are still reforms. The legislation for both the poll tax and the bin tax had been enacted (hence the prison sentences for non-payment) ergo their roll-backs were reforms.

The Liverpool 47 successfully obtained tens of millions in funding that had been denied them through struggle and created jobs and homes. Are they not reforms in the interests of the working class? Don't be pedantic, argue the case.

 

[dennisr]

Hi DennisR,
When I was reading your two posts previously mentioned, (541 & 554) I was writing some comments as I went along, then ended up amalgamating them into one post without any quotes from you. So yes perhaps it was vague over what I agreed with.

I actually agreed with most of what you said in terms of how people learn from their experiences – but I made my post because I didn’t think that these points of agreement led logically to the criticisms which followed of the SPGB.

From your posts I wasn’t sure if you were making what I can now see we both would regard as an artificial separation between one type of learning and another. I never intended to steer the debate, clumsily or otherwise, into a ‘Leninist v anti-Leninist’ thing; I was just agreeing that there’s more to this issue of vanguardism than meets the eye.

So I’m not sure how I ‘avoided the points you raised’ given that I argued that the SPGB is not abstentionist and is not merely promoting an abstract propagandism. So that’s the start of my defence of the Party’s approach. Perhaps I should have picked up on another comment you made, which is relevant here.

“The problem I have with the SPGB is not their differences with my idea of socialism - it is primarily with their abstentionism”

I’d say these issues are related in that our idea of what socialism is – how it can be obtained, and what sort of Party is most useful for this purpose – informs what we think our role should be. Rather than it being ‘abstentionism’, to us it’s about clearly stating the case for socialism at any and every opportunity, and not becoming bogged down in the billion and one single issues which society gives rise to.

This is beginning to overlap with Proper Tidy’s questions and criticisms, so I’ll try not to (pre-emptively) repeat myself ;>) (Wow, that's a neat dialectical trick). And if you are right in detecting an attitude of "nothing to see here, move along now" in my post, I can only say it stems from my own inexperience and shortcomings at this kind of debate. Sleep well.

That's sound mate - maybe I was being just a wee bit too harsh/critical. I will try and get back to you tomorrow, work depending - but, finally, work has ended for the day mush to my relief - you too

 

[dennisr]

I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make with the Liverpool 47 for I fail to remember any reforms being involved there. But please correct me if I'm wrong.

"# 6,300 families rehoused from tenements, flats and maisonettes
# 2, 873 tenement flats demolished
# 1,315 walk-up flats demolished
# 2,086 flats/maisonettes demolished
# 4,800 houses and bungalows built
# 7,400 houses and flats improved
# 600 houses/bungalows created by ‘top-downing’ 1,315 walk-up flats
# 25 new Housing Action Areas being developed
# 6 new nursery classes built and open
# 17 Community Comprehensive Schools established following a massive re-organisation
# £10million spent on school improvements
# Five new sports centres, one with a leisure pool attached, built and open
# Two thousand additional jobs provided for in Liverpool City Council Budget
# Ten thousand people per year employed on Council’s Capital Programme
# Three new parks built
# Rents frozen for five years"

from:

http://www.liverpool47.org/legacy/legacy.htm

 

[Proper Tidy]

Hey Proper Tidy,

Er, well, I *am* regarded with suspicion in our ranks.

I can imagine!

Well no offence old bean, but isn’t putting forth demands you know are not achievable within capitalism sort of pointless and, er, not telling the truth? Do we really have to rub our fellow worker noses in it? If it’s purpose is to enrage people at the State’s failure to play ball, thus leading them to want to go further and say ‘scrap it all – abolish the money system’, then I don’t see that being a likely outcome.

Only if you accept that socialism is not achievable which, without being deliberately provocative, is an impression I sometimes get from some socialist organisations, including SPGB and WSM. It is not pointless to put forward demands that are achievable under socialism if our stated aim and objective is socialism. Or what is the point? That would be reformism, plain and simple.

I fear we may be getting crossed wires at this point. To clarify, we do not put forward transitional demands as our immediate campaigns; we do not promise workers that we can achieve something here and now if we can only achieve it following the introduction of socialism.

The thing is, I’m not sure it’s possible to promote both immediate reforms and a revolutionary programme. I’d be concerned that immediate demands – by definition – are seen as more pressing and more practical to deal with, and that the bigger picture – what socialism is all about – gets shoved on to the backburner.

But, if I may, you have still failed to get to grasps with what we mean. By engaging in struggle workers educate themselves and broaden their own ambitions for, essentially, a better society; and alongside, as you would say, the propaganidsing of socialism. I do not reject the notion of, for want of a better way of phrasing it, educating workers. Conversely, for all the talk of not wanting to lead workers etc, the rejection of workers being able to learn through struggle and reach their own conclusions of the need for socialism - which is implicit in the SPGB's rejection of struggle as a party, whether you concede this or are even aware of it - is far more 'from above' and, frankly, patronising.

And why be so convoluted, with a 2 or is it 3 layered raft of demands? (Immediate, transitional, full-on revolution). Isn’t it simpler to pose the need for the abolition of the wages system from the start?

Because the road to socialism (or any transformation for that matter) is through engaging working class people in the struggle for socialism; as every successful revolution has demonstrated. It would undoubtedly be simpler to sit back and take a more academic and less engaged position; it would, however, be ineffective.

I’m a worker, I can grasp it – why not our fellows? I ain’t special, (no, really!), and bless your cotton socks neither are you, (oh, ok we’re ALL special), yet we declare ourselves ‘socialist’ no problem. Did you have to go through a 2-3 stage induction programme to become a socialist? (For my part, I got abducted by Impossiblists and forced to grow a beard until I gave in and joined)

But we are back on the misconceptions of what Leninism is; we do not advocate ourselves as 'special' (hence no entrance exams to 'prove our mettle' - we prove our mettle through activity and struggle); merely that we are conscious of the need for socialism; others may not yet be conscious of the need for socialism but through struggle they may become conscious of this need. Evidence of our rejection of the oft-alleged elitism of Leninism can be seen in our willingness to engage in broader alliances; electorally, in the unions, in communities.

And as part of the working class ourselves, isn’t self-organisation what is needed, not a benign Party offering to do it for us?

Quite - but this is a misrepresentation of our position. I refer you to the earlier point. The only difference between one of 'us', within the party, and the average worker, is that they may not necessarily be conscious of the need for socialism. Our aim is to instill this consciousness, not to lead the workers from above - the same as yourselves. Our differences come from how best to achieve this aim, not that we see different conclusions.

We prefer a doormat approach – ‘we are here, use us if you wish’.

But no great numbers ever will, will they? ABC. Even the utopians excepted that you must not just state your case but push your case.

By itself the winning of support for Trotskyism doesn’t imply a greater understanding of / and demand for socialism as I’d define it. Various Trotskyist groups and non-Trot ones have had much greater support in the past but I don’t see that we were nearer to socialism then than we are now.

You reject the idea that at times in the past we have possessed a greater class awareness of class struggle and the class warfare being waged from above? I find this a curious statement. Do you reject the notion, for example, that Miners engaged in struggle during the Miners strike were more aware than previously of their position within capitalist society and the inherent unfairness of this; and therefore both more receptive and more self-aware of the need for a fundamental transformation of society? This would seem to fly in face of any material analysis of society.

But again I must ask why not pose socialism itself rather than ‘transitional demands’? At what stage do you think it’s appropriate to raise the issue of replacing capitalism with a classless, moneyless, stateless society – world of free access etc?

But we do. We raise the 'issue of replacing capitalism with a classless, moneyless, stateless society' from the off. A cursory glance at our literature or website would make this explicitly clear. However, we must make this relevant to the current understanding and consciousness of workers - and this is one of the roles of transitional demands; to link the need for struggle now to the need for socialism as a replacement for capitalism; and to make the need for socialism relevant in a material, rather than an abstract, sense.

Given that humanity has the material resources, and technology already in place, such a call is the only necessary immediate one.

Indeed humanity has the material resources etc - but such a utopian view ignores the question of how we get from here to there. How is socialism to be achieved? The SPGB's position appears to be through the ballot box, albeit indirectly; that by participating in the electoral process alongside propagandising, at some future point a majority of workers will become aware of the need for socialism and will engage in the struggle for socialism. I would suggest, respectfully, that this is unscientific, and not based on any serious theoretical or material understanding. Our position differs - our aim is to provide workers with the means and tools with which to bring socialism into being - I would refer you to the exert above.

Crikey Charlie, I’ll be here til Christmas ;>) Well, we don’t go in for many ‘official positions’ as such, but I’ll look into after my injections. Back tomorrow.

Maybe it is a bit deep. I was trying to get at how you would hope to go from point A - the here and now of capitalism - to point B - a "classless, moneyless, stateless society". Presumably you must have a theoretical framework in mind, and presumably based upon Marxian theory. For even with a revolution, the end product would not be a "classless, moneyless, stateless society". The revolution itself would merely be the starting pistol of the transformation of society; so how to defend the revolution from hostile forces?

 

[Gravediggers]

Rolling back attacks are still reforms. The legislation for both the poll tax and the bin tax had been enacted (hence the prison sentences for non-payment) ergo their roll-backs were reforms.

The Liverpool 47 successfully obtained tens of millions in funding that had been denied them through struggle and created jobs and homes. Are they not reforms in the interests of the working class? Don't be pedantic, argue the case.

They are still roll-backs as you put it to the status-quo, are they not? So all the working class were doing in actual fact was defending a previous reform. Which incidentally was a rate reform measure brought into force by the capitalist class. It could be called running fast on the spot, moving neither forwards or backwards. The present council tax is equally designed to squeeze the maximum payments out of the working class but in a more subtle fashion is it not?

I'm not being pedantic on the issue of the Liverpool 47 this was a campaign to support and defend the actions of Liverpool City Council and failed. It was not a campaign for an actual reform to get them off the capitalist hook.

 

[Proper Tidy]

They are still roll-backs as you put it to the status-quo, are they not? So all the working class were doing in actual fact was defending a previous reform. Which incidentally was a rate reform measure brought into force by the capitalist class. It could be called running fast on the spot, moving neither forwards or backwards. The present council tax is equally designed to squeeze the maximum payments out of the working class but in a more subtle fashion is it not?

But the poll tax and bin tax legislation had already been brought in; ergo the successful campaigns to beat the poll-tax and bin-tax were reforms to the existing legislation brought about through struggle from below.

I'm not being pedantic on the issue of the Liverpool 47 this was a campaign to support and defend the actions of Liverpool City Council and failed. It was not a campaign for an actual reform to get them off the capitalist hook.

By Liverpool 47 I meant the whole shebang - councillors and all. You say it failed; yet the houses were (and are) still standing, are they not? It was a 'failure' in that, after being subjected to multiple attacks from government and from the LP the council fell - but in terms of improving the lot of working people, it was an unmitigated success, was it not?

 

[Gravediggers]

"# 6,300 families rehoused from tenements, flats and maisonettes
# 2, 873 tenement flats demolished
# 1,315 walk-up flats demolished
# 2,086 flats/maisonettes demolished
# 4,800 houses and bungalows built
# 7,400 houses and flats improved
# 600 houses/bungalows created by ‘top-downing’ 1,315 walk-up flats
# 25 new Housing Action Areas being developed
# 6 new nursery classes built and open
# 17 Community Comprehensive Schools established following a massive re-organisation
# £10million spent on school improvements
# Five new sports centres, one with a leisure pool attached, built and open
# Two thousand additional jobs provided for in Liverpool City Council Budget
# Ten thousand people per year employed on Council’s Capital Programme
# Three new parks built
# Rents frozen for five years"

from:

http://www.liverpool47.org/legacy/legacy.htm

But none of these were reforms has such. Council business do not constitute reforms.

 

[Proper Tidy]

But none of these were reforms has such. Council business do not constitute reforms.

Sorry, I'm confused - how were they not reforms? There is no such thing as a single global system of legislative capitalism (although we are edging towards it); legislative capitalism is enacted on a regional basis, whether that is European, national, or municipal. This was municipal.

You are playing pedantry here GD, rather than dealing with the actual improvements for working people.