Oh, good timing
Hi PT,
Loads to get through ;>) I’m not whingeing Guv, but I wish we got paid by the hour for reading and writing these things, but so be it, I did sign up for it.
Sorry for the length of this post – if it’s better in future for me to send several shorter ones instead I can certainly do so. Not sure of netiquette on post length.
Your comments in quote marks -
“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.”
Well I’d certainly say socialism is achievable, hence arguing for it. That’s a curious impression for you to get re the SPGB, given that we point out the material basis is already present.
“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.”
The SPGB puts forward socialism as our aim, and give reasons for why we think it’s necessary, and what its implications would be in terms of how it benefits us both as a class and humanity in general.
The kind of Party-issued demands I object to are those which imply the continuation of the class system. E.g “a democractic socialist society run in the interests of the people, not the millionaires” implies there will still be millionaires. “For democratic public ownership of the major companies and banks…” implies there’s still banks; still money; still workers as a class.
“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.”
Ok, so as an example, the demand to restore pensions to a previous level, which is certainly a possibility within capitalism …? I think it’s fine for people to campaign for that; but not the business of a Socialist Party to do so, even though many of us – not me! – are pensioners.
I don’t see how the SPGB rejects the notion of workers learning through struggle. Far from it, we know that such life experiences are crucial in whether or not a set of ideas becomes accepted and makes sense to our fellow workers.
I don’t see it as patronising; we don’t speak in euphemisms to those we engage with and I like to think we tell it straight. (Mind you, sometimes off the record we have been known to call folks ‘bigots’. Note to posterity – I jest. It’s a Gordon Brown ref)
“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.”
Workers are engaged in the struggle all the time; whether they wish that to be towards socialism is where the battle of ideas comes into play, and as a Party we are engaged in that. I’m not sure how your point re previous revolutions is useful either, given that none of ‘em has brought us socialism ;>) But this does link to something later on …
“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.”
And back onto misconceptions of the SPGB entrance exam! Briefly, as this has already been covered I think – we want members who are socialists and we want them to know what we are about.
I’m happy to accept that it’s not a case of one size fit all when it comes to the various groups and parties emanating out of the Leninist tradition, and we could spend all decade swapping quotes from the V.I. himself.
(That one about "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...”)
“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.”
Certainly no great numbers ever have, but the future hasn’t happened yet. (Unless it’s on the internet somewhere). And we do push the case, (if not the face).
You’re right about the variation of class consciousness over time – but its translation into support for socialist ideas is not quite the same thing. Yes, I’d definitely agree that there used to be a much greater belief that collective action of varying kinds can improve our position as a class.
There used to be a greater belief, for e.g. that trade union struggle can yield benefits, which it can. An which opens up the question of why and how that’s become lost – the duplicity of leaders/the failures of reformism, the incessant demands of the market? etc.
And I’m sure that such awareness will inevitably rise again. No, I don’t reject the notion that the miners had a greater awareness of their class position during the strike than before. Far from it. Events impacted hugely in their consciousness, yes, but what is gained can sadly be lost. I’m not sure that many came to accept that the wages system needs to go. Or if they did, still hold to that belief.
“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 …”
Does ‘The Socialist’ actually raise the issue of replacing capitalism with a classless, moneyless, stateless society? It’s been a long time since I subscribed to it (briefly).
Don’t you talk about nationalising ‘this, that and the other’? I agree that the Big Aim needs to be made relevant, but don’t accept this means transitional demands are useful. And the Big Aim is acutely relevant here and now as to what’s going on in society.
“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.”
Like so much else in these posts we can merrily go off on a billion (yet very relevant) tangents, and by the time we’ve finished typing, for all we know capitalism has fallen outside;>)
I don’t see it at all as utopian to argue now to my fellow workers that we need to put an end to the wages system. In fact, that task is urgent. How do we get from here to there – well, not without a large majority of people understanding and wanting socialism.
The ballot box is one aspect of how this can come about. For us to ever be in the position where a large majority express their demand for socialism via the ballot box, implies that greater changes are taking place within society to progressively overcome the profit system.
To me, the transition from capitalism to socialism is taking place *within* capitalism; the role of socialists and the revolution is to finalise it in term of killing off capitalism. Certainly it ain’t likely to be the SPGB who brings about socialism, we have no illusions on that score, but it’s the class conscious majority etc.
“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". ... 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?"
I think we have a different take on what ‘revolution’ means, and I disagree that the end product will NOT be a classless, moneyless, stateless society. Taking revolution to mean a ‘complete transformation’, when it comes to society and its economic basis it must mean a change from capitalism to communism (i.e. socialism, as Marx meant the same thing by these terms).
The problem seems to be that the DOTP has become associated with a distinctive type of society, rather than a political stage/phase. This links to the Leninist view that socialism and communism are two different things – itself based on an erroneous view of Marx’s ‘lower and higher phase’ comments.
My understanding is that in both cases, Marx was referring to a classless, moneyless, stateless society, but two different phases therein – the lower being the time at - and following - the revolution, and the higher being its more mature phase. Given the development of productive forces since Uncle Karl’s time this phase should be very short.
Yes, defend a revolution from hostile forces, but a revolution as the SPGB sees it means a large majority in favour of socialism – the bigger that is, the less trouble should be experienced.
Regards to Wrecsam and the mighty Crusaders RL.
