George Monbiot on "Wales' unreported revolution"

[dannysp]

Are you sure you found the below at the link you cited?

1. 'To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.'

2. 'Socialism is defined as the rule of the working class.'

3. 'A world without exploitation, class divisions and oppression.'​

4. 'The only incentive governing production will be the satisfaction of human needs.
The goods which society produces will cease to be commodities; exchange-value will disappear and only use value will remain.
The present restricted framework hampering the process of production will become more and more socialised. Private ownership of the means of production, whether possessed on an individual basis as in laissez-faire capitalism or by the state as in decadent capitalism, will give way to the socialisation of the means of production. This will mean the end of all private property; the end of the existence of social classes and thus the end of all exploitation.'​

5. '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.'​

5. found at http://www.socialiststudies.org.uk/object and dec.shtml​

Louis MacNeice

 

[dannysp]

1. 'To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.'

2. 'Socialism is defined as the rule of the working class.'

3. 'A world without exploitation, class divisions and oppression.'​

4. 'The only incentive governing production will be the satisfaction of human needs.
The goods which society produces will cease to be commodities; exchange-value will disappear and only use value will remain.
The present restricted framework hampering the process of production will become more and more socialised. Private ownership of the means of production, whether possessed on an individual basis as in laissez-faire capitalism or by the state as in decadent capitalism, will give way to the socialisation of the means of production. This will mean the end of all private property; the end of the existence of social classes and thus the end of all exploitation.'​

5. '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.'​

5. found at http://www.socialiststudies.org.uk/object and dec.shtml​

Louis MacNeice

Sorry I should have paid more attention, No 5 found at etc.
No 1 is the Labour Party's 1928 ammended clause 4 I believe.
Where do 2 3 and 4 come from?
Cheers.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Sorry I should have paid more attention, No 5 found at etc.
No 1 is the Labour Party's 1928 ammended clause 4 I believe.
Where do 2 3 and 4 come from?
Cheers.

Missing the point since 1904.

Louis MacNeice

 

[pfbcarlisle]

Crikey. Thanks - bit tired at the moment, so I will get back to you.

No probs; it took me about 3.5 hours to write it, so I understand!

Not an egg-chaser myself, but I do follow the mighty Wrecsam so appreciated!

ah, maybe you haven't met the right egg! The RL one's are a bit different.
Regards

 

[pfbcarlisle]

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

Cheers for that; (sorry I hadn't spotted this earlier)

 

[Gravediggers]

So...giving you a nudge...



Is this it?

Is this all you've got to put your case?

Not exactly. If you bothered to read some of the posts you should have realised that the socialist case does not rest purely on our analysis of reforms or on reformism alone. We have covered and cover a wide range of problems and issues appertaining to capitalism and socialism. In fact very little gets past us when discussing the relevant issues of the past present and future.

Pick a subject and lets see if its worth putting up on another thread?

What about debating with the BNP?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Not exactly. If you bothered to read some of the posts you should have realised that the socialist case does not rest purely on our analysis of reforms or on reformism alone. We have covered and cover a wide range of problems and issues appertaining to capitalism and socialism. In fact very little gets past us when discussing the relevant issues of the past present and future.

Pick a subject and lets see if its worth putting up on another thread?

What about debating with the BNP?

Modesty?

Louis MacNeice

 

[Gravediggers]

1. 'To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.'

2. 'Socialism is defined as the rule of the working class.'

3. 'A world without exploitation, class divisions and oppression.'​

4. 'The only incentive governing production will be the satisfaction of human needs.
The goods which society produces will cease to be commodities; exchange-value will disappear and only use value will remain.
The present restricted framework hampering the process of production will become more and more socialised. Private ownership of the means of production, whether possessed on an individual basis as in laissez-faire capitalism or by the state as in decadent capitalism, will give way to the socialisation of the means of production. This will mean the end of all private property; the end of the existence of social classes and thus the end of all exploitation.'​

5. '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.'​

5. found at http://www.socialiststudies.org.uk/object and dec.shtml​

Louis MacNeice

Thanks for the information but what I'm looking for is a definition of socialism from SPEW. For in my way of thinking if you have failed to define your aim it makes you pretty well aimless.

Btw. Do you agree with any of these definitions? Please don't tell me its 1..

 

[Proper Tidy]

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 an understandable impression. SPGB don’t seem to have any clear analysis of how we get from here to there, nor any emphasis on bringing those conditions about.

You make a false distinction between what you term as the material and what you see as ideological – the economic and the ideas of socialism. Yet the ideas of socialism becoming mainstream will be a product of the material, surely.

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.

Hence why I asked you and others for your views on the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is a big jump from now to communism, is it not?

To abolish the wage system we must first have the dictatorship of the proletariat.

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)

The demand to restore pensions to a previous level is an immediate demand not a transitional demand. It is the business of a socialist party to seek improvements in the condition of the working class, both because participating in and encouraging struggle will spread the ideas of socialism and because it is in the interests of our class. I suspect we will never agree on this, but it is blatant abstentionism on your part.

You abstain from participating in the struggle as a socialist movement, that is categorical is it not?

The issue is that you don’t engage at all; nor do you make any attempt to make the ideas of socialism relevant to the majority.

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 …

So we cannot learn from previous revolutions? There are no lessons to be taken from failed attempts to impose socialism?

To achieve socialism first we must actually have a revolution, in whatever form that may take. It is simply silly to claim that socialists have no role to play in understanding how to create the conditions necessary for revolution; and to ensure that when a revolutionary situation arises the ideas of socialism are at the forefront.

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.

Well I will move away from the entrance exam – it is clear from Danny’s contributions that it isn’t all that effective anyway.

Indeed. It is about applying the ideas in order to analyse the present, not imposing the analysis of the past on to the here and now; it is undoubtedly true that parties from all traditions do not always grasp this. I’m not one for trading quotes back and forth anyway – ideas yes.

Although if you must:

(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...”)

Quite. An argument to propagate the ideas of socialism. Makes sense to me.

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.

Because it was ultimately a defeat, no? The point is that from such circumstances victories can arise; those victories can lead to revolution; and to a level of consciousness that is conducive to the spread of the ideas of socialism. There will always be a risk of defeat – but to run away from such struggles in fear of defeat is to preserve the status quo, isn’t it? And what does the status quo offer us as socialists? What does it offer the working class? Ironically the SPGB’s position appears to reinforce reformism; the preservation of the status quo.

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.

The Socialist tends to focus primarily on immediate demands and transitional demands – in making our ideas relevant; in creating the conditions. Socialism Today develops these ideas, although with an emphasis still on the transitional and on contemporary analysis. They are, ultimately, propaganda in the true sense of the word. Our published propaganda material and the content of our meetings, schools etc are somewhat different - I suspect you may object to this as vanguard elitism, although I would counter that we actively seek to recruit; and that we don't seek to recruit socialists necessarily but those interested in socialist ideas; who then attend our meetings etc and learn and develop their own ideas. No tests.

But this brings us back round to how you get from here to there. You may argue that we place too much emphasis on the road to socialism and not socialism itself – but surely you can see the flip side is that you offer nothing in terms of how socialism is to be achieved. It is overtly unmaterialistic. It is no different from the position of the ra-ra-revolutionairies, who defer everything: “what are you going to do about attacks on the poor/anti-social behaviour/crime etc”; “after the revolution conrades”. Yes of course these are consequences of capitalism, but you must link the now to the then! Or you will be dismissed as irrelevant at best by the very people who's support is required.

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.

And back to square one. But how to get a large majority of people understanding and wanting socialism? If merely putting forward the case for socialism was enough, then we would have socialism. We don’t, for material reasons. We must demonstrate the benefits of socialism, tangibly.

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.

That is utopianism. Through the ballot box? We will never have socialism if that is the case. We do not abstain from electoral politics; but neither are we under any illusions about what is called democracy under capitalism.

Continued (blimey, think we're probably banging on a bit here)...

 

[Proper Tidy]

Continued...

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.

Same problem again. How to raise consciousness?

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).

I take your point, and perhaps I am not applying the term revolution in its truest sense. But again, how to enact the complete transformation of society? Either SPGB do not have a position on this other than to defer it to a conscious majority movement of the working class, or you are all being rather coy about what position you do take. Even assuming we can proceed through socialism to communism (and I wholly reject the notion that Marx used these terms interchangeably) within a relatively short time, you do not put forward the case of how.

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.

I disagree, and it is not based solely upon Marx’s “‘lower and higher phase’ comments”. We are socialists, not fundamentalists; we do not impose the words of an ideologue upon any given situation; we apply the ideas of socialism, we apply material analysis. You cannot ignore the need to plan, to apply a framework, to transition or transformaton. It IS utopianism to do so. It is not scientific.

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.

I don’t want to just repeat what has been said, so I will keep it short. This is not a scientific, material view; it is utopian.

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.

But even a minority, if they still have control of the means of production, could and would derail transformation, either by counter-revolution or provoking defrormity and authoritarianism.

Regards to Wrecsam and the mighty Crusaders RL.

I might be warmer on the Cru if they weren’t just a commercial franchise with no roots in or links to the community, but that is another story! We are, and I should imagine will remain, a football town.

 

[Proper Tidy]

So I'm a numty am I, a member UKIP last weekend called me "a Stalininst", but then again she was saying two things not one, you are and I'm not.
While we are calling people names I'd call Marx a socialist, I wouldn' call Jesus a christian I'd call him a hoax.
The SPGB is not a marxist organisation no, but it affirms Marx's analysis of capitalist society and the potential/power within the working class to transform it.
In the exerpt from Value Price and Profit, an address to working men
Marx urges the workers in Trades Unions to address not just the symptoms but the cause, they haven't, to abandon "the conservative motto , a fair days work for afair days pay and inscibe on their banners the abolition of the wages system". I know of only one political organisation in the uk who takes this advice seriously.
How is this abstaining?
And could you please explain how this is at variance to "classical marxism" or point me in the direction where I can find out.

Oh cut the victim crap.

You quoted the same quotes three times, all of which disproved your points.

I called you a numpty. You got off lightly, and only because I respect pfb and GD entering into honest debate. If it were not for them I'd have used much stronger language.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Please stop trying to wiggle off the hook cos I'm not asking for a definition of socialism in practice or a blueprint. I'm aware that to provide such a description would be undemocratic and utopian.

The SPGB provide a definition in every publication:

The establishment of a system of society based on 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.

Is it possible that SPEW have a definition of a similar nature?

I'm not trying to wiggle off any hook, and it is a bit rich for you - who has consistently avoided uncomfortable criticisms and called in re-inforcements - to claim so.

Well, firstly we would agree with the definition of socialism you raise above. My objection is to a complete lack of SPGB analysis about how we reach that point. We do, unashamedly, prefer to raise concrete demands rather than rely on the abstract.

The Socialist Party is not just an organisation that argues the case for socialism. We use our Marxist analysis as a tool to attempt to guide struggles to defend and improve the living conditions of working-class people.

We are Leninist because we recognise that Lenin & Trotsky developed the ideas of Marx and Engels, and more to the point developed an analysis of how to create socialism by applying Marxian theory. However, in terms of our analysis of what socialism would be, we take an orthodox Marxist view - and why embellish ideas already put forward by Marx and Engels comprehensively and succintly? So I would refer you to:

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/WhatIsMarxFrame.htm

This is what we put in our paper every week btw:

What we stand for

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.

As capitalism dominates the globe, the struggle for genuine socialism must be international. The Socialist Party is part of the Committee for a Workers' International (CWI), a democratic socialist international that organises in over forty countries.

We then go on to list a number of immediate and transitional demands.

 

[dannysp]

Oh cut the victim crap.

You quoted the same quotes three times, all of which disproved your points.

I called you a numpty. You got off lightly, and only because I respect pfb and GD entering into honest debate. If it were not for them I'd have used much stronger language.

You can call me anything you like, but it aint going to move the debate on much.
Look if I have offended you it was unintentional, and I don't see how I've been dishonest in any way. All I've done is quoted some Marx made a few points and asked some questions.
Can we start again PT.

 

[Proper Tidy]

You can call me anything you like, but it aint going to move the debate on much.
Look if I have offended you it was unintentional, and I don't see how I've been dishonest in any way. All I've done is quoted some Marx made a few points and asked some questions.
Can we start again PT.

Np problem. I think the thread is probably exhausted though.

 

[Gravediggers]

Np problem. I think the thread is probably exhausted though.

Well you can think again cos I'm not finished by a long shot. Will be back into the swing of things tomorrow. The debate on the issues and problems of defining class struggle is only going to be exhausted when we have socialism.

We've only done 600+ posts on this thread there is a lot more to go in my estimation.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

The debate on the issues and problems of defining class struggle is only going to be exhausted when we have socialism.

Very true.

But we won't get socialism until we've overthrown the capitalist state and the SPGB won't do that...

 

[Proper Tidy]

Very true.

But we won't get socialism until we've overthrown the capitalist state and the SPGB won't do that...

Yeah but getting this point across - that to get from A to C you need to pass B - doesn't seem to get through. Hence why the thread is exhausted.

Also GD, I fear you are placing to much emphasis on a messageboard.

 

[lewislewis]

Hilarious that this was once a Plaid thread!

 

[Gravediggers]

Hilarious that this was once a Plaid thread!

Still is you want it to be. No copyright so far as I'm concerned.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Hilarious that this was once a Plaid thread!

Perhaps you could tell us what decentralised socialism is?

 

[Gravediggers]

Very true.

But we won't get socialism until we've overthrown the capitalist state and the SPGB won't do that...

Quite true the SPGB agree with you entirely. For we recognise that is the historical role of the working class. Who will be politically conscious of their aim and how to get it.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Could it be magic now, now

 

[Gravediggers]

Perhaps you could tell us what decentralised socialism is?

News to me that Plaid are into that. Oh boy this thread is going to roll and roll.

 

[Gravediggers]

Could it be magic now, now

So we are down to deriding the political consciousness of the working class are we?

 

[Proper Tidy]

So we are down to deriding the political consciousness of the working class are we?

No, and it was just a joke.

Decentralised socialism is somewhat of a mystery.

It is number two in the Plaid pledges.

Problem is, there is nothing expanding on what they actually mean.

Not one policy document, not even a definition.

Leanne Wood wrote an article on it once, but in a personal capacity, and it didn't explain much really.

I have been asking the many Plaid members and supporters I know for several years about this but zilch. They can't even tell me if they mean decentalised in terms of organisational structure - as in not democratic centralism - or if it is some sort of plastic anarchist definition.

Call me cynical but I don't think it means anything.

 

[Gravediggers]

No, and it was just a joke.

Decentralised socialism is somewhat of a mystery.

It is number two in the Plaid pledges.

Problem is, there is nothing expanding on what they actually mean.

Not one policy document, not even a definition.

Leanne Wood wrote an article on it once, but in a personal capacity, and it didn't explain much really.

I have been asking the many Plaid members and supporters I know for several years about this but zilch. They can't even tell me if they mean decentalised in terms of organisational structure - as in not democratic centralism - or if it is some sort of plastic anarchist definition.

Call me cynical but I don't think it means anything.

Well it didn't come over has a joke, not ever!

As for Plaid and their attempt at patronising the left it don't suprise me one bit. Back in the 80's they tried much the same gambit with a big debate on 'municipal socialism', what ever that means.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Well it didn't come over has a joke, not ever!

As for Plaid and their attempt at patronising the left it don't suprise me one bit. Back in the 80's they tried much the same gambit with a big debate on 'municipal socialism', what ever that means.

I wasn't joking at the expense of the working class. I was joking at the expense of the Squeegees, and its nothing to get worked up over.

Yeah, I think decentralised socialism is the same thing - heard reference to community socialism from them too, so I assume they all mean the same thing. What that is I don't fucking know.

 

[chilango]

Not exactly. If you bothered to read some of the posts you should have realised that the socialist case does not rest purely on our analysis of reforms or on reformism alone. We have covered and cover a wide range of problems and issues appertaining to capitalism and socialism. In fact very little gets past us when discussing the relevant issues of the past present and future.

Pick a subject and lets see if its worth putting up on another thread?

What about debating with the BNP?

You and your comrades (do you call each other that?) have intervened in a thread on Plaid Cymru en masse saying that campaigning for reforms is basically propping up capitalism and that you - the SPGB - are a proper (the only?) socialist party.

You have argued that the only way change will come about is when the majority of workers agree with you on the need to get rid of capitalism and institute socialism.

Your activity as a party therefore is to educate/convince/argue your case. Am I right? (If I'm not, tell me...)

So I'm saying to you..go on then...argue your case. I'm not a Leninist, I'm not that interested in your nitpicking arguments with the "other Socialist Party". I am your audience. I want to hear what you've got say. In a simple. clear, convincing way. Something to make me think "You know what? The SPGB have a point". Something to make think I'd be better off supporting you/your ideas than, say, supporting the Greens or Plaid or remaining uninvolved.

So...once again...the floor is yours.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Thanks for the information but what I'm looking for is a definition of socialism from SPEW. For in my way of thinking if you have failed to define your aim it makes you pretty well aimless.

Btw. Do you agree with any of these definitions? Please don't tell me its 1..

As I said missing the point since 1904...spectacularly in this instance.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Well it didn't come over has a joke, not ever!

Po faced dullard.

Louis MacNeice