You're still not grasping the criticism that has been directed at SPGB. Any of you.
Nobody is or has advocated the abandonment of socialism; nobody is advocating the preservation of the wages system, or capitalism.
What most people are advocating is a Marxian approach; that to create socialism you must first create the conditions for socialism; and, in order to do this, it is necessary to participate in struggle for everyday improvements as an organised socialist group.
The objective economic conditions for socialism already exist in that capitalism has shewn the working class how to produce an abundance in excess of its needs, it fails in that it is unable to distribute that abundance to meet human needs. On the other hand the subjective conditions, which I gather is the point you are trying to make still remains at the stage which Marx described as, "The class in itself". In my estimation the workers have grasped a broad understanding of democracy but have failed in understanding how to use democracy for their own ends and in their own interests. This is precisely the barrier the SPGB are trying to break down.
The struggle for everyday improvements goes on whether we like it or not. In fact that is every politicians game plan. They may well not be improvements that we are in particularly in favour of nonetheless they are improvements so far as the capitalist political economy is concerned.
Your stance on the other hand is that improvements for the working class can be gained but not in the here and know. In fact you stress any improvements are only feasible in a socialist society where supposedly a socialist government will bring them into effect. If this is your idea of socialism I have to disagree indeed it is not even a half-way house for you insist that the wages system will still be in existence in your definition of socialism.
Besides that there is no valid explanation on how you intend to get from A to B. Is it by using the political process or by using the political system, or do you envisage by-passing either through mass demonstrations on their own in order to accomplish your aim? Perhaps you can clarify how exactly you intend to gain political power.
By struggling for improvements - or reforms, if you insist - you are demonstrating to working class people, who may not yet possess a socialist consciousness, the benefits of socialism; that by doing so, workers brought into struggle by the class war being waged by the wages system, or capitalism, will themselves reach the conclusion that the abolition of the wages system, or capitalism, is necessary.
But you are not in truth demonstrating to working class people the benefits of socialism all you are doing is supposedly laying down the conditions for socialism in a socialist society? Surely this is a contradiction? Unless of course you go along with the outdated theory of a higher stage of socialism/communism?
Have you ever considered that once you attain your description of socialism/communism that the situation may well arise with the working class turning around and saying these improvements will do us nicely and refuse to budge an inch? With your long-term strategy in tatters through the use of short-term tactics will your next move be an attempt to impose socialism/communism whether the workers want it or not? That is definitely a prescription for failure.
Others are also making the point that the SPGB's position, which I will come to, has made the SPGB less relevant to working people than the Marxian approach, which in itself is increasingly irrelevant, and that this should be a cause of concern to those involved in the SPGB and the WSM.
What the heck are you stating here? You are not surely saying that the Marxian approach/theory should be abandoned due to -according to these 'others' - its irrelevance? Well all I can say on that score is go ahead and do it and we will wait and see how far it gets you. Unless of course SPEW are already in the process of doing it. But the truth is they never accepted the Marxian theory in the first place!
Now, I do understand the position of SPGB; that by adopting a Marxian approach of fighting for everyday improvements alongside the advocation of socialism, you are unwittingly capitulating to reformism - that every improvement achieved, regardless of whether it was achieved by militancy from below or not, regardless of whether a number of those involved in achieving the improvement advocate the abolition of capitalism, in material effect strengthens capitalism's position rather than weakens it as it demonstrates that capitalism can be reformed.
Hole in one.
I suspect neither party will come around to the view of the other. Fair enough. However, using Marx to make your case is not going to benefit you, as Marx categorically did not advocate the position you adopt. He advocated the struggle for the abolition of the wages system (socialism) alongside the struggle for improvements to the wages system (reformism) that are in the benefit of the working class. Ergo, Marxian theory makes the case of struggle for both; and that struggle for the latter will benefit struggle for the former. Reformists believe that capitalism can be reformed, which is not the position adopted by what you may regard as the Marxist left or whatever definition you use. Neither is the whole martyr act likely to win you many friends.
And here we come to the crux of your argument. Marx wrote and explained his understanding of Political Economy when capitalism was still in its latter stages of development. He could foresee the necessity for speeding this development up so the struggle for socialism was brought that bit nearer. And the reason why he advocated improvements for the workers circumstances was because he had formed the impression such reforms would shorten the full development of capitalism. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think he said, 'the workers are in fact the engine house of capitalism'.
We are now living in the 21st Century and obviously the full development of capitalism has taken place. In fact it reached that stage about a hundred years ago. Admittedly it took a little longer to enact the reforms which Marx advocated but nevertheless the greater majority have been achieved. So in fact you are using an historical analysis which has been taken over by events. But lets keep the record straight for Marx and Engles admitted at a later date they had been proven wrong by events. Indeed, Engles states as such in the 1972 preface of the
Communist Manifesto.
