Proper Tidy
Arsed
So that people are not pissed off at the debate going on on the Plaid Cymru thread.
My criticism of the SPGB.
I do not reject the final goal, if you like, or perhaps more accurately the only goal, of the SPGB - the abolition of capitalism, or the wages system as they like to say in the olde worlde language.
I reject the notion that it is not the business of a socialist organisation to fight for every day improvements for the working class.
I understand the argument of the SPGB; that fighting for improvements in fact justifies capitalism. I don't completely disagree; certainly, if socialists fall into the trap of solely fighting for reforms then it is difficult to argue that that are not, in fact, reformists. It is also true that capitalism has offered reforms to the benefit of the working class in the past in order to strangle socialist movements - the New Deal and the social-democratic outlook following WW2 is an example; it is beyond doubt that the strength of the Soviet Union and the strength of the Communist parties (such as in France, where the Communist Party was for a time the largest party) was a motivation for the reforms offered by capitalism; and that by offering reforms which didn't threaten the system of capitalism it contributed to the marginalisation of socialist ideas.
However, I believe the position of SPGB to be based upon a misunderstanding of historical events; of Marxian theory; and of the material conditions necessary for socialism.
There needs to be a distinction drawn between reforms 'passed down' from above, such as New Deal, and improvements achieved from below through struggle; and an acceptance that improvements achieved from below are likely to contribute to creating the necessary conditions.
Workers engaged in struggle against the miseries of capitalism are likelier to become aware of the motives and beneficiaries of capitalism; of their place within the class system; and to gain a greater class consciousness. If this struggle achieves a degree of success, by achieving improvements in their conditions, they are likely to gain heart, and to believe that the abolition of capitalism is possible as well as desirable; indeed, they may become convinced that it is necessary. This is particularly the case if organised social movements involved in such struggles also advocate the abolition of capitalism, which is the case Marx made when he advocated trade unions also struggling for the abolition of the wages system as well as struggling against the impositions of capitalism upon their workers.
By failing to participate in struggle as an organised socialist movement, not only do SPGB and WSM not contribute to the struggle for socialism, they also make themselves irrelevant to the vast majority of working class people, even those - a minority as present - convinced of the need for socialism.
I hope this makes some sense and outlines the objections I have, which are also the objections, so far as I can tell, of the vast majority of SPGB's critics.
My criticism of the SPGB.
I do not reject the final goal, if you like, or perhaps more accurately the only goal, of the SPGB - the abolition of capitalism, or the wages system as they like to say in the olde worlde language.
I reject the notion that it is not the business of a socialist organisation to fight for every day improvements for the working class.
I understand the argument of the SPGB; that fighting for improvements in fact justifies capitalism. I don't completely disagree; certainly, if socialists fall into the trap of solely fighting for reforms then it is difficult to argue that that are not, in fact, reformists. It is also true that capitalism has offered reforms to the benefit of the working class in the past in order to strangle socialist movements - the New Deal and the social-democratic outlook following WW2 is an example; it is beyond doubt that the strength of the Soviet Union and the strength of the Communist parties (such as in France, where the Communist Party was for a time the largest party) was a motivation for the reforms offered by capitalism; and that by offering reforms which didn't threaten the system of capitalism it contributed to the marginalisation of socialist ideas.
However, I believe the position of SPGB to be based upon a misunderstanding of historical events; of Marxian theory; and of the material conditions necessary for socialism.
There needs to be a distinction drawn between reforms 'passed down' from above, such as New Deal, and improvements achieved from below through struggle; and an acceptance that improvements achieved from below are likely to contribute to creating the necessary conditions.
Workers engaged in struggle against the miseries of capitalism are likelier to become aware of the motives and beneficiaries of capitalism; of their place within the class system; and to gain a greater class consciousness. If this struggle achieves a degree of success, by achieving improvements in their conditions, they are likely to gain heart, and to believe that the abolition of capitalism is possible as well as desirable; indeed, they may become convinced that it is necessary. This is particularly the case if organised social movements involved in such struggles also advocate the abolition of capitalism, which is the case Marx made when he advocated trade unions also struggling for the abolition of the wages system as well as struggling against the impositions of capitalism upon their workers.
By failing to participate in struggle as an organised socialist movement, not only do SPGB and WSM not contribute to the struggle for socialism, they also make themselves irrelevant to the vast majority of working class people, even those - a minority as present - convinced of the need for socialism.
I hope this makes some sense and outlines the objections I have, which are also the objections, so far as I can tell, of the vast majority of SPGB's critics.
