SPGB

[Gravediggers]

This.

I enjoyed the post a lot too. I just don't see any serious understanding of how we're meant to get there.

How you get there is by convincing a majority of the workers that capitalism is not in their interest. You can only achieve that by explaining the socialist case with consistency, integrity and honesty. The simple fact of the matter is that without a majority you wont have socialism.

Until a majority of the workers start identifying themselves with, "How we might live" (Wm Morris) and can see the advantages of supporting such a radical alternative we are stuck in the rut of capitalism. Common ownership provides the means and the ends of getting out of that self-imposed rut.

 

[dylans]

How you get there is by convincing a majority of the workers that capitalism is not in their interest. You can only achieve that by explaining the socialist case with consistency, integrity and honesty. The simple fact of the matter is that without a majority you wont have socialism.

Until a majority of the workers start identifying themselves with, "How we might live" (Wm Morris) and can see the advantages of supporting such a radical alternative we are stuck in the rut of capitalism. Common ownership provides the means and the ends of getting out of that self-imposed rut.

And at this point we part company. A majority yes but barricades too and that is just the beginning of building a different society. Socialism is the goal yes but it comes when the state whithers away, and that is a process.

 

[Proper Tidy]

And at this point we part company. A majority yes but barricades too and that is just the beginning of building a different society. Socialism is the goal yes but it comes when the state whithers away, and that is a process.

In a nutshell.

 

[Gravediggers]

And at this point we part company. A majority yes but barricades too and that is just the beginning of building a different society. Socialism is the goal yes but it comes when the state whithers away, and that is a process.

Obviously, you think they day's of the barricades are not over and that the revolutionary process is inevitably going to be a bloody affair. Have you ever thought that you could be denied the opportunity of passing the ammunition to spill the blood of a fellow worker? I've explained previously that socialists will be seeking the least line of resistance and working towards ensuring the revolutionary transformation proceeds has smoothly has possible.

Which means in effect we wont be purposely looking for trouble but if the forces of repression do show their heads above the parapet and try to impose their rule by violence they will get what they deserve. Who needs barricades when you are in the majority?

The state is not going to wither away like Engles hoped. It is to entrenched and must be abolished and this will only occur when there is a majority.

 

[frogwoman]

To be honest as there's not likely to be a revolution any time soon the idea that dylans will be refused the opportunity to spill the blood of a fellow worker is fairly academic tbh.

 

[Gravediggers]

there on target to have a workable majority by 2500ad

Only if you accept such nonsense. What makes you think that the workers will accept the ever worsening oppression until then? Classic example of a naive and unthinking assertion.

 

[Gravediggers]

To be honest as there's not likely to be a revolution any time soon the idea that dylans will be refused the opportunity to spill the blood of a fellow worker is fairly academic tbh.

See my reply to likesfish. The revolution will be when we the working class decide it to be. Of course a revolution is not going to happen any time soon, but who knows what is around the corner? There have been many examples where the working class have raised their consciousness through the events chucked up by capitalism.

 

[free spirit]

Only if you accept such nonsense. What makes you think that the workers will accept the ever worsening oppression until then? Classic example of a naive and unthinking assertion.

what's your own assessment then?

socialism within our lifetime?

or is it to be a project handed down from father to son, mother to daughter (or vice versa) for several generations until it finally bears fruits, and if so, could you provide us with an estimate of how many generations it's going to take please.

I mean are we talking about the equivalent timescale of Islam spreading through the Arabian peninsula in pretty much one or maybe 2 generations, or Christianity spreading through and becoming the dominant force in the Roman Empire over a period of several centuries?

Your approach is more akin to that of the early christian martyrs, albeit without the all consuming zeal they showed, so I'm assuming you're looking at a timescale of several centuries or more, which probably explains why you're not overly concerned by your lack of progress in the first century or so of your organisations existence.

 

[JWH]

I mean are we talking about the equivalent timescale of Islam spreading through the Arabian peninsula in pretty much one or maybe 2 generations

Or capitalism spreading through the Arabian peninsula in 1 or 2 generations...

 

[free spirit]

Or capitalism spreading through the Arabian peninsula in 1 or 2 generations...

yep. Not that it's spread was unassisted or anything, but yes. I'm happy to accept that things can change massively within a generation or less in the right circumstances, and with the right sort of leadership / campaign / action to help it along.

I'm just interested in the timescale the SPGB envisages their extremely slow and steady approach is likely to take to actually achieve their goals / anything.

 

[dylans]

To be honest as there's not likely to be a revolution any time soon the idea that dylans will be refused the opportunity to spill the blood of a fellow worker is fairly academic tbh.

Oh I don't know. Obviously not the fellow worker bit but, I think we may well see class conflict rise sharply in many places around the world and revolutionary situations arise. It only takes one big industrial country to fall to a revolution and the world will be inspired as it was in 1917.If Greece fell to a workers revolution or Spain things would change very quickly.

The 20th century taught us to be wary of underestimating the speed and scale of change. The 21st is even more unpredictable.

 

[dylans]

Gravediggers

Obviously, you think they day's of the barricades are not over and that the revolutionary process is inevitably going to be a bloody affair. Have you ever thought that you could be denied the opportunity of passing the ammunition to spill the blood of a fellow worker? I've explained previously that socialists will be seeking the least line of resistance and working towards ensuring the revolutionary transformation proceeds has smoothly has possible.

I am more convinced than ever that capitalism will drive class struggle into violent revolution and civil war yes.

Which means in effect we wont be purposely looking for trouble but if the forces of repression do show their heads above the parapet and try to impose their rule by violence they will get what they deserve. Who needs barricades when you are in the majority?

then you will be naked and unarmed when they crush your revolution and take you behind the chemical sheds to be shot

The state is not going to wither away like Engles hoped. It is to entrenched and must be abolished and this will only occur when there is a majority.

[/QUOTE]
It must be taken from them and controlled by us until it fades away.

 

[Ffridd]

.... I figured one of the first basis on which an economy would be founded is trade, so you would need some way to determine how you trade items.

The basis of any economy is the expenditure of human labour (both mental and physical) to effect change in the world around us.

So it's production first. Exchange comes later -- and only in a society based on private or class ownership does this exchange take the form of trade.

Otherwise you could say that no one owns anything, in which case what is to stop the strongest person from taking everything for themselves?

In a society of free association and production directly for use what would be the point? The institution of private property requires means of enforcement. Not even the strongest person / persons could hold out against the will of the majority.

 

[moon23]

what's your own assessment then?

socialism within our lifetime?

or is it to be a project handed down from father to son, mother to daughter (or vice versa) for several generations until it finally bears fruits, and if so, could you provide us with an estimate of how many generations it's going to take please.

I mean are we talking about the equivalent timescale of Islam spreading through the Arabian peninsula in pretty much one or maybe 2 generations, or Christianity spreading through and becoming the dominant force in the Roman Empire over a period of several centuries?

Your approach is more akin to that of the early christian martyrs, albeit without the all consuming zeal they showed, so I'm assuming you're looking at a timescale of several centuries or more, which probably explains why you're not overly concerned by your lack of progress in the first century or so of your organisations existence.

Never, it's an outdated political philosophy. Every year Socialism gets more and more irrelevant. People these days are highly individualised, they communicate with a global market and define themselves in terms of fashion, what hobbies they like and what purchases they make.

People often have nothing in common with their fellow worker, and as the working class communities that defined themselves through their work fades, so do political ideologies based around heavy industry and mass unions.

 

[Blagsta]

communicate with a global market, lol

 

[TremulousTetra]

Never, it's an outdated political philosophy. Every year Socialism gets more and more irrelevant. People these days are highly individualised, they communicate with a global market and define themselves in terms of fashion, what hobbies they like and what purchases they make.

People often have nothing in common with their fellow worker, and as the working class communities that defined themselves through their work fades, so do political ideologies based around heavy industry and mass unions.

There is no " ideologies based around heavy industry and mass unions" mate. When Marx wrote neither existed. According to Marx class modle, teacher's are now working class.

 

[frogwoman]

In a strict economic and marxist sense most middle class people are working class, probably.

the world has definitely changed since marx wrote the communist manifesto, doesnt mean class is no longer relevant but what it is has changed. an owner of a shop or a small business still needs to sell their labour to survive for example. that however doesnt mean we live in a classless society or other liberal bollocks.

 

[DotCommunist]

Never, it's an outdated political philosophy. Every year Socialism gets more and more irrelevant. People these days are highly individualised, they communicate with a global market and define themselves in terms of fashion, what hobbies they like and what purchases they make.

People often have nothing in common with their fellow worker, and as the working class communities that defined themselves through their work fades, so do political ideologies based around heavy industry and mass unions.

explain demographics then. If socialism is about class politics then surely notions of class are re-enforced by demographers who use a precise classification scale to determine how and who to sell to. Interestingly it also ties both socio-cultural notions of class and economic class. To sell people shit.

 

[robbo203]

But I like them and I like this thread. The description of social relationships under socialism by robbo was beautiful to read and I understand what Michael Foot meant when he said "like milk" . On the whole I agree that, as a description of the world I want, it is excellent. Really first class. In fact I would go so far as to say it was one of the best's posts I have ever read on this site.

It's the immediacy and intellectualisation of struggles, of the process of getting there that I find nuts. But I am enoying getting to know them. They are day dreamers but, so far, intriguing ones

Thank you for the compliment. So its not the socialist goal you have problems with, its how to reach this destination. OK, lets look at this.

Let me first of all say that while I am not a member of the SPGB - a strong sympathiser would describe my position - I do very much agree with them on the political means of achieving socialism. Where I perhaps part company with the SPGB is in seeing the political aspect as only one aspect of a multi-dimensional approach to socialist revolution. I touched on this in my discussion with Gravediggers early on in the thread. Essentially, I see the political route to socialism being complemented by the emergence of grasssroots instititions that prefigure socialism in their endeavour to transcend the commodity relationship.

In my view, the traditional left wing idea which can be traced back to people like Engels and his Principles of Communism that there must be a transitional stage involving the state taking over and centralising all capital , is utterly obsolete and dead. There is absolutely no way forward to communism/socialism via state capitalism. Im convinced of that. We need to look elsewhere.

One thing the SPGB is absolutely correct to insist on is that there can be no socialism without workers en masse understanding and desiring it. They cant be socially engineered into socialism or have it imposed on them from above. They have to want it and understand it because the very nature of the system requires their consent. This perhaps explains the SPGB's penchant for tirelessly rational explanation - abstract propaganda - rather than the politics of direct action. My criticism of the SPGB model of revolution, if you like, is not that the SPGB is wrong to engage in "abstract propagandism" - on the contrary the job that the SPGB is doing is absolutely indispensable - but that it is going to take more than just abstract propagandism to get the revolution moving. Which is where those grassroots initiatives come into the picture.

So I see a combination of this and SPGB style politics as the way forward. I do not see the advocacy of so called transitional demands or state capitalism as the way to go at all. That leads inevitably to the cul de sac of capitalist reformism and the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The reformist Left is now in no position to attack the SPGB's approach as unappealing in its refusal to compromise when the Left itself has gone into catastrophic decline Iin the elcetcion a reformist trotskyist from Workers Power was actually beaten by the SPGB candidate which really says it all. So much for the theory of attracting workers to your cause by opportunistically outbidding the main capitalist parties in the ambitiousness of your reform programme. It just doesn't work like that and most workers understand full well the futility of it alll under capitalism. They have a canny grasp of the principle that there's no such thing as a free lunch under capitalism. Which is probably why weve got a Tory PM right now.

So we turn finally to your objections to the SPGB approach and its advocacy of electoralism. If I read you correctly you think this is a non starter because the capitalist state will always crush the revolution by the time we have a majority. I think the exact opposite. By the time we are in a majority or even a significant minority it will be far too late for the powers-that-be to do anything about it. Now is when the ccapitalist state should crush the socialist movement if they wanted. When the movement is weak and fragmented

I am happy to discuss this further but can I ask whether you read my previous post (537) dealing with the objections you raised?

 

[FreddyB]

communicate with a global market, lol

You think it's funny? He's starting to scare me

 

[dylans]

Robbo tell us something about your view of human nature. How do you answer the charge that human nature and greed make socialism impossible (devil's advocate)

 

[Proper Tidy]

In the election a reformist trotskyist from Workers Power was actually beaten by the SPGB candidate which really says it all.

Oh come on, Robbo, you must know this is a poor example.

Danny and Jeremy Drinkall both got 0.4%, which is pretty much average for far left candidates in the GE, whether 'state-capitalist reformists' or SPGB purists. SPGB took a couple dozen more votes than WP but it proves nothing really - you are not taking account of Drinkall standing for one of the more obscure of the far left parties, for example, or that SPGB may well have picked up votes on the back of having socialist in their name, without the voter necessarily having any idea whatsoever of SPGB's political outlook. Anyway, it was pretty poor all round - not just in Vauxhall but across the UK. It is a very moot point.

 

[Gravediggers]

They're not called impossibilists for no reason.

Louis MacNeice

Oh Louis you are so kind to provide not one but two posts in 24 hours that allow me to open up the discussion on the socialist case. I know, sad innit when your intentions are to clearly smear the SPGB as much has possible, and they rebound with another home goal. Thank you.

OK lets get down to business. I've lost count of how many times, on this board and elsewhere we have been labeled the impossibilist. The term 'impossibilists' is a form of verbal abuse and suggest we are dreamers, utopian and unrealistic. Basically, this type of labeling is to underline the argument, that we are asking for the impossible under capitalism.

Is it at all possible for the two systems to exist side by side? Of course its not possible for both systems are diametrically opposed to each other with one based on private ownership and the other on common ownership. Co-existence therefore is out of the question. It is a historical fact that globally capitalism is the dominant political economy and not only influences most of our everyday lives but it has also made commodity production the primary motivation for the capitalists and their political servants.

This is to say that capitalism is not confined in a cage like a wild beast who can be induced to perform whenever the keeper desires. Capitalism sets its own pace, its own restrictions and contradiction, but above all it sets its own limitations on what the capitalist class and its political servants can and can not do. What this means in practice economically, is the capitalist class can offer and promise to produce X amount of commodities. However, what the capitalist don't say is that those commodities will only be delivered when there is a profit to be gained. No profit and the commodities remain undelivered.

However, having dealt with the economics in practice what do they amount to when put into political practice? For the politicians are in truth the political representatives of the capitalist class but ultimately like their masters they are the political servants of the capitalist system. So what can the politicians do under the circumstances other than parrot the capitalist class and promise this and promise that so it serves the purpose of instilling in the working class the belief they are acting in their interests.

The politicians loudly proclaim they are in a position to control the beast and that eventually after a bit of tinkering here and there with a reform here, and a reform there the benefits of capitalism will trickle down into the laps of the workers. No effort needed the politicians loudly shout just put your X on the spot and I will do my damnedest to regulate the beast of capitalism and I promise you it will remain in the cage and do our bidding. Believe me, they chorus it is totally possible to ensure capitalism will ultimately be to the benefit of everyone - rich and poor alike. Honest, all I ask is for you to put your trust in me and accept my leadership.

In truth what actually occurs is that what the capitalists and the politicians find is that the production of commodities and the wages system has the final say on who it wants to devour, destroy, degrade, demolish and devastate. And that in practice they have been attempting the impossible!

So why do the workers persistently support a system which is designed to exploit their labour power? Is it because they are so dumb and stupid or they can't see the woods for the trees? Well the assertion that they are stupid fails to stand up to examination for the workers operate the system from top to bottom, so collectively they are well aware of how the system operates to a 'T'.

No my friends the reason why the workers persistently support a system which is designed to exploit their labour power is down to them believing every word of the empty promises dished out by the apologists of capitalism - the politicians. The solution is simple, that is the workers have to get rid of commodity production and all the instruments of waged labour so that its class exploitation is abolished and replaced with a system of free association and common ownership of the means of living.

 

[robbo203]

Oh come on, Robbo, you must know this is a poor example.

Danny and Jeremy Drinkall both got 0.4%, which is pretty much average for far left candidates in the GE, whether 'state-capitalist reformists' or SPGB purists. SPGB took a couple dozen more votes than WP but it proves nothing really - you are not taking account of Drinkall standing for one of the more obscure of the far left parties, for example, or that SPGB may well have picked up votes on the back of having socialist in their name, without the voter necessarily having any idea whatsoever of SPGB's political outlook. Anyway, it was pretty poor all round - not just in Vauxhall but across the UK. It is a very moot point.

My point is simply that there is no apparent advantage in advocating a reformist platform anyway so you might just as well stand on a straight socialist platform. This is quite aside from the argument that advocating a reformist platfrom means necessarily shelviing a socialist one

 

[Proper Tidy]

My point is simply that there is no apparent advantage in advocating a reformist platform anyway so you might just as well stand on a straight socialist platform.

And my point is that it doesn't come anywhere close to proving your point, and you know that.

 

[moon23]

explain demographics then. If socialism is about class politics then surely notions of class are re-enforced by demographers who use a precise classification scale to determine how and who to sell to. Interestingly it also ties both socio-cultural notions of class and economic class. To sell people shit.

From what I understand about Marxism its definition of class is distinctively different then socio-cultural notions of class, the later being a way of group classifying people within parameters useful for a particular function (normally selling or service provision). Marx as of course an important and influential thinker, but Marxism from my perspective is falling in popularity.

 

[butchersapron]

How do you understand it as different than that mess above?

 

[moon23]

You think it's funny? He's starting to scare me

All it means is that thanks to modern technology you can go on-line and buy and sell in any international market. As individuals we are now highly plugged into global markets and we can pick and choose our fashions, trends and tastes from what they have to offer.

My vision for the future is a form of hyper-capitalism where the internet connects buyers and sellers more efficiently, as the market is opened up vested interests of monopolies will be undercut and producers in poorer countries will be able to sell directly to richer consumers and enrich themselves through that process.

Also what you have now with people like Craig Venter producing synthetic life with their company are new green methods of producing energy that could replace fossil fuels. Essentially capitalism could soon also save the planet as the market develops green technology.

 

[Proper Tidy]

All it means is that thanks to modern technology you can go on-line and buy and sell in any international market. As individuals we are now highly plugged into global markets and we can pick and choose our fashions, trends and tastes from what they have to offer.

My vision for the future is a form of hyper-capitalism where the internet connects buyers and sellers more efficiently, as the market is opened up vested interests of monopolies will be undercut and producers in poorer countries will be able to sell directly to richer consumers and enrich themselves through that process.

Also what you have now with people like Craig Venter producing synthetic life with their company are new green methods of producing energy that could replace fossil fuels. Essentially capitalism could soon also save the planet as the market develops green technology.

But in the bluntest terms, capitalism relies upon the exploitation of people and resources, to extract surplus labour and surplus value (profit), and which relies upon continued growth which is unsustainable, leading to crises as the economy contracts. How can you possibly believe a 'hyper-capitalist' model can resolve these systemic issues and provide your neo-liberal utopia?

 

[moon23]

But in the bluntest terms, capitalism relies upon the exploitation of people and resources, to extract surplus labour and surplus value (profit), and which relies upon continued growth which is unsustainable, leading to crises as the economy contracts. How can you possibly believe a 'hyper-capitalist' model can resolve these systemic issues and provide your neo-liberal utopia?

By helping develop technology to such a state that we can unlock the full resources of the Universere so near unlimited growth becomes a possibilty. For instance creating synthetic life to produce new green fuels that can help provide people with the energy needed to escape poverty.