SPGB

[butchersapron]

It's the mirror image of this stuff, then:

isn't it?

Turns out he was in the SPGB - how perfect

edit: scrub that, he was confused about which party he applied to join, paid subs too and took part in the activities of.

 

[Jean-Luc]

OK, if you don't like Gambone try this article from Peter Campbell.

This is how wikipedia defines "impossibilism":

Impossibilism is an interpretation of Marxism. It emphasizes the limited value of reforms in overturning capitalism and insists on revolutionary political action as the only reliable method of bringing about socialism.
The concept - though not the specific term - was introduced and heavily influenced by the American Marxist thinker Daniel De Leon, on the basis of theory that De Leon generated before his interest in syndicalism began (see De Leonism). It came to be focused especially on the question of whether socialists should take part in government under capitalism. At the Paris Congress of the Second International, in 1900, those who favoured entry into government, with all the implied compromises, called themselves Possibilists, while those who opposed participation became known as Impossibilists.
Impossibilism was particularly popular in British Columbia in the early 20th century, through the influence of E.T. Kingsley. Several members of Kingsley's Socialist Party of Canada were elected to the British Columbia legislature between 1901 and 1910. It is also the basis of the theory and practice of the oldest British Marxist party, the Socialist Party of Great Britain, which was founded in 1904.

And its opposite "possibilism":

The Possibilists was a trend in the French socialist movement led by Paul Brousse, Benoît Malon and others who brought about a split in the French Workers' Party in 1882. Its leaders proclaimed what was essentially a reformist principle of achieving only what is 'possible', which they claimed was not the workers revolution

 

[butchersapron]

I know all this - so does Loius, it might be new toy you but i still don't see what point you're trying to make.

 

[dannysp]

You miss the point entirely - the changes that people brought about in terms of their own individual consciousness, social consciousness and social conditions. Those changes were brought about by self-activity and could have been defended and extended by further struggle (by aggressive defence of organs of w/c control and associated production). They didn't require people to be signed up SPGB members to take place. You can see the same process at work in the anti-poll tax campaign.

You really do need to crawl out of the wreckage of 1917 - the Bolsheviks

Those changes led to the red fascism of Stalin. The point I/we are trying to make is that you need socialists to make Socialism, the means must equal the end, the power must fit the purpose.

The SPGB recognises that knowledge is power, so the more we working people know about the social situation we find ourselves in and its contradictions, become aware of the fact that as workers we have all the power of society embodied in us as a class, the more we understand about the Socialist alternative to capitalism,, the more potential/power we can apply to the process of revolution.

As we see it there are three absolutely essential prerequisites needed before we can acheive Socialism 1) production developed to the level that could end poverty, 2) communication at the level whereby production can be co-ordinated to meet the needs of society, and importantly to enable democracy to function, 3) consciousness, the understanding, awarenes of what Socialism is and the social will to share the duties and responsibilities to bring it into existance, maintain and develope it.

There wasn't much of 1 2 and 3 in 1917 Russia which promted the article in a 1918 Socialist Standard explaining why Socialism was not on the cards there. I wish it had suceeded because if so I would have lived and be living with Socialism, but it didn't, am I'm not. If we fail to learn from our history we are likely to repeat it. If we are to have a revolution ffs let's get it right, playing fast and loose with the future just aint on.

Let me remind you of that natural therefore unbreakable law of socialial responsibility I refered to in an earlier post, which the only acknowledgement of was a "ho ho ho" from PT.

The only responsible way to deal with social responsibility is to share it, any thing else is irresponsible.

Now if that stands up the last thing anyone can call the SPGB is irresponsible.

 

[butchersapron]

Those changes led to the red fascism of Stalin. The point I/we are trying to make is that you need socialists to make Socialism, the means must equal the end, the power must fit the purpose.

No, those changes did not lead to that - inadequate defence of workers organisation amongst other factors lead to that outcome. To say that those changes led to that is the crudest interpretation of 1917 i've ever read. To argue that 1917 failed because the workers had not been signed up to the SPGB platform...it's beyond not being marxism...it's...

I'll read the rest and see if laughter is the best response or not later.

 

[dannysp]

No, those changes did not lead to that - inadequate defence of workers organisation amongst other factors lead to that outcome. To say that those changes led to that is the crudest interpretation of 1917 i've ever read. To argue that 1917 failed because the workers had not been signed up to the SPGB platform...it's beyond not being marxism...it's...

I'll read the rest and see if laughter is the best response or not later.

I pointed out that the prerequisites needed for Socialism were not in existance in 1917 Russia and so could not be acheived.

Surely history can only be understood as a process of cause and effect, so the question beged is, what were the reasons for the decent into the horrors of stalinism?

 

[butchersapron]

I pointed out that the perquisites listed are a self-serving preservation complex and not at all political. Irrelevant in fact and in life.

 

[dannysp]

I pointed out that the perquisites listed are a self-serving preservation complex and not at all political. Irrelevant in fact and in life.

The above are assertions, if I/we are wrong on this can you provide reasons why?

 

[butchersapron]

I did earlier today.

 

[dannysp]

I did earlier today.

What number post was that?

Butch, if you can demolish the claimed law of social responsibility then you have us beat, and with that I'll hand in my resignation from the SPGB immediately. Its a promise.

 

[butchersapron]

# 739

Why do i need demolish it? It's self evidently true, regardless of wanky jargon.

 

[Jean-Luc]

three absolutely essential prerequisites needed before we can acheive Socialism 1) production developed to the level that could end poverty, 2) communication at the level whereby production can be co-ordinated to meet the needs of society, and importantly to enable democracy to function, 3) consciousness, the understanding, awarenes of what Socialism is and the social will to share the duties and responsibilities to bring it into existance, maintain and develope it.
There wasn't much of 1 2 and 3 in 1917 Russia

I would have thought that this was the ABC of Marxism and not just a laughable SPGB theory. In fact even Lenin tactitly recognised this towards the end of his life when he wrote in 1923:

Our opponents told us repeatedly that we were rash in undertaking to implant socialism in an insuffisantly cultured country. But they were misled by our having started from the end opposite to that prescribed by theory (the theory of pedants of all kinds), because in our country the political and social revolution preceded the cultural revolution, that very cultural revolution which nevertheless now confronts us. This cultural revolution would now suffice to make our country a completely socialist country; but it presents immense difficulties of a purely cultural (for we are illiterate) and material character (for to be cultured we must achieve a certain degree of the material means of production, must have a certain material base)

And:

You say that civilisation is necessary for the building of socialism. Very good. But why could we not first create such prerequisites of civilisation in our country as the expulsion of the landowners and the Russian capitalists? Where, in what books, have you read that such variations of the customary historical order of events are impermissable or impossible?

Where? Everywhere in the writings of Marx. Lenin of course failed to establish socialism in Russia, and laid the foundations for the state capitalist dictatorship of Stalin.

 

[butchersapron]

You're quoting lenin at me? Why? Are you a leninist?

 

[moon23]

Turns out he was in the SPGB - how perfect

edit: scrub that, he was confused about which party he applied to join, paid subs too and took part in the activities of.

I just assumed the SPGB was the Socialist Party, but I was wrong there it is a different minor and irrelevant sect of socalism. It will probably be called the Workers Socalist Party or Workers of Great Britian Socialist Party next week anyway.

 

[Proper Tidy]

I just assumed the SPGB was the Socialist Party, but I was wrong there it is a different minor and irrelevant sect of socalism. It will probably be called the Workers Socalist Party or Workers of Great Britian Socialist Party next week anyway.

I doubt that. They've been called the squeegees since 1904, whereas your lot like to refresh your name every couple of decades, keep it fresh and so people don't realise you're the same old Whigs

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Now if that stands up the last thing anyone can call the SPGB is irresponsible.

The SPGB would be irresponsible if they weren't irrelevant.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I just assumed the SPGB was the Socialist Party, but I was wrong there it is a different minor and irrelevant sect of socalism. It will probably be called the Workers Socalist Party or Workers of Great Britian Socialist Party next week anyway.

More ignorance on display; is there anything you actually know something about?

Louis MacNeice

p.s. you do know what assumption is?

 

[dannysp]

# 739

Why do i need demolish it? It's self evidently true, regardless of wanky jargon.

Well Butch, if that's the case, then it must be irresponsible for the workers to hand over their social power to a vangaurd who will decide how, when, where and to what purpose that power is put.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Well Butch, if that's the case, then it must be irresponsible for the workers to hand over their social power to a vangaurd who will decide how, when, where and to what purpose that power is put.

What is it with you and JL trying to paint posters into some imagined leninist corner? If your argument's so weak as to need that sort of dishonesty, then the working class are doomed. Shame on you Edwardians.

Louis MacNeice

 

[butchersapron]

Well Butch, if that's the case, then it must be irresponsible for the workers to hand over their social power to a vangaurd who will decide how, when, where and to what purpose that power is put.

Well spotted! What a blinding insight! Now, back to the points...

 

[dannysp]

What is it with you and JL trying to paint posters into some imagined leninist corner? If your argument's so weak as to need that sort of dishonesty, then the working class are doomed. Shame on you Edwardians.

Louis MacNeice

You can't paint someone into a corner, they have to do that themselves.

The charge of dishonesty demands the proof of its validity.

 

[butchersapron]

It's quite simple to paint someone else into a corner - there's exchange after exchange on this thread alone in which the SPGB vanguardists have had just that done to them. Louis just pointed out your failure to do the same to me and others.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

You can't paint someone into a corner, they have to do that themselves.

The charge of dishonesty demands the proof of its validity.

Twit, of course you can do it to someone else; the dishonesty is in the action itself.

Louis MacNeice

 

[dannysp]

It's quite simple to paint someone else into a corner - there's exchange after exchange on this thread alone in which the SPGB vanguardists have had just that done to them. Louis just pointed out your failure to do the same to me and others.

"SPGB vanguardist" that sounds like someone surrounded by wet paint.

 

[Gravediggers]

If only the so easily duped working class would listen to your words of wisdom; set us free GD, set us free!

Louis MacNeice

p.s. While the glaring contradiction between your last two paragraphs, might be needed to hold together the impossibilist day dream, it doesn't cut it as a coherent argument.

All done and sorted. Thanks for spotting the contradiction Louis I'm sure you'll cast your beady eye over the corrections to ensure it meets your strict standards of political coherence and correctness.

 

[Gravediggers]

Yes there is poverty, mainly in developing countries where an industrial capitalist society is still emerging. If you think that poverty would be removed under a Socalist system you are mistaken, people have suffered and starved in Socialist countries all over the world.

The profit motive best drives new technology and ways of doing things that bring people out of poverty. Sadly untill we learn to better harvest resources and research new types of energy production there are going to be some shortages.

Many of the posters on this thread have accepted that a socialist society will be: stateless, classless, moneyless, borderless, democratic, common ownership of the means of living, free access, resource based economy, production for use and calculation in kind to meet the needs of humanity. We also agree that no such society has ever been tried. Therefore, your assumption that poverty would exist in a socialist society does not stand up to examination. However, given the above framework it would be safe to assume that poverty in a socialist society would rapidly be eliminated.

 

[robbo203]

No, those changes did not lead to that - inadequate defence of workers organisation amongst other factors lead to that outcome. To say that those changes led to that is the crudest interpretation of 1917 i've ever read. To argue that 1917 failed because the workers had not been signed up to the SPGB platform...it's beyond not being marxism...it's...

I'll read the rest and see if laughter is the best response or not later.

Failed in what respect, Butch? It certainly failed to establish socialism in the sense that we are talking about here. And it failed in this sense for two main reasons 1) the material conditions were nowhere near ripe for socialism 2) there was no widespread mass understanding and desire for socialism in the sense we have been talking about. Are you disputing this?

 

[moon23]

Many of the posters on this thread have accepted that a socialist society will be: stateless, classless, moneyless, borderless, democratic, common ownership of the means of living, free access, resource based economy, production for use and calculation in kind to meet the needs of humanity. We also agree that no such society has never been tried. Therefore, your assumption that poverty would exist in a socialist society does not stand up to examination. However, given the above framework it would be safe to assume that poverty in a socialist society would rapidly be eliminated.

My "assumption" is based on actual reailty, not a fantasy. Such a society has been tried plenty of time before, the problems with it is that it's actually impossible to 'calculate' production for us to meet the needs of humanity.

What you end up with is a load of theorists arguing about whether someone is a Lenist Stalinist, or a Marxist progressive whilst complaining about how out of touch other Lenisist/Stalinist marxist progressives are with the "working Class".

If for some freak of nature you actually manage to gain power, someone far more ruthless simply says "all the same nice fluffly shit" but takes everything for themselves. Only to leave the likes of you complaining to anyone who will listen about how the true path of socialism hasn't been followed.

 

[moon23]

I doubt that. They've been called the squeegees since 1904, whereas your lot like to refresh your name every couple of decades, keep it fresh and so people don't realise you're the same old Whigs

Wow we've jumped into a parallel universe where the twenty or so various small socialist parties don’t exist and comrades are able to agree what side to butter their own bread.

 

[FreddyB]

The profit motive best drives new technology and ways of doing things that bring people out of poverty. Sadly untill we learn to better harvest resources and research new types of energy production there are going to be some shortages.

The profit motive doesn't bring people out of poverty and it doesn't drive new technology. Everything from nuclear energy to the processor in your pc are not products of the profit motive or the market they are products of state planning. That the states that planned them claim to support the free market is neither here nor there.