SPGB

[butchersapron]

I'd like to discuss your understanding of the various messy contradictory forms class struggle takes. What are these messy forms?

I don't think you would as it goes - i think you'd like a) me to list some of them and then b)you condemn them for being 'reformist', for propping up capital, for not aiming at a pure socialism (i.e one defined and authorised by your good selfs) - entirely in line with what i've suggested above, and entirely in line with a century of parlour-games in which everyone else knows what's coming next.

Far far too obvious.

 

[butchersapron]

For the benefit of a newbie could you reiterate what you said on the Plaid Cymru thread, or direct me to the link?

Here is the thread.

 

[scrappy1]

I don't think you would as it goes - i think you'd like a) me to list some of them and then b)you condemn them for being 'reformist', for propping up capital, for not aiming at a pure socialism (i.e one defined and authorised by your good selfs) - entirely in line with what i've suggested above, and entirely in line with a century of parlour-games in which everyone else knows what's coming next.

Far far too obvious.

I suggest you criticise our ideas rather than how you think we defend them, i.e. dogmatically and self-righteously. Holding views dogmatically doesn't necessarily make them wrong.

Come on, tell us where you disagree with the socialist proposition of a society of production for use instead of profit, to be established by democratic means.

 

[butchersapron]

Don't tell me what aspect of your approach to criticise - how dare you demand that comments only touch on areas that you feel confident enough on. The idea that we're only allowed to talk abut the actual proposition of a socialist society - nothing else about the SPGB -demonstrates exactly the sort of necessary retreat from reality into a passive vanguardism your approach entails - and that's what i'm highlighting and attacking. To no substantive response beyond look at the 1936 constitution, the USSR is socialist, its says so right there.

 

[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.

Further to my previous reply you last paragraph above contains a glaring ignorance regarding how capitalism actually operates. You assume (again) that the profit motive is the solution to all our problems specifically in regards to the introduction of new technology bringing people out of poverty. This assumption ignores the facts that the introduction of new technology can in many instances put people into poverty.

New technology is only introduced when there is a profit to be made. For example, the massive dam projects in Brasil, China, India and elsewhere are essential to the global economy in that they provide the resources to manufacture old and new technology. However, damming on such a scale - by its very nature - also involves the displacement of thousands of people where little provision is made for providing alternative means of living. If such administration costs were to be factored into the total cost the rate of profit would decrease proportionally.

The consequences of such maladministration results in many of the urban poor moving to the cities and finding themselves directly under the thumb of wage slavery and officially classified by the UN has living under 'extreme poverty'.

 

[Gravediggers]

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.

You are way off beam here for profit does indeed motivate the introduction of new technology, if it didn't there would no introduction of new technology - full stop. Also if the market depended purely on 'state planning' to buy new technology this totally ignores the fact that the state machinery is the servant of market forces not the master.

 

[JWH]

You are way off beam here for profit does indeed motivate the introduction of new technology, if it didn't there would no introduction of new technology - full stop.

I agree that profit is the main driver of adoption and spread of technology, and for most of technology development, but there are still forms of technology that are not developed for profit, surely - open source software, mad old duffers tinkering in sheds and all the rest?

 

[two sheds]

A question that has been asked before but I don't think you've really answered. Assuming that you get the socialist majority that you're after, do you really feel that the rich are going to say "ok fair do's you win here's all our wealth and power"? They're going to make a last stand, aren't they.

So on the one side we're going to have the socialist majority with right on their side and on the other we're going to have the army, navy, airforce, fighter bombers, helicopter gunships, tanks, missiles, teargas, drones and all the exotic weapons our governments have been working on for just such a contingency. Good fucking luck on the barricades.

 

[Jean-Luc]

A question that has been asked before but I don't think you've really answered. Assuming that you get the socialist majority that you're after, do you really feel that the rich are going to say "ok fair do's you win here's all our wealth and power"? They're going to make a last stand, aren't they.

So on the one side we're going to have the socialist majority with right on their side and on the other we're going to have the army, navy, airforce, fighter bombers, helicopter gunships, tanks, missiles, teargas, drones and all the exotic weapons our governments have been working on for just such a contingency. Good fucking luck on the barricades.

Engels answered this point over a hundred years ago:

How often has the bourgeoisie expected us to stop using revolutionary means under all circumstances and to remain within the law now that the emergency law has fallen and common law has been reestablished for everybody—even for the socialists? Unfortunately, we are not in a position to do these gentlemen that favor. But for the moment it is not we who are "breaking the law." On the contrary, it is working so well in our favor that we would be fools to go against it as long as things stay like this. The question is rather whether it is the bourgeoisie and its government who are breaking the law in order to crush us? We will wait and see. In the meantime, "Gentlemen of the bourgeoisie, it is up to you to fire the first shot."

No doubt about it, they will shoot first. One beautiful morning the German bourgeoisie and its government will find that they have grown tired of looking on with folded arms as the spring tide of socialism washes over everything; they will have to turn to lawlessness and violence. But what good will it do them? Force can at best suppress a small group in a corner of the country, but that power has yet to be invented that is able to wipe out a party with more than two or three million members, spread over an entire empire. Counterrevolutionary superiority may perhaps delay the triumph of socialism by a few years, but only in such a way that it will then be all the more complete and final

- Engels, Socialism in Germany, in Marx, Engels, Bebel and Others, German Socialism in the Nineteenth Century, ed. By Frank Mecklenburg and Manfred Stassen, Continuum, New York, 1990.

 

[scrappy1]

Don't tell me what aspect of your approach to criticise - how dare you demand that comments only touch on areas that you feel confident enough on. The idea that we're only allowed to talk abut the actual proposition of a socialist society - nothing else about the SPGB -demonstrates exactly the sort of necessary retreat from reality into a passive vanguardism your approach entails - and that's what i'm highlighting and attacking. To no substantive response beyond look at the 1936 constitution, the USSR is socialist, its says so right there.

As you refuse to engage in a productive debate, there is no point in continuing this discussion. Therefore I consider this correspondence closed.

 

[butchersapron]

You mean you're going to ignore my points and cry off when i point this out. I'm not interested in your 'proposition of a socialist society' - i'm interested in your vanguardism and what it entails. If you feel unable to discuss that then fine, there's no obligation. As gravediggers, i think it was, pointed out very helpfully to another poster recently, it's very easy to refuse to deal with things that seem to challenge your whole way of looking at things, that seem to challenge who you are and what you believe. But unlike GD i don't believe that you're unthinking sheeple as a result.

 

[two sheds]

Engels answered this point over a hundred years ago:

I don't think he did. He gives a nice piece of rhetoric but - even if he was right then - a lot has happened in a hundred years.

On a tactical level: it's a few months before the grand election where it's finally clear there will be a socialist majority. The tv stations, radio and papers will be pumping out the message that the socialists are going to crash the economy and steal all peoples' possessions. The police and armed forces will be properly briefed about what's going on and what they need to do about it.

The state is first going to round up all the real activists and opinion formers (including in the police and armed forces) one night and shoot them or if they're feeling generous just lock them away. The election will be postponed for some pressing reason and the state can get on with suppressing any dissent that shows itself using all the weapons they fancy until conditions are right for a proper election when it's business as usual.

So, what are you going to do about that when you're dead or in prison? As I said, good fucking luck on the barricades.

 

[The39thStep]

As you refuse to engage in a productive debate, there is no point in continuing this discussion. Therefore I consider this correspondence closed.

That's the spirit

 

[Gravediggers]

I agree that profit is the main driver of adoption and spread of technology, and for most of technology development, but there are still forms of technology that are not developed for profit, surely - open source software, mad old duffers tinkering in sheds and all the rest?

There are always exception to the rule, and thankfully open source software is one. Socialist welcome the ethos of those who persist in developing OSS despite the odds of the profit system. However, lets not ignore how OSS has been adapted by those who have no qualms on using it to turn a fast and massive buck. Bill Gates and the introduction of Windows being a case in point.

One of the mad old duffers was Dyson who found to his cost that he had to patent everything or his inventions would have been stolen from under his nose. All fair game with capitalism. But just imagine how new technology would be employed in a socialist society of free access, with a resource based economy and calculation in kind? Then you understand how capitalism is holding up human progress.

 

[Jean-Luc]

The state is first going to round up all the real activists and opinion formers (including in the police and armed forces) one night and shoot them or if they're feeling generous just lock them away.

I'm trying to work out where you are coming from.

Are you saying that a democratic classless society (call it socialism) is an impossible dream because the ruling class will never allow it to be estasblished?

Or are you saying that because violent resistance from them is inevitable those who want socialism should be preparing themselves for armed struggle against the state and civil war?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

It's good to see the advanced workers of the SPGB in such fine form.

Louis MacNeice

 

[scrappy1]

I don't think he did. He gives a nice piece of rhetoric but - even if he was right then - a lot has happened in a hundred years.

On a tactical level: it's a few months before the grand election where it's finally clear there will be a socialist majority. The tv stations, radio and papers will be pumping out the message that the socialists are going to crash the economy and steal all peoples' possessions. The police and armed forces will be properly briefed about what's going on and what they need to do about it.

The state is first going to round up all the real activists and opinion formers (including in the police and armed forces) one night and shoot them or if they're feeling generous just lock them away. The election will be postponed for some pressing reason and the state can get on with suppressing any dissent that shows itself using all the weapons they fancy until conditions are right for a proper election when it's business as usual.

So, what are you going to do about that when you're dead or in prison? As I said, good fucking luck on the barricades.

I would take your comments about your prophesy of our failure more seriously if you hadn't finished expressing them with such downright glee in your last sentence.

If the media were to be pumping out anti-socialist lies, don't forget that the majority will have come over to socialism as you imply and they will able to ignore them. The media will include members of the socialist majority, so why would they also be putting out anti-socialist ideas? The same applies to the armed forces and police.

There may be parts of the world where the capitalist class would resist to the end and try to use force against workers, but they would have to rely on workers to do their dirty work. Let's imagine some tinpot dictator who refuses to allow election to take place. OK, capitalism will continue in that particular country, but with socialism surrounding them what do they do? They will still need to do business with the former capitalist countries, but these won't be willing to co-operate on that basis.

Perhaps there may be a mad general with his finger on the button... We would have to take that chance.

And we have no intention of mounting the barricades.

 

[two sheds]

I'm trying to work out where you are coming from.

Are you saying that a democratic classless society (call it socialism) is an impossible dream because the ruling class will never allow it to be estasblished?

The one the SPG is suggesting, then yes I don't think it could be established. In their terms (i think, I know not of these transitional demands) there have been no transitional demands and no concessions so you're taking on capitalism as strong as it can be. And it's clear that it's either 'them or us' so they are going to throw everything at 'us' so pardon me if i disappear for a few months while they do it.

The original Plaid Cymru thread had a list of policies that were eminently sensible but would be seen as transitional demands by the SPG. I'd be a lot happier with something like that, getting to a society that is fairer. It would then be a shorter step towards the 'ideal' society whatever that turned out to be.

I wasn't really thinking in the abstract though, just in terms of where we are now to where the SPG and other left wingers want to go. How are you going to fight against tanks and helicopter gunships in practice?

Or are you saying that because violent resistance from them is inevitable those who want socialism should be preparing themselves for armed struggle against the state and civil war?

Well that's the problem I'd have thought - and the only way to get round it would be to move to a fairer society in the meantime wherever we can. The important thing for me is that people live in as good conditions as we can, not whether or not there is money for example.

I've realised i can't really call myself a socialist by the way because i've never read Marx et al and have no real desire to. I'm more environmentalist in that i see us as one species among many so within those limitations how can we best use resources for people to be as happy/fulfilled given the circumstances we all find ourselves in.

 

[The39thStep]

To be fair to the SPGB how would you like it if you invented socialism and some Trots nick the name off you

 

[Gravediggers]

It's good to see the advanced workers of the SPGB in such fine form.

Louis MacNeice

Louis its so good to see you blindly attempting to use a sprat to catch a mackerel. If by "advanced workers" you mean we are ahead with our thinking on a socialist framework, you of all people would expect nothing less from an organisation which has had 106 years to figure out the broad outlines of the society we propose without resorting to drawing up a blueprint.

On the other hand, if by "advanced workers" you are referring to the vanguard I have to say shame on you Louis. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do assume you have read the posts appertaining to the implications of self-emancipation by the working class? If not one can only assume you are a bit of a Slack Alice on times.

 

[Gravediggers]

To be fair to the SPGB how would you like it if you invented socialism and some Trots nick the name off you

The SPGB never invented socialism. Indeed, our aim of socialism was in existence long before 1904. And we deliberately have no copyright on our aim or name.

 

[two sheds]

Louis its so good to see you blindly attempting to use a sprat to catch a mackerel. If by "advanced workers" you mean we are ahead with our thinking on a socialist framework, you of all people would expect nothing less from an organisation which has had 106 years to figure out the broad outlines of the society we propose without resorting to drawing up a blueprint.

On the other hand, if by "advanced workers" you are referring to the vanguard I have to say shame on you Louis. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do assume you have read the posts appertaining to the implications of self-emancipation by the working class? If not one can only assume you are a bit of a Slack Alice on times.

I think he was taking the piss, actually .

 

[Gravediggers]

You mean you're going to ignore my points and cry off when i point this out. I'm not interested in your 'proposition of a socialist society' - i'm interested in your vanguardism and what it entails. If you feel unable to discuss that then fine, there's no obligation. As gravediggers, i think it was, pointed out very helpfully to another poster recently, it's very easy to refuse to deal with things that seem to challenge your whole way of looking at things, that seem to challenge who you are and what you believe. But unlike GD i don't believe that you're unthinking sheeple as a result.

Butchers I can assure you I'm not unthinking and I am aware how being in denial works on the psyche at an individual level and at a social level. Indeed, your proposition of the SPGB being a vanguardist party intrigues me and if you can convince me that your hypothesis is true I can assure you I would leave the SPGB tomorrow. No qualms whatsoever. And I doubt very much if I would be on my own for socialists have no intention of staying with a vanguardist party.

No doubt you are aware that such a crucial hypothesis must be put to an examination and to this end I requested from you a criteria and a definition so we - and others - can jointly put them to the test on whether or not they do actually apply to the SPGB. I see no sign of a coherent criteria being developed just a hotch pot of disjointed assertions. And has for a definition of vanguardism you agreed on the Leninist description posted by Jean-Luc but dismissed it as being inaccurate. Nevertheless, despite this dismissal I persisted in questioning your hypothesis but all to no avail.

Until you come forward with a coherent criteria and an agreeable definition I see no way on this discussion moving forward, or even going any further and me staying with the SPGB. The proof is in the eating of the pudding.

 

[Proper Tidy]

And I doubt very much if I would be on my own for socialists have no intention of stay with a vanguardist party.

And a few posts back you said 'socialists welcome'.

Who appointed you spokesman for Authentic Socialism TM?

Socialists must not steal
Socialists shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour

I think you are more messianic than vangaurdist tbh

 

[Proper Tidy]

Socialists shall not shave

 

[Gravediggers]

I think he was taking the piss, actually .

No he or she was trying to take the piss - and failed - by using the assertion of "advanced workers" has bait to serve the impression (if it was unanswered) that we agreed with the implication contained in such a phrase/term e.g. we are a vanguard party. Louis is well known for serving his/her agenda in this way, its called black propaganda and used by MI5/MI6 very effectively to uphold the status quo.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Louis its so good to see you blindly attempting to use a sprat to catch a mackerel. If by "advanced workers" you mean we are ahead with our thinking on a socialist framework, you of all people would expect nothing less from an organisation which has had 106 years to figure out the broad outlines of the society we propose without resorting to drawing up a blueprint.

On the other hand, if by "advanced workers" you are referring to the vanguard I have to say shame on you Louis. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do assume you have read the posts appertaining to the implications of self-emancipation by the working class? If not one can only assume you are a bit of a Slack Alice on times.

You are exactly the sort of advanced workers that Leninists posit as the necessary material of the vanguard party; as you have been telling us all, you're the most class conscious section of the class.

Indeed your constitution makes it clear that anybody else claiming to be such advanced workers (grouped together in any organised way), by the mere fact of their absence from the mass ranks of the SPGB, is an enemy of socialism, an enemy of the working class.

You are superb vanguardists, demanding that all submit to the tyranny of the party line (ineffectual and cobwebbed as it is), or face being cast for ever into the darkness of capitalism's left wing.

Such is your uber-vanguardism, that even an organisation with the self same constitution is dismissed in a few terse lines (and the odd appeal to the capitalist legal system).

This is a level chutzpah that even most Leninists draw the line at; at least they have the decency to tweak their rules to at least give the appearance of not being faith based groups.

But not you. Hallelujah GD. Preach the word (sorry the 'case') and take us to the promised land, one tract at a time.

Louis MacNeice

 

[two sheds]

I would take your comments about your prophesy of our failure more seriously if you hadn't finished expressing them with such downright glee in your last sentence.

For a party that is opposed to all other parties (Gravediggers: "Unlike the left wing we find no need to lie, be deceitful, manipulate or condescending. We state our case and let think it out for themselves.") you're a bit fucking precious when people have a go back. I'd take no 'glee' in seeing people die on barricades - it's the sort of thing I think we should above all else be avoiding.

If the media were to be pumping out anti-socialist lies, don't forget that the majority will have come over to socialism as you imply and they will able to ignore them. The media will include members of the socialist majority, so why would they also be putting out anti-socialist ideas? The same applies to the armed forces and police.

Even if the majority have come over to capitalism, the media (or at least any form of media like the one we have now) will not include members of the socialist majority because they wouldn't be reporters. The media is owned by people with money. The armed forces and police will be doing what the government of the time tells them to do, which is generally what people with money tells it is best for the long term good of the country.

You seem to be saying that you need a perfect society (so media doesn't put across 'anti-socialist lies', armed forces go for mass disobedience etc etc ) before you can have your perfect society.

Again, any self respecting evil capitalist cabal will be taking out the leaders/opinion formers as a first action. You seem to be adopting a bloodless takeover as a statement of faith. I don't think it would be, and I think the result would be very one sided.

There may be parts of the world where the capitalist class would resist to the end and try to use force against workers, but they would have to rely on workers to do their dirty work. Let's imagine some tinpot dictator who refuses to allow election to take place. OK, capitalism will continue in that particular country, but with socialism surrounding them what do they do? They will still need to do business with the former capitalist countries, but these won't be willing to co-operate on that basis.

Perhaps there may be a mad general with his finger on the button... We would have to take that chance.

And we have no intention of mounting the barricades.

You've got to a world dominated by socialism before the first country has fallen. It's not the last tinpot dictator i'd be concerned about - it would be the first one. If what you say about capitalists is true, the first sniff of a true socialist revolution somewhere would be bombed to shit by the US and UK governments if no others.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

No he or she was trying to take the piss - and failed - by using the assertion of "advanced workers" has bait to serve the impression (if it was unanswered) that we agreed with the implication contained in such a phrase/term e.g. we are a vanguard party. Louis is well known for serving his/her agenda in this way, its called black propaganda and used by MI5/MI6 very effectively to uphold the status quo. It knows one to tell one shall we say?

Should I show my handler this?

Louis MacNeice

 

[scrappy1]

And a few posts back you said 'socialists welcome'.

Who appointed you spokesman for Authentic Socialism TM?

Socialists must not steal
Socialists shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour

I think you are more messianic than vangaurdist tbh

I have no idea what you are trying to say.