See, It works.
SPGB
- Thread starter Proper Tidy
- Start date
See, It works.
A chicken in every pot...
Jean-Luc
Well-Known Member
Good point, but the Trotskyist theory of "transitional" reform demands is worse than the old Social Democratic one as it abandons the "maximum" programme (on Lenin's grounds that workers are incapable of understanding it). So we are just left with a reform programme.
Proper Tidy's justification for this is that socialist consciousness will develop out of the struggle for these reforms. In other words, while these reforms might not to be "stepping stones" to socialism as in the old gradualist Social Democratic conception they are stepping stones to socialist consciousness. But are they? And how?
You could take the view, as Proper Tidy seemed to at one point, that this will happen spontaneously, but this, as has already been pointed out here, would be quite unLeninist. Or you could take the view (Lenin's) that all that is required to overthrow capitalism is for the "working masses" to have a high enough degree of "trade union consciousness" to be led by the vanguard party which knows how to steer them.
All Trotskyist groups take this second position as can be clearly seen by their campaign slogans and election promises: Make the Rich Pay, Jobs for All, Nationalise the Banks, Increase the Minumum wage, Fix Pensions at Average Male Earnings, etc, etc. Socialism doesn't get a look in, is in fact dismissed as utopian.
Yes, this is exactly the problem. The struggle for reforms cannot in itself lead to socialist consciousness. Proper Tidy argues that
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
But the weakness in this argument is all too evident. If they do achieve a "degree of success" then the likelihood is not that they will go on from there to struggle for socialism but rather become even more deeply embroiled in reformist struggle. Afterall if you can suceed in getting one reform passed, why not go for another? On the other hand, if they fail this is not going make them see the need for revolution but far more likely will result ion apathy, fatalism, escapism and the fragmentation of class solidarity. Banging your head repeatedly against a brick wall is not exactly conducive to raising ones's consciousness.
Either way - success or failure - the outcome is most probably going to be the co-option of workers all the more firmly into capitalism
Of course workers have to struggle in capitalism and not only to overthrow capitalism. But here is where the all important distinction between trade union struggle in the economic field and the political struggle for reforms introduced by the state, comes into play. Many leftists are very confused on this point ,some even seeing trade union struggle as "reformist". Its not. Trade union struggle is process oriented in that the class struggle is an ongoing process inherent in capitalism. Reformism on the other hand is goal oriented. It involves political choices - ultimately to mend capitalism rather than end it, as a priority - whereas we have no choice about struggling in the economic field in which trade unions operate.
It seems to me that this is where the SPGB scores heavily in its debate with its left wing critics. The leftist or trotskyist approach of transitional demands is transperantly weak. Most workers intuitively realise that to call for the raising of the state pension by 50% which Proper Tidy claims is "achievable" is in fact totally unrealistic within the context of British capitalism today. From the perspective of the workers, transitional demands are often viewed as opportunist and even risky. They understand well enough that in capitalism there is no such thing as a free lunch. This makes the leftists appear woolly minded without their feet firmly grounded in capitalist reality. Little wonder they attract such little support (and in that respect most leftist grouplets are in no position to scoff at the SPGB's lack of support)
The point is that there is no organic link between transitional demands and the struggle for socialism. Its a myth. There is no substitute for socialist understanding. However, here is where the SPGB approach is not entirely convincing in my view. Can socialist understanding come about through an exclusive focus on propagandism - necessary though this may be? Im not convinced.
However, I do firmly believe that the SPGB is far more right than it is wrong and that the only way out of the impasse of what might loosely be called radical politics must entail embracing what the SPGB has been insistently arguing for all these years and decisively rejecting the treadmill of reformism which, in effect, is all that the left has to offer
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
I understand the quote; I'm not surprised you didn't get the joke though.
Louis MacNeice
Joke, ah yes I see. I thought you were being cruel, perish the thunk.
Ah I think I see Louis. Is this a ref' to the late great Harry B?
Gravediggers
New Member
I'm thoroughly enjoying your contribution and as you are aware members of the SPGB always prick their ears up regarding engagement in class struggle. In this respect could you clarify the assertion made above, "However, here is where the SPGB approach is not entirely convincing in my view. Can socialist understanding come about through an exclusive focus on propagandism - necessary though this may be? Im not convinced.". For I'm interested in what alternatives you may propose in this respect. What other political activity is available for participation in the class struggle?
Can't promise though I'll be Mr Nice Guy with my response.
Gravediggers
New Member
I take it then that you equate Lenin's perspective of "trade union consciousness" with "refomism"? If this is indeed the case the reference to it in, 'What is to be done?' is a clear indication of how much he held the working class in contempt.
[My emphasis].
With all respect robbo, that is not the S.P.G.B. view. Part of the problem the S.P.G.B. have is with people characterising, indeed mischaracterising, its views. The S.P.G.B.'s case is clear and logical, but it also has nuances and subtleties.
What do we define as reforms and improvements benefiting the working class? I could make a pretty good case that the British Monarchy is an anti-capitalist institution and its continuation benefits the working class in many ways. I do not believe that in fact this is the case, but I could make a strong case for it. And isn't this the problem with a broadly reformist approach to things? What may seem like a benign or beneficial reform or improvement to one person, may seem less so to another.
Taking a more obvious example. I have been remonstrated with on here for, supposedly, opposing increased funding for the N.H.S. But as a worker, would it be wise for me to support increased healthcare funding? One might think so - but where does this funding come from, and what is the opportunity cost of it?
In truth, all political decisions taken under capitalism have their root in economics, treasury or finance issues, and are interlinked. More funding for one worthy cause means less funding for another worthy cause.
Is it wise for conscious workers to support reforms?
Taking a more obvious example. I have been remonstrated with on here for, supposedly, opposing increased funding for the N.H.S. But as a worker, would it be wise for me to support increased healthcare funding? One might think so - but where does this funding come from, and what is the opportunity cost of it?
In truth, all political decisions taken under capitalism have their root in economics, treasury or finance issues, and are interlinked. More funding for one worthy cause means less funding for another worthy cause.
Is it wise for conscious workers to support reforms?
You may be right, but anyway - isn't the daily struggle of capitalism, the lived experience, sufficient struggle to raise consciousness among workers that there is something serious fucked-up about capitalism?
Do we all really need to go out, unfurl our banners and ask for 'The Right To Work', 'Higher Wages', and so on?
Aren't the bosses actually going to laugh at us as we campaign for our own exploitation?
We don't need higher wages or a right to work. We need no wages and a right not to work, and only conscious workers can achieve it. They will do so through the lived experience of struggle, and through education, electoral campaigning, trade unionism and propaganda. The SPGB is playing its part, by trying to disseminate the case for socialism. The SPGB is correct to do so. Nothing that Proper Tidy has said on here convinces me otherwise. I really wish that were not the case - a return to reformist activity is tempting for me, and I have no ego vested here. But the truth is, after due consideration of the arguments, I find the SPGB case unanswerable.
Do we all really need to go out, unfurl our banners and ask for 'The Right To Work', 'Higher Wages', and so on?
Aren't the bosses actually going to laugh at us as we campaign for our own exploitation?
We don't need higher wages or a right to work. We need no wages and a right not to work, and only conscious workers can achieve it. They will do so through the lived experience of struggle, and through education, electoral campaigning, trade unionism and propaganda. The SPGB is playing its part, by trying to disseminate the case for socialism. The SPGB is correct to do so. Nothing that Proper Tidy has said on here convinces me otherwise. I really wish that were not the case - a return to reformist activity is tempting for me, and I have no ego vested here. But the truth is, after due consideration of the arguments, I find the SPGB case unanswerable.
Proper Tidy
Arsed
Wow, lot has gone on here since the last time I posted. I will read through it all and respond, eventually.
Tom - I would have thought the most striking criticism of the SPGB would be that they're so irrelevant to both the wider movement and the working class, which would strike me as a failing which they should be looking to address. Even if we accept the tenet that they are only there to propagandise, which I still dispute, then they need people to propagandise to, which is difficult when nobody is listening.
I'm also still confused by this stated aim of SPGB that it is not their role to involve themselves in struggle, whilst maintaining that trade unions etc have a place. This seems to contradict itself; what is the point in wearing two different hats, to use a shit turn of phrase. But anyway, I will comment on the rest later.
Gravediggers
New Member
I would be interested to know the reasons why. I'm open to a private message if you think that is necessary but I would much prefer you put it in the public domain. As a member of the SPGB I've seen members come and go and then come again. In fact I resigned at one period myself. Just out of curio I'm looking to see if there is any pattern to members resigning.
My main concern is do you still consider yourself a socialist?
Gravediggers
New Member
It is not the SPGB's stated aim to involve itself in the struggle for reforms. It sticks with the main struggle i.e. the struggle for world revolution by the workers and for the workers and without the hinderance of a self imposed vanguard.
Proper Tidy
Arsed
Yes I get that. But this position would only be logical if SPGB stated that the trade union struggle or struggle for improvements was a pointless diversion - as you do for liberation struggles. Yet you don't - you and others have repeatedly stated on here that you support trade union struggle etc, but that you won't organise as SPGB within the TU movement. My question is - why? Why separate it out like that? To what end? Why wear two hats when one will do.
If we're not, genetics is all wrong.
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
I started to doubt the existence of Capitalism.
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
I wasn't suggesting it was, or that we aren't.
Gravediggers
New Member
We don't say the TU struggle or the struggle for improvements is a pointless diversion. On the contrary, and as I've stated on a previous post, we think they are essential to the general wellbeing of the exploited class. For if they were to refuse to participate in either struggle they would soon end up in the gutter. Both struggles are important to the survival of the working class as a class. History clearly illustrates where there is oppression you will have struggle and it is important that socialists recognise why and how that struggle takes place. The struggle for improvements to living conditions, wages and working conditions will continue whether or not the SPGB were involved or not.
For us the danger of such involvement is well recorded in the history of the struggle. Your time and effort is taken up with the day-to-day struggles. Whilst the struggle to end all class struggle is left to wither or get strangled by the ability of capitalism to adapt to social improvements by linking them to economic growth, or where an increase in wages are concerned giving it about six months for the economy to adsorb its effects.
Our caveat is neither struggle or even when in combination, can bring about a transformation in the social relationships of capitalism, for their only role is to alleviate the the effects of exploitation. The struggle for working class emancipation is stuck in a rut, rather than the crevasse you are trying to make it, it still refuses to think for itself and is still a class in its self. I've said it before the role of socialists is to help the workers to recognise their own strength and to use democracy as a weapon in its emancipation.
Gravediggers
New Member
OK but do you still have them doubts? If so could you please explain the reason for them?
Proper Tidy
Arsed
But this falls down on the claim made on here that SPGB members do involve themselves in the day to day, just not as an organised SPGB bloc.
So, for the sakes of clarity - does the SPGB encourage you not to involve yourselves (not support from a distance but involve yourselves) in struggle?
And if this isn't the case, what difference does it make, other than symbolic? As you are still taking up your "time and effort", but losing the ability to bring workers into the socialist movement through involvement with your bloc in day to day activities, like the unions.
It either seems academic, or cynical, much like SPGB's position on standing in elections despite an unwillingness to do anything if elected.
Hi Cousin
To bring according to ability and take according to needs is what makes a family work, n'est pas?
Gravediggers
New Member
The SPGB do not have to encourage individual members not to get involved in the day-to-day struggles thrown up by capitalism. And neither does it have to encourage the members to get involved. As socialists the way we see it is that we have no choice on the matter but too get involved. To us it is totally irrational to take a step back from the struggle we have to meet it head on.
For example, during my work years if there was a union in place I put my name on the dotted line and attended branch meetings, and several times found myself being elected as a branch officer, although I never sought office. Where there was no union in place I joined one, and in one instance got blacklisted for my efforts to form a branch. When I was out of work I joined in a variety of local activity, from rent strikes to barricading the streets.
When I decided to take very early retirement I became a benefit and advice worker, besides being a volunteer driver for the local community transport. I eventually settled down as a volunteer disability counsellor working in one of the most deprived areas in south Wales. That in itself was a heart breaking experience.
However, whatever capacity I found myself in, either as a paid worker or as an unpaid volunteer, whenever the opportunity came along I always put the socialist case. And I know of many members doing much the same. That to me is the practical experience and activity of day-to-day class struggle. It is not academic neither is it symbolic of going through the motions.
My political experience started with me standing in the local elections has a Tenant's Representative. I then joined Plaid and drifted into the left by attending meetings held by the Welsh Socialist/Republican Movement, SWP, and the old CPGB. I joined the SPGB because I realised that being actually involved in the political activity for reforms was not what I wanted out of politics, and in fact I had been involved with the left because I had formed the false impression that they were revolutionaries. When in actual fact I found them to be a bunch of control freaks who paid lip service to my understanding of democracy.
The question of being elected to political office is always under discussion within the SPGB. And on times there have been very heated discussions and debates with no compromise given or expected from either side. Nevertheless, despite the differences of opinion and analysis the membership as a whole are united in the knowledge that being a political party whose aim is to eventually capture political power, and with the working class using us as a tool, we have no choice but to participate in the political process, as and when the opportunity arises.
And as such we do not look on our election activity has a paper chase for new members but a positive response to the challenges of capitalism. We are serious in our election efforts and are committed and determined to put the case for socialism as and when we can. Obviously, if new members do come along because of our election efforts all to the good. If they don't we will still plug away in the best way we can.
You have wisely, broached the subject of if ever the time arose and socialist delegates are elected to political office what would they do? The answer(s) to this question depends on the actual number of socialist delegates elected.
For instance, if a single or a small group of socialists are elected they would be in the minority, but it also is unlikely they would be denied any voice in the political process. Reforms would still be judged on their merits and where it is clear that there is a clear benefit to the ruling class the socialist delegates will be putting the case for socialism. If on the other hand it is a two way split with both classes gaining some benefit this will also be put. And the case for socialism will still be stated.
In short, the socialist delegates would use all and every opportunity to be rebels and advocate socialism. Obviously, if there were to be a majority of socialist delegates who had a clear majority from the electorate the picture changes from one of rebels to rebellion. End of play.
If it were ever decided by the membership to abandon the political process of electioneering the SPGB would in truth become a dogmatic sect. And I with many other members would leave. This is very, very unlikely to happen. We want socialism and know that the workers have to use the political process in order to get it.
Proper Tidy
Arsed
Thanks, but that hasn't actually answered my question in full.
You state that SPGB offer no guidance on whether or not members involve themselves in the day to day struggle, which fits with what I know of SPGB, which is essentially that if the member continues to agree with the party line then nothing else matters.
You also assert that as a socialist you of course wish to involve yourself in day to day struggles - I agree, by the way.
Doesn't this mean that your whole basis for SPGB not involving themselves in struggle is redundant? You state that our 'time and effort is wasted' by day to day involvement. I am not sure I agree that seeking improvements for working class people can accurately be called 'wasted time' but either way, your time and effort is also wasted.
So what do SPGB gain by abstaining from the political process away from electoral politics? I can't see any benefit. I do see a disadvantage, which is that with no organised SPGB body involved in the political process beyond elections you have no way to bring workers into a committedly socialist bloc. Perhaps this explains in part the very low membership of SPGB, but of course the implications are wider, in that workers will remain solely engaged in day to day struggles - or will remain reformists as you may define it.
Therefore, SPGB's abstentionist position would appear to be superficial in a practical sense, and counter-productive politically.
You also state your case with regard to electoral politics, yet I am still in need of a little clarity. What, from the point of view of the electorate who vote for you, is the advantage of electing an SPGB member? Given that you are obligated to not participate in the political process once elected. If I was a voter, I would be disinclined to elect anybody who is unwilling to fight for me.
I understand that you are saying you will use political office to advocate socialism; all well and good. But let's suspend reality and say that your man in Vauxhall gets elected. He is one man. He can advocate socialism until the cows come home but in a real sense this will not bring socialism any closer. Besides advocating socialism, he will not have the support of his party to actively fight for his voters, or to fight for improvements. So why would or should any typical voter vote for him?
You state that SPGB offer no guidance on whether or not members involve themselves in the day to day struggle, which fits with what I know of SPGB, which is essentially that if the member continues to agree with the party line then nothing else matters.
You also assert that as a socialist you of course wish to involve yourself in day to day struggles - I agree, by the way.
Doesn't this mean that your whole basis for SPGB not involving themselves in struggle is redundant? You state that our 'time and effort is wasted' by day to day involvement. I am not sure I agree that seeking improvements for working class people can accurately be called 'wasted time' but either way, your time and effort is also wasted.
So what do SPGB gain by abstaining from the political process away from electoral politics? I can't see any benefit. I do see a disadvantage, which is that with no organised SPGB body involved in the political process beyond elections you have no way to bring workers into a committedly socialist bloc. Perhaps this explains in part the very low membership of SPGB, but of course the implications are wider, in that workers will remain solely engaged in day to day struggles - or will remain reformists as you may define it.
Therefore, SPGB's abstentionist position would appear to be superficial in a practical sense, and counter-productive politically.
You also state your case with regard to electoral politics, yet I am still in need of a little clarity. What, from the point of view of the electorate who vote for you, is the advantage of electing an SPGB member? Given that you are obligated to not participate in the political process once elected. If I was a voter, I would be disinclined to elect anybody who is unwilling to fight for me.
I understand that you are saying you will use political office to advocate socialism; all well and good. But let's suspend reality and say that your man in Vauxhall gets elected. He is one man. He can advocate socialism until the cows come home but in a real sense this will not bring socialism any closer. Besides advocating socialism, he will not have the support of his party to actively fight for his voters, or to fight for improvements. So why would or should any typical voter vote for him?
Gravediggers
New Member
Hmm. If it meant a reform would decrease the likelyhood of incidents of accidents and death amongst the working class I would most certainly welcome it. The introduction of the M.O.T. and H&S legislation springs to mind. But as to actively supporting such reforms, very doubtful glad to say. In fact I would be promoting socialism by illustrating such legislation have benefits for both classes, and retains the status quo.
Similar threads
