SPGB

[Proper Tidy]

secret caucus meetings

They're not secret, you know. No magic keys or secret passwords.

Though if you vote for a Labour man, won't that bring you in to contradiction with your authoritarian executive? GD tells me voting for a capitalist even when there are no Socialist (TM) options is enough to get a comrade booted out of oasis on Clapham High Street. You'd best just scrawl some obscenities on the ballot sheet instead.

 

[Proper Tidy]

That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working class must organize consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic.

But how, Daniel? By reaching some magical point of critical mass when the majority will naturally overwhelm the minority, even if the minority has all the guns, money and power?

'Randolph, by midday tomorrow we'll be sipping Pims in Central Berlin, in a moneyless, wageless, stateless society...'

You're utopians, and extremely arrogant utopians at that.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Democracy

Oops! First the domestic violence gaffe, now this. Go and check with scrappy what the right answer is (although even they nearly stumbled, blinking into the real world).

Louis MacNeice

 

[two sheds]

The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interests of the whole community.

Now that sounds fair enough to me. Still s a bit wordy, though, always worth cutting out redundant words:

"A society based upon the common ownership and democratic control for producing and distributing wealth in the interests of the whole community."

That doesn't actually include the bits about no money and no state, which again sounds fair enough if money was just treated as a form of exchange. The problem comes when the rich can just live off their capital (which is what I'd thought the definition of capitalism was). Then they get to be idle which isn't healthy.

Isn't that sort of common ground? I'd have thought the greens could live with that, too - making businesses into co-operatives for example.

Then the SPG could push for money and state to be abolished and the SP could push for whatever they wanted to push for and everybody would be happy. See, problem solved

--- Next week: how to build a box girder bridge and how to reconcile the Russians and the Chinese. ---

 

[Gravediggers]

I did care to look at your previous postings and no, they didn't address it. They just regurgitated hopeful statements. Say for example by some miracle you gained a 'majority of socialists near gaining political power' in Iraq. You're saying that the US army/navy/airforce 'would not stand a chance' against the Iraqi workers (part of are the 'strongest army in the world, both politically and military' remember). I suggest to the honorable member that he has his head up his arse.

This is just hopeful toss. You're using phrases like 'I dread to think of the consequences' and 'For they are admitting the game is up' as a substitute for critical thought. If the capitalists are the evil people you say they are they will stamp on any mass movement to socialism very early on. They've got helicopter gunships and tanks remember, you can wave your pamphlets at them and dream of your socialist majority all you like.

Sorry to hear that my previous postings failed to satisfy your curiosity. After going through your posts it appears you are pinpointing one particular scenario where socialists are near to attaining a majority and the capitalist class as a whole are assuming this poses a threat to their rule and ruthlessly suppresses them very early on. Like I said in my previous post to take such action the capitalists would have to suspend representative democracy and suffer the consequences.

But how early is early? Why wait until the socialist movement can be countered in the thousands, or even hundred thousands? Why not strangle it at birth or even now when the movement is very small? Such action would also mean all socialist publications, all socialist text on the internet, all mention of socialism, etc, would have to be destroyed as well. But it is very unlikely that such drastic action would finish of socialism.

The simple truth is that socialism is not yet perceived as a threat to warrant such action. And even such action were to be taken it would be ineffective and counter productive, because the idea of socialism would still remain. For the truth is that so long as capitalism exists there will always be the alternative of socialism available. That is the dynamics of class struggle and social evolution. So the facts of the matter is the capitalists have no reason to fret over losing control of the means of living - just yet - far from it.

But lets go back to the scenario you envisage and see if we can develop it a bit more. The struggle for socialism is about the battle for ideas and the idea of socialism is part of a wider global struggle. And it is impossible to envisage the idea of socialism as we understand it developing in isolation of the rest of the global community. Therefore, the workers in Iraq, or any where else for that matter, would be planning ahead for the eventual transformation and also for any likely hood of any attempt to violently suppress the socialist movement. We can assume therefore that contingency plans will be in place to ensure that in the event of violent suppression the rest of the global socialist movement will respond accordingly.

 

[Jean-Luc]

They're not secret, you know. No magic keys or secret passwords.

I see you must be only a candidate member of your Trotskyist group. You don't know much about the history of your group either, do you? Have you never heard of "entryism"? Wait until you've proved yourself fit to be a full member (after you've sold your full quota of papers for six months) and then they'll tell you about these..

 

[Proper Tidy]

I see you must be only a candidate member of your Trotskyist group. You don't know much about the history of your group either, do you? Have you never heard of "entryism"? Wait until you've proved yourself fit to be a full member (after you've sold your full quota of papers for six months) and then they'll tell you about these..

Yeah nice bit of attempted condescension there Jean.

Another clear example of your sturdy political debate eh?

Also, we don't have 'candidate members'. Is that an SPGB thing?

 

[Proper Tidy]

Sorry to hear that my previous postings failed to satisfy your curiosity. After going through your posts it appears you are pinpointing one particular scenario where socialists are near to attaining a majority and the capitalist class as a whole are assuming this poses a threat to their rule and ruthlessly suppresses them very early on. Like I said in my previous post to take such action the capitalists would have to suspend representative democracy and suffer the consequences.

But how early is early? Why wait until the socialist movement can be countered in the thousands, or even hundred thousands? Why not strangle it at birth or even now when the movement is very small? Such action would also mean all socialist publications, all socialist text on the internet, all mention of socialism, etc, would have to be destroyed as well. But it is very unlikely that such drastic action would finish of socialism.

The simple truth is that socialism is not yet perceived as a threat to warrant such action. And even such action were to be taken it would be ineffective and counter productive, because the idea of socialism would still remain. For the truth is that so long as capitalism exists there will always be the alternative of socialism available. That is the dynamics of class struggle and social evolution. So the facts of the matter is the capitalists have no reason to fret over losing control of the means of living - just yet - far from it.

But lets go back to the scenario you envisage and see if we can develop it a bit more. The struggle for socialism is about the battle for ideas and the idea of socialism is part of a wider global struggle. And it is impossible to envisage the idea of socialism as we understand it developing in isolation of the rest of the global community. Therefore, the workers in Iraq, or any where else for that matter, would be planning ahead for the eventual transformation and also for any likely hood of any attempt to violently suppress the socialist movement. We can assume therefore that contingency plans will be in place to ensure that in the event of violent suppression the rest of the global socialist movement will respond accordingly.

So what do you do if one state or a small number of states go and do a revolution but the majority of the world is nowhere near?

Crush the revolution? Abolish money and borders and the state then sit back and watch the disaster? Go 'state-capitalist'? Or do nothing at all?

 

[Gravediggers]

So what do you do if one state or a small number of states go and do a revolution but the majority of the world is nowhere near?

Crush the revolution? Abolish money and borders and the state then sit back and watch the disaster? Go 'state-capitalist'? Or do nothing at all?

Your first sentence can be responded to, but the second sentence does not follow through.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Your first sentence can be responded to, but the second sentence does not follow through.

Well answer the first point then.

Awaits more abstract daydreams and self-aggrandising...

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Sorry to hear that my previous postings failed to satisfy your curiosity. After going through your posts it appears you are pinpointing one particular scenario where socialists are near to attaining a majority and the capitalist class as a whole are assuming this poses a threat to their rule and ruthlessly suppresses them very early on. Like I said in my previous post to take such action the capitalists would have to suspend representative democracy and suffer the consequences.

But how early is early? Why wait until the socialist movement can be countered in the thousands, or even hundred thousands? Why not strangle it at birth or even now when the movement is very small? Such action would also mean all socialist publications, all socialist text on the internet, all mention of socialism, etc, would have to be destroyed as well. But it is very unlikely that such drastic action would finish of socialism.

The simple truth is that socialism is not yet perceived as a threat to warrant such action. And even such action were to be taken it would be ineffective and counter productive, because the idea of socialism would still remain. For the truth is that so long as capitalism exists there will always be the alternative of socialism available. That is the dynamics of class struggle and social evolution. So the facts of the matter is the capitalists have no reason to fret over losing control of the means of living - just yet - far from it.

But lets go back to the scenario you envisage and see if we can develop it a bit more. The struggle for socialism is about the battle for ideas and the idea of socialism is part of a wider global struggle. And it is impossible to envisage the idea of socialism as we understand it developing in isolation of the rest of the global community. Therefore, the workers in Iraq, or any where else for that matter, would be planning ahead for the eventual transformation and also for any likely hood of any attempt to violently suppress the socialist movement. We can assume therefore that contingency plans will be in place to ensure that in the event of violent suppression the rest of the global socialist movement will respond accordingly.

GD good for you, you're back in your comfort zone; dreaming abut the future. A bit like Danny and his day dream where domestic violence vanishes as poverty is done away with. You boys really do enjoy your flights of fancy; maybe you shouldn't have accepted JL's offer to share his libation.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Jean-Luc]

Also, we don't have 'candidate members'.

I'm prepared to be believe you and will withdraw my comment if you can refer me to the constitution and rulebook of SPEW (which I couldn't find on the internet). Maybe I've confused your group with another one or maybe my information is out of date.

Anyway, here's part of the constiution of another Trotskyist group (AWL):

Members will normally be admitted as candidates, to go through at least three months of education, training and disciplined activity before being admitted as full activists.

I understood this to be a general practice amongst Trotskyist groups. It certainly used to be. There should be enough ex-Trotskyists here to confirm or refute this.

 

[Gravediggers]

You blatantly ignore the need for the working class to take control of the means of production, of government, and of the military, before the majority get drowned in their own blood - and anybody else who takes such flippancies like reality into account are guilty of the heresy of state-capitalism.

You're an odd bunch.

No PT its you have ignored what we have to say and deliberately so. We have consistently stated that a majority of the working class must take control of the state machinery including the armed forces, so a violent minority are not in a position to suppress the transformation to a socialist society. On the contrary to what you state such a situation will enable the majority to ensure its only the violent minority who will be drowning in their own blood.

 

[Gravediggers]

So what do you do if one state or a small number of states go and do a revolution but the majority of the world is nowhere near?

Whatever makes you think that socialism will be developing throughout the globe unevenly? Its not hard to imagine that if one state or a small number of states had established a socialist society the very same circumstances would also be taking place elsewhere.

 

[Gravediggers]

Now that sounds fair enough to me. Still s a bit wordy, though, always worth cutting out redundant words:

"A society based upon the common ownership and democratic control for producing and distributing wealth in the interests of the whole community."

That doesn't actually include the bits about no money and no state, which again sounds fair enough if money was just treated as a form of exchange. The problem comes when the rich can just live off their capital (which is what I'd thought the definition of capitalism was). Then they get to be idle which isn't healthy.

Isn't that sort of common ground? I'd have thought the greens could live with that, too - making businesses into co-operatives for example.

Then the SPG could push for money and state to be abolished and the SP could push for whatever they wanted to push for and everybody would be happy. See, problem solved

--- Next week: how to build a box girder bridge and how to reconcile the Russians and the Chinese. ---

The key term is 'common ownership' how can you have common ownership of the means of exchange? This actually begs the question is it at all possible for the working class to exploit itself? No, so why bother to try? The socialist object implies there will be free access and a moneyless economy, with production for use.

 

[Proper Tidy]

I'm prepared to be believe you and will withdraw my comment if you can refer me to the constitution and rulebook of SPEW (which I couldn't find on the internet). Maybe I've confused your group with another one or maybe my information is out of date.

Believe me or don't. We don't have 'candidate members'. If you're paying subs and attending meetings, you're a member.

Anyway, here's part of the constiution of another Trotskyist group (AWL):
I understood this to be a general practice amongst Trotskyist groups. It certainly used to be. There should be enough ex-Trotskyists here to confirm or refute this.

Blimey, if I'm going to be held accountable for the actions of the ultra-bizarro AWL then it will be a long night.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Whatever makes you think that socialism will be developing throughout the globe unevenly? Its not hard to imagine that if one state or a small number of states had established a socialist society the very same circumstances would also be taking place elsewhere.

I asked what the SPGB would advocate if socialism did develop unevenly, with is likely. So how about you give your answer?

 

[dannysp]

But how, Daniel? By reaching some magical point of critical mass when the majority will naturally overwhelm the minority, even if the minority has all the guns, money and power?

'Randolph, by midday tomorrow we'll be sipping Pims in Central Berlin, in a moneyless, wageless, stateless society...'

You're utopians, and extremely arrogant utopians at that.

Leave the bunker PT the workers have all the power.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Leave the bunker PT the workers have all the power.

Yes, that is why every revolution has been bloodless, isn't it Danny?

 

[dannysp]

Oops! First the domestic violence gaffe, now this. Go and check with scrappy what the right answer is (although even they nearly stumbled, blinking into the real world).

Louis MacNeice

I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me why I'm wrong, why it's a gaffe.

Anyone???

 

[dannysp]

Yes, that is why every revolution has been bloodless, isn't it Danny?

There's never been a Socialist revolution has there PT?

 

[Proper Tidy]

There's never been a Socialist revolution has there PT?

But the actual act of rising up Danny - it makes no odds what the underpinning ideology is. There have been plenty of revolutions by the majority against the minority - mostly very bloody too.

 

[Proper Tidy]

I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me why I'm wrong, why it's a gaffe.

Anyone???

Really?

 

[Gravediggers]

I asked what the SPGB would advocate if socialism did develop unevenly, with is likely. So how about you give your answer?

No its very unlikely that socialism will develop unevenly. If there were any signs of the uneven development of socialism this would suggest that the battle of democracy had yet to be won and the importance of combining the struggle for socialism with democracy.

 

[Proper Tidy]

No its very unlikely that socialism will develop unevenly. If there were any signs of the uneven development of socialism this would suggest that the battle of democracy had yet to be won and the importance of combining the struggle for socialism with democracy.

Pure utopianism.

GD - what would you do if there was a socialist revolution in only one global region? What would you advocate, given the abolition of money, wages and state would be equivalent to writing your own suicide note?

 

[Jean-Luc]

Believe me or don't. We don't have 'candidate members'. If you're paying subs and attending meetings, you're a member.
Blimey, if I'm going to be held accountable for the actions of the ultra-bizarro AWL then it will be a long night.

Not having much success in finding evidence on the internet that all Trotskyist organisations impose a period of candidate membership on applicants to join. So far, only found this (but then I suppose you will say, with some justification, that Workers Power is also an "ultra-bizarro" group):

To be a party member there are three requirements, as the Bolsheviks insisted: agreement with the party programme, the party statutes and its general line; disciplined activity in a branch or cell; payment of a regular sum to the party treasury. There should be a period prior to full membership of training, education and selection. Comrades who wish to join the party should usually pass through periods as a supporter and as a candidate member (with all rights except the right to a decisive vote).

And this from here, about the IMG in the 1980s:

the candidate system operated for a purpose, which was to determine an applicant’s degree of political commitment and suitability for membership of a revolutionary organisation.
To become a candidate member was in itself a conscious decision, and the term had specific meaning. To use the phrase we used at the time, candidate membership conferred ‘all of the duties but none of the rights’ enjoyed by full members.
Yes, you had to sell the paper. Yes, you had to pay a fair chunk of your income in dues. And yes, you had to go to endless bloody meetings, even though you got only an indicative vote.

But this about the SWP:

The SWP is extremely easy to join. Many people who join do not stay long, but the party considers that this is the best way to test people's interest and determination, rather than going through an initial period of 'candidate membership', involving education and induction, as other revolutionary groups have been known to set up (for example Lutte Ouvrière in France).

So, from what you say, I assume that SPEW follows the SWP example and doesn't have "candidate members". In which I have to withdraw my comment.

 

[dannysp]

But the actual act of rising up Danny - it makes no odds what the underpinning ideology is. There have been plenty of revolutions by the majority against the minority - mostly very bloody too.

The majority led by a minority, is that what you have in mind PT?

So what if the workers as a majority refused to confront the armed might of the state, carried on doing all the essential work producing and distributing the means of life, but again refused to do any work involving finance or armaments, what would the state do then?

I can't help inferring from your tone on this subject, that it's not so much capitalism you despise, but the capitalist class.

 

[Gravediggers]

Pure utopianism.

GD - what would you do if there was a socialist revolution in only one global region? What would you advocate, given the abolition of money, wages and state would be equivalent to writing your own suicide note?

Your response suggests that you do envisage the uneven development of socialism. Could you give your reasons?

If the socialist revolution were to take off in the western industrial countries there is every reason to expect that the rest of the globe would soon follow suit.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Not having much success in finding evidence on the internet that all Trotskyist organisations impose a period of candidate membership on applicants to join. So far, only found this (but then I suppose you will say, with some justification, that Workers Power is also an "ultra-bizarro" group):
And this from here, about the IMG in the 1980s:
But this about the SWP:
So, from what you say, I assume that SPEW follows the SWP example and doesn't have "candidate members". In which I have to withdraw my comment.

Not sure whether SP 'followed the SWP example' but you are right that you are wrong.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Your response suggests that you do envisage the uneven development of socialism. Could you give your reasons?

If the socialist revolution were to take off in the western industrial countries there is every reason to expect that the rest of the globe would soon follow suit.

This is like Paxman. Will you answer the question, GD? All I read are fantasies about some gentle transition.