SPGB

[Louis MacNeice]

Some SPGB certainties: bloodless revolutions, the end of domestic violence, the even development of socialism.

...a man who applies the measure of genuine, immutable, final and ultimate truth to knowledge which, by its very nature, must either remain relative for many generations and be completed only step by step, or which, as in cosmogony, geology and the history of mankind, must always contain gaps and be incomplete because of the inadequacy of the historical material — such a man only proves thereby his own ignorance and perversity...​

Unless of course the SPGB is claiming to have filled in the gaps?

Louis MacNeice

p.s. the quote doesn't clinch the argument (quotes don't do that), it is however a relevant, informed and interesting point of view.

 

[two sheds]

It doesn't have to mention a means of exchange for there wont be a means of exchange in a socialist society. With free access to the means of living and production for use what is the point of having a means of exchange?

Yes but that is again just your group's definition of socialism. You're demanding that people agree with your definition of socialism and then criticising them for not being being socialist when they don't agree.

Much the same if I used the word "suggests". No problem.

Nope, fraid not. 'Begging the question' is a specific phrase meaning to assume in the original statement what you are actually trying to prove. With the meaning 'suggests the question' then your statement is actually a dishonest argument: You said:

"is it at all possible for the working class to exploit itself? No, so why bother to try?"

Money does not itself mean exploitation - it's only when one side enforces an unfair contract, and you don't need money for that to happen. Quoting Marx at me isn't actually going to help because I don't accept the prophet Marx apart from things like I wouldn't want to join any group that would have me as a member.

The money form is the instrument and means of exploitation that is its only function. ... Yet when Stalin died they found his desk drawers were full of unopened wage packets.

Exploitation is the only function of money? That's bullshit, sorry. It is a means of exchange, as I say it's the enforcement of an unfair or one-sided contract that is the exploitation, and that doesn't need money.

And having desk drawers full of unopened wage packets is hardly the worst thing Stalin ever did and doesn't forward your argument at all. He could have worn pink underwear it wouldn't make me think any worse of him.

When capitalism eventually goes everything that goes with it must also go and not just money.

Yes that's where we part company then. I'd like to see a fair society in which everyone was as happy and fulfilled as possible given their own circumstances. That would mean looking at research which pointed to the most favourable conditions for that to happen. That may or may not involve the complete destruction of capitalism. You just want to tear the system down and replace it with something that hasn't be tested because that's your dogma and you think you know best.

Two sheds Sorry but this is a bit clueless. Do a bit of research and I think you will find that the SPGB position is quite the opposite to what you imagine it to be.

Well that's what I'm picking up from this thread - the SPGB will have no part of improving conditions for people under the present system - so it's just 'jam tomorrow'. You have a touching faith that the workers will rise up and the capitalists with all their weapons and money and power will hold up their hands and say 'fair enough guv take everything i have it's a fair cop'. It's ludicrous, and no amount of Gravediggers' saying 'there is every reason to expect' that this will happen will make it happen.

If workers listen to you lot they'll have suffered unaided under full blown capitalism until they try to rise up and then they will most likely just be wiped out.

 

[Captain Hurrah]

He could have worn pink underwear it wouldn't make me think any worse of him.

I think it was one of his police chiefs, Genrikh Yagoda, who was into collecting women's undies.

 

[dannysp]

Now that's what I'd *call*pulling the wool over the eyes of workers with opportunist peddling. You're willing to play with their lives just because you're convinced that there won't be a fight back by nasty capitalists who have all the money and all the power and all the weapons (by definition, since the SPGB is against taking any of that away from them). That seems breathtaking arrogance, really.[/QUOTE]

All the capitalists have is money. The workers have all the power, all the weapons. You won't find any capitalists on the front line in warfare, only workers in uniform.

So what happens then if an organisation in the future like SPEW looks likely to win power?

 

[two sheds]

All the capitalists have is money. The workers have all the power, all the weapons. You won't find any capitalists on the front line in warfare, only workers in uniform.

That's a bit fucking naive - it's the people at the top who give the orders. Soldiers carry them out or - in times of national emergency like we're talking about here - get shot for disobeying orders.

So what happens then if an organisation in the future like SPEW looks likely to win power?

Pretty much the same as if you looked likely to win power, I'd say, although I'm not sure why you're asking me the question.

 

[JWH]

I think it was one of his police chiefs, Genrikh Yagoda, who was into collecting women's undies.

Was it Yagoda or Yezhov that was a paedophile? Wikipedia doesn't mention either but it seems to be Yezhov that's more associated with sexual deviance.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Found something about this on their site here. It's a long passage from Lenin's State and Revolution in which he first introduced his false distinction (now Leninist dogma) between "socialism" and "communism", where socialism is state capitalism (where, as he puts it, "All citizens are transformed into hired employees of the state") and where communism is the stateless, moneyless, wageless commonwealth that till then had been called "socialism" or "communism" interchangeably.

Incidentally, reading through the theoretical part of their stuff makes it quite clear that they are dyed-in-the-wool Bolshevik-Leninists not Marxists. They even think that Russia under Stalin because it had a "planned economy" was better than capitalism elsewhere including Sweden (so now we know their answer to the question: would you prefer to live in totalitarian Russia or democratic Sweden?).

According to Lenin, Trotsky and Trotskyists, money, wages, the state, etc must exist for a long time after the vanguard party seizes power, in a so-called "transitional society" called "socialism", and would only disappear in the dim and distant future in "communism".

But why do we have to pass through the purgatory of state capitalism (mislabelled "socialism") to get to socialism/communism?

What do you make of The Critique of the Gotha Programme, with regard to the way it distinguishes between different phases in the development of communism?

Louis MacNeice

 

[Proper Tidy]

Er..look again. In the "what we stand for" link you clearly talk about taxing the rich and raising the minium wage to £8. Now how is this compatible with advocating the abolition of wage labour and money, eh? Where have you explicitly argued for the latter. Where? where? where? You said your organisation has said frequently it wants a moneyless wageless stateless commonwealth. I want direct evidence of this, not weasel words

Oh and dont tell me yet again that it is evident from the fact that you want a society not run for the profit of a few. My retort is that you evidently dont understand what you are talking about in arguing for such a society since you fail to connect it with the idea that such a society must be a society in which there is no longer any wage labour or money. You dont make this connection (and indeed to the contrary argue for the retention of wage labour and money in the form of a minmimum wage etc) which means that in effect that, for all your talk about a society not run for profit of a few, this is about as revolutionary as the programme of the young liberals. In other words it means bugger all. Its mere tokenism. Nice sounding fluffy words to hide a basically opportunist reformist programme of state capitalism

Robbo - read the quote I provided, not the link from a hundred odd posts back. Remember the clue. Good luck with your voyage.

 

[Gravediggers]

Yes but that is again just your group's definition of socialism. You're demanding that people agree with your definition of socialism and then criticising them for not being being socialist when they don't agree.

Nope, fraid not. 'Begging the question' is a specific phrase meaning to assume in the original statement what you are actually trying to prove. With the meaning 'suggests the question' then your statement is actually a dishonest argument: You said:

"is it at all possible for the working class to exploit itself? No, so why bother to try?"

Money does not itself mean exploitation - it's only when one side enforces an unfair contract, and you don't need money for that to happen. Quoting Marx at me isn't actually going to help because I don't accept the prophet Marx apart from things like I wouldn't want to join any group that would have me as a member.

Exploitation is the only function of money? That's bullshit, sorry. It is a means of exchange, as I say it's the enforcement of an unfair or one-sided contract that is the exploitation, and that doesn't need money.

And having desk drawers full of unopened wage packets is hardly the worst thing Stalin ever did and doesn't forward your argument at all. He could have worn pink underwear it wouldn't make me think any worse of him.



Yes that's where we part company then. I'd like to see a fair society in which everyone was as happy and fulfilled as possible given their own circumstances. That would mean looking at research which pointed to the most favourable conditions for that to happen. That may or may not involve the complete destruction of capitalism. You just want to tear the system down and replace it with something that hasn't be tested because that's your dogma and you think you know best.




Well that's what I'm picking up from this thread - the SPGB will have no part of improving conditions for people under the present system - so it's just 'jam tomorrow'. You have a touching faith that the workers will rise up and the capitalists with all their weapons and money and power will hold up their hands and say 'fair enough guv take everything i have it's a fair cop'. It's ludicrous, and no amount of Gravediggers' saying 'there is every reason to expect' that this will happen will make it happen.

If workers listen to you lot they'll have suffered unaided under full blown capitalism until they try to rise up and then they will most likely just be wiped out.

It appears from what you are arguing for is the old fanny of, 'a fair days pay for a fair days work' is applicable and possible in a socialist society but not in a capitalist society?

 

[FreddyB]

Has anyone got a link pointing to something that the SPGB are doing in the here and now?

 

[Proper Tidy]

Some SPGB certainties: bloodless revolutions, the end of domestic violence, the even development of socialism.

...a man who applies the measure of genuine, immutable, final and ultimate truth to knowledge which, by its very nature, must either remain relative for many generations and be completed only step by step, or which, as in cosmogony, geology and the history of mankind, must always contain gaps and be incomplete because of the inadequacy of the historical material — such a man only proves thereby his own ignorance and perversity...​

Unless of course the SPGB is claiming to have filled in the gaps?

Louis MacNeice

p.s. the quote doesn't clinch the argument (quotes don't do that), it is however a relevant, informed and interesting point of view.

Bob on. The absolute conviction that the future will be mapped out along the exact path the SPGB forecast is more like the rapture than socialism.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Has anyone got a link pointing to something that the SPGB are doing in the here and now?

They are currently propagandising the cause of Authentic Socialism (TM) on a forum comprised of heathens called urban75.

 

[two sheds]

It appears from what you are arguing for is the old fanny of, 'a fair days pay for a fair days work' is applicable and possible in a socialist society but not in a capitalist society?

Yep good old fanny. I think it's possible both in socialist and capitalist societies, it depends on the people who set up the contract.

 

[two sheds]

Has anyone got a link pointing to something that the SPGB are doing in the here and now?

We certainly do: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10568753&postcount=188

"In the last ten years we've published the Socialist Standard on a monthly basis, besides publishing pamphlets on climate change, religion, genetics and human behaviour, parliamentarism (to name but a few), held numerous meetings and debates, attended demonstrations, distributed thousands of leaflets, made a DVD, contested elections, letters to the press, attended meetings held by our opponents, set up blogs and forums on the internet and made ourselves known on threads like this, made contact with the Zeitgeist Movement, etc. Given our limited resources we do what we can when we can.

What we have done to help people globally is to explain a basic fact of life i.e. capitalism does not work in the interest of the majority. On a local level socialist are involved in all manner of community affairs on a voluntary basis providing advice on numerous subjects from school boards to benefit advice.

So, 'bugger all' i think would cover what the SPGB does

 

[Proper Tidy]

Incidentally, reading through the theoretical part of their stuff makes it quite clear that they are dyed-in-the-wool Bolshevik-Leninists not Marxists. They even think that Russia under Stalin because it had a "planned economy" was better than capitalism elsewhere including Sweden (so now we know their answer to the question: would you prefer to live in totalitarian Russia or democratic Sweden?)

Where do we say the USSR was 'better' than Sweden? Are we crypto-stalinists now?

You do like to take a very black and white view, JL, but credit some of us with a bit more, err, nuance. This state good, this state bad is a pretty stupid way of looking at things. We recognise that the USSR had a planned economy, albeit lacking the democratic structures we would advocate. We do not subscribe to the idea of 'state-capitalism'. Neither does our recognition of the USSR's planned economy suggest avocation of the authoritarian, brutal, anti-democratic and bureaucratic nature of Stalinism. This isn't to say that country a was 'better' than country b, nor that we would regard Stalinist states as socialist.

For the record, I'd have preferred to have lived in Sweden. I can't speak for anybody else - although I could make an educated guess - as we don't have a policy on where we would hypothetically liked to have lived in the past. Sorry about that.

 

[Gravediggers]

Yep good old fanny. I think it's possible both in socialist and capitalist societies, it depends on the people who set up the contract.

OK at last we can agree on what you think is possible in both capitalism and socialism. i.e. 'a fair days work for a fair days pay'. That being the case the onus is on you to explain how this can be achieved through the enforcement of a "fair contract for the sale of labour power". Away you go then for I look forward to your comments on this subject with interest.

 

[FreddyB]

We certainly do: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10568753&postcount=188

So, 'bugger all' i think would cover what the SPGB does

Bugger all is a bit harsh. Talking about the SPGB is what the SPGB does. We're lucky to have em

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Has anyone got a link pointing to something that the SPGB are doing in the here and now?

Well GD and Danny are trying to get their story straight on what causes domestic violence. Danny prefers the simplistic it's all down to poverty line, while GD, in a rare show of insight, seems to think there may be other factors to be taken into account.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Gravediggers]

We certainly do: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10568753&postcount=188

So, 'bugger all' i think would cover what the SPGB does

A bland dismissal like this suggests the only political activity you recognise as positive is that which makes a determined effort to convince the workers a period of state capitalism is in their long term interests for the benefits of democracy under a dictatorship are all too apparent in gaining a class consciousness.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

A bland dismissal like this suggests the only political activity you recognise as positive is that which makes a determined effort to convince the workers a period of state capitalism is in their long term interests for the benefits of democracy under a dictatorship are all too apparent in gaining a class consciousness.

No, it suggest that you do very very little.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Gravediggers]

Bugger all is a bit harsh. Talking about the SPGB is what the SPGB does. We're lucky to have em

What gives you the impression that all the SPGB do is talk about its self? If you seriously think that is the case you obviously have just skimmed through the posts on this thread for your only interest is to remain non-constructive and non-committed to the issues and problems which concern our class.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

What gives you the impression that all the SPGB do is talk about its self? If you seriously think that is the case you obviously have just skimmed through the posts on this thread for your only interest is to remain non-constructive and non-committed to the issues and problems which concern our class.

What like some or all of the causes of domestic violence? Come on GD stop running away; or is it taking this long to trawl back through all those copies of Socialist Standard to find a relevant sermon?

Louis MacNeice

 

[FreddyB]

What gives you the impression that all the SPGB do is talk about its self? If you seriously think that is the case you obviously have just skimmed through the posts on this thread for your only interest is to remain non-constructive and non-committed to the issues and problems which concern our class.

So what do you do? Give me a link to some SPGB activity.

 

[Jean-Luc]

What do you make of The Critique of the Gotha Programme, with regard to the way it distinguishes between different phases in the development of communism?

Might have made some sort of sense in 1875 but we're now living in 2010 -- what? 135 years or 4 or 5 generations later. In the meantime there's been electricity, the internal combustion engine, radio, plastics, electronics, etc, etc etc. In Marx's day transport was by steam train or horse carriage and there was only gas or whale oil lighting! So I can't see the first phase of "communist society", ie of socialism, needing to last very long.

Anyway, it was the first phase of socialist/communist society, ie the same sort of society as would exist in the higher phase, ie a classless, stateless society in which there'd be no need for money, wages, banks, etc. as there'd be production directly for use not sale and profit, the only difference between the two phases being that in the first the full application of the principle "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" would not be possible.

I would have thought, given the enormous development of the productive forces since 1875, being able to implement this principle shouldn't take long once the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production had been established. What do you think?

 

[fractionMan]

What the world needs is more pamphlets.

Good work boys!

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Might have made some sort of sense in 1875 but we're now living in 2010 -- what? 135 years or 4 or 5 generations later. In the meantime there's been electricity, the internal combustion engine, radio, plastics, electronics, etc, etc etc. In Marx's day transport was by steam train or horse carriage and there was only gas or whale oil lighting! So I can't see the first phase of "communist society", ie of socialism, needing to last very long.

Anyway, it was the first phase of socialist/communist society, ie the same sort of society as would exist in the higher phase, ie a classless, stateless society in which there'd be no need for money, wages, banks, etc. as there'd be production directly for use not sale and profit, the only difference between the two phases being that in the first the full application of the principle "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" would not be possible.

I would have thought, given the enormous development of the productive forces since 1875, being able to implement this principle shouldn't take long once the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production had been established. What do you think?

I like the irony of someone who stalwartly defends a 1904 constitution, dismissing something written only three decades earlier as being outdated. You're also missing a big component of what Marx thought would have to be overcome. Go back and have another look.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Might have made some sort of sense in 1875 but we're now living in 2010 -- what? 135 years or 4 or 5 generations later. In the meantime there's been electricity, the internal combustion engine, radio, plastics, electronics, etc, etc etc. In Marx's day transport was by steam train or horse carriage and there was only gas or whale oil lighting! So I can't see the first phase of "communist society", ie of socialism, needing to last very long.

Anyway, it was the first phase of socialist/communist society, ie the same sort of society as would exist in the higher phase, ie a classless, stateless society in which there'd be no need for money, wages, banks, etc. as there'd be production directly for use not sale and profit, the only difference between the two phases being that in the first the full application of the principle "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" would not be possible.

I would have thought, given the enormous development of the productive forces since 1875, being able to implement this principle shouldn't take long once the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production had been established. What do you think?

Not according to Marx; production would be liable to taxation and exchange:

He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost.​

Louis MacNeice

 

[two sheds]

Not according to Marx; production would be liable to taxation and exchange:

He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost.​

Louis MacNeice

Oooo - 'money' as it might be called.

It's also getting clearer that the SPGB just wants to make a leap of faith into the dark by sweeping aside everything we've got and replacing it by something unknown and untested. They're just like all the other political parties but worse. No hint of an evidence based approach.

If you want to 'improve a system' you look where you are now, look where you want to go, and make the minimum changes that get you from here to there. But that'd be too 'transitional' i suppose, far better to just close your eyes and jump.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Oooo - 'money' as it might be called.

It's also getting clearer that the SPGB just wants to make a leap of faith into the dark by sweeping aside everything we've got and replacing it by something unknown and untested. They're just like all the other political parties but worse. No hint of an evidence based approach.

If you want to 'improve a system' you look where you are now, look where you want to go, and make the minimum changes that get you from here to there. But that'd be too 'transitional' i suppose, far better to just close your eyes and jump.

I don't even think it is that deep. They just like to talk about their happy place. They could be forecasting a future with chocolate waterfalls and cognac moats for all it matters.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Might have made some sort of sense in 1875 but we're now living in 2010 -- what? 135 years or 4 or 5 generations later. In the meantime there's been electricity, the internal combustion engine, radio, plastics, electronics, etc, etc etc. In Marx's day transport was by steam train or horse carriage and there was only gas or whale oil lighting! So I can't see the first phase of "communist society", ie of socialism, needing to last very long.

Anyway, it was the first phase of socialist/communist society, ie the same sort of society as would exist in the higher phase, ie a classless, stateless society in which there'd be no need for money, wages, banks, etc. as there'd be production directly for use not sale and profit, the only difference between the two phases being that in the first the full application of the principle "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" would not be possible.

I would have thought, given the enormous development of the productive forces since 1875, being able to implement this principle shouldn't take long once the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production had been established. What do you think?

Who measures the labour, issues and collects the certificates, deducts the 'taxes' and administers the distribution of resources in exchange for the certificates?

Louis MacNeice