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.
You are going over old ground here. You know the SPGB make a clear distinction between the struggle for reforms and the struggle for revolution. How is our time and effort wasted by making this distinction? You have consistently tried to make the case that for you there is no dividing line between the two, when clearly there have been numerous contributions on this thread and others which say otherwise.
In this attempt to converge the two very different concepts you have constantly ignored the lessons of history and the evidence by Marx and Engles viz the 1872 preface of the CM, plus the history of the Social Democratic movement. Its old hat, its been tried over and over again and failed. So of course if you continue to ignore what went before and despite the evidence to the contrary you are indeed wasting your time and effort besides being dogmatic.
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.
We do not abstain from the political process apart from election politics. We have debated with all and sundry. And we are always willing to debate with any political organisation or party. We have also held forums with those organisations who seek a moneyless, free access, common ownership, production for use society despite the fact our respective ideas on how to attain it are at odds. We attend demonstrations and our opponents meetings to state our case. What more do you want and more to the point what more is available?
I have pointed out the distinction, on another thread, between the political system and the political process. It appears you see them one and the same when in actual fact they are not. We won't touch the political system with a barge pole whereas your support for reforms and transitional demands clearly do mean getting your hands dirty.
By the SPGB abstaining from the political system this provides the workers with a valid alternative to capitalism. And yes if we failed to provide this alternative the workers would be stuck in the crevasse of reformist measures rather than the rut of not understanding the full implications of democracy. Possibly it could be argued that support for reforms had served a useful purpose, the struggle for democracy, and TU recognition, for instance.
Your case rests on the assumption that by supporting reforms there is still some life in the old dog(ma) yet. We argue the converse and explain that with the battle for democracy being won, we have now reached the stage where it is a struggle for ideas.
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.
We are obligated to participate in the political process, and in this respect all socialist delegates will be mandated to rigorously pursue working class interests. To do otherwise would mean participation in the political system. To clarify still further, and as I explained earlier, the socialist delegates will be rebels, but they will also be rebels by the non-participation in representative democracy and exercising participatory democracy. This will indeed upset the apple cart but in the battle for ideas socialist ideas must be put to the test in practical terms.
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?
What I've said in the previous paragraph provides every reason why the workers should vote for socialism. In fighting for working class interests of course s/he will have the support of the Socialist Party, and of socialists.
