SPGB

[1%er]

I happen to think the two positions are, to a large extent, complementary. I don't think it's necessary to be one or the other. It's a shame there isn't more unity among socialists/the Left. That would worry people like me more than this endless bickering over details.

This thread is a classic example of what is wrong with Class/Socialist/libertarian politics in the UK and elsewhere.

You guys would agree on 90% of things and the 10% where you'd disagree, doesn't and will not have an answer until the workingclass have started to take power and ask the questions for themselves.

No one has all the answers because no one has asked all the question yet, I believe the workingclass will ask the question at some point, but not in my lifetime.

 

[dannysp]

May I offer my general view on this thread and the opposing arguments? My perspective on all this is from the point of view of a capitalist. I am a business owner. I employ people. So, why am I interested in socialism?

Well, my background is working class, and I was exposed to left-wing ideas and trade unionism in my formative years. So, I am a broad sympathiser with the socialist movement - admittedly, perhaps for emotional reasons partly, but I think mainly it's a rational position. Capitalism was once a progressive system, but it is now looking increasingly outdated and does not appear to provide a mechanism for resolving some of the most pressing issues facing us - such as mass starvation, possible nuclear annihilation and environmental sustainability. I was looking for some discussion and I happened on this thread. Coincidences happen.

If my employees started asking me for higher wages and threatened to go on strike, I would be worried. But I would only be worried within the framework of capitalism, if that makes any sense, within the context of the social relationship of employer and employee. OK, if I can't afford to pay higher wages, I just find new employees.

But if my employees started campaigning for, not higher wages, but the abolition of the wages system...well....It seems to me that the SPGB are a vanguard, but only a vanguard of the truth. The problem the SPGB has - and I see this was mentioned earlier in the thread by TomR77 - is that in telling the truth, they are telling people something they do not wish to hear. That partly explains their lack of success in generating a significantly larger membership.

However, I can see Proper Tidy's point, and I think perhaps GD and Robbo and other SPGB'ers need to pay more heed to it. What Proper Tidy is saying is that by campaigning for both achievable improvements and reforms, and for 'transitional demands' which would weaken capitalism, this would demonstrate to workers their potential as a cohesive group and gradually encourage the development of their consciousness as a class and understanding of the socialist case. This makes sense, perhaps more sense than simply believing you can persuade people of an abstract case.

But, the problem with Proper Tidy's position remains this. The strategy he outlines has been tried before. OK, not in the same way, but in a similar enough way to raise legitimate scepticism. By campaigning within capitalism, you risk becoming a radical capitalist movement rather than a socialist movement.

So, who do I side with? I happen to think the two positions are, to a large extent, complementary. I don't think it's necessary to be one or the other. It's a shame there isn't more unity among socialists/the Left. That would worry people like me more than this endless bickering over details.

Hi Tim
Your right the SPGB like Marx is telling a truth that very few people wish to hear, what's pointed out to workers is that they are a servant class, there purpose is to live primarily for the benefit of their masters, they are therefore not an end in themselves but a means to an end.

To compensate for their humbled position and lack of accurate self estimate, ego the substitute for esteem the symptom of the alienated self develops. So when a worker is told that they are being taken for a chump it dents and takes the shine of their character armour and is painful, life for workers is painful enough so the shutters are pulled to. If there were more of us we'd have more strength to prise the shutters open and let in some more light.

You seem to be suggesting we dilute, adulterate this truth you say we have with us, that's advice we can't take no matter how well meant. We have come to understand that there's beauty in truth and it's the only thing that'lll set us free.
As George Orwell Wrote "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act"

 

[dannysp]

This thread is a classic example of what is wrong with Class/Socialist/libertarian politics in the UK and elsewhere.

You guys would agree on 90% of things and the 10% where you'd disagree, doesn't and will not have an answer until the workingclass have started to take power and ask the questions for themselves.

No one has all the answers because no one has asked all the question yet, I believe the workingclass will ask the question at some point, but not in my lifetime.

Here's a good question: why are the poor poor?
Another one similar: why are the rich rich?

The answers are out there somewhere.

 

[Gravediggers]

=Tim19;10717649]But if my employees started campaigning for, not higher wages, but the abolition of the wages system...well....It seems to me that the SPGB are a vanguard, but only a vanguard of the truth. The problem the SPGB has - and I see this was mentioned earlier in the thread by TomR77 - is that in telling the truth, they are telling people something they do not wish to hear. That partly explains their lack of success in generating a significantly larger membership.

OK if we did not tell the truth we would not be the SPGB. But ask yourself this: If the SPGB "are telling people something they do not wish to hear" what does that say of their state of mind? Are they: in denial; afraid of the unknown consequences, albeit to themselves; support the idea but unwilling to act in a practical way/sense; stuck within the capitalist mindset and adopted a slave mentality; afraid of being honest with themselves; have no sense of trust or responsibility in their fellow workers; do not want to appear a dimwit in political discourse? Need I go on?

We know what we are up against in the subjective sense and also psychologically and we can work on this when workers come forward with their support by encouraging them to start thinking for themselves and by asking them for their own ideas on socialism, or what have been their experiences under capitalism and what they think is the solution. Indeed we can and do engage on many levels in this respect. Nevertheless, our main message is aimed at the working class as a whole in the hope it will trigger a sense of class understanding and identity. We have no choice on this matter in that we have to issue a general appeal which affects our class. It is up to the individual to recognise where the convergence occurs.

However, I can see Proper Tidy's point, and I think perhaps GD and Robbo and other SPGB'ers need to pay more heed to it. What Proper Tidy is saying is that by campaigning for both achievable improvements and reforms, and for 'transitional demands' which would weaken capitalism, this would demonstrate to workers their potential as a cohesive group and gradually encourage the development of their consciousness as a class and understanding of the socialist case. This makes sense, perhaps more sense than simply believing you can persuade people of an abstract case.

But, the problem with Proper Tidy's position remains this. The strategy he outlines has been tried before. OK, not in the same way, but in a similar enough way to raise legitimate scepticism. By campaigning within capitalism, you risk becoming a radical capitalist movement rather than a socialist movement.

And that is exactly what happens in that the gradualists become caught in the trap of reformism, what I term the magic roundabout of capitalism. It just don't work because revolution is put on the backburner for the day after next. Its a myth that the workers will gradually gain class consciousness by becoming involved in reforms, the only consciousness they do gain is it is all a waste of time and effort. And when there is no light at the end of the tunnel in the practical shape of a revolutionary alternative their class consciousness remains zero. And when that happens the usual response is to stay away from politics full stop and to reject the alternative has old hat, or utopian, day dreaming, etc. Bit once, twice shy as the saying goes.

So, who do I side with? I happen to think the two positions are, to a large extent, complementary. I don't think it's necessary to be one or the other. It's a shame there isn't more unity among socialists/the Left. That would worry people like me more than this endless bickering over details.

[/QUOTE]

They are not complementary indeed they are diametrically opposed positions in that one supports capitalism and the other socialism. But the implication in the use of the word "worry" suggests you fear socialism - whichever way it comes about - is it because you are a capitalist and think you will have no other role to play in the new set of social relationships? Or is it because you think the workers are incapable of running things for themselves?

We would like to know because every time we have posed this question to members of the capitalist class they have always responded from within the capitalist mindset or framework. Are you going to be any different?

 

[robbo203]

However, I can see Proper Tidy's point, and I think perhaps GD and Robbo and other SPGB'ers need to pay more heed to it. What Proper Tidy is saying is that by campaigning for both achievable improvements and reforms, and for 'transitional demands' which would weaken capitalism, this would demonstrate to workers their potential as a cohesive group and gradually encourage the development of their consciousness as a class and understanding of the socialist case. This makes sense, perhaps more sense than simply believing you can persuade people of an abstract case.

Tim

Thank you for setting out your perspective. Its nice to see a critique that is not intemperate or snidey or resorting to dreary ad hominens. A refreshing change!

I take your point the need to move away from a reliance on simply presenting an abstract case for socialism. This is one of the few criticisms I have of the SPGB. Not that I think the job they are doing is not an important one. It is. There is no way round the fact that if you want a socialist society then the mass of the population have to want it and understand it as well. That means talking about it and arguing for it. Frankly, just about the only political party that is doing this is the SPGB (though obviously there are some - mainly anarchist - groups that are doing this as well).

Most of the left say nothing about socialism at all. I asked PT for any reference in the literature of his organisation - SPEW - to the idea that socialism would be a moneyless wageless system of society. He couldnt provide it and Im not surprised. Instead they call for things like the nationalisation of parts of industry which they would have us believe is what socialism is about. Its not. At most, socialism (by which I mean the genuine thing) is a distant goal which does not need to be discussed among the Left but only paid lip service to. This is a certain recipe for ensuring its perpetual postponement to some distant future.

However I dont agree with your argument that campaigning for reforms and transitional demands would help to raise the consciousness of workers. I think the opposite is the case. Necessarily , it entails shelving the goal of socialism in the meantime. Necesarily it binds the workers more firmly to a capitalist political persective. Necessarily , it will lead to disappointment and a disabling sense of disllisionment with politics. Because at the end of the day capitalism cannot be run in the interest of workers and the attempt to do this is bound to end in failure

PTs argument is that transitional demands, becuase they are inherently unachievable within capitalism, will somehow cause workers in some mysterious way to transcend the limitations of a capitalist outlook and seek the realisation of these demands outside of capitalism. But this presupposes the very thing that PT is trying to avoid - that we put across directly the clear case for a non-market alternative to capitalism, SPGB-style. In other words, transitional demands are supposed to lead on to a socialist outlook but for the theory to work at a conceptual level there has to be a socialist outlook in place to begin with in order to understand why these transitional demands are not achievable within capitalism! Otherwise, you will just be banging your head against a brick , trying to achieve what is unachievable, and that is certainly not conducive to raising consciousness!

As I see it, if you want to build a cohesive class conscious outlook then you need to turn to the economic field to do this - through militant trade uniuon struggle. In the political field the SPGB is right to emphasise the need to avoid reformism. This is a treadmill that is really not going to take us anywhere except cynicism and despair.

But militant trade union struggle - and many SPGBers have been militant trade unioniists - does not in itself imply a socialist objective. As I explained before, trade unionism is not a goal-directed activity but a process-directed activity. For a goal-directed activity we have to turn to the political field in which the SPGB put forward the case for a genuine non market alternative to capitalism,.

The problem is, as you say ,that merely putting forward an abstract case for socialism, rational though it may be, is not sufficiently persuasive in motivating workers to establish a socialist society. This is where another approach becomes necessary which avoids the pitfalls of reformism and transitional demands - namely the development of grassroots initiatives that actively seek to transcend the commodity relationship while addressing the material and social needs of workers in capitalism. This is what I call providing a material stratum or seedbed in which socialist ideas can take root - not simply putting these ideas across in the abstract necessary though it is to do that.

I am convinced that this is the way forward and that the SPGB needs to open itself up to this possibility. I am not suggesting that it modifies its function in any way. It is a political party and its purpose, quite rightly, is to disseminate ideas. What I am talking about is the ideas themselves including what we ought to be doing as individuals - not simply as party members -to expedite the cause for socialism

 

[The39thStep]

May I offer my general view on this thread and the opposing arguments? My perspective on all this is from the point of view of a capitalist. I am a business owner. I employ people. So, why am I interested in socialism?

Well, my background is working class, and I was exposed to left-wing ideas and trade unionism in my formative years. So, I am a broad sympathiser with the socialist movement - admittedly, perhaps for emotional reasons partly, but I think mainly it's a rational position. Capitalism was once a progressive system, but it is now looking increasingly outdated and does not appear to provide a mechanism for resolving some of the most pressing issues facing us - such as mass starvation, possible nuclear annihilation and environmental sustainability. I was looking for some discussion and I happened on this thread. Coincidences happen.

If my employees started asking me for higher wages and threatened to go on strike, I would be worried. But I would only be worried within the framework of capitalism, if that makes any sense, within the context of the social relationship of employer and employee. OK, if I can't afford to pay higher wages, I just find new employees.

But if my employees started campaigning for, not higher wages, but the abolition of the wages system...well....It seems to me that the SPGB are a vanguard, but only a vanguard of the truth. The problem the SPGB has - and I see this was mentioned earlier in the thread by TomR77 - is that in telling the truth, they are telling people something they do not wish to hear. That partly explains their lack of success in generating a significantly larger membership.

However, I can see Proper Tidy's point, and I think perhaps GD and Robbo and other SPGB'ers need to pay more heed to it. What Proper Tidy is saying is that by campaigning for both achievable improvements and reforms, and for 'transitional demands' which would weaken capitalism, this would demonstrate to workers their potential as a cohesive group and gradually encourage the development of their consciousness as a class and understanding of the socialist case. This makes sense, perhaps more sense than simply believing you can persuade people of an abstract case.

But, the problem with Proper Tidy's position remains this. The strategy he outlines has been tried before. OK, not in the same way, but in a similar enough way to raise legitimate scepticism. By campaigning within capitalism, you risk becoming a radical capitalist movement rather than a socialist movement.

So, who do I side with? I happen to think the two positions are, to a large extent, complementary. I don't think it's necessary to be one or the other. It's a shame there isn't more unity among socialists/the Left. That would worry people like me more than this endless bickering over details.

Stop me if you have heard this one

 

[Proper Tidy]

So, who do I side with? I happen to think the two positions are, to a large extent, complementary. I don't think it's necessary to be one or the other. It's a shame there isn't more unity among socialists/the Left. That would worry people like me more than this endless bickering over details.

Left unity would be somewhat tricky with an organisation that is implacably hostile to all 'competition', alas.

that is exactly what happens in that the gradualists become caught in the trap of reformism, what I term the magic roundabout of capitalism. It just don't work because revolution is put on the backburner for the day after next. Its a myth that the workers will gradually gain class consciousness by becoming involved in reforms, the only consciousness they do gain is it is all a waste of time and effort

The same assertion yet again from yourself and Robbo - but that is all it is, an assertion. You will no doubt now assert that it isn't in fact an assertion because we 'don't have socialism'. It's all a bit 'prove god doesn't exist' isn't it.

To deny the clear reality that struggles and victories accelerates the class and revolutionary awareness of participants and can act as a catalyst for change beggars belief.

 

[Random]

fifty two pages. Shame on you all

 

[FreddyB]

fifty two pages. Shame on you all

Shame? This is an epicly entertaining thread.

 

[dennisr]

fifty two pages. Shame on you all

 

[FreddyB]

And that is exactly what happens in that the gradualists become caught in the trap of reformism, what I term the magic roundabout of capitalism. It just don't work because revolution is put on the backburner for the day after next. Its a myth that the workers will gradually gain class consciousness by becoming involved in reforms, the only consciousness they do gain is it is all a waste of time and effort. And when there is no light at the end of the tunnel in the practical shape of a revolutionary alternative their class consciousness remains zero. And when that happens the usual response is to stay away from politics full stop and to reject the alternative has old hat, or utopian, day dreaming, etc. Bit once, twice shy as the saying goes.

What is this "class consciousness" you speak of?

 

[1%er]

Here's a good question: why are the poor poor?
Another one similar: why are the rich rich?

The answers are out there somewhere.

I think maybe you have misunderstood my post

Shame? This is an epicly entertaining thread.

Indeed it is, but I also find it sad as well

 

[Gravediggers]

What is this "class consciousness" you speak of?

When socialist talk of "class consciousness" they specifically mean a working class consciousness that recognises their subservient role within the capitalist mode of production and how this came about. It follows, a prerequisite is a general understanding on how exploitation takes place to extract surplus value from the workers and create profit, rent and interest for the capitalist class. This does not mean you have to attend study groups on the reading of Marx for in its essence the formula for exploitation can be explained by an examination of the wages system itself.

Broadly speaking the workers produce more than enough to live within a set number of hours. For example, within an eight hour day we can produce sufficient to meet our everyday needs and to reproduce our labour power within 6 hours, the other 2 hours is extracted by the capitalist has surplus value.

What I've described here is economic class consciousness and although many workers would identify with this description there are also many other workers who have formed the impression that its down to, 'a fairs days work for a fair days pay' leading to the myth's like a hard days work never killed anybody, or I have the freedom to choose my employer, or my exploiter deserves their hard earned wealth through dint of perseverance and frugality, etc.

Another aspect of economic class consciousness is the struggle for improvements in the condition of the workers and this by its very nature involves the workers organising themselves into trade unions and organisations struggling for particular reforms. It is however a struggle which is continually on the defensive for when capitalism is in crisis or it is the general opinion that the workers can afford a particular service these reforms are eroded or removed. For the capitalist class hold all the cards.

Socialists do not deride workers for participating in such struggles, indeed if the class have no intention of ending up in the gutter it can under such conditions only struggle as, 'a class in its self', where it seeks to alleviate the pressures of wage slavery. However, there have been many attempts to make this aspect of class struggle has the necessary stage towards a revolutionary situation. History illustrates they have all failed for a variety of reasons.

Those differences aside, there is also "political class consciousness" and this entails not only recognising and understanding how exploitation takes place but also acknowledging that the capitalist mode of production is not here for the benefit of the working class and being prepared to do something about it so there is a radical and complete change in the social relationships.

Contained within a political class consciousness is a determination not to compromise with capitalism in any shape or form when pursuing a socialist revolution. For instance, I've mentioned in previous posts that socialists refuse to work within the 'political system' but abide by the 'political process'. And I've also mentioned previously that the politically conscious organised workers choose their own weapons and strategy when confronting the capitalists class. For not to do so is self-defeating and involves compromise on the principle that the socialist revolution is not a revolution led by leaders seeking to impose their will on the majority, but a revolution of the majority.

In short, the workers have become a class for itself, with only one item on the agenda: self-emancipation.

 

[butchersapron]

What happens in this little picture if a worker rejects or recognises problems with the labour theory of value? Are they cast out?

 

[Gravediggers]

This thread is a classic example of what is wrong with Class/Socialist/libertarian politics in the UK and elsewhere.

You guys would agree on 90% of things and the 10% where you'd disagree, doesn't and will not have an answer until the workingclass have started to take power and ask the questions for themselves.

No one has all the answers because no one has asked all the question yet, I believe the workingclass will ask the question at some point, but not in my lifetime.

I tend to agree with you over the 90% and 10% split but unlike yourself I see nothing "wrong" in this, for in reality this split is a reflection of the battle of ideas which is a necessary condition for class struggle. On the one hand, the libertarian tradition is stating that the revolution by definition must be by the working class themselves. This presumes the struggle takes place on the workers terms and not of their masters. Whilst on the other hand, the left insist we use capitalist methodology, means and language, etc.

There is nothing "wrong" in discussing such opposing views and allows for a debate where the workers can - like you imply - work it out for themselves. Indeed, they have to in order to obtain their self-emancipation.

 

[Gravediggers]

What happens in this little picture if a worker rejects or recognises problems with the labour theory of value? Are they cast out?

Cast out from where, by whom, for what reason? Above all does a rejection of the labour theory of value mean they are no longer workers?

Your pitch butchers.

 

[butchersapron]

That's precisely what i've just asked you. Repeating it doesn't answer the question - in fact it avoids it, and i think we both know very well why you chose to do that.

 

[TremulousTetra]

!!!!!

This thread is a classic example of what is wrong with Class/Socialist/libertarian politics in the UK and elsewhere.

You guys would agree on 90% of things and the 10% where you'd disagree, doesn't and will not have an answer until the workingclass have started to take power and ask the questions for themselves.

No one has all the answers because no one has asked all the question yet, I believe the workingclass will ask the question at some point, but not in my lifetime.

fucking spot on sir!!!! Should agree to disagree, and test your ideas in this class struggle.

 

[Tim19]

They are not complementary indeed they are diametrically opposed positions in that one supports capitalism and the other socialism. But the implication in the use of the word "worry" suggests you fear socialism - whichever way it comes about - is it because you are a capitalist and think you will have no other role to play in the new set of social relationships? Or is it because you think the workers are incapable of running things for themselves?

We would like to know because every time we have posed this question to members of the capitalist class they have always responded from within the capitalist mindset or framework. Are you going to be any different?

I have no problem with the idea of a socialist society. Doesn't worry me in the slightest old boy. Quite the opposite. To an 'entrepreneurial' mind, socialism seems like the ideal society, in some ways very close to the Enlightenment ideal of capitalism - both ideologies share the same root influences, of course. People like me who thrive in capitalism will thrive in socialism too, probably more so if a socialist society is built along the lines you suggest, with an emphasis on personal responsibility, initiative and freedom. Bring it on.

I was just trying to articulate the view that as long as socialists and the Left are split, you will not be taken seriously. I know there are coherent responses to that point, but academic coherence doesn't always satisfy the reality of situations. To an outsider, your debate just looks like pedantic bickering. I know you won't like me saying this, and I apologise in advance, but to Mr. Average Joe & Hilda Bloggs of 23 Acacia Avenue, SPEW = bunch of nutters who hand out leaflets down the market on a Saturday, and SPGB (when they're even heard of or noticed, which is rare) = bunch of weirdo sad bastards probably into stamp collecting or train spotting. Sorry about that.

I still think the two positions - that of SPEW and that of the SPGB - are more complementary than conflicted. That is not to say there are no differences, nor to suggest either side should ditch its key principles, but maybe by working more co-operatively you would, over time, build the capacity to become a persuasive influence in society-at-large, rather than the small sects you are at present.

It's admirable that you want to retain your political integrity and tell the truth, and so on, but is that going to bring socialism about any quicker? As much as I might recoil a little at SPEW's tactics, I think Proper Tidy has a point that sometimes the smart thing isn't always the right thing, but if doing the smart thing achieves your objective, then in the long run will anyone care?

 

[TremulousTetra]

That's precisely what i've just asked you. Repeating it doesn't answer the question - in fact it avoids it, and i think we both know very well why you chose to do that.

To mimic you?

 

[Tim19]

This thread is a classic example of what is wrong with Class/Socialist/libertarian politics in the UK and elsewhere.

You guys would agree on 90% of things and the 10% where you'd disagree, doesn't and will not have an answer until the workingclass have started to take power and ask the questions for themselves.

No one has all the answers because no one has asked all the question yet, I believe the workingclass will ask the question at some point, but not in my lifetime.

But how will the working class take power? This is the problem (I think) we are discussing.

 

[Gravediggers]

Cast out from where, by whom, for what reason? Above all does a rejection of the labour theory of value mean they are no longer workers?

Your pitch butchers.

That's precisely what i've just asked you. Repeating it doesn't answer the question - in fact it avoids it, and i think we both know very well why you chose to do that.

No butchers I'm not repeating your question just trying to expand on the dumb assertion you put, "Are they cast out"? Now either explain what you mean by that term or drop it and I'll just answer your first question, "What happens in this little picture if a worker rejects or recognises problems with the labour theory of value?"

Your pitch once again butchers.

 

[1%er]

I tend to agree with you over the 90% and 10% split but unlike yourself I see nothing "wrong" in this, for in reality this split is a reflection of the battle of ideas which is a necessary condition for class struggle. On the one hand, the libertarian tradition is stating that the revolution by definition must be by the working class themselves. This presumes the struggle takes place on the workers terms and not of their masters. Whilst on the other hand, the left insist we use capitalist methodology, means and language, etc.

There is nothing "wrong" in discussing such opposing views and allows for a debate where the workers can - like you imply - work it out for themselves. Indeed, they have to in order to obtain their self-emancipation.

What I think is "wrong" is concentrating of the differences rather then building on what is agreed.

I agree the struggle must take place on the workers terms.

The reason I didn't use the term "left" is precisely because the left wants to tinker with capitalism to make it "more beneficial" to the workingclass, in my view the best workers can hope for by tinkering with capitalism is a Scandinavian style social democracy with slightly better living conditions, but still under the control of capitalism.

 

[1%er]

But how will the working class take power? This is the problem (I think) we are discussing.

Well this is where I part company with many people who seek a socialist society.

I am firmly of the view that "change comes through the barrel of a gun", to coin a phrase The only way the workingclass will get power is by the use of force, I have no problem with that at all (fuck me this takes me back more than 30 years).

Has this questions been asked and answered, it was something that used to come up a lot in my day "how do you avoid the dictatorship of the proletariat without perpetual revolution"? History has shown us that this is where it all fucks up, it gets stuck.

Please excuse me because I haven't read anything about this since about 1974 until I joined here

 

[FreddyB]

When socialist talk of "class consciousness" they specifically mean a working class consciousness that recognises their subservient role within the capitalist mode of production and how this came about. It follows, a prerequisite is a general understanding on how exploitation takes place to extract surplus value from the workers and create profit, rent and interest for the capitalist class. This does not mean you have to attend study groups on the reading of Marx for in its essence the formula for exploitation can be explained by an examination of the wages system itself.

Broadly speaking the workers produce more than enough to live within a set number of hours. For example, within an eight hour day we can produce sufficient to meet our everyday needs and to reproduce our labour power within 6 hours, the other 2 hours is extracted by the capitalist has surplus value.

What I've described here is economic class consciousness and although many workers would identify with this description there are also many other workers who have formed the impression that its down to, 'a fairs days work for a fair days pay' leading to the myth's like a hard days work never killed anybody, or I have the freedom to choose my employer, or my exploiter deserves their hard earned wealth through dint of perseverance and frugality, etc.

Another aspect of economic class consciousness is the struggle for improvements in the condition of the workers and this by its very nature involves the workers organising themselves into trade unions and organisations struggling for particular reforms. It is however a struggle which is continually on the defensive for when capitalism is in crisis or it is the general opinion that the workers can afford a particular service these reforms are eroded or removed. For the capitalist class hold all the cards.

Socialists do not deride workers for participating in such struggles, indeed if the class have no intention of ending up in the gutter it can under such conditions only struggle as, 'a class in its self', where it seeks to alleviate the pressures of wage slavery. However, there have been many attempts to make this aspect of class struggle has the necessary stage towards a revolutionary situation. History illustrates they have all failed for a variety of reasons.

Those differences aside, there is also "political class consciousness" and this entails not only recognising and understanding how exploitation takes place but also acknowledging that the capitalist mode of production is not here for the benefit of the working class and being prepared to do something about it so there is a radical and complete change in the social relationships.

Contained within a political class consciousness is a determination not to compromise with capitalism in any shape or form when pursuing a socialist revolution. For instance, I've mentioned in previous posts that socialists refuse to work within the 'political system' but abide by the 'political process'. And I've also mentioned previously that the politically conscious organised workers choose their own weapons and strategy when confronting the capitalists class. For not to do so is self-defeating and involves compromise on the principle that the socialist revolution is not a revolution led by leaders seeking to impose their will on the majority, but a revolution of the majority.

In short, the workers have become a class for itself, with only one item on the agenda: self-emancipation.

So in short this "class consciousness" you describe is an awareness of what's going on which is called "economic class consciousness" and for the more advanced a vague idea that there should be a revolution that will happen by workers choosing their own weapons and that's called "political class consciousness"?

Have I got this right?

 

[Gravediggers]

I have no problem with the idea of a socialist society. Doesn't worry me in the slightest old boy. Quite the opposite. To an 'entrepreneurial' mind, socialism seems like the ideal society, in some ways very close to the Enlightenment ideal of capitalism - both ideologies share the same root influences, of course. People like me who thrive in capitalism will thrive in socialism too, probably more so if a socialist society is built along the lines you suggest, with an emphasis on personal responsibility, initiative and freedom. Bring it on.

Glad to hear you would have no problem finding a role for yourself in socialism though I have some concerns on what you mean by, "'entrepreneurial' mind". If by that you mean how to do things better due to the advantages of production for use under free access to the means of living all to the good. But would appreciate it if you could clarify this moot point.

I was just trying to articulate the view that as long as socialists and the Left are split, you will not be taken seriously. I know there are coherent responses to that point, but academic coherence doesn't always satisfy the reality of situations. To an outsider, your debate just looks like pedantic bickering. I know you won't like me saying this, and I apologise in advance, but to Mr. Average Joe & Hilda Bloggs of 23 Acacia Avenue, SPEW = bunch of nutters who hand out leaflets down the market on a Saturday, and SPGB (when they're even heard of or noticed, which is rare) = bunch of weirdo sad bastards probably into stamp collecting or train spotting. Sorry about that.

No need for apologies for a very fair analogy for I clearly recognise it for the present reality of how anything outside the mainstream of politics is actually perceived by 23 Acacia Avenue. Further to this very few of the workers are actively seeking an alternative to capitalism which IMO suggests they may not be satisfied with capitalism but nevertheless accept it has a fait accompli and lost hope in a viable solution coming their way.

If this is indeed the case more the reason why socialist must take up the challenge of instilling the hope of a socialist future within the working class through every possible avenue. Which is the very reason why I'm on this board for it allows me to broadcast the true socialist case to a much wider audience than I will find on the Clapham Omnibus or at Speakers Corner. And in this respect my thanks to the staff at urban75 for providing me this opportunity.

I still think the two positions - that of SPEW and that of the SPGB - are more complementary than conflicted. That is not to say there are no differences, nor to suggest either side should ditch its key principles, but maybe by working more co-operatively you would, over time, build the capacity to become a persuasive influence in society-at-large, rather than the small sects you are at present.

This is not going to happen not ever. OK say lets say for sake of argument I left the SPGB and joined SPEW or some other left wing outfit. Do you think they would adopt my definition of socialism or accept the implications of self-emancipation? So how long do you think I would last?

It's admirable that you want to retain your political integrity and tell the truth, and so on, but is that going to bring socialism about any quicker? As much as I might recoil a little at SPEW's tactics, I think Proper Tidy has a point that sometimes the smart thing isn't always the right thing, but if doing the smart thing achieves your objective, then in the long run will anyone care?

Given the dynamics of class struggle it is impossible to determine whether or not we are in for the long or short haul. We do know that capitalism is not faced with a sudden collapse through internal contradictions for the present crisis is illustrating how resilient the profit system is to the periods of boom and bust. Again although poverty and misery is going to continue at an increasing rate it is all to the good for capitalism for even poverty and misery have become industry's in themselves. Obviously, if the predictions of climate change turn out to be the new reality capitalism will come under severe pressure on all fronts, and given the present state of affairs it will struggle through and make a buck on the way.

But the fact of the matter is that no society faces extinction until it loses
majority support to an alternative which proposes major solutions to the present impasse on social progress. That is how capitalism became the dominant force over feudalism. Socialism offers a means of breaking out of this impasse and it is up to a majority of the working class to take up this challenge for only they can do it. For without a majority we wont have socialism.

 

[Gravediggers]

So in short this "class consciousness" you describe is an awareness of what's going on which is called "economic class consciousness" and for the more advanced a vague idea that there should be a revolution that will happen by workers choosing their own weapons and that's called "political class consciousness"?

Have I got this right?

Yes except we are not talking about vagueness, rather the reverse, in that the politically class conscious workers are very clear and aware on the aim and objective of socialism and how to get it so to ensure the means are harmonised with the ends. For instance the nearer the revolution becomes the more planning and preparation will be taking place. In effect we wont be sitting on our arses waiting for it to happen we will actively be making it happen as a politically conscious working class. In fact this aspect of the transformation is taking place right now before our very eyes, and not just with the SPGB and the World Socialist Movement. For there are others within the libertarian tradition who discuss this very topic/subject.

Ask robbo he's got a list on who they are.

 

[Gravediggers]

But how will the working class take power? This is the problem (I think) we are discussing.

Yes spot on this is the very question we are discussing, insofar we don't see, on how the workers will take power as a problem per se. What is a problem by far is getting the workers to accept that capitalism is the problem to their wellbeing in the present and the foreseeable future.

 

[Gravediggers]

What I think is "wrong" is concentrating of the differences rather then building on what is agreed.

I agree the struggle must take place on the workers terms.

The reason I didn't use the term "left" is precisely because the left wants to tinker with capitalism to make it "more beneficial" to the workingclass, in my view the best workers can hope for by tinkering with capitalism is a Scandinavian style social democracy with slightly better living conditions, but still under the control of capitalism.

There is no agreement with the reformist left and the socialist alternative whatsoever. Indeed, they would be quite satisfied with a Scandinavian style social democracy or state capitalism for they would eagerly accept the crumbs either system offers. Socialists however, demand the bakery and the land which produces the corn or wheat.

 

[Gravediggers]

Well this is where I part company with many people who seek a socialist society.

I am firmly of the view that "change comes through the barrel of a gun", to coin a phrase The only way the workingclass will get power is by the use of force, I have no problem with that at all (fuck me this takes me back more than 30 years).

Socialism will come through the use of force, but fortunately its not the type of force you imagine. Just think on this. Any society which is brought about through violent means can only survive through the continual use of violence. On the other hand, any society which is brought about through mainly peaceful means will survive through cooperation, unity of purpose, solidarity and a sense of responsibility to themselves and others and towards the environment. I've stated in previous posts that if a violent minority tried to impose their rule on the democratic majority they will be dealt with for socialists are not pacifists.

Has this questions been asked and answered, it was something that used to come up a lot in my day "how do you avoid the dictatorship of the proletariat without perpetual revolution"? History has shown us that this is where it all fucks up, it gets stuck.

Please excuse me because I haven't read anything about this since about 1974 until I joined here

In answer to your question, you avoid the dictatorship of the proletariat by chucking such outdated theories in the dustbin where they belong. And while you are at it you can do the same with the theory of perpetual revolution, or to put it more accurately permanent revolution which was one of Trotsky's daydreams. The reason why they are outdated and been taken over by events is because both theories have a very strong connection with reforms, and a state of abundance. We are now in a position where we have attained sufficient reforms to move on and a state of abundance is self-evident despite the fact that capitalism is incapable of delivering the goods.