SPGB

[Gravediggers]

he's already done so, in childishly simply language. The point surely is that you just don't want to get it, do you?

I'm afraid he hasn't. So far all we have been able to establish is that butchers applies the term vanguard to any organisation which puts forward an idea. He then applies the slap dash broad brush strokes to *assert* that by definition that makes everybody vanguardist including the SPGB.

It has been constantly pointed out to him that although the term vanguard can be applied to the SPGB that does not make them vanguardist in the political sense of the meaning. So clearly there is some confusion over how butchers defines the term vanguardist. And so far he's declined to post his definition.

Until he replies with a definition and not hodge potch assertions any claims he makes concerning the SPGB and vanguardism/vanguardist are without foundation.

 

[Random]

It has been constantly pointed out to him that although the term vanguard can be applied to the SPGB that does not make them vanguardist in the political sense of the meaning.

So you're a vanguard, but not a political vanguard?

edit: shame on me for posting on this thread

 

[Gravediggers]

So you're a vanguard, but not a political vanguard?

edit: shame on me for posting on this thread

Correct if by political vanguard you mean a minority group of professional revolutionaries seeking to lead the majority towards an objective only the self-elected minority fully understand.

 

[FreddyB]

Neither am I a mind reader but I am aware that capitalism is in one of its periodical crisis. And if I required an analysis I would start here: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/AZ.html#Crises

Capitalism is in one of it's periodical crises and the w/c are just spectators? That's a piss poor analysis that amongst other things places capitalism as a fixed thing that follows a cycle. Is that the best you can do?

 

[Captain Hurrah]

Eating out of skips?

Not my kind of lifestyle.

 

[FreddyB]

Not my kind of lifestyle.

 

[Gravediggers]

I don't think he can make you understand why in his oppinion you are a 'vanguardist', until you understand his position on consciousness.

Hope that help's.

I understand his position on consciousness and how that relates for him to claim the SPGB are vanguardist. For butchers anything the SPGB say or do only confirms his assumption that we are part of the political vanguardist tradition. What he has gone and done is unscientific for he's gone and made that original assumption into a foregone conclusion by not considering the evidence which speaks volumes to illustrate he's got the wrong end of the stick.

It reminds me of that saying: If you keep on asserting a lie long enough, eventually people will begin to believe it is the truth.

 

[Gravediggers]

Capitalism is in one of it's periodical crises and the w/c are just spectators? That's a piss poor analysis that amongst other things places capitalism as a fixed thing that follows a cycle. Is that the best you can do?

It maybe a piss poor analysis in your opinion, nevertheless you are correct in stating that the working class are just spectators. What do you think the best thing is to do in such circumstances? Passive resistance or become Mr Angry at every opportunity. Grrrr.....

 

[TremulousTetra]

Capitalism is in one of it's periodical crises and the w/c are just spectators? That's a piss poor analysis that amongst other things places capitalism as a fixed thing that follows a cycle. Is that the best you can do?

So what is your analysis, which I presume is so much better?

 

[dannysp]

So you're a vanguard, but not a political vanguard?

edit: shame on me for posting on this thread

I suggest the term avant garde rather than vanguard from my point of view is more fitting, because if I didn't think that the SPBG's analysis and proposition was in a position in advance of any other political party I wouldn't have joined.


A brief look without prejudice at the history and practice of the SPGB makes the assertion that it's vanguardist laughable. From its formation the concept of political leadership has been rejected as undemocratic, leaderships need privileged information and so privileged power and will have none of it.


The SPGB recognises that the only responsible way of dealing with social responsibility is to share it, so when a new member joins the first thing that happens is they are given a Party rule book, the rules are there to ensure that the new member has exactly the same democratic power as any other no matter how long standing, and that the Party is run by the membership not the reverse.

We refuse to lead our fellow workers, what we offer is an analyses, a proposition and an democratic organisation for the use of workers in their struggle for self emancipation.

Don't take my word for it, take a look for yourself.

www.worldsocialism.org

 

[dannysp]

Never a follower be.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/apr98/follower.html

 

[TremulousTetra]

So you're a vanguard, but not a political vanguard?

edit: shame on me for posting on this thread

I suggest the term avant garde rather than vanguard from my point of view is more fitting, because if I didn't think that the SPBG's analysis and proposition was in a position in advance of any other political party I wouldn't have joined.

But Random and Butchers think the their cliques analysis and proposition is better than SPGB, SP, WP etc, so their position too is 'avant garde' vanguard?????


I don't think they'd accept that, but will they explain? I don't think so.

 

[robbo203]

So you're a vanguard, but not a political vanguard?

edit: shame on me for posting on this thread

Jesuuusss not again


Cant you see there is a difference between a "vanguard" and being a "vanguardist"? The one term is descriptive, the other prescriptive. Big difference!

The SPGB is a vanguard in the sense that it is a minority whose views may be considered "advanced" or "in the vanguard of social thinking" if you want to look at it like that. What the SPGB cannot be called is vanguardist since it does not propose to lead to the workers to socialism or act (e.g. take power) on their behalf.

Vanguardism is a theory of political action. I know of no other definition of vanguardism and have repeatedly asked people on this thread to supply one so we can at least look at it but to no avail

 

[butchersapron]

I suggest the term avant garde rather than vanguard from my point of view is more fitting, because if I didn't think that the SPBG's analysis and proposition was in a position in advance of any other political party I wouldn't have joined.


A brief look without prejudice at the history and practice of the SPGB makes the assertion that it's vanguardist laughable. From its formation the concept of political leadership has been rejected as undemocratic, leaderships need privileged information and so privileged power and will have none of it.


The SPGB recognises that the only responsible way of dealing with social responsibility is to share it, so when a new member joins the first thing that happens is they are given a Party rule book, the rules are there to ensure that the new member has exactly the same democratic power as any other no matter how long standing, and that the Party is run by the membership not the reverse.

We refuse to lead our fellow workers, what we offer is an analyses, a proposition and an democratic organisation for the use of workers in their struggle for self emancipation.

Don't take my word for it, take a look for yourself.

www.worldsocialism.org

The vanguardist relationship is between you and the wider working class, not amongst yourselves or other political parties. And guess what, once again this mirrors the relationships theorised by in the 2nd International and later developed by explicit theorists of vanguardism like Lenin and Trotsky.

That you can even imagine that parties are the bearers of class consciousness says it all really. Your arguments are exactly the same as orthodox leninists except they have the honesty to draw the organisational conclusions that flow from your shared theory of the advanced party, rather than running away from it, or recoiling in horror from the consequences of holding that theory. And that massive internal contradiction between a correct recognition of the dangers of vanguardism whilst holding a vanguardist position (this now seems clear to all but yourselves) has been evident throughout this whole discussion.

The only way you all have out of it is by reducing vanguardism down to leninism alone - that trick won't work. Leninism developed out of and from the same soil that you still messing about in - the necessarily advanced nature of the party (by what mechanism this comes about you've not gone anywhere near suggesting, it appears that it comes about simply by you joining the SPGB or the SPGB calling itself 'Socialist' and that this is demonstration enough of the self evident truth of the matter - it's really not) meaning that it has the answers that the working class must come to achieve its emancipation.

The honest leninists say (very crudely put for now) that this can happen through their leadership of ongoing struggles in a two-way dynamic interaction between party and class, the dishonest vanguardists say it can only happen through education and a similar dynamic between party and class - either way the answers are already in your grasp, and anyone who doesn't agree with you is by definition a backward worker (to continue your use of disgusting archaisms). The fruit didn't fall far from the tree. You're the passive side of the vanguardist coin and they're the active face.

 

[FreddyB]

It maybe a piss poor analysis in your opinion, nevertheless you are correct in stating that the working class are just spectators. What do you think the best thing is to do in such circumstances? Passive resistance or become Mr Angry at every opportunity. Grrrr.....

Capitalism isn't a merry go round that passes fixed points in it's cycle every few years it's changing all the time and the changes are a result of the working class. The crises are a result of the working class and capitalists reaction to theses crises are reactions to the the working class.

That pretty much sums up what I think.

 

[Gravediggers]

Capitalism isn't a merry go round that passes fixed points in it's cycle every few years it's changing all the time and the changes are a result of the working class. The crises are a result of the working class and capitalists reaction to theses crises are reactions to the the working class.

That pretty much sums up what I think.

So according to your take on capitalism in crisis the working class caused it, and not the inbuilt contradictions of the capitalist economy. The logic of this argument seems to suggest that the working class also hold the solution to a crisis of capitalism. So what is your take on that?

 

[Gravediggers]

The vanguardist relationship is between you and the wider working class, not amongst yourselves or other political parties. And guess what, once again this mirrors the relationships theorised by in the 2nd International and later developed by explicit theorists of vanguardism like Lenin and Trotsky.

That you can even imagine that parties are the bearers of class consciousness says it all really. Your arguments are exactly the same as orthodox leninists except they have the honesty to draw the organisational conclusions that flow from your shared theory of the advanced party, rather than running away from it, or recoiling in horror from the consequences of holding that theory. And that massive internal contradiction between a correct recognition of the dangers of vanguardism whilst holding a vanguardist position (this now seems clear to all but yourselves) has been evident throughout this whole discussion.

The only way you all have out of it is by reducing vanguardism down to leninism alone - that trick won't work. Leninism developed out of and from the same soil that you still messing about in - the necessarily advanced nature of the party (by what mechanism this comes about you've not gone anywhere near suggesting, it appears that it comes about simply by you joining the SPGB or the SPGB calling itself 'Socialist' and that this is demonstration enough of the self evident truth of the matter - it's really not) meaning that it has the answers that the working class must come to achieve its emancipation.

The honest leninists say (very crudely put for now) that this can happen through their leadership of ongoing struggles in a two-way dynamic interaction between party and class, the dishonest vanguardists say it can only happen through education and a similar dynamic between party and class - either way the answers are already in your grasp, and anyone who doesn't agree with you is by definition a backward worker (to continue your use of disgusting archaisms). The fruit didn't fall far from the tree. You're the passive side of the vanguardist coin and they're the active face.

Are we to take this has your definition of vanguardism? Yes or no?

 

[FreddyB]

So according to your take on capitalism in crisis the working class caused it, and not the inbuilt contradictions of the capitalist economy. The logic of this argument seems to suggest that the working class also hold the solution to a crisis of capitalism. So what is your take on that?

The working class are the crisis, they are the contradiction. How can you spout that labour theory of value stuff and think anything else?

 

[robbo203]

The vanguardist relationship is between you and the wider working class, not amongst yourselves or other political parties. And guess what, once again this mirrors the relationships theorised by in the 2nd International and later developed by explicit theorists of vanguardism like Lenin and Trotsky.

That you can even imagine that parties are the bearers of class consciousness says it all really. Your arguments are exactly the same as orthodox leninists except they have the honesty to draw the organisational conclusions that flow from your shared theory of the advanced party, rather than running away from it, or recoiling in horror from the consequences of holding that theory. And that massive internal contradiction between a correct recognition of the dangers of vanguardism whilst holding a vanguardist position (this now seems clear to all but yourselves) has been evident throughout this whole discussion.

The only way you all have out of it is by reducing vanguardism down to leninism alone - that trick won't work. Leninism developed out of and from the same soil that you still messing about in - the necessarily advanced nature of the party (by what mechanism this comes about you've not gone anywhere near suggesting, it appears that it comes about simply by you joining the SPGB or the SPGB calling itself 'Socialist' and that this is demonstration enough of the self evident truth of the matter - it's really not) meaning that it has the answers that the working class must come to achieve its emancipation.

The honest leninists say (very crudely put for now) that this can happen through their leadership of ongoing struggles in a two-way dynamic interaction between party and class, the dishonest vanguardists say it can only happen through education and a similar dynamic between party and class - either way the answers are already in your grasp, and anyone who doesn't agree with you is by definition a backward worker (to continue your use of disgusting archaisms). The fruit didn't fall far from the tree. You're the passive side of the vanguardist coin and they're the active face.

I thought as much. You have confused vanguard with vanguardism. Even if it were remotely true that an organisation like the SPGB sees itself as the bearers of class consciousness (as you claim)which has to be ladled out to the class unconscious worker this still does not make the SPGB vanguardist.

I repeat again - vanguardism is a theory of political action, the idea that a minority can emancipate the majority. The SPGB has said loud and clear that it cannot happen like that. The majority has to emancipate itself by becoming class consciousnss. However much you try to wriggle out of it this is the basic point which cannot be denied and demonstrates conclusively that the SPGB is no vanguradist party. A vanguard, yes, but vanguardist - no!

 

[Gravediggers]

The working class are the crisis, they are the contradiction. How can you spout that labour theory of value stuff and think anything else?

The labour theory of value explains no such thing, all the labour theory of explains is how workers are exploited through the wages system. It does not explain how crisises of capitalism occur and why they occur.

 

[JimW]

I thought as much. You have confused vanguard with vanguardism. Even if it were remotely true that an organisation like the SPGB sees itself as the bearers of class consciousness (as you claim)which has to be ladled out to the class unconscious worker this still does not make the SPGB vanguardist.

I repeat again - vanguardism is a theory of political action, the idea that a minority can emancipate the majority. The SPGB has said loud and clear that it cannot happen like that. The majority has to emancipate itself by becoming class consciousnss. However much you try to wriggle out of it this is the basic point which cannot be denied and demonstrates conclusively that the SPGB is no vanguradist party. A vanguard, yes, but vanguardist - no!

It's not an attempt to wriggle, it's saying that however much you may believe or intend otherwise, that's what you objectively are.

 

[FreddyB]

The labour theory of value explains no such thing, all the labour theory of explains is how workers are exploited through the wages system. It does not explain how crisises of capitalism occur and why they occur.

It makes it clear who needs who.

 

[Gravediggers]

It makes it clear who needs who.

So capital and labour are dependent on each other to produce surplus value, so what? How does this explain the cause of crisis?

 

[FreddyB]

So capital and labour are dependent on each other to produce surplus value, so what? How does this explain the cause of crisis?

Labour is dependent on capital for surplus value?

 

[robbo203]

It's not an attempt to wriggle, it's saying that however much you may believe or intend otherwise, that's what you objectively are.

In the same way that a cat is a member of the canine species. Yep, very objective

 

[butchersapron]

I thought as much. You have confused vanguard with vanguardism. Even if it were remotely true that an organisation like the SPGB sees itself as the bearers of class consciousness (as you claim)which has to be ladled out to the class unconscious worker this still does not make the SPGB vanguardist.

I repeat again - vanguardism is a theory of political action, the idea that a minority can emancipate the majority. The SPGB has said loud and clear that it cannot happen like that. The majority has to emancipate itself by becoming class consciousnss. However much you try to wriggle out of it this is the basic point which cannot be denied and demonstrates conclusively that the SPGB is no vanguradist party. A vanguard, yes, but vanguardist - no!

I really have not confused the two, i've already pointed out now numerous times that they're slightly different manifestations of the same thing. The
wriggle here is you reducing vanguardism down to Leninism alone so that you can dismiss criticisms of your own flabby passive vanguardism.

And you've actually made of a hash of the sort of vanguardism you're rejecting - that version argues that a minority can and must instill in the working class the correct socialist consciousness through education and common struggle so that they togther can move forward to the emancipation of the working class - does that sound familiar to you? It should do because it's another demonstration of your shared territory.

Face it robbo, you're trying to sneak in the idea that vanguardism is a theory of political organisation alone, and wiping out the sort of political thinking (advanced party etc) that led to that form of organisation in certain specific circumstances. In different ones that same vanguardist thinking produced you lot. The lack of seriousness with which you're responding to this charge demonstrates that you don't have a problem with this. In fact you pretty much say yep, we are the vanguard - but we're not vanguardist. In the same way Nick Griffin defends his race but isn't a racist i presume.

Oh yeah, ta for ignoring the central point i made which was about the nature of the parties relationship with the working class - the actual thing which makes the party vanguardist.

One more thing:

Even if it were remotely true that an organisation like the SPGB sees itself as the bearers of class consciousness (as you claim)which has to be ladled out to the class unconscious worker this still does not make the SPGB vanguardist.

Nevertheless, our aim includes a very important caveat: We have no intention of remaining a small organisation and to this end are committed and determined to instill a majority of the working class with the level of political class consciousness we have attained.

 

[robbo203]

The working class are the crisis, they are the contradiction. How can you spout that labour theory of value stuff and think anything else?

Crises are the result of disproportionate growth between different sectors of the economy - the relative overproduction of one sector in relation to the demand from some other sector (s) which then generates ripple effects that spread outwards to engulf most of the economy. This is because enterprises are blindly producing for a market in the expectation of profit which may not always be forthcoming. Crises take a cyclical form. Capitalism restores the conditions of profitability by such means as the cheapening of the means of production , as Marx argued, but as production steps up again the same tendency towads disproprotionate growth manifests itself once again leading to yet another crisis. It is part of the nature of capitalism

Its got nothing to do with the working class as such . Nor indeed is it the fault of politicians who are pretty much irrelevant to the way capitalism functions at a systemic level. The once widely held belief that crises could be overcome by Keynesian demand management has been flatly contradicted by events and led ironically enough to a period of "stagflation" - inflation with stagnant economic performance. The capitalist Labour Party in an early postwar manifesto once argued that if a crisis beckoned the way to ward it off was to "give workers more money" (ha!!) to spend to they could buy their way out of crisis. This is called underconsumption theory, the belief that there is not enough market demand that is the problem. It is a false theory which mistakes cause for symptoms and it has to be said that the SPGB have been pioneers in discrediting both Keynesnianism and monetarism - particular when the former was widely fashionable among the Left. Edgar Hardcastle was a prominent writer on economics for the Socialist Standard for many years and wrote some very good articles on crisis theory which you can find here http://www.marxists.org/archive/hardcastle/

The labour theory of value does not really have much connection with crisis theory and I suggest you quite easily understand crises without recourse to the LTV

 

[chilango]

The working class are the crisis, they are the contradiction.

Yup. Like this.

 

[butchersapron]

Jesuuusss not again


Cant you see there is a difference between a "vanguard" and being a "vanguardist"? The one term is descriptive, the other prescriptive. Big difference!

The SPGB is a vanguard in the sense that it is a minority whose views may be considered "advanced" or "in the vanguard of social thinking" if you want to look at it like that. What the SPGB cannot be called is vanguardist since it does not propose to lead to the workers to socialism or act (e.g. take power) on their behalf.

Vanguardism is a theory of political action. I know of no other definition of vanguardism and have repeatedly asked people on this thread to supply one so we can at least look at it but to no avail

'May be considered advanced' by who? By the party

Why are you the vanguard? Who appointed you? Who provided you with your authenticating certificate? History? Hmmm...that does sound rather familiar again sounds a bit like the vanguardist defences of the parties supremacy from the fist half of the 20th century:

I know that one must not be right against the party. One can be right only with the Party, and through the Party for history has no other road for being in the right."

And no, you've been given one over and over (just have a look at the above), you just reject it because it catches you out.

 

[butchersapron]

Crises are the result of disproportionate growth between different sectors of the economy - the relative overproduction of one sector in relation to the demand from some other sector (s) which then generates ripple effects that spread outwards to engulf most of the economy. This is because enterprises are blindly producing for a market in the expectation of profit which may not always be forthcoming. Crises take a cyclical form. Capitalism restores the conditions of profitability by such means as the cheapening of the means of production , as Marx argued, but as production steps up again the same tendency towads disproprotionate growth manifests itself once again leading to yet another crisis. It is part of the nature of capitalism

Its got nothing to do with the working class as such . Nor indeed is it the fault of politicians who are pretty much irrelevant to the way capitalism functions at a systemic level. The once widely held belief that crises could be overcome by Keynesian demand management has been flatly contradicted by events and led ironically enough to a period of "stagflation" - inflation with stagnant economic performance. The capitalist Labour Party in an early postwar manifesto once argued that if a crisis beckoned the way to ward it off was to "give workers more money" (ha!!) to spend to they could buy their way out of crisis. This is called underconsumption theory, the belief that there is not enough market demand that is the problem. It is a false theory which mistakes cause for symptoms and it has to be said that the SPGB have been pioneers in discrediting both Keynesnianism and monetarism - particular when the former was widely fashionable among the Left. Edgar Hardcastle was a prominent writer on economics for the Socialist Standard for many years and wrote some very good articles on crisis theory which you can find here http://www.marxists.org/archive/hardcastle/

The labour theory of value does not really have much connection with crisis theory and I suggest you quite easily understand crises without recourse to the LTV

Hilarious objectivist nonsense - straight out of the mechanical models of the 19th century of science. Crisis is written into every pore of Marx's formulation of the LTV - the use of use-value and exchange-value alone should tell you that, that opens the doors to crisis right from the very start of process. That model you've produced is stunning in it's top-down nonsense - you've got a model of the workings of capitalism that hasn't yet managed to find room for class struggle - the working class are seen as external to capitalism It's the sort of nonsense that marx himself destroyed many times over.

I seriously suggest that you read Ron Rothbart's The Limits Of Matticks Economics which i put online years ago as response to this outdated robot nonsense