SPGB

[butchersapron]

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.

Bloody hell, even in your crude mechanical marxism you should be able to see how it outlines the pressures that capital faces from the w/c. The rise in organic compostion of capital caused by intra-capitalist competition driven by rising labour costs, the associated concentration of capital and overproduction, the local monopolies leading to the same, the falling rate of profit from the decreasing amount of variable capital - all offest by counter-tendencies which can themselves heighten crisis and so on - it's all there if only you know how to read Marx.

 

[robbo203]

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:

Sorry but you are wrong - wrong as can possibly be on this score.

Firstly the SPGB does not assert it is the fountainhead of revolutiuonary class conscious ideas notwithstanding your quote from Gravediggers on this score. Ultimately it argues that socialist ideas arise from the general conditions of capitalism - class struggle - which predispose workers towards socialism. Yes, the SPGB works to try and instil socialist ideas in workers - just as every other political organisation on the face of the planet tries to instil its ideas - but this does not negate the point that the idea of socialism does not come from the SPGB and the SPGB has never claimed it has. The SPGB is simply seeking to reinforce or accelerate the spread of certain ideas that arise from capitalism itself and there is nothing vanguardist about that

Secondly you say I am "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". Wrong again. Vanguardist thinking is the belief that a minority can emancipate the majority by itself. The SPGB has never held this view. Show me one instance where it has done this. Just one. You cant and you knowq it. You infer from the allegedly common ground that the SPGB holds with leninists in thinking of itself as a "vanguard" in the descriptive sense that it must therefore similarly be a kind of vanguardist party albeit different from the Leninist type. This is rubbish and a complete non sequitur. It is your inference and your inference alone that holds that this must be so but there is absolutely no reason at all why it must be so. I repeat - the idea that you are a vanguard, a small minority with a distinct set of views, does not in any way shape or form imply the idea that as a minority you can emancipate the majority by acting on its behalf which is a political theory of action. It might do that but then again it might not. There is absolutely no necessity that it will do.

This is where your whole argument comes crashing down the ground. You are trying to infer a causal connection when there simply is none!

 

[butchersapron]

There's two arguments you make there - one that GD doesn't understand the SPGB's politics despite passing the entrance requirements - not a good advert in itself, but i'm open to the idea that what he has been arguing all along is a misunderstanding of the SPGB if you'd like to expand on that theme. However, your argument as to the correct understanding of how the SPGB view class consciousness is contradicated by the hostility clause and the clause following which unambiguously declare that the SPGB is the sole standard bearer of the correct class consciousness of course, it doesn't go anywhere near outlining ow and why this is or should be the case.

And even better, your second argument demonstrates in the clearest light possible the partial understanding of vanguardism that you hold, for if its logic is followed through consistently it leads to the inescapable conclusion that leninism - the thing you've berated for vanguardism for a 100 years - is not leninist. The leninists don't believe that a small minority can emancipate the vast majority, they believe that the small minority can and must instill the correct class consciousness in order for the majority to emancipate themselves - and that they are the sole current bearers of that consciousness - that's their hostility clause.

You have no way around this.

 

[butchersapron]

Sorry but you are wrong - wrong as can possibly be on this score.

Firstly the SPGB does not assert it is the fountainhead of revolutiuonary class conscious ideas notwithstanding your quote from Gravediggers on this score. Ultimately it argues that socialist ideas arise from the general conditions of capitalism - class struggle - which predispose workers towards socialism. Yes, the SPGB works to try and instil socialist ideas in workers - just as every other political organisation on the face of the planet tries to instil its ideas - but this does not negate the point that the idea of socialism does not come from the SPGB and the SPGB has never claimed it has. The SPGB is simply seeking to reinforce or accelerate the spread of certain ideas that arise from capitalism itself and there is nothing vanguardist about that

So the SPGB isn't actually necessary then?

 

[robbo203]

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

Er come again? Could you be a little more precise about what it is you are objecting to in the theory of disproportionate growth which Marx put forward to explain economic crises. I never suggested in any way that the working class are somehow external to the workings of capitalism but was only criticising what I assumed was a kind of underconsumptionist theory in the view that the "working class was the crisis". Crises happen whether the working class is militant or not. They are part of the nature of capitalism

If you seriously believe Marx did not subscribe to a theory of disproportionate growth then I think your grasp of Marxian economics is deificient. I said you can understand crises from the perspective of disrporitionaility theory without recourse to the LTV. I did not say that this made the LTV irrelevant to an understanding of capitalism, did I?

 

[robbo203]

So the SPGB isn't actually necessary then?

Duh. The SPGB or any genuinely socialist organisation is necessary in the sense that it is needed to accelerate the spread of socialist ideas of which it is not the fountainhead (that being capitalism's class struggle)

 

[butchersapron]

You think that the view that Freddy was putting forward was underconsumptionist! Really, do some more reading on things like operaismo, read some tronti or panzieri for example to see what he means. Who mentioned anything about the w/c being militant or not? This is bizarre. And you confirm that you see capitalism as this mechanical model operating to its own laws regardless of class struggle when you say both "Crises happen whether the working class is militant or not" and "Its got nothing to do with the working class as such".

As for marxian economics - no such thing. If you're referring to marx's abstraction of the dynamics of the system (or his reproduction schema) you'll be aware that he posited certain conditions, one of which was a steady flat wage/needs demand on behalf of labour, to be come back to at a later point when he would examine the effects of rising demand from the w/c. He never got round to it though, and for 150 years since people like you have been taking this half-finished picture as his complete model - thus missing the point entirely and what he considered centrally important (hence the setting up) to the functioning of capital and crisis - class struggle.

 

[robbo203]

And even better, your second argument demonstrates in the clearest light possible the partial understanding of vanguardism that you hold, for if its logic is followed through consistently it leads to the inescapable conclusion that leninism - the thing you've berated for vanguardism for a 100 years - is not leninist. The leninists don't believe that a small minority can emancipate the vast majority, they believe that the small minority can and must instill the correct class consciousness in order for the majority to emancipate themselves - and that they are the sole current bearers of that consciousness - that's their hostility clause.
.

Crap. The Leninist believe in a minority capturing political power first, acting on behalf of the majority and then from this position of power begin the process on instilling class consciousness. Go back to the quotes from Lenin himself which I gave you a long way back.

This is what is meant by vanguardism as a theory of political action and this is why the SPGB is manifestly not a vanguardist party. It argues quite rightly that if it were to capture political power under the conditions in which the working class was not socialist minded, it would then itself become a new ruling class whose interests would soon enough become opposed to the workers. You cant have socialism without mass support for it and by default you would end up running capitalism. That is what happened under Lenin and why the SPGB opposes vanguardism.

 

[butchersapron]

Duh. The SPGB or any genuinely socialist organisation is necessary in the sense that it is needed to accelerate the spread of socialist ideas of which it is not the fountainhead (that being capitalism's class struggle)

Why Duh? The SPGB have signally failed to meet its aims. If it doesn't do that what's the point, especially when you've undermined your own case by saying that it's the conditions of capitalism that give rise to socialist consciousness (where's this then btw?). Good to see that you again pull GD up on his misunderstanding of the SPGB conception of class consciousness.

 

[butchersapron]

Crap. The Leninist believe in a minority capturing political power first, acting on behalf of the majority and then from this position of power begin the process on instilling class consciousness. Go back to the quotes from Lenin himself which I gave you a long way back.

This is what is meant by vanguardism as a theory of political action and this is why the SPGB is manifestly not a vanguardist party. It argues quite rightly that if it were to capture political power under the conditions in which the working class was not socialist minded, it would then itself become a new ruling class whose interests would soon enough become opposed to the workers. You cant have socialism without mass support for it and by default you would end up running capitalism. That is what happened under Lenin and why the SPGB opposes vanguardism.

No, you're simply wrong - they believe that by taking part in and capturing leading positions in various campaigns and struggles they can help instill the wider class consciousness that they have and that is required if they are to take power (with or without a majority). Again, it's your position in different clothes. You really do need to update and move on from 1917.

You can try and reduce vanguardism down to a theory of political organisation all you like, after all it's your only escape route - i'm not going to allow you to do so unchallenged though, and i doubt if anyone else is falling for the we're a vanguard but we're not vanguardists line either.

 

[robbo203]

You think that the view that Freddy was putting forward was underconsumptionist! Really, do some more reading on things like operaismo, read some tronti or panzieri for example to see what he means. Who mentioned anything about the w/c being militant or not? This is bizarre. And you confirm that you see capitalism as this mechanical model operating to its own laws regardless of class struggle when you say both "Crises happen whether the working class is militant or not" and "Its got nothing to do with the working class as such".

As for marxian economics - no such thing. If you're referring to marx's abstraction of the dynamics of the system (or his reproduction schema) you'll be aware that he posited certain conditions, one of which was a steady flat wage/needs demand on behalf of labour, to be come back to at a later point when he would examine the effects of rising demand from the w/c. He never got round to it though, and for 150 years since people like you have been taking this half-finished picture as his complete model - thus missing the point entirely and what he considered centrally important (hence the setting up) to the functioning of capital and crisis - class struggle.

Fred did indeed flirt with underconsumptionist theory for a while but then reverted back to disproportionality theory

As for the rising demand from the w/c it goes without sayinmg that this is primarily dependent on whether capitalism is in a boom period or a depression so you are kind of assuming what you need to prove arent you. Trade union struggle does have an effect on wage levels I agree although this will be largely dependent on the general conditions of the economy as to how much of an effect.

 

[robbo203]

No, you're simply wrong - they believe that by taking part in and capturing leading positions in various campaigns and struggles they can help instill the wider class consciousness that they have and that is required if they are to take power (with or without a majority). Again, it's your position in different clothes. You really do need to update and move on from 1917.

You can try and reduce vanguardism down to a theory of political organisation all you like, after all it's your only escape route - i'm not going to allow you to do so unchallenged though, and i doubt if anyone else is falling for the we're a vanguard but we're not vanguardists line either.

Are you denying then that Lenin said the vanguard must first capture political power before the workers could be instilled with socialist consciousness because if so then Im afraid youve lost the argument

 

[butchersapron]

Fred did nothing of the sort - he wasn't talking about underconsumption, or disproprtionality or overproduction, you've entirely missed the point and seem only able to understand his claim in terms of classical Zusammenbruchstheorie.

 

[butchersapron]

Are you denying then that Lenin said the vanguard must first capture political power before the workers could be instilled with socialist consciousness because if so then Im afraid youve lost the argument

Lenin said many things. Are you denying that he said that the w/c must be instilled with a socialist consciousness before taking power as well.

As i said, crawl out of 1917 before 2017 if you can.

 

[robbo203]

Why Duh? The SPGB have signally failed to meet its aims. If it doesn't do that what's the point, especially when you've undermined your own case by saying that it's the conditions of capitalism that give rise to socialist consciousness (where's this then btw?). Good to see that you again pull GD up on his misunderstanding of the SPGB conception of class consciousness.

No I am saying that there is no contradiction between trying to instill socialist ideas in fellow workers and recognising that these ideas arise from the general conditions of capitalism i.e. its class struggle and not out of the heads of SPGBers. Many SPGBers incidentally will tell that they became socialists long before they even met the SPGB.

I think you have a far too mechanistic black-or-white perspective on the relationship between ideas and social reality

 

[robbo203]

Lenin said many things. Are you denying that he said that the w/c must be instilled with a socialist consciousness before taking power as well.
.

Yes I am denying that!! Lenin was quite clear on this score. See for example
Theses on Fundamental Tasks of The Second Congress Of The Communist International published in 1920

On the other hand, the idea, common among the old parties and the old leaders of the Second International, that the majority of the exploited toilers can achieve complete clarity of socialist consciousness and firm socialist convictions and character under capitalist slavery, under the yoke of the bourgeoisie (which assumes an infinite variety of forms that become more subtle and at the same time more brutal and ruthless the higher the cultural level in a given capitalist country) is also idealisation of capitalism and of bourgeois democracy, as well as deception of the workers. In fact, it is only after the vanguard of the proletariat, supported by the whole or the majority of this, the only revolutionary class, overthrows the exploiters, suppresses them, emancipates the exploited from their state of slavery and-immediately improves their conditions of life at the expense of the expropriated capitalists—it is only after this, and only in the actual process of an acute class struggle, that the masses of the toilers and exploited can be educated, trained and organised around the proletariat under whose influence and guidance, they can get rid of the selfishness, disunity, vices and weaknesses engendered by private property; only then will they be converted into a free union of free workers.

 

[butchersapron]

Quote wars will get you nowhere - lenin said many things at many different times depending on what specific aims were at that point. Why aren't you quoting his anti-vanguardist stuff from the years immediately after 1905? I know why and so do you - because, like Marx, you can cherry pick from his millions of words on millions of issues.

And you didn't even cherry pick a good one You've given me one in which Lenin argues that only the vanguard party with the support of the conscious majority of the w/c (i.e before the revolution) must take power and instill socialist consciousness in the non-w/c sections of the population. You didn't miss the very important difference between the 'proletariat' and the ' toilers and exploited' did you? Oh yes you did.

 

[TremulousTetra]

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

What are you trying to say? This makes no sense.

 

[FreddyB]

What are you trying to say? This makes no sense.

I've said it. Makes perfect sense to me

 

[TremulousTetra]

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.

but marx and labour the theory value never said Capitalism is a merry go round that passes fixed points in it's cycle every few years.

For marx the economic crisis was innate to capitalism, produced by the capitalists, not the working class. According to the labour theory of value, and it's developments in the capital volume one, the economic crisis occurs because of the rise in the organic composition of capital, and this is driven by the capitalists raison d'être, "Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets". Without going into what the organic composition of capitalis etc., it is fact that marx firmly placed responsibility for the economic crisis with the capitalists, period.

PS. You need to clarify this; "The crises are a result of the working class and capitalists reaction to theses crises are reactions to the the working class."
The crises are reactions to the crises??????????

 

[TremulousTetra]

I've said it. Makes perfect sense to me

honestly mate, I am not Butchers, I am not being sarcastic. I am trying to understand what you are saying, the 'Marxist labour theory of value' leads to, [or your alternative]. I am not clear at all what you are trying to do.

 

[butchersapron]

Capital Volume one didn't really cover crisis at all, and certainly not as a result of a rising organic composition of capital producing a falling rate of profit - that was volume 3.

 

[TremulousTetra]

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.

so how are you and butchers etc different? Are you saying you have no consciousness whatsoever of what you are trying to achieve, and how to achieve it?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Capital Volume one didn't really cover crisis at all, and certainly not as a result of a rising organic composition of capital producing a falling rate of profit - that was volume 3.

ok expert on everything, did he say "Capitalism is a merry go round that passes fixed points in it's cycle every few years."?

 

[TremulousTetra]

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.

so how is your clique different to the SPGB? Are you saying you have no consciousness whatsoever of what you are trying to achieve, and how to achieve it?

 

[TremulousTetra]

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.

so how is your relationship with the working class different?

AS Butchers will not answer, feel free random, louis, jim etc to explain your cliques politics.

 

[TremulousTetra]

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
[/QUOTE] precisely!

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

it is a purely childish definition of vanguard, which renders the Vanguard analogy, meaningless. If we apply butchers childish definition, who isn't Vanguard party???? That is a serious question to any member of butchers clique. In order for it to be a useful definition, it must be able to define who is not a Vanguardist party, so who isn't Vanguard party?

I used to be a member of Vanguard party, and imo the suggestion the SPGB Vanguardist is a totally laughable analogy. If anything, off the top of my head, the analogy here would be of a "Siren Party", and as such have far more in common with Butcher's clique. Does that mean they are anarchists? 1. No,,, that would be absurd. 2. WTF IS a u75 anarchist?

 

[FreddyB]

but marx and labour the theory value never said Capitalism is a merry go round that passes fixed points in it's cycle every few years.

For marx the economic crisis was innate to capitalism, produced by the capitalists, not the working class. According to the labour theory of value, and it's developments in the capital volume one, the economic crisis occurs because of the rise in the organic composition of capital, and this is driven by the capitalists raison d'être, "Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets". Without going into what the organic composition of capitalis etc., it is fact that marx firmly placed responsibility for the economic crisis with the capitalists, period.

PS. You need to clarify this; "The crises are a result of the working class and capitalists reaction to theses crises are reactions to the the working class."
The crises are reactions to the crises??????????

I never said Marx said that. I was referring to our friends in SPGB who more than a century after Marx are talking about cycles of capitalism and ignoring the working class completely or otherwise portraying them as spectators. If you go back to my original question which he answered with that link about cycles I asked about this crisis and it's roots. The roots of it are the working class. Pretty well everything that capital does is a reaction to the working class.

 

[dannysp]

I never said Marx said that. I was referring to our friends in SPGB who more than a century after Marx are talking about cycles of capitalism and ignoring the working class completely or otherwise portraying them as spectators. If you go back to my original question which he answered with that link about cycles I asked about this crisis and it's roots. The roots of it are the working class. Pretty well everything that capital does is a reaction to the working class.

Hi Freddy
Could you explain how/why the causes of crisies are rooted in the working class?

 

[dannysp]

Hi Butch
You've told us something of how class consciousness is attained, and I don't see any problem, but you've not given any opinion of what it consists of.
So what is it that's necessary to be understood, aware of, conscious of, to become class conscious?

That's a fair question, so a fair answer would be appreciated.


Perhaps you missed this post.