SPGB
- Thread starter Proper Tidy
- Start date
fractionMan
Custom Title
I don't thin they've accepted it so much as it's just The Way Things Work.
No, you're delusional. I don't think one single worker has come to you and said that you're "genuine expression of class consciousness."
I suspect what you mean is that there are workers who have come to you and said they agree with you and want to join. Not the same thing at all.
newbie
undisambiguated
This vast majority hasn't
of course there's loads of scope for a tiny, interested, minority to discuss the degree to which capitalism has been embraced, accepted, accomodated or imposed but this is about the consciousness of a whole class, not a few individuals.
No-one, surely, is going to assert that there is any indication, any evidence, that the great majority has rejected capitalism.
fractionMan
Custom Title
Like I said, I don't think most people even think about it.
fractionMan
Custom Title
No it's not.
For most people accepting capitalism is like accepting breathing. It's just the way it is.
For most people accepting capitalism is like accepting breathing. It's just the way it is.
newbie
undisambiguated
so only a subset of the population has actually thought about any of this stuff? the rest are what, too thick or something?
I'm sorry, I don't believe a word of it.
Start a conversation with anybody about capitalism and socialism and they'll know what you're talking about. There's a very high probability that what they say will be supportive of capitalism.
I'm sorry, I don't believe a word of it.
Start a conversation with anybody about capitalism and socialism and they'll know what you're talking about. There's a very high probability that what they say will be supportive of capitalism.
Give it a rest, Louis. Your rhetorical flourishes are really getting a bit dull and dont really connect with the argument at all
fractionMan
Custom Title
It's nothing to do with being thick. Where did I say that?
Gravediggers
New Member
There would be quite a lot more than you are suggesting here. For instance, they would not only be the active decision makers on your list of activities but also be actively involved in putting them into affect. And come to think of it IMO the odd holiday would not occur for every single day would be a holiday, with work and leisure as we know it being a thing of the past along with the alienation associated with it.
Gravediggers
New Member
What most people understand as socialism is the experiences of Russia, etc, where state capitalism reigned. Socialism is a society without classes, a state, money, waged labour, profit, borders, leaders, trade, markets, etc. In short, the complete opposite of capitalism. When as this comparison been put to the majority of workers? Never!
fractionMan
Custom Title
Every single day would be a holiday? With work and leisure as we know it being a thing of the past? Seriously?
Will there be unicorns?
newbie
undisambiguated
pretty much everybody has discussed those ideas at some point in their lives, one way or another.
If only you could explain it more, explain it better, they'd see the light.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
There is no argument. There is just the 'socialist' faith, a lot of wishing and continual retching up the 'case'. As for dull, well that's as maybe , but there are definitely duller contributions.
Louis Macneice
p.s. 'Give it a rest'? Are you after a mods job?
newbie
undisambiguated
fractionMan
Custom Title
I didn't say that either.
To put the SPGB into a broader context here's part of John Crump's Introduction to
'Non-Market Socialism in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries'1987
Introduction
The theme of this book is 'non-market socialism'. This term demands an explanation at an early stage of the book. We are well aware that 'non-market socialism' is - to use the current jargon - a pleonasm. In other words, if we use words accurately, it is unnecessary to qualify 'socialism' with 'non-market' because socialism is, by definition, a markctless society. The market cannot coexist with socialism because socialism means that society owns and controls both the means of production and the goods which result from productive activity. For the market to exist, some sectional interest (an individual, a joint-stock company, a nationalised concern, a workers' cooperative and so on) has to be in control of part of the social product, which it then disposes of by entering into exchange relations with others. Exchange cannot take place when society, and none other, controls the means of production and the social product. Far from socialism being compatible with exchange and the market, the generalised production of goods for exchange on the market is the hallmark of an entirely different type of society - capitalism.
If socialism means the social ownership of the means of production and the fruits of production, so too does communism. The terms 'socialism1 and 'communism' are used interchangeably in this book because, just as there is no distinction between society and the community, so social ownership and communal ownership are equally indistinguishable. Contrary to Lenin's assertions, socialism is not a partial and incomplete first stage of communism.
Yet though it is a simple matter logically to define socialism/ communism, it is politics and not logic which determines how words are (mis)used within capitalism. Dispensing with logic, those who wield political power in all parts of the world have an interest in misrepresenting socialism. Thanks to their unrelenting efforts, the word 'socialism' has taken on the spurious meaning of state enterprises employing wage-earners in order to produce goods for sale on the market. In Chapter 2, John Crump demonstrates how both Social Democracy and Leninism have played an important role in bringing about ( the popular identification of'socialism'with state capitalism.
It is in the face of this situation that we have chosen to use the term 'non-market socialism'. Our purpose is straightforward, and we do not hide it. We want to re-establish the genuine meaning of socialism. We are not arguing that absence of the market is the sole defining feature of socialism. On the contrary, socialism is not merely a markedess society; it is also a stateless society, a classless society, a moneyless society, a wageless society ... and so on. However, in choosing to use the term 'non-market socialism', we are selecting one among a number of qualities which socialism possesses (its characteristic of being a marketiess society) and focusing on this in order to stress the difference between socialism and all varieties of capitalism.
Undoubtedly, our use of the term 'non-market socialism' is not without danger. Maximilien Rubel brings out this point in Chapter 1. By talking in terms of 'non-market socialism', we may inadvertently imply that other varieties of socialism (even 'market socialism'!) could exist. Nothing could be further from our intention, of course. But at least 'non-market socialism' does have the merit of emphasising firstly that the markedess society of socialism has never been established anywhere in the world, and secondly that most so-called 'socialists' are nothing of the sort. The fact that Social Democrats, Leninists and other supposed 'socialists' or 'communists' envisage a role for the market, tells us that they represent forces for maintaining capitalism, not for achieving socialism.
One final point needs to be made with regard to our terminology. Despite the inaccuracy of calling an organisation such as the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) a communist party, or the Socialist Party of Italy (PSI) a socialist party, we have regarded organisational labels simply as proper names which deserve to be used neutrally. Hence our references to organisations such as the CPGB and PSI do not imply any recognition of their supposedly 'communist' or 'socialist* (in fact, state capitalist) character.
__________________________
to be continued
'Non-Market Socialism in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries'1987
Introduction
The theme of this book is 'non-market socialism'. This term demands an explanation at an early stage of the book. We are well aware that 'non-market socialism' is - to use the current jargon - a pleonasm. In other words, if we use words accurately, it is unnecessary to qualify 'socialism' with 'non-market' because socialism is, by definition, a markctless society. The market cannot coexist with socialism because socialism means that society owns and controls both the means of production and the goods which result from productive activity. For the market to exist, some sectional interest (an individual, a joint-stock company, a nationalised concern, a workers' cooperative and so on) has to be in control of part of the social product, which it then disposes of by entering into exchange relations with others. Exchange cannot take place when society, and none other, controls the means of production and the social product. Far from socialism being compatible with exchange and the market, the generalised production of goods for exchange on the market is the hallmark of an entirely different type of society - capitalism.
If socialism means the social ownership of the means of production and the fruits of production, so too does communism. The terms 'socialism1 and 'communism' are used interchangeably in this book because, just as there is no distinction between society and the community, so social ownership and communal ownership are equally indistinguishable. Contrary to Lenin's assertions, socialism is not a partial and incomplete first stage of communism.
Yet though it is a simple matter logically to define socialism/ communism, it is politics and not logic which determines how words are (mis)used within capitalism. Dispensing with logic, those who wield political power in all parts of the world have an interest in misrepresenting socialism. Thanks to their unrelenting efforts, the word 'socialism' has taken on the spurious meaning of state enterprises employing wage-earners in order to produce goods for sale on the market. In Chapter 2, John Crump demonstrates how both Social Democracy and Leninism have played an important role in bringing about ( the popular identification of'socialism'with state capitalism.
It is in the face of this situation that we have chosen to use the term 'non-market socialism'. Our purpose is straightforward, and we do not hide it. We want to re-establish the genuine meaning of socialism. We are not arguing that absence of the market is the sole defining feature of socialism. On the contrary, socialism is not merely a markedess society; it is also a stateless society, a classless society, a moneyless society, a wageless society ... and so on. However, in choosing to use the term 'non-market socialism', we are selecting one among a number of qualities which socialism possesses (its characteristic of being a marketiess society) and focusing on this in order to stress the difference between socialism and all varieties of capitalism.
Undoubtedly, our use of the term 'non-market socialism' is not without danger. Maximilien Rubel brings out this point in Chapter 1. By talking in terms of 'non-market socialism', we may inadvertently imply that other varieties of socialism (even 'market socialism'!) could exist. Nothing could be further from our intention, of course. But at least 'non-market socialism' does have the merit of emphasising firstly that the markedess society of socialism has never been established anywhere in the world, and secondly that most so-called 'socialists' are nothing of the sort. The fact that Social Democrats, Leninists and other supposed 'socialists' or 'communists' envisage a role for the market, tells us that they represent forces for maintaining capitalism, not for achieving socialism.
One final point needs to be made with regard to our terminology. Despite the inaccuracy of calling an organisation such as the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) a communist party, or the Socialist Party of Italy (PSI) a socialist party, we have regarded organisational labels simply as proper names which deserve to be used neutrally. Hence our references to organisations such as the CPGB and PSI do not imply any recognition of their supposedly 'communist' or 'socialist* (in fact, state capitalist) character.
__________________________
to be continued
__________________________
In Chapter 1, Maximilien Rubel looks at 'Non-Market Socialism in the Nineteenth Century'. Rubel explains that rejection of the market was an integral component of Marx's and Engels's conception of socialism and he demonstrates that the approach which Marx and Engels adopted towards this question separated them from Proudhon and the other false 'socialists' of their day. Rubel's chapter is complemented by Alain Pengam's discussion in Chapter 3 of other nineteenth-century, non-market socialists, such as Joseph Dejacque and Peter Kropotkin.
In Chapter 2, John Crump examines 'Non-Market Socialism in the Twentieth Century'. In addition to identifying those currents which have represented the 'thin red line' of non-market socialism in the twentieth century, Crump identifies a number of key principles which distinguish non-market socialists from Social Democrats, Leninists and other advocates of capitalism. These key principles have served as litmus paper, as it were, in deciding which currents to include in a book on non-market socialism and which to exclude.
The currents which have adhered to these principles are_ presented in roughly the order of their historical appearance in Chapters 3 to 7. In Chapter 3, Alain Pengam differentiates 'Anarcho-Communism' from other varieties of anarchism. In Chapter 4, Stephen Coleman discusses 'Impossibilism' in general and the Socialist Party of Great Britain in particular. In Chapter 5, Mark Shipway examines 'Council Communism', paying particular attention to the theories of Anton Pan-nekoek. Similarly, in Chapter 6 on 'Bordigism', Adam Buick focuses principally on the ideas of Amadeo Bordiga. Finally, in Chapter 7 on 'Situationism', Mark Shipway analyses the ideas of the situationists. Some of the writers identify more closely with the currents about which they have written than others, but all were given the brief of producing chapters which fulfilled three objectives. First, each chapter provides a brief historical account of the current under examination. Second, each chapter outlines the principal theoretical ideas of the current. Third, each writer gives a personal assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the current.
It may be useful for readers to have an overall picture of the various currents which have represented non-market socialism in the twentieth century before they tackle the detailed, chapter-by-chapter analyses of each current. Accordingly, we present brief profiles of these five currents here.
ANARCHO-COMMUNISM
Anarcho-communism's roots extend back to the activity and writings in the nineteenth century of anarchists such as Peter Kropotkin, Elisee Reclus and Jean Grave. One of anarcho-communism's fullest expositions in this century was Alexander Berkman's What Is Communist Anarchism's (1929), better known in its abridged form as the ABC of Anarchism (1942). As examples of anarcho-communist revolutionary activity, we could point to the struggles of the Partido Liberal Mexicano in the Mexican Revolution and to some anarchist groups in the Russian Revolution. In both these revolutions, anarcho-communists worked with peasants and workers, encouraged them to substitute their own organisations for those of the state, and participated in attempts to organise production on the basis of free communes. What distinguishes anarcho-communism from other varieties of anarchism is the equal emphasis which anarcho-communism has placed on individual freedom and communal solidarity, and its belief that these twin goals can be achieved simultaneously through the establishment of a stateless, moneyless communist society.
IMPOSSIBILISM
'Possibilism' and 'impossibilism' were terms coined in the nineteenth century to distinguish different wings of the Social Democratic Parties. Social Democrats who concentrated their efforts on reforming capitalism were dubbed 'possibilists', while the 'impossibilists' were those who struggled solely to achieve the goal of socialism. In time, the impossibilists either split away from the Social Democratic Parties, or abandoned impossibilism as the price for remaining in the ranks of Social Democracy. In Britain, impossibilism has its roots in various revolts against the leadership of the first Social Democratic organisation to be formed, the Social Democratic Federation of 1884. Secessions from the Social Democratic Federation led to the formation, as early as 1884, of the Socialist League, in which William Morris was a prominent participant, and to the emergence in 1904 of the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB). The SPGB has become the best-known impossibilist group, and its journal, the Socialist Standard, is the most accessible written expression of impossibilism.
COUNCIL COMMUNISM
Although both workers' councils and groups which later formed the nuclei of the council communist movement existed before the First World War, council communism rose to brief prominence, principally in Germany, immediately following the War. Inspired by the Russian Revolution, the council communists saw the workers' councils (Soviets) as the instrument of proletarian revolution. In a number of West European countries, groups of council communists were constituent elements in the Communist Parties when these were first formed, but they were criticised by Lenin in 'Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder (1920) because of their opposition to communists participating in parliamentary elections and joining trade unions and Social Democratic Parties. The council communists split away from, or were expelled from, the Communist Parties of the Third International during [he period 1920-1, and some of them organised alternative Communist Workers' Parties, such as the Communist Workers' Party of Germany (KAPD) in 1920. Sizeable council communist organisations disappeared as the post-war wave of radicalisation receded, and as the 1920s progressed the council communist movement was reduced to small groups engaged in theoretical work and propaganda activity. Paul Maitick's Anti-Bolshevik Communism (1978) represents some of the best fruits of the theoretical work in which the council communists have engaged.
BORDIGISM
Amadeo Bordiga and his comrades stood on the left wing of the Italian Socialist Party before the First World War and they were the most resolutely anti-war faction in Italy during the war. When the Communist Party of Italy was founded in 1921, the dominant position of Bordiga's faction within the new party was symbolised by the fact that Bordiga became the party leader. Bordiga had already been criticised by Lenin in 'Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder for advocating abstention from parliamentary elections, and in 1923 the executive committee of the Third Internationa! ousted him from the leadership of the Communist Party of Italy. Bordiga and his comrades remained within the Communist Party of Italy, but they suffered a defeat at the hands of Gramsci and his supporters, who were backed by the leaders of the Third International, at the congress held in exile in Lyons in 1926. Subsequently, the Bordigists either were expelled or withdrew from the Italian Communist Party, Bordiga himself being expelled in 1930. Although Bordiga was forced into political inactivity as long as Mussolini was in power, others who shared his views ensured that Bordigism maintained an organised existence. The form and name of the Bordigists' organisation changed at various junctures, but eventually became fixed as the International Communist Party, with members in Italy, France and elsewhere. Bordiga returned to political activity at the close of the Second World War and was associated with the International Communist Party until his death in 1970. Amadeo Bordiga's ideas on the nature of communist society have been presented in Jacques Camatte's Bordiga et la passion du communisme (1974).
SITUATIONISM
The situationists emerged in 1957 as a movement of avant-garde artists. Their criticism of consumer-oriented conventional an led them to criticise consumerism in general, and | hence to attack the basis of capitalism - the production of * wealth as commodities. Having widened their perspectives, I their revolutionary activity principally took the form of j publicity-catching stunts and the production of a stream of pamphlets and j'ournals. Among their pamphlets, Guy Debord's The Society of the Spectacle (1967) and Raoul Van-eigem's Traite de savoir-vivre a l'usage des jeunes generations (1967) (translated into English as The Revolution of Everyday Life) are key texts. When tens of thousands of students and workers erupted onto the streets of Paris in May 1968, many of their j protests had been anticipated by the situationists. Situationists were involved in the May events, but they never claimed to be leading the mass demonstrations and occupations, whose value they judged to lie in their spontaneity. From the 1970s, with the onset of economic depression, the situationists went into decline and were reduced to individuals and small groups engaged in propaganda activity.
__________________________
In Chapter 1, Maximilien Rubel looks at 'Non-Market Socialism in the Nineteenth Century'. Rubel explains that rejection of the market was an integral component of Marx's and Engels's conception of socialism and he demonstrates that the approach which Marx and Engels adopted towards this question separated them from Proudhon and the other false 'socialists' of their day. Rubel's chapter is complemented by Alain Pengam's discussion in Chapter 3 of other nineteenth-century, non-market socialists, such as Joseph Dejacque and Peter Kropotkin.
In Chapter 2, John Crump examines 'Non-Market Socialism in the Twentieth Century'. In addition to identifying those currents which have represented the 'thin red line' of non-market socialism in the twentieth century, Crump identifies a number of key principles which distinguish non-market socialists from Social Democrats, Leninists and other advocates of capitalism. These key principles have served as litmus paper, as it were, in deciding which currents to include in a book on non-market socialism and which to exclude.
The currents which have adhered to these principles are_ presented in roughly the order of their historical appearance in Chapters 3 to 7. In Chapter 3, Alain Pengam differentiates 'Anarcho-Communism' from other varieties of anarchism. In Chapter 4, Stephen Coleman discusses 'Impossibilism' in general and the Socialist Party of Great Britain in particular. In Chapter 5, Mark Shipway examines 'Council Communism', paying particular attention to the theories of Anton Pan-nekoek. Similarly, in Chapter 6 on 'Bordigism', Adam Buick focuses principally on the ideas of Amadeo Bordiga. Finally, in Chapter 7 on 'Situationism', Mark Shipway analyses the ideas of the situationists. Some of the writers identify more closely with the currents about which they have written than others, but all were given the brief of producing chapters which fulfilled three objectives. First, each chapter provides a brief historical account of the current under examination. Second, each chapter outlines the principal theoretical ideas of the current. Third, each writer gives a personal assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the current.
It may be useful for readers to have an overall picture of the various currents which have represented non-market socialism in the twentieth century before they tackle the detailed, chapter-by-chapter analyses of each current. Accordingly, we present brief profiles of these five currents here.
ANARCHO-COMMUNISM
Anarcho-communism's roots extend back to the activity and writings in the nineteenth century of anarchists such as Peter Kropotkin, Elisee Reclus and Jean Grave. One of anarcho-communism's fullest expositions in this century was Alexander Berkman's What Is Communist Anarchism's (1929), better known in its abridged form as the ABC of Anarchism (1942). As examples of anarcho-communist revolutionary activity, we could point to the struggles of the Partido Liberal Mexicano in the Mexican Revolution and to some anarchist groups in the Russian Revolution. In both these revolutions, anarcho-communists worked with peasants and workers, encouraged them to substitute their own organisations for those of the state, and participated in attempts to organise production on the basis of free communes. What distinguishes anarcho-communism from other varieties of anarchism is the equal emphasis which anarcho-communism has placed on individual freedom and communal solidarity, and its belief that these twin goals can be achieved simultaneously through the establishment of a stateless, moneyless communist society.
IMPOSSIBILISM
'Possibilism' and 'impossibilism' were terms coined in the nineteenth century to distinguish different wings of the Social Democratic Parties. Social Democrats who concentrated their efforts on reforming capitalism were dubbed 'possibilists', while the 'impossibilists' were those who struggled solely to achieve the goal of socialism. In time, the impossibilists either split away from the Social Democratic Parties, or abandoned impossibilism as the price for remaining in the ranks of Social Democracy. In Britain, impossibilism has its roots in various revolts against the leadership of the first Social Democratic organisation to be formed, the Social Democratic Federation of 1884. Secessions from the Social Democratic Federation led to the formation, as early as 1884, of the Socialist League, in which William Morris was a prominent participant, and to the emergence in 1904 of the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB). The SPGB has become the best-known impossibilist group, and its journal, the Socialist Standard, is the most accessible written expression of impossibilism.
COUNCIL COMMUNISM
Although both workers' councils and groups which later formed the nuclei of the council communist movement existed before the First World War, council communism rose to brief prominence, principally in Germany, immediately following the War. Inspired by the Russian Revolution, the council communists saw the workers' councils (Soviets) as the instrument of proletarian revolution. In a number of West European countries, groups of council communists were constituent elements in the Communist Parties when these were first formed, but they were criticised by Lenin in 'Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder (1920) because of their opposition to communists participating in parliamentary elections and joining trade unions and Social Democratic Parties. The council communists split away from, or were expelled from, the Communist Parties of the Third International during [he period 1920-1, and some of them organised alternative Communist Workers' Parties, such as the Communist Workers' Party of Germany (KAPD) in 1920. Sizeable council communist organisations disappeared as the post-war wave of radicalisation receded, and as the 1920s progressed the council communist movement was reduced to small groups engaged in theoretical work and propaganda activity. Paul Maitick's Anti-Bolshevik Communism (1978) represents some of the best fruits of the theoretical work in which the council communists have engaged.
BORDIGISM
Amadeo Bordiga and his comrades stood on the left wing of the Italian Socialist Party before the First World War and they were the most resolutely anti-war faction in Italy during the war. When the Communist Party of Italy was founded in 1921, the dominant position of Bordiga's faction within the new party was symbolised by the fact that Bordiga became the party leader. Bordiga had already been criticised by Lenin in 'Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder for advocating abstention from parliamentary elections, and in 1923 the executive committee of the Third Internationa! ousted him from the leadership of the Communist Party of Italy. Bordiga and his comrades remained within the Communist Party of Italy, but they suffered a defeat at the hands of Gramsci and his supporters, who were backed by the leaders of the Third International, at the congress held in exile in Lyons in 1926. Subsequently, the Bordigists either were expelled or withdrew from the Italian Communist Party, Bordiga himself being expelled in 1930. Although Bordiga was forced into political inactivity as long as Mussolini was in power, others who shared his views ensured that Bordigism maintained an organised existence. The form and name of the Bordigists' organisation changed at various junctures, but eventually became fixed as the International Communist Party, with members in Italy, France and elsewhere. Bordiga returned to political activity at the close of the Second World War and was associated with the International Communist Party until his death in 1970. Amadeo Bordiga's ideas on the nature of communist society have been presented in Jacques Camatte's Bordiga et la passion du communisme (1974).
SITUATIONISM
The situationists emerged in 1957 as a movement of avant-garde artists. Their criticism of consumer-oriented conventional an led them to criticise consumerism in general, and | hence to attack the basis of capitalism - the production of * wealth as commodities. Having widened their perspectives, I their revolutionary activity principally took the form of j publicity-catching stunts and the production of a stream of pamphlets and j'ournals. Among their pamphlets, Guy Debord's The Society of the Spectacle (1967) and Raoul Van-eigem's Traite de savoir-vivre a l'usage des jeunes generations (1967) (translated into English as The Revolution of Everyday Life) are key texts. When tens of thousands of students and workers erupted onto the streets of Paris in May 1968, many of their j protests had been anticipated by the situationists. Situationists were involved in the May events, but they never claimed to be leading the mass demonstrations and occupations, whose value they judged to lie in their spontaneity. From the 1970s, with the onset of economic depression, the situationists went into decline and were reduced to individuals and small groups engaged in propaganda activity.
__________________________
From the foregoing, it can be seen that many of the chapters devote attention to organisations which have long since disbanded or to the ideas of people who are long since dead. We do not apologise for this. The theories which inspired these organisations and which were formulated by these people are relevant to the predicament in which the world finds itself today. Capitalism has not changed in any fundamental way since their day, and neither has the non-market socialist alternative to capitalism which they articulated.
Besides, although organisations and individuals may come and go, non-market socialism came into existence not long after industrial capitalism was established and has had a persistent, if chequered, history which extends down to the present day. The continued existence of non-market socialism is partly attributable to the efforts of those working men and women who have been its partisans, but paradoxically is due above all to the nature of capitalism itself. Capitalism necessarily entails an unceasing effort on the part of rival capitals throughout the world to maintain themselves by means of accumulation, and accumulation can only take place at the expense of the wage-working class. Unremitting exploitation and oppression of the wage-working class are built into capitalism, and can only be abolished by instituting a worldwide socialist society and hence destroying the implacable market forces which capitalism has unleashed. Thus it can confidently be said that as long as capitalism exists, the non-market socialist response to it will continually emerge within the working class.
Some people may be puzzled by the fact that we devote so much attention in this book to minority currents and less-than-famous individuals. How, it will be asked, can we neglect the mass movements of the past 100 years and their leaders? Our response is to turn back the question to the questioners. Haven't the mass movements and their leaderships had their chances to right the wrongs of the world, by virtue of their attaining mass proportions? Conservatism, Liberalism, Social Democracy, Leninism .. . haven't they all had their share of power, and haven't they all proved totally ineffective in ridding the world of the problems which capitalism continually recreates? Other contenders for the privileges which accompany the administration of capitalism (nuclear disarmers, 'greens', feminists ...) are waiting in the wings, and are having some success in turning themselves into mass movements because of the illusory attractiveness of their promises to reform the market system. Like previous attempts at reform, these latest efforts directed towards making the capitalist system function in a manner which gives priority to human interests are bound to fail. As long as the world market remains, human beings will be forced to dance to its tune. Market forces cannot be tamed; only eliminated. The very existence of humankind is now threatened by the rivalry and the fixation on profit which are inherent in the market system. Surely this is sufficient reason for setting aside preconceptions and prejudices and for considering the non-market socialists' case for abolishing the market on its intellectual and political merits.
Besides, although organisations and individuals may come and go, non-market socialism came into existence not long after industrial capitalism was established and has had a persistent, if chequered, history which extends down to the present day. The continued existence of non-market socialism is partly attributable to the efforts of those working men and women who have been its partisans, but paradoxically is due above all to the nature of capitalism itself. Capitalism necessarily entails an unceasing effort on the part of rival capitals throughout the world to maintain themselves by means of accumulation, and accumulation can only take place at the expense of the wage-working class. Unremitting exploitation and oppression of the wage-working class are built into capitalism, and can only be abolished by instituting a worldwide socialist society and hence destroying the implacable market forces which capitalism has unleashed. Thus it can confidently be said that as long as capitalism exists, the non-market socialist response to it will continually emerge within the working class.
Some people may be puzzled by the fact that we devote so much attention in this book to minority currents and less-than-famous individuals. How, it will be asked, can we neglect the mass movements of the past 100 years and their leaders? Our response is to turn back the question to the questioners. Haven't the mass movements and their leaderships had their chances to right the wrongs of the world, by virtue of their attaining mass proportions? Conservatism, Liberalism, Social Democracy, Leninism .. . haven't they all had their share of power, and haven't they all proved totally ineffective in ridding the world of the problems which capitalism continually recreates? Other contenders for the privileges which accompany the administration of capitalism (nuclear disarmers, 'greens', feminists ...) are waiting in the wings, and are having some success in turning themselves into mass movements because of the illusory attractiveness of their promises to reform the market system. Like previous attempts at reform, these latest efforts directed towards making the capitalist system function in a manner which gives priority to human interests are bound to fail. As long as the world market remains, human beings will be forced to dance to its tune. Market forces cannot be tamed; only eliminated. The very existence of humankind is now threatened by the rivalry and the fixation on profit which are inherent in the market system. Surely this is sufficient reason for setting aside preconceptions and prejudices and for considering the non-market socialists' case for abolishing the market on its intellectual and political merits.
fractionMan
Custom Title
massive wall of academic text.
With that many words, it's a wonder you struggle to get your message across.
With that many words, it's a wonder you struggle to get your message across.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
I see what you are referring to. I just meant U75 anarchists dont respond, I have since learned you are not an anarchist.
Yup, that why U75@ are frightened to discuss their 'tactics',,,, I think.
to deal with the entrenched views part first.
I don't think there is a problem with that. Well sort of. What I mean is, if you have a lot of different parties, organisations, all going in the same direction, but trying slightly different tactics' because of their philosophical differences, I think this can be a good thing. like creatures in nature and evolution, each trying to develop to the environment, all the different revolutionary strands trying to a different tactics', gives more chance of success. I think there is great attributes to anarchism, which many socialist parties lack. We have these differences because we have fundamentally different views about 'the' solution. However, if they were to accept these differences more, and worked together where they do agree, in my opinion they would be very complimentary. Each making up for the failings of the others strategy and tactics. So having entrenched views, a clearly defined set of tactics, is not necessarily a bad thing. However, they do have to be adaptable. You do have to adapt to the environment, you do have to learn from the working class, as a socialist anarchist.
The emotional issue. To me, from what I so on here, anarchism does seem very emotional, or perhaps that's because I still don't understand a lot of what they say. Perhaps as Butchersn suggested earlier, it is because for us socialists, we cannot compute what they're saying. Having said that, I honestly don't think they have tried very hard to define what they're saying.
As far as emotion and socialists go, I don't think you can say that. I think there is a great deal of morality in a Marxism, for example. But for me personally, you could take every ounce of morality out of Marxism, and Marxism stands on a purely scientific basis. That is as scientific as the social sciences can be. For example>
that is exactly the type of way of doing things, that communism is supposed to be. It is about the rationality of organized planning of the economy, where production is based upon human need of everybody, rather than the profits of the minority. For me Marxism is scientific, this is why what the anarchists sa about consciousness doesn't make any sense. It is unscientific. See next post.>
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
For me the answer is obvious. Who became conscious the sun an the stars did not orbit the Earth it was vice versa, why did they do that, and what have they used it for? Scientific consciousness and class consciousness has developed in the same way.
Class/classes have always existed, as long as society has existed. Like the sun the stars and the earth, they have existed whether or not men have been conscious of their movements, causes and effects. The discovery of classes was not made to create a yardstick of intellectual inferiority and superiority, it was discovered from observation. Can you name a society where a tiny minority have controlled the means of production, and have not therefore controlled society. As far as I know, every time the society has had a minority owning a controlling the means of production, they have had a ruling class. That is not made up, it is fact.
The reason it was discovered, like any other scientific discovery, was curiosity. The search for truth and understanding. BUT,,,,, it is NOT just a means to understand the past, but away to, and guide to how to change the future, and in the direction we should change it.
Class consciousness, is about class awareness.... That is it really. Having class consciousness does not make you inferior or superior, just more aware of the relationship of classes to the society's of the past and present, and what the alternative is to capitalism. How can you say class consciousness doesn't exist, without saying classes do not exist? The very fact that anarchists are aware of the need for a society without classes, means they are class conscious. Even those who were not aware of this, the chartists mentioned earlier, have been referred to by historians as "the first flowering of working class consciousness".
That's why the anarchists need to define what they mean by class consciousness. Or at least what they think we mean, the socialists, by class consciousness.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Are you an anarchist? if so, how can you say that your being conscious of the need of the working class, for classless society means nothing at all???? And that not enough working class sharing your conscious of this need for classless society, to make it a reality today, means nothing at all????
You've described CC as awareness that there are classes - means nothing at all, it's useless.
As has been said before on this thread by me for one at least once - the class struggle is ongoing and everyone is a participant whether they explicitly think of it in those terms or not. CC is nothing.
As has been said before on this thread by me for one at least once - the class struggle is ongoing and everyone is a participant whether they explicitly think of it in those terms or not. CC is nothing.
Gravediggers
New Member
You can think what you like but the fact of the matter is many workers have said to us that we are the "genuine expression of class consciousness." and yes there are those who have joined the SPGB because of that and because of agreement with our case.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
I didn't say just that
that is just repeating what I have just said. You haven't answered "Are you an anarchist? if so, how can you say that your being conscious of the need of the working class, for classless society means nothing at all???? And that not enough working class sharing your conscious of this need for classless society, to make it a reality today, means nothing at all?"
Perhaps I should put the question even simpler, are you conscious of the need of the working class, for classless society?
cue freds exit from the thread...
Gravediggers
New Member
Every single day would be a holiday? With work and leisure as we know it being a thing of the past? Seriously?
Will there be unicorns?
Of course I'm serious and for a very simple reason. Think on this: All work will volunteered, and there will be plenty of work to choose from, so the square pegs in round holes formula will no longer exist; the pace of the work will be up to the people involved and the priorities set by society; the freedom of expression will have open access; the hours of work will be set by the individual not the job for replacements are not an issue.
Now work out what this will mean in terms of work and leisure, IMO they are either interchangeable or made redundant in a socialist society.
Similar threads
