SPGB

[TremulousTetra]

We'll then it's even more confusing, because I'm fairly convinced class consciousness doesn't exist too.

People might be fed up with their boss, hate working long hours for fuck all and wonder why their electricity bill is so bloody high. They may even notice that a lot of people are in the same boat as them. But that's not the class consciousness you and diggers are describing.

I assume your not a anarchist then?



diggers is talking about 1 degree of class consciousness. The degree to which members of the SPGB, need to be aware of http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10744896&postcount=1674 to be a member. So seen as JUST that, your right it doesn't exist.

What you are saying is correct. http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10747519&postcount=1700 IMHO. class consciousness has a spectrum, extending from accepting totally the ideas of the ruling class, and even fascism, right across to the social revolutionary outlook.

PS. I'm don't share diggers 'anarchism'.

 

[TremulousTetra]

The current levels of technology are quite sufficient to produce and deliver the goods to satisfy human need. Indeed in many respects under capitalism they have been over efficient. They have been since the beginning of the last century when capitalism became an integrated production unit on a global scale. The abundance is there already it will take socialism to deliver it, for capitalism is incapable of completing the delivery when there is no profit to made at the end of the journey.

Just 1 fact exposes the obscenity of capitalisms ability to produce the goods but inability to deliver the goods to those that need it. The biggest killer in the world today is drinking dirty water. The entire world could be provided with clean water for the cost of two aircraft carriers.

 

[Gravediggers]

I assume your not a anarchist then?



diggers is talking about 1 degree of class consciousness. The degree to which members of the SPGB, need to be aware of http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10744896&postcount=1674 to be a member. So seen as JUST that, your right it doesn't exist.

What you are saying is correct. http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10747519&postcount=1700 IMHO. class consciousness has a spectrum, extending from accepting totally the ideas of the ruling class, and even fascism, right across to the social revolutionary outlook.

PS. I'm don't share diggers 'anarchism'.

And what is my 'anarchism'?

 

[Gravediggers]

Just 1 fact exposes the obscenity of capitalisms ability to produce the goods but inability to deliver the goods to those that need it. The biggest killer in the world today is drinking dirty water. The entire world could be provided with clean water for the cost of two aircraft carriers.

The problem with comparing costs with costs is that it can be misconstrued to imply that the problem with capitalism is that it needs to readjust the balance sheet in regards to human priorities. The case for human priorities is always a secondary thought for bookkeepers and accountants in capitalism where profit is the only priority. And in this respect, there is little if any profit to be made from cleaning up the worlds drinking water, especially when there is a surplus working population to pay for and maintain until they are ready to be put back into work. In the meantime aircraft carriers and such like are essential to protecting the markets.

 

[newbie]

just out of interest, what perspective are you politically?

I'm rather resistant to pigeonholing on here, because it creates a prism through which posts are read, but if pushed I'd say 'dissident', somewhere on the left and I remain outraged by the iniquities of capitalism. I've never signed up for any political party.

 

[Gravediggers]

I'm rather resistant to pigeonholing on here, because it creates a prism through which posts are read, but if pushed I'd say 'dissident', somewhere on the left and I remain outraged by the iniquities of capitalism. I've never signed up for any political party.

Interesting self-observation. Does your outrage go so far as to motivate you to condemn capitalism?

 

[robbo203]

I don't disagree. I just think your utopia is unobtainable with our current levels of technology and will remain so until long after we're dead.

I dont think its just a question of technological potential that is relevant here; its the mode of production, or the economic organisation of society, that also counts.

In most OECD countries most of the formal sector jobs actually serve no useful purpose whatsoever except to keep the system ticking over. There are a huge number of money-related jobs such as banking and finance, pay departments, tax collectors, accountants and so on which will all disappear in a moneyless economy. So too will a whole lot of other jobs that are less obviously tied up with capitalist system e.g. armaments production.

There has not been a great deal of research into this subject of socially useful versus socially useless work but most estimates Ive come across suggest that, conservatively speaking, at least half of all the formal sector jobs will disappear in socialism where the purpose of production is simply and directly to produce for human needs without the market.

What does that mean? It means effectively that the social productivity of labour generally will be massively increased under socialism. It means also that a huge amount of material resources currently diverted into socially unproductive ends will be released for socially useful purposes.

Eliminating the structural waste of capitalism (which is growing both absolutely and relatively year upon year) is perhaps the biggest single productive advantage that socialism will have over capitalism and makes the former a practical possibility right now. All that is lacking is the conscious will to turn this possibility into a reality

 

[newbie]

oh yeah, I'll condemn capitalism for all the good that'll do anybody.

As of today, 11 June 2010, that condemnation is irrelevant. It may be that at some point in the future there will be a time when choosing sides on such a grand question matters, but it doesn't matter now. Because now the vast, vast majority of the working class have thought it through and decided they prefer social democratic capitalism to any of the other isms. There are lots of visions that have been offered to people, that they've thought about and that haven't really inspired, and that includes socialism. I'm sure we've all heard the reasons why people prefer capitalism- because we've all had the discussions- so everyone who has been gripped with a vision of socialism must know the frustration of banging their head against a brick wall. I guess those pursuing the dream of caliphate or rapture have the same experience.

Face it, you've got a platform here where the readers are predominantly likely to condemn capitalism, probably the biggest such platform in the country though tiny in terms of the working class as a whole. You've been banging on about your scientific proofs for the last few months and I've yet to see any evidence of anyone saying "zoot!, you're right, that's the way forward." This is 2010, we're too sophisticated to be influenced by prophets with sermons.

FWIW, IMO what the working class actually wants is to be middle class. That's the key result of shared reflections on experience, individual and collective, local and international, past and present. That's what's been driving thought and behaviour for the last few decades. But that's not class consciousness is it, that's just anti-scientific error.

 

[two sheds]

"I AGREE WITH HIM" ^^^

I think we need to forget about the language like 'working class' and 'bourgeois' (so hard to spell) and 'van Guardism' . They've got just too many negative connotations from the communism of Russia and China on one side and today's media on the other. Anyone see that changing because I don't.

Now, you first have to tell people that your socialism is virtually the opposite of what people believe socialism - also anarchism - to be, and I just don't think we've got the attention span nowadays - people are as happy believing that its all explained by some conspiracy theory, so they're trying to interject their own view as soon as you've finished the first sentence.

We need to bring the debate out of the language of the early 1900s. Rather than 'we want the working class to have a say' I think we should be saying 'we want everyone to have a say'. Rather than overthrowing capitalism we should be talking about changing the system so it benefits everyone.

That's why i mentioned Deming, who is nowhere near political, because he knew about improving systems. He was the bloke who taught the Japanese about quality so that they changed from making cheap and shoddy copies of western electronics, cars, motor bikes etc to making such reliable stuff that they put were putting half the major western companies out of business within 20 years. He puts the case in language that you can even convince business managers with but his message is subversive. I think that working now in a company that actually did what he said is the closest you'd get in reality to what the SPGB are putting forward as an ideal.

We need a science-based approach (so based on actual research that's been done within communities as to what makes people feel safer, happier, more fulfilled) that doesn't start off from demanding that we break up society as we know it.

After this thread on the SPGB i definitely disagree with the idea that it's all or nothing. One of the basics of improving 'systems' is that you do it in stages - you use pilot projects to make changes to see what works and expand the ones that do work. You've got to build on what's good in society and try to get rid of the worst aspects.

Trying to do everything in one go because you believe it's going to work is dangerous. First it's bound to fuck up, and second you're going to need to label one section of the community as a scapegoat when it *does* fuck up.

 

[robbo203]

"I AGREE WITH HIM" ^^^

I think we need to forget about the language like 'working class' and 'bourgeois' (so hard to spell) and 'van Guardism' . They've got just too many negative connotations from the communism of Russia and China on one side and today's media on the other. Anyone see that changing because I don't.

Now, you first have to tell people that your socialism is virtually the opposite of what people believe socialism - also anarchism - to be, and I just don't think we've got the attention span nowadays - people are as happy believing that its all explained by some conspiracy theory, so they're trying to interject their own view as soon as you've finished the first sentence.

We need to bring the debate out of the language of the early 1900s. Rather than 'we want the working class to have a say' I think we should be saying 'we want everyone to have a say'. Rather than overthrowing capitalism we should be talking about changing the system so it benefits everyone.

That's why i mentioned Deming, who is nowhere near political, because he knew about improving systems. He was the bloke who taught the Japanese about quality so that they changed from making cheap and shoddy copies of western electronics, cars, motor bikes etc to making such reliable stuff that they put were putting half the major western companies out of business within 20 years. He puts the case in language that you can even convince business managers with but his message is subversive. I think that working now in a company that actually did what he said is the closest you'd get in reality to what the SPGB are putting forward as an ideal.

We need a science-based approach (so based on actual research that's been done within communities as to what makes people feel safer, happier, more fulfilled) that doesn't start off from demanding that we break up society as we know it.

After this thread on the SPGB i definitely disagree with the idea that it's all or nothing. One of the basics of improving 'systems' is that you do it in stages - you use pilot projects to make changes to see what works and expand the ones that do work. You've got to build on what's good in society and try to get rid of the worst aspects.

Trying to do everything in one go because you believe it's going to work is dangerous. First it's bound to fuck up, and second you're going to need to label one section of the community as a scapegoat when it *does* fuck up.

Two sheds

Whilist I might not agree with all of the particulars of what you say here I think the basic thrust of what you are saying is something I have sympathy for. Sorry if that sounds patronising but its not. We do definitely need to update our approach to changing society

The key thing for me is your second last paragraph rejecting the all or nothing approach. I agree. What matters is how to proceed along these lines. The SPGB has I think quite rightly pointed out the risk of just being sucked into supporting the system through the advocacy of reformism which is essentially just a treadmill. But there are other ways forward - small scale and step by step - that avoid that pitfall and at the same time help break with logic of capitalism. The important thing always is to have the bigger picture in mind and to adapt your approach accordingly. Or to put it differently to integrate the micro level with the macro level.

At the end of the day, however much you may knock the SPGB is does offer a vision of the bigger picture which makes sense. It is not too hot on question of how to get there. Putting across its vision important though this is is not enough. That is where the kind of things you are talking about or alluding to might very well help.

Perhaps you might care to expand on this?

 

[Gravediggers]

oh yeah, I'll condemn capitalism for all the good that'll do anybody.

As of today, 11 June 2010, that condemnation is irrelevant. It may be that at some point in the future there will be a time when choosing sides on such a grand question matters, but it doesn't matter now. Because now the vast, vast majority of the working class have thought it through and decided they prefer social democratic capitalism to any of the other isms.

Yes I agree we can condemn capitalism until we are blue in the face but it wont accomplish anything of a fundamental nature. But when that condemnation is accompanied with a revolutionary challenge that is an entirely different proposition. I also agree that, ".... .. the vast majority of the working class have thought it through and decided they prefer social democratic capitalism to any of the other isms." but lets be clear about this they have only reached this collective decision on the information given to them by the capitalist class. So its not what can be called an informed decision, where a true description of socialism is entirely at odds to their masters message. So the judges are still out on that one IME.

There are lots of visions that have been offered to people, that they've thought about and that haven't really inspired, and that includes socialism. I'm sure we've all heard the reasons why people prefer capitalism- because we've all had the discussions- so everyone who has been gripped with a vision of socialism must know the frustration of banging their head against a brick wall. I guess those pursuing the dream of caliphate or rapture have the same experience.

Of course the arguments for and against have usually ended with workers who condemn capitalism banging their heads against a brick wall. And when they use the language and compromises of the left this is going to be predominately the case, for their solutions mainly mean a form of state capitalism. Which is no solution.

Face it, you've got a platform here where the readers are predominantly likely to condemn capitalism, probably the biggest such platform in the country though tiny in terms of the working class as a whole. You've been banging on about your scientific proofs for the last few months and I've yet to see any evidence of anyone saying "zoot!, you're right, that's the way forward." This is 2010, we're too sophisticated to be influenced by prophets with sermons.

The way you describe the workers arriving at a conclusion is has if you expect a spontaneous eruption of inspiration, when the present circumstances dictate it is not going to be like that. Although there could come a time when that may well happen. Socialists work with the here and now and they conversely stipulate that workers need time to think on the socialist proposal. So a few months on urban75 is unlikely to confirm we are talking to a captured audience, is it?

If indeed this was the case even on such a small scale has the platform of urban75 it would logically mean we could all sit back and wait for the revolution to happen at any time. The truth is that whilst the description of socialism can be simply put, e.g. a classless, moneyless, free access, stateless society, the explanation on how to get there is going to take quite a bit longer. And socialists are prepared for the patience this requires.

FWIW, IMO what the working class actually wants is to be middle class. That's the key result of shared reflections on experience, individual and collective, local and international, past and present. That's what's been driving thought and behaviour for the last few decades. But that's not class consciousness is it, that's just anti-scientific error.

True there is no such thing as the 'middle class' except of course in market researchers bible for target segmentation. And the possibility of even a large section of the workers attaining a supposedly comfortable lifestyle which is representative of the 'middle class' is most certainly not on the cards.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Two sheds

Whilist I might not agree with all of the particulars of what you say here I think the basic thrust of what you are saying is something I have sympathy for. Sorry if that sounds patronising but its not. We do definitely need to update our approach to changing society

The key thing for me is your second last paragraph rejecting the all or nothing approach. I agree. What matters is how to proceed along these lines. The SPGB has I think quite rightly pointed out the risk of just being sucked into supporting the system through the advocacy of reformism which is essentially just a treadmill. But there are other ways forward - small scale and step by step - that avoid that pitfall and at the same time help break with logic of capitalism. The important thing always is to have the bigger picture in mind and to adapt your approach accordingly. Or to put it differently to integrate the micro level with the macro level.

At the end of the day, however much you may knock the SPGB is does offer a vision of the bigger picture which makes sense. It is not too hot on question of how to get there. Putting across its vision important though this is is not enough. That is where the kind of things you are talking about or alluding to might very well help.

Perhaps you might care to expand on this?

"I AGREE WITH HIM" ^^^



BTW I support the SPGB's aims, but not their 'anarchist' tactics.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

The SPGB isn't vanguardist for the same reason it rejects reformism.

And Vanguardism isn't so bad Im beginning to think.

 

[TremulousTetra]

The SPGB isn't vanguardist for the same reason it rejects reformism.

Fucking spot on!! Obvious to anyone who has an inkling of what vanguardism is.

And Vanguardism isn't so bad Im beginning to think.

They, including the SPGB, talk about vanguardism as if vanguardist's are unaware of the pitfalls of Stalinism. This ignores the fact people make history, they may do so under circunstances inherited from the past, but this can be a guide as well as fetter.

 

[Gravediggers]

"I AGREE WITH HIM" ^^^



BTW I support the SPGB's aims, but not their 'anarchist' tactics.

OK RMP3 where are these anarchist tactic you keep harping on about, its the second time you've mentioned it. But as you've more than probably guessed you're not the first to make such an allegation. Time we had a looksy and put it under the spotlight.

 

[Gravediggers]

Fucking spot on!! Obvious to anyone who has an inkling of what vanguardism is.



They, including the SPGB, talk about vanguardism as if vanguardist's are unaware of the pitfalls of Stalinism. This ignores the fact people make history, they may do so under circunstances inherited from the past, but this can be a guide as well as fetter.

I take it the conjecture here is that the pitfalls of vanguardism are only with Stalin which totally ignores the fact that Lenin started the ball rolling.

 

[two sheds]

At the end of the day, however much you may knock the SPGB is does offer a vision of the bigger picture which makes sense. It is not too hot on question of how to get there. Putting across its vision important though this is is not enough. That is where the kind of things you are talking about or alluding to might very well help.

Perhaps you might care to expand on this?

As I say, I think the language they use is a large part of the problem, even talking about the 'working class' for example has the edge of Russian communism. Fewer and fewer people seem to see themselves as working class - and it would for example exclude people working in places like call centres. Are socialists not bothered about those people?

I think even talking about 'workers' would be better but that has disadvantages too - are socialists not interested in the unemployed? Improving things for everyone is a much more inclusive term.

We need to be inclusive rather than divisive. Which is also why i disagree with the SPGB's hostility to all other socialist parties. It's petty and divisive and is going to get you into all sorts of arguments with people who actually agree with a lot of the ideas you put forward. It's another reason I'd never join - it tips the SPGB over into becoming a cult.

 

[TremulousTetra]

As I say, I think the language they use is a large part of the problem, even talking about the 'working class' for example has the edge of Russian communism. Fewer and fewer people seem to see themselves as working class - and it would for example exclude people working in places like call centres. Are socialists not bothered about those people?

I think even talking about 'workers' would be better but that has disadvantages too - are socialists not interested in the unemployed? Improving things for everyone is a much more inclusive term.

We need to be inclusive rather than divisive. Which is also why i disagree with the SPGB's hostility to all other socialist parties. It's petty and divisive and is going to get you into all sorts of arguments with people who actually agree with a lot of the ideas you put forward. It's another reason I'd never join - it tips the SPGB over into becoming a cult.

For every socialist party I know and Karl Marxs definition, call centre workers and the unemployed are amongst the working class. The interesting thing about Marx definition, it is as I explained earlier, holistic and dynamic, which actually mirrors the reality within capitalism. At the beginning of the 19th century, the vast majority of the working class were servants etc, and people such as engineers were called the "aristocracy of labour". Karl Marxs definition explains this transformation of engineers from middle class to working class.

Having said that, I do appreciate where you were coming from. There is a problem with language. However, I am not sure it is remedyable. It is OK for the fascists, conservatives, new labour etc to ditch their politics in a dash for the centre, but revolutionaries are not about power, they are about social revolution from below. "The emancipation of the working class has to be act the working class ". And somehow we, a long with capitalism, have to get the message across that only they have the power, the interest, and the means to transform society into the kind of place human beings can flourish.

 

[two sheds]

For every socialist party I know and Karl Marxs definition, call centre workers and the unemployed are amongst the working class.

Fair do's, but I wonder whether *they'd* consider themselves to be working class. Again, I think it's an unnecessary division - aren't you bothered about the middle class? It sort of suggests that when socialists come to power the middle class will either be re-educated or put into labour camps to forcibly make them working class. Isn't that what Mao did with mixed success? . Quoting Marx, Lenin et al tbh I think similarly just puts people off - I'd have thought that they bear some responsibility for what happened in Russia, for example.

Even if you feel that Russia and China are state capitalists, the fact that they described themselves and believed themselves to be socialist is enough for me to want to disassociate myself with the term.

It is OK for the fascists, conservatives, new labour etc to ditch their politics in a dash for the centre, but revolutionaries are not about power, they are about social revolution from below.

Ah, interesting - so concentrating on *everyone* is ditching your politics in a dash for the centre? That's where I'd part company. I'd say replacing *working class* with *everyone* is broadening your politics.

I'm actually a bit suspicious of someone who only wants to emancipate a particular section of society. Again - what happens to the rest of society - the people who when you get to power you deem not to be working class?

"The emancipation of the working class has to be act the working class ".

Do you mean 'an act of'? Either way, why limit it to the working class again?

I'd go further than just emancipating the middle class, too - I'd actually include the upper class. They'd be emancipated from the stresses of having to look after all that money. I do actually believe that work is good for people which is why i don't think it's healthy for the obscenely rich to be obscenely rich.

 

[robbo203]

As I say, I think the language they use is a large part of the problem, even talking about the 'working class' for example has the edge of Russian communism. Fewer and fewer people seem to see themselves as working class - and it would for example exclude people working in places like call centres. Are socialists not bothered about those people?

I think even talking about 'workers' would be better but that has disadvantages too - are socialists not interested in the unemployed? Improving things for everyone is a much more inclusive term.

We need to be inclusive rather than divisive. Which is also why i disagree with the SPGB's hostility to all other socialist parties. It's petty and divisive and is going to get you into all sorts of arguments with people who actually agree with a lot of the ideas you put forward. It's another reason I'd never join - it tips the SPGB over into becoming a cult.

I would agree with some of the things you say here. Sometimes the language of the SPGB is a bit archiac but sometimes people misinterpret what the SPGB is saying as well (and possibly for that very reason). For example as Resistance says, the Marxian definition of "working class" is much wider than the standard sociological definition based on occuopation or education. It would definitely include the unemployed (the industrial reserve army), workers who work in call centres and the so called "middle class" who may or may imagine they have somehow risen above the economic compulsion to sell their labour power on the market (which is Marx's definition of what constitutes the working class).

On the question of hostility well, "yes" and "no" is my answer. The problem with some of these so called socialist parties is that they are not really socialist in any meaningful sense of the term. They dont stand for socialism. They dont even mention socialism in this sense. They mention lots of things like nationalisation of the commanding heights of industry which they call "socialism" but which has actually got sod all to do with socialism and is not doing the socialist cause any favours at all by misleading workers as to the nature of socialism. How can a socialist not be opposed to them?

On the other hand, there are groups that clearly seek socialism in its proper sense - the original idea of socialism that the SPGB espouses. Here the SPGB, I agree , needs to be a lot more, as you say, inclusive and cooperative. Gravediggers assures me that the attitude of the SPGB towards other organisations within the nonmarket anti-statist revolutionary sector has changed in recent years and I am glad to hear of that but personally I would like to see much more in the way of intrasectoral cooperation and collaboration myself. What we have in common far outweighs what divides us

 

[TremulousTetra]

Fair do's, but I wonder whether *they'd* consider themselves to be working class. Again, I think it's an unnecessary division - aren't you bothered about the middle class? It sort of suggests that when socialists come to power the middle class will either be re-educated or put into labour camps to forcibly make them working class. Isn't that what Mao did with mixed success? . Quoting Marx, Lenin et al tbh I think similarly just puts people off - I'd have thought that they bear some responsibility for what happened in Russia, for example.

Even if you feel that Russia and China are state capitalists, the fact that they described themselves and believed themselves to be socialist is enough for me to want to disassociate myself with the term.

Ah, interesting - so concentrating on *everyone* is ditching your politics in a dash for the centre? That's where I'd part company. I'd say replacing *working class* with *everyone* is broadening your politics.

I'm actually a bit suspicious of someone who only wants to emancipate a particular section of society. Again - what happens to the rest of society - the people who when you get to power you deem not to be working class?

Do you mean 'an act of'? Either way, why limit it to the working class again?

I'd go further than just emancipating the middle class, too - I'd actually include the upper class. They'd be emancipated from the stresses of having to look after all that money. I do actually believe that work is good for people which is why i don't think it's healthy for the obscenely rich to be obscenely rich.

Thanks TS.

Anarchism/Communism [to me there both the same thing] is ALL the people, having equal power over society, so that society produces on the basis of what is needed by ALL the people. But how do we get from here to there?

1. If we could sit down and have a chat with the ruling class and convince them how wonderful communism will be, fair enough. But that aint gonna happen. They're going to fight tooth and claw to keep what they have got, ownership and control of the means of production, and so control of society..

2. The middle classes are the political flotsam and jetsam. If there is a period of revolution, just like in every other period of revolution, the middle classes will vacillate according to who has the upper hand, the ruling class of the working class. I have no doubt many sections of the middle class will fall in behind the working class struggle for emancipation,,,,,,, but. There will some who won't. They're going to fight tooth and claw to keep their privilege.

3. The working class is the capitalists kryptonite. If the entire ruling class drop dead tomorrow, the working class will turn out to work and pretty much carry on producing wealth. If the entire working class drop dead tommorow, the capitalists are fucked. ONLY the working class has the ability to take control of the means of production, and run it on a collective basis.

The only way to achieve Anarchism/Communism ALL the people, having equal power over society, so that society produces on the basis of what is needed by ALL the people, is for those conscious of this need, to seize control of the means of production. You might not like Marx, but what he observes, ‘the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle [for control of the means of production]’ is the scientific fact.

BUT,,,,, Communism cannot be achieved by a tiny minority on behalf of the working class, “the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class” BECAUSE,,,,,, in this act they become conscious. In becoming conscious, they’re an insurmountable barrier to minority rule, ever happening again.

Never in history has a ruling class given up its power. Who knows, the communist revolution may be the exception to the rule. BUT if history repeats itself, and the ruling classes mount any kind of resistance to communism, there has to be a period where the working class does what the capitalist class do every day, claim the sole right to the legitimate use of force. They will have to act like a state, to suppress any capitalists undermining of the will of the collective majority.

Hopefully this will not happen. Hopefully we can go straight from capitalism to communism/anarchism.

ETA, perhaps I should clarify at this point. As I said in here I am not a member of the SPGB. I used to be a member of the SWP, but have given up on politics for personal reasons.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I would agree with some of the things you say here. Sometimes the language of the SPGB is a bit archiac but sometimes people misinterpret what the SPGB is saying as well (and possibly for that very reason). For example as Resistance says, the Marxian definition of "working class" is much wider than the standard sociological definition based on occuopation or education. It would definitely include the unemployed (the industrial reserve army), workers who work in call centres and the so called "middle class" who may or may imagine they have somehow risen above the economic compulsion to sell their labour power on the market (which is Marx's definition of what constitutes the working class).

On the question of hostility well, "yes" and "no" is my answer. The problem with some of these so called socialist parties is that they are not really socialist in any meaningful sense of the term. They dont stand for socialism. They dont even mention socialism in this sense. They mention lots of things like nationalisation of the commanding heights of industry which they call "socialism" but which has actually got sod all to do with socialism and is not doing the socialist cause any favours at all by misleading workers as to the nature of socialism. How can a socialist not be opposed to them?

On the other hand, there are groups that clearly seek socialism in its proper sense - the original idea of socialism that the SPGB espouses. Here the SPGB, I agree , needs to be a lot more, as you say, inclusive and cooperative. Gravediggers assures me that the attitude of the SPGB towards other organisations within the nonmarket anti-statist revolutionary sector has changed in recent years and I am glad to hear of that but personally I would like to see much more in the way of intrasectoral cooperation and collaboration myself. What we have in common far outweighs what divides us

just because of the numerical difference in the working class today, as to what it was in 1917, I believe it is quite possible there might not be a need for a 'workers state'.. BUT, if it is needed, it's needed. Are you and the SPGB as opposed to a workers state as the anarchists are?


btw. Workers autonomous zones, would be workers states imo, because they too would claim the sole right to legitimate force through workers militias.

 

[Gravediggers]

We need to be inclusive rather than divisive. Which is also why i disagree with the SPGB's hostility to all other socialist parties. It's petty and divisive and is going to get you into all sorts of arguments with people who actually agree with a lot of the ideas you put forward. It's another reason I'd never join - it tips the SPGB over into becoming a cult.

In many respects - has illustrated by the responses on this thread and elsewhere - the hostility is not being emitted by the SPGB so much but by the state capitalist left. IMHO they are more hostile to us than we are hostile to them, and even if we got rid of the hostility clause tomorrow the left would still hate and detest us for our take on political reality.

I have to agree with robbo in that the membership of the SPGB need to be more discerning with working with groups from the libertarian sector. A blanket hostility to groups and organisations is IMO self-defeating for it denies the possibility of an agreed analysis on the commonalities which have come out of activity in the class struggle.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Also two sheds, this is good if yoy commute, and have an mp3 player. http://www.resistancemp3.org.uk/

 

[Gravediggers]

just because of the numerical difference in the working class today, as to what it was in 1917, I believe it is quite possible they might not be a need for a 'workers state'.. BUT, if it is needed, it's needed. Are you and the SPGB as opposed to a workers state as the anarchists are?


btw. Workers autonomous zones, would be workers states imo, because they too would claim the sole right to legitimate force through workers militias.

Yes the SPGB are opposed to a workers state and for a very good reason. So long has the state is in existence so a class society will persist. Once the workers delegates have gained political power their first act will be to legitimately abolish the coercive features of the state machinery and use the socialist administration to complete the revolutionary process. This may entail retaining the armed forces to ensure a violent minority do not attempt to turn back the clock.

Of course there is the possibility of workers autonomous zones being set up but whether they could be described as 'workers states' is unlikely given that you agree they would be the legitimate force, which presumes they have obtained political power by legitimate means.

 

[two sheds]

Also two sheds, this is good if yoy commute, and have an mp3 player. http://www.resistancemp3.org.uk/

bookmarked, ta - yep i saw before that you have some of our noam on there, must give a listen.

 

[Gravediggers]

I used to be a member of the SWP, but have given up on politics for personal reasons.

Who are you trying to kid. Lol. The truth is you have given up on party politics, but given up on politics no way for your excellent contributions to this thread testify that you are very much a political animal. Good on you.

Btw I'm still waiting hear how you equate the SPGB with anarchism.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Yes the SPGB are opposed to a workers state and for a very good reason. So long has the state is in existence so a class society will persist. Once the workers delegates have gained political power their first act will be to legitimately abolish the coercive features of the state machinery and use the socialist administration to complete the revolutionary process. This may entail retaining the armed forces to ensure a violent minority do not attempt to turn back the clock.

Of course there is the possibility of workers autonomous zones being set up but whether they could be described as 'workers states' is unlikely given that you agree they would be the legitimate force, which presumes they have obtained political power by legitimate means.

Hmmmmm, puzzled. oxymoron alert???

Immediately after the revolution a class society will persist, classes will not just disappear. Once the workers delegates have gained political power they can NOT abolish a material reality, the remaining of classes. As you acknowledge yourself, "This may entail retaining the armed forces to ensure a violent minority do not attempt to turn back the clock." So the coercive features of the state machinery remain, while classes remain?

Only when classes cease to exist, can the workers' state cease to exist. Only then can "the workers delegates [.....] legitimately abolish the coercive features of the state machinery and use the socialist administration to complete the revolutionary process",,, surely????



ETA. The difference being those coercive forces that are today used against the majority to maintain submission to minority rule, will be used against the 'capitalist' minority to maintain submission to majority rule.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I take it the conjecture here is that the pitfalls of vanguardism are only with Stalin which totally ignores the fact that Lenin started the ball rolling.

maybe, but Lenin is dead. The SWP, amongst others, are aware of the pitfalls of Stalinism. Your assertion, still ignores the fact people make history, they may do so under circunstances inherited from the past, but this can be a guide as well as fetter.

 

[Gravediggers]

maybe, but Lenin is dead. The SWP, amongst others, are aware of the pitfalls of Stalinism. Your assertion, still ignores the fact people make history, they may do so under circunstances inherited from the past, but this can be a guide as well as fetter.

He may well be dead but his ideas live on with the likes of the SWP, SPEW, etc, claiming his theories have not been dated by the events of Stalinism. This is a poor excuse for what happened under Lenin who was ruthless in putting down all opposition to rule by the party. I have no problem with your paraphrasing of Marx's use of dialectic to explain that the state machinery can not be simply used by the workers to bring about their self-emancipation.