butchersapron
Bring back hanging
...and not once have the SPGB caught on to what's going on. Well, the SPGBers not posting have.
SPGB
- Thread starter Proper Tidy
- Start date
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
It's only 18th in terms of views which suggests something.
Gravediggers
New Member
And need I remind you that your definition of a vanguardist political party is yet to be revealed on this thread. Until this occurs we are denied the opportunity of comparing like with like and of reaching a conclusion that your allegations of the SPGB being a vanguardist political party is valid. The onus is on your, and always has been to prove your point.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
If i'd spent 100 years in the non-market socialism hole i'd have bothered finding out what those in there with me think.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
GD you're a liar.
The SPGB has been shown to be vanguardist.
It hasn't been shown to be leninist because it isn't.
It hasn't been proposed (by me at least) that vanguardism is avoidable.
With your head permanently over the bowl it's not surprising that you always miss the point.
Louis MacNeice
p.s. there is no 'onus' on anybody; not even on the SPGB to make a difference not just a whiney wimper.
The SPGB don't believe the working class are capable of transforming society without the SPGB. The Anarchist Federation don't even believe the working class are always capable of struggle without the Anarchist Federation:
Who gives a stuff about who's a "vanguardist" and who isn't? Really? It's completely irrelevant. It's just a way of non-Leninists to say, "oooh, you sound like Lenin."
What's important is this whole "we know best" attitude. Every socialist tradition has adopted it. Anarchist, Leninist, social democratic, impossibilist, syndicalist - they all think they know best. To be fair this was a perfectly reasonable stance 100 years ago - with poor literacy and general education amongst the working classes, it was not too unreasonable to identify working class intellectuals and other socialist intellectuals as playing a vital educational role. That's not just in political parties and propaganda but with things like socialist Sunday schools and literacy programs.
Now it seems all so anachronistic. When I see anarchists or Trots or whoever trying to explain to people what's in their interests or finger wag about "authoritarianism" or "nationalism" (and yes "vanguardism is bad 'mkay" is just another example of finger wagging moralism), they just look foolish in the same way the Jehovas Witnesses look foolish. Listen to us - we know we're right, it's written in a book.
What's needed is an organically working class movement - not an ideological party or federation or whatever that operates within the working class. The reason this is needed has nothing to do with authority or liberty or the power of spontaneity or anything like that. It's because in these times socialist activists are die hards who stick to their idiotic ideas as firmly as they stick to their great ideas, whereas the masses are at their highest cultural point they've ever been. The activists have more to learn from the class than visa versa.
http://www.afed.org.uk/ace/afed_introduction_anarchist_communism.pdf
Who gives a stuff about who's a "vanguardist" and who isn't? Really? It's completely irrelevant. It's just a way of non-Leninists to say, "oooh, you sound like Lenin."
What's important is this whole "we know best" attitude. Every socialist tradition has adopted it. Anarchist, Leninist, social democratic, impossibilist, syndicalist - they all think they know best. To be fair this was a perfectly reasonable stance 100 years ago - with poor literacy and general education amongst the working classes, it was not too unreasonable to identify working class intellectuals and other socialist intellectuals as playing a vital educational role. That's not just in political parties and propaganda but with things like socialist Sunday schools and literacy programs.
Now it seems all so anachronistic. When I see anarchists or Trots or whoever trying to explain to people what's in their interests or finger wag about "authoritarianism" or "nationalism" (and yes "vanguardism is bad 'mkay" is just another example of finger wagging moralism), they just look foolish in the same way the Jehovas Witnesses look foolish. Listen to us - we know we're right, it's written in a book.
What's needed is an organically working class movement - not an ideological party or federation or whatever that operates within the working class. The reason this is needed has nothing to do with authority or liberty or the power of spontaneity or anything like that. It's because in these times socialist activists are die hards who stick to their idiotic ideas as firmly as they stick to their great ideas, whereas the masses are at their highest cultural point they've ever been. The activists have more to learn from the class than visa versa.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
at long last someone has made this point
JimW
支那暗杀团
Fair points made but tbh despite having never joined any of the various sects I'm glad someone can be arsed to transmit the ideas in the manner as described in the bit you quote from AFed because I've also benefited from that.
I'd agree with that.
Gravediggers
New Member
On what justification am I a liar?
It has not been shown that the SPGB is a vanguardist party. We make no reformist demands and neither do we support or oppose reforms, we have no hierarchy and no leaders, there is no transitional program, the party is there to be used by the working class as a vehicle of self-emancipation, our aim is to abolish wage slavery and the state machinery.
Whereas, a vanguardist party is dedicated to reformism, they have a hierarchy and leaders, they are committed to a transitional program, the vanguardist party use the working class to gain political power for the party and not for self-emancipation, their aim does not include the abolishment of wage slavery and the state.
That said, we admit we are a vanguard party with political ideas and proposals for socialism, for the workers to use as they so wish.
On the contrary, it has been shown that the SPGB is not a follower of Lenin, not by just what it says but also by what it does not do i.e. propose compromise and collaboration with the political structure of capitalism.
Quite true it hasn't been proposed by you that vanguardism is avoidable, but the SPGB - since its formation - have proposed the workers avoid vanguardism like the plague.
What is it that activists need to learn from the working class and in what sense are activists apart from the working class?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
That they need to learn from the working class.
OK second question first. I have not said that the activists are apart from the working class. I am not saying that being working class gives you some sort of wisdom that you can only get by being working class. I'm talking about the class as a mass rather than individuals.
First question. Speaking very generally. Socialists need to learn how the class advances it's interests. They might have various theoretical ideas about this, but these ideas need to be put to the test. Working class instincts about work place struggles, community struggles etc. should be taken seriously. Working class fears about crime and drugs should be taken seriously. Working class fears about loss of community identity should be taken seriously.
If we're talking about the SPGB in particular, they need to learn how to understand the significance of small victories, they need to learn how to think without lumping ideas into various categories or isms, they need to learn how to stop shielding their ideas from reality, they need to learn how to stop shielding their strategy from the fact that their strategy has had no success nor any hint of partial success, they need to learn that the working class's problems do not stem from the ideas in working class people's heads. Basically the SPGB have to learn that being a socialist does not mean pretending you are from the planet zog.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Exactly what a ZOGGER would say. And round you'll go.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I'm waiting for that mom
Gravediggers
New Member
How you reached such a nonsensical conclusion beats me. For the truth is we readily agree that the working class are capable of transforming society without the SPGB. Presently, the SPGB are a vehicle to be used by the workers for self-emancipation if they so wish. If by chance another vehicle were to be formed by the workers during the class struggle, that was obviously better equipped to achieve a revolutionary transformation of society we would not stand in their way. However, until that time arrives - if ever - the proposal of the SPGB still stands.
We shall just have to wait and see what the AF have to say on that score.
The concept of vanguardist politics is very relevant to the idea of self-emancipation. For the concept of self-emancipation actually means that the next revolution will not be minority revolution but a revolution composed of the majority thinking for themselves without any reliance on leadership.
Although your above description of the battle of ideas is fair comment is does not apply to the SPGB in the sense we are "finger waging moralists" for our proposition for the establishment of socialism as the solution to the inequalities of capitalism is based on a materialist approach to class struggle. And by implication our analysis does not include the ambiguity of moralism.
The SPGB is an organically working class movement always have been and always will be. And after being in existence for 106 years it would be fair comment to label us as "die hards". However, the inclusion of "idiotic ideas" in the same breath is a disputable assertion. If your claim that, "the masses are at their highest cultural point they've ever been", were true what are we to make of Big Brother and consumerism? They are after all a very real aspect of culture.
The main lesson activists have learned from the workers is that they have yet to understand that the fight for democracy was only the beginning of the struggle for self-emancipation. Once they understand how to use democracy in order to achieve self-emancipation then they become a class for itself fighting for it own interests rather than the interests of a wealthy parasitical few.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
isn't it
This is pettyfogging.
Gravediggers said:
Look there isn't agreement on what vanguardism or self-emancipation means. Let's talk without isms.
Gravediggers said:
Your approach above is finger wagging moralism. The badness of vanguardism derives from it's lack of self-emancipatory goodness. There is no materialist meat in what you say. More to the point, when the SPGB does say something more meaty it's in the form "such and such a course of action will not achieve anything." Which is then backed up by abstract circular justifications.
Gravediggers said:
Have you ever ditched any old daft ideas? Like the hostility clause for example?
Gravediggers said:
I think discussions of Big Brother are usually pretty sophisticated. Much more so than discussions of TV dramas.
As for consumerism, I don't think it's any worse than old fashioned stoical "that's not for the like's of us" attitudes.
Gravediggers said:
Where and when did they learn that?
Gravediggers
New Member
Bland assertions prove nothing by explaining nothing, whereas my explanation for your allegation that, "The SPGB don't believe the working class are capable of transforming society without the SPGB." is its false for the SPGB have always looked on itself as a vehicle to be used by the workers if they so wish.
You might like to think there is no agreement on what vanguardism or self-emancipation means but there are thousands who would disagree with you. What is the fear over using 'isms' and have you tried talking without using them? And why should I restrict myself just to suit your sense of detachment from reality?
And where is your evidence of this occurring? A quote from any of our publications would be helpful. But I'll be very suprised if you can find one!
So you want us to shake hands with the class enemy and offer our profuse apologies and say it was all a mistake? What makes you think that even if we did ditch the hostility clause anything would change in respect of our political commitment? The truth is the hostility clause is dated in reference to the state-capitalists and reformists for they hate us more than we abhor them. It is also dated in respect of its blanket application to all and sundry with the party willing to participate in forums with those from the libertarian sector.
If you are of the opinion that discussions of Big Brother are pretty sophisticated and constitute high culture I can safely assume you thoroughly enjoy the bread and circus type of entertainment which capitalism offers for mental stimulation? Consumerism is a cultural phenomenon of capitalism where satisfaction is always elusive for those who have formed the impression that despite all its faults ignorance is bliss.
From struggling for the interests of my class. Where else!
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
How come you've got less members than my locals crib team
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
People -
not like
not like
Some good points here but others raise more questions than they answer.
I agree with the point about the significance of small victories but victories in regards to what? The SPGB is notable for its stance against reformism by which is meant measures enacted by the state ostensibly with the aim of remedying some or other problem thrown up by capitalism. Note that this does not mean opposition to reforms as such some of which can benefit workers; what it means simply is not advocating reforms. The SPGB argue quite rightly i think that this is to place oneself on a treadmill and that capitalism can never really be run in the interests of workers. Reforms granted at one point in time can be whittled down or withdrawn at another - for example during an economic recession. Not only that, reformism necesarily diverts attention from the need for a revolutionary transformation of society. You cannot logically seek to both mend the system and end it.
So "small victories" to the well attuned antennae of your SPGBer could possibly imply an advocacy of reformism in which case he or she would respond that , given capitalism, you can just as easily talk of "small defeats" and the demoralising consequences that this can have.
However I suspect that it is not reformism that you are alluding to or seeking to promote. Its something else. Direct action, community struggles and so on. Here I think Im inclined to agree with you. There is a significant gap in SPGB strategy on the way forward. Its not that the SPGB is wrong in what it is saying, its just that its simply not saying enough and its over dependence on abstract propagandism comes across as simplistic in the face of the buring question - "what are we to do in the meantime"?
In practice though, and to be fair to the SPGB, I think many SPGBers are probably doing the very things that you seem to suggesting - like being involved in their own communities in some way. Some SPGBers I can think of have been very active members in their trade unions. A number of them are in the IWW. All this can be easily overlooked both by critics of the SPGB and members themselves given the all or nothing approach of the SPGB. But as i say, this approach is rooted in a critique of reformism; it does not necessarily apply to other forms of activity and the weakness in the SPGB position is that it does not adequately theorise these other forms of activity
Finally, I still do not quite follow your argument about the relationship between activists and the working class. You say socialists are part of the working class and yet should take seriously the concerns of the class which implies a kind of separation of sorts, does it not? You see, SPGBers would respond to this point that they dont need to be told about the fears workers have overe things like drugs and crime and community decline. As part of the working class they experience this themselves and in fact the pages of the Socialist Standard are full of this sort of stuff.
The differences is that the SPGB would draw from this the conclusion that we need to fundamentally change the nature of society whereas the horizons of most workers remain limited to capitalism. In my view the answer lies not in rejecting what the SPGB has to say, nor in rejecting the kind of struggles you are referring to but how to combine both in a new synthesis
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
All the irony free correctness of a stopped clock; unfortunately also the same level of reflection and self awareness.
Louis MacNeice
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
The SPGB is not notable for its stance against reformism; opposition to reformism is very common on the left (of which the SPGB is very much a tiny constitutionally ineffective part). Where it is notable is precisely in it's opposition to reforms; it doesn't just not advocate them it attacks such advocacy (roundabout, treadmill it's the same tire old acrid teeth rotting dismissal).
Louis MacNeice
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
Vanguardism - 'the actions or thoughts of members of a vanguard'.
It would seem that you have been successful after all; workers have avoided the SPGB's vanguardism pretty much completely for over a century. Keep up the good work.
Louis MacNeice
Thanks for these thoughtful comments. I was indeed thinking of community and trade union struggles rather than state reforms, but that's mostly because I don't see the Labour Party or any other party as being a vehicle for progressive reforms. I've got no problem with reforms as such.
I should say that in past discussions I've had with SPGB members that they tend to see the progressive nature of reforms as illusory even as reforms. For example I've seen an SPGBer argue that free school dinners leads to downward pressure on wages and thus only redistributes wealth from the childless workers to workers with children. There is some truth in this, although I don't believe that the economics are that simple and besides it misses a bigger point - socialised child care places greater hope in the future, it gives you the freedom to have children. A good progressive reform is more than just a measure to alleviate poverty.
robbo203 said:
The SPGB membership is largely working class and they engage in day to day struggles. I recognise this, and I wouldn't suggest otherwise. But they don't engage in day to day struggles as SPGB members. There is no link from the present to the socialist future. I think we're in agreement.
I disagree. For one thing there is considerable confusion among the left as to what consitutes "reformism", many equating it with electoralism. The specific definition of reformism i gave of being measures enacted by the state with a view to modifying some problem thrown up by capitalism is what I am talking about and it cannot be said that the left by and large opposes this. In fact the bulk of the Left in terms of that definition are clearly reformist and advocate state measures ostensibly to benefit the workers.
You also confuse opposition to reforms with opposition to reformism. Ironically opposition to particular reforms is a kind of reformism. The SPGB does not campiagn against particular reforms as far as I am aware.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Circular. What other reforms are there? Note the problom is always 'thrown up by capitalism' - this is politics as scalextric. Functionalist rubbish that the most naive 19th century positivist sociologist would blanch at.
Similar threads
