SPGB

[Spanky Longhorn]

this is politics as scalextric.

I am definately using that one.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

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 campaign against particular reforms as far as I am aware.

1. Good for you humpty.

2. Given that the only campaiging the SPGB does is 'educational', then all it's words pointing out the uselessness of specific reforms under capitalism makes your statement look more than a little foolish.

Louis MacNeice

 

[butchersapron]

The differences is that the RSDP 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 RSDP has to say, nor in rejecting the kind of struggles you are referring to but how to combine both in a new synthesis

.

 

[robbo203]

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.

I have no idea how what you say here connects with the point I made. How is it circular? How is it "functionalist rubbish"? And what the hell are you taklkinbg about anyway. You dont explain yourself very well

I gave a specific definition of reformism which conveyed the idea that its field of activity is the political sphere i.e. measures undertaken by the state. The point that I think the SPGB quite rightly emphasises is that there is a basic incompatiblity between wanting to end capitalism and wanting to mend capitalism. It is here , in the political sphere, that a line needs to be drawn in the sand. Are we going to to endlessly tinker with the system or we going overthrow it?


As usual youve got the wrong end of the stick. It is not so much the problems that i was focussing on but how we approach them. I concur with the SPGB in is opposition to reformism as a political mode of activity but I also concur with Knotted on the value of other approaches apart from the political one. I was trying to say that the SPGB strategy while essentially correct was deficient. Did you not understand this?

 

[robbo203]

1. Good for you humpty.

2. Given that the only campaiging the SPGB does is 'educational', then all it's word's pointing out the uselessness of specifc reforms uner capitalism makes your statement look more than a little foolish.

Louis MacNeice

Another poster with a penchant for making vague enigmatic statements that really mean sod all. Do you mind perhaps trying to explain in plain english the point you are trying to make and how this connects up with the point I made. Im buggered if I can see the connection.

 

[butchersapron]

I have no idea how what you say here connects with the point I made. How is it circular? How is it "functionalist rubbish"? And what the hell are you taklkinbg about anyway. You dont explain yourself very well

I gave a specific definition of reformism which conveyed the idea that its field of activity is the political sphere i.e. measures undertaken by the state. The point that I think the SPGB quite rightly emphasises is that there is a basic incompatiblity between wanting to end capitalism and wanting to mend capitalism. It is here , in the political sphere, that a line needs to be drawn in the sand. Are we going to to endlessly tinker with the system or we going overthrow it?


As usual youve got the wrong end of the stick. It is not so much the problems that i was focussing on but how we approach them. I concur with the SPGB in is opposition to reformism as a political mode of activity but I also concur with Knotted on the value of other approaches apart from the political one. I was trying to say that the SPGB strategy while essentially correct was deficient. Did you not understand this?

It's quite simple - you oppose reformism, all things that you don't support are therefore reformism. Church.

Yes, i do.

 

[butchersapron]

Nothing at all on the other points...

Thrown up by capitalism

 

[robbo203]

It's quite simple - you oppose reformism, all things that you don't support are therefore reformism. Church.

Yes, i do.

Bullshit. There are plenty of things I dont support which are not reformist. National chauvinism, racism , sexism and homophobia to mention just a few. Interesting that you should say nothing about the things I do support which is not limited to advocating socialism. I wonder why?

 

[butchersapron]

Bullshit. There are plenty of things I dont support which are not reformist. National chauvinism, racism , sexism and homophobia to mention just a few. Interesting that you should say nothing about the things I do support which is not limited to advocating socialism. I wonder why?

Name me a reform that you support

 

[robbo203]

Name me a reform that you support

Huh?

Ive already explained several times I dont support reformism. I do support other forms of activity that are not reformist (i.e. do not involve the state enacting certain measures with ithe framework of capitalism) and these are not limited to straightforward revolutionary politics

Reads my exchange with Knotted if you want a clearer idea

 

[butchersapron]

Name me a reform that you support

 

[robbo203]

Name me a reform that you support

Already answered

 

[butchersapron]

No, it wasn't.

Name me a reform that you support

Name names.

 

[butchersapron]

Bullshit. There are plenty of things I dont support which are not reformist. National chauvinism, racism , sexism and homophobia to mention just a few.

What reforms do you support?

 

[robbo203]

No, it wasn't.

Name me a reform that you support

Name names.

duh duh and duh again. Youre like a flippin ferret on speed darting from one thread to the next without pause to reflect. I said I oppose reformism. That means quite simply - please read my lips - that I dont support reforms and if you want to know what I mean by a reform go back to my earlier posts. It gets a bit tiresome you playing games

 

[butchersapron]

You have been at pains to say that you don't oppose reforms but reformism. What reforms do you support?

 

[butchersapron]

I dont support reforms

None?

 

[robbo203]

You have been at pains to say that you don't oppose reforms but reformism. What reforms do you support?

Jesussssss christ. How much more do i have to say it before the penny finally drops? Not opposing reforms does NOT have to mean supporting reforms. Geddit? Or do I really have to explain it to you. If you support reforms that would make you a reformist and I have said umpteen times that I am not

 

[Proper Tidy]

Did you support dropping the voting age back in the day?

No?

Did you support ending capital punishment?

No?

Did you support the creation of the NHS?

No?

Really?

 

[Knotted]

I think robbo's position is abstentionist with respect to reforms. Never support, never oppose.

I want to talk about ferrets now. Aren't they great. Cheaky little bastards. I've got three.

 

[butchersapron]

Jesussssss christ. How much more do i have to say it before the penny finally drops? Not opposing reforms does NOT have to mean supporting reforms. Geddit? Or do I really have to explain it to you. If you support reforms that would make you a reformist and I have said umpteen times that I am not

Name me a reform that you support

 

[butchersapron]

I think robbo's position is abstentionist with respect to reforms. Never support, never oppose.

I want to talk about ferrets now. Aren't they great. Cheaky little bastards. I've got three.

It's abstentionist of life, of politics really...

 

[robbo203]

I think robbo's position is abstentionist with respect to reforms. Never support, never oppose.

I want to talk about ferrets now. Aren't they great. Cheaky little bastards. I've got three.

Thank gawd someone's twigged! Thats it - with regard to reforms (i.e. measure enacted by the state) I am "abstentionist". Once you starting go down the road of supporting this reform or opposing that reform you end abandoning the idea of a revolutionary change altogether. History has more than vindicated this claim. Look at the social democratic parties of the second international. They thought they could combine the minimum programme with the maximum. It can't be done. Every single one of these organisations ended up either going down the pan or becoming a thoroughly capitalist outfit.

So I oppose reformism which means I do not support reforms or oppose them. I am an abstentionist with regard to reforms. But that does not means as Butchers in his usual silly fashion asserts being abstentionist of life, of politics really On the contrary!

 

[Knotted]

Did you support dropping the voting age back in the day?

No?

Did you support ending capital punishment?

No?

Did you support the creation of the NHS?

No?

Really?

If I remember rightly the SPGB were abstentionist on the creation of the NHS, I don't know about capital punishment and the voting age.

They basically take an unupdated version of Marxism as a political-economic model. That is they think we are still living in 19th century England. Capitalism is always of a ferocious free market variety driving wages down to a minimum level and conceding nothing in terms of reforms. Things like the welfare state and the NHS are regarded as aberations that won't last and it's wrong to give workers the illusion that they can make meaningful gains under capitalism.

 

[robbo203]

If I remember rightly the SPGB were abstentionist on the creation of the NHS, I don't know about capital punishment and the voting age.

They basically take an unupdated version of Marxism as a political-economic model. That is they think we are still living in 19th century England. Capitalism is always of a ferocious free market variety driving wages down to a minimum level and conceding nothing in terms of reforms. Things like the welfare state and the NHS are regarded as aberations that won't last and it's wrong to give workers the illusion that they can make meaningful gains under capitalism.

No Knotted this is a gross caricature. If you want to find out what the SPGB thinks on these matters I suggest you check out this http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/go!.pdf

 

[butchersapron]

Name me a reform that you support

 

[Knotted]

No Knotted this is a gross caricature. If you want to find out what the SPGB thinks on these matters I suggest you check out this http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/go!.pdf

The introduction of the ‘welfare state’ in Britain under a Labour government after the Second World War brought in a comprehensive system of ‘free’ health care, unemployment benefits, state pensions and family allowances. However, contrary to popular belief, this legislation was not wanted for humanitarian reasons. It resulted from the realisation by politicians and industrialists that an allembracing scheme of social security would be cheaper to run than the existing piecemeal system and, above all, that healthier, more contented workers would make a more efficient, and therefore cheaper, labour force. Sir William Beveridge, who drew up the original plan, constantly argued in his Report that his proposals would be more economical to administer than previous methods, and in February 1943 Samuel Courtauld, millionaire Tory industrialist, said of the Report: “Social security of this nature will be about the most profitable long-term investment the country could make. It will not undermine the morale of the nations’ workers: it will ultimately lead to higher efficiency among them and a lowering of production costs” (Manchester Guardian, 19 February 1943). Most other employers
were apparently of the same opinion, for in a poll conducted at the time, 75 per cent of them agreed that the Beveridge Report should be adopted (Susanne MacGregor, The Politics of Poverty, p.21.)

OK so the SPGB think the NHS and the welfare state were introduced in order to help capitalists make more profit. So when the NHS expands and gets more expensive, what do they say?

The conclusion must be that to fulfil the professed aims of Bevan for a health service that would cover the needs of the working class was never more than a pipe dream. No government will dare to upset their masters to the extent necessary to maintain a decent health service. The most likely prognosis is that it will carry on much as now with an increasing bias towards private hospitals and treatment that is paid for at the point of consumption.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/apr05/page12and13.html

I think my characterisation was fair. The SPGB have a hard time even conceiving of the possibility of winning genuine gains for the working class outside of the workplace.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Thank gawd someone's twigged! Thats it - with regard to reforms (i.e. measure enacted by the state) I am "abstentionist". Once you starting go down the road of supporting this reform or opposing that reform you end abandoning the idea of a revolutionary change altogether. History has more than vindicated this claim. Look at the social democratic parties of the second international. They thought they could combine the minimum programme with the maximum. It can't be done. Every single one of these organisations ended up either going down the pan or becoming a thoroughly capitalist outfit.

So I oppose reformism which means I do not support reforms or oppose them. I am an abstentionist with regard to reforms. But that does not means as Butchers in his usual silly fashion asserts being abstentionist of life, of politics really On the contrary!

But when I pointed out you lot were abstentionist - like, months ago - you seemed to dispute this with some vigour. Yet now you are saying you are.

Will this be like the vanguard/vanguardist thing, Robbo? You abstain but you're not abstentionist?

 

[robbo203]

But when I pointed out you lot were abstentionist - like, months ago - you seemed to dispute this with some vigour. Yet now you are saying you are.

Will this be like the vanguard/vanguardist thing, Robbo? You abstain but you're not abstentionist?

I have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about so you will have to refresh my memory. Im abstentionist on some things - like refroms - but not on others

 

[Proper Tidy]

I have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about so you will have to refresh my memory. Im abstentionist on some things - like refroms - but not on others

What are you not abstentionist on?

"Spreading the socialist gospel through pamphlets and meetings" - what else?