SPGB

[robbo203]

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?


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.

But hang on there - not so quick to jump to conclusions!

Firstly , I dont think the SPGB has ever said that it is not possible for the workers to make gains. What they have said is that such gains are only likely to happen insofar as they do not conflict with the needs of the profit system as was definitely the case with the post war welfare state reforms which even prominent capitalists themselves judged to be in the interests of the system itself as the pamphlet amply demonstrates.

Secondly, you mention NHS which according to the SPGB aided profitability and increased efficiency. But you ask what happens when the NHS expands and gets more expensive. Well the answer as you might expect is that it cannot do so indefinitely since it will then become an increasingly unaccepable burden on the productive (or surplus-value producing) sector of the economy undermining its international competitiveness. There is a limit to gains that workers can make and this limit is, moreover, variable and circumstance-dependent. Come an economic recession, much if not all of the previous gains could well be wiped out. I read a few months ago that a series of internal NHS documents recently revealed that tens of thousands of NHS workers could soon be sacked, hospital units closed and patients denied treatments under secret plans for £20 billion of health cuts in a bid to reduce Britains record £167 billion deficit ("Hospital wards to shut in secret NHS cuts" Daily Telegraph Jon Swaine and Holly Watt, 26 Mar 2010.).

This is exactly what the SPGB model of the ecomony you refer to would have predicted. According to this model, capitalism is inherently unstable veering between boom and depression. The constraints built into this model means that any gains that workers make are likely to be transitory and that in the long run it is fundamental economoc trends such as the growth in productivity that are really decisive in the rise in living standards rather than the political shenanigans of reformist politicans promising us the earth if we only put an X behind their name.

The problem is that the unproductive sector (including the NHS) has been growiing at a rate above that of the prioductitve sector) for some time now and this is one of the reasons why we have reached crunch time and can expect a period of savage cutbacks to resore levels of priofitability with all that this entails for the gains that workers had previously made in their living standards

 

[Knotted]

You're confirming what I said.

But let's examine this contradiction.

The SPGB have this line that gains such as the NHS are not really gains as they promote a downward pressure on wages. I don't think they oppose reforms for the reason you oppose reforms. Like reforms, trade union gains are limited and can be reversed and do not lead to socialism, but the SPGB do not have the same problem with trade union struggles. I don't believe they are afraid of reformist cooties because they aren't afraid of trade unionist cooties.

So what happens when the NHS becomes so clearly a gain for the working class? Do the SPGB defend it? No they talk as if it's demise is inevitable. They think we're powerless to prevent it. The gain like qualities of the NHS are some sort of fluke or a by-product of some other agenda. A sort of bank error in your favour that the administration haven't got round to fixing. Nevermind the NHS - we need socialism.

 

[robbo203]

You're confirming what I said.

But let's examine this contradiction.

The SPGB have this line that gains such as the NHS are not really gains as they promote a downward pressure on wages. I don't think they oppose reforms for the reason you oppose reforms. Like reforms, trade union gains are limited and can be reversed and do not lead to socialism, but the SPGB do not have the same problem with trade union struggles. I don't believe they are afraid of reformist cooties because they aren't afraid of trade unionist cooties.

So what happens when the NHS becomes so clearly a gain for the working class? Do the SPGB defend it? No they talk as if it's demise is inevitable. They think we're powerless to prevent it. The gain like qualities of the NHS are some sort of fluke or a by-product of some other agenda. A sort of bank error in your favour that the administration haven't got round to fixing. Nevermind the NHS - we need socialism.

I think the economics behind the SPGB approach is basically sound. There is no such thing as a free lunch in capitalism and it is quite true that the apparent gains in the social wage will exert a downward pressure on money wages in other respects. This is all set out in the pamphlet I referred to. If you disagree with the economics of this approach I would be interested to hear your evidence.

On the question of trade unions vis a vis reforms, there is a reason why the SPGB approach to one is different from the other. Its not that they are denying that gains in one can be reversed just as it can in the other. Rather it has to do with the specific field in which each of these operate. Politics is goal-oriented, trade unionism on the other hand is process-oriented and inherently defensive by its very nature. In opting for reformism in the political filed, this necessarily precludes the revolutionary objective and I think the history of Social Democracy, as I said before, amply confirms the truth of this. That is why the SPGB opposes reformism but not trade unionism

 

[Knotted]

I think the economics behind the SPGB approach is basically sound. There is no such thing as a free lunch in capitalism and it is quite true that the apparent gains in the social wage will exert a downward pressure on money wages in other respects. This is all set out in the pamphlet I referred to. If you disagree with the economics of this approach I would be interested to hear your evidence.

I think we're in agreement about character of the SPGB's position. If I find time I'll debunk the economics behind it. I should say that I'm not an economist and that my efforts will be amateurish. However, we're talking at the level of theory. If a theory doesn't ring true, I don't think the onus is on the sceptics to debunk it. Is the NHS a gain worth defending?

On the question of trade unions vis a vis reforms, there is a reason why the SPGB approach to one is different from the other. Its not that they are denying that gains in one can be reversed just as it can in the other. Rather it has to do with the specific field in which each of these operate. Politics is goal-oriented, trade unionism on the other hand is process-oriented and inherently defensive by its very nature. In opting for reformism in the political filed, this necessarily precludes the revolutionary objective and I think the history of Social Democracy, as I said before, amply confirms the truth of this. That is why the SPGB opposes reformism but not trade unionism

This doesn't make much sense to me. Trade unionism is goal oriented, it's not necessarily defensive. You can defend reforms just as you can defend trade union gains.

In the past when I have debated/discussed this sort of question with SPGB members they don't come up with something like the above. They will usually talk about devaluing the value of labour and occasionally Engels' pamphlet on the housing question.

 

[Knotted]

Thinking about it, it's easy to debunk.

Free healthcare means more use of healthcare services. If the argument that free healthcare shifts the cost of providing healthcare from employers to taxpayers stands up, it doesn't take into account that use of healthcare facilities increases.

It shouldn't be a big revolation but the NHS really is a gain at the expense of the capitalist class.

 

[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.

Google humpty dumpty; you'll see that you have some thing in common with him and GD regarding your attitude to language.

If you can't see what my second point had to do with your post then you're even more intellectually blinkered or dishonest than I thought.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Gravediggers]

Name me a reform that you support

Democracy.

 

[butchersapron]

You support a reform brought in by the state to prop it up. Robbo doesn't.

 

[Gravediggers]

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

The SPGB are not opposed to reforms and we do not necessarily attack their advocacy or dismiss them. We judge each reform on its merits by considering its relevance, benefits, improvements, gains and possible advance it makes on the pursuit of class struggle. If a particular reform meets this criteria we then analyse its content with emphasis on its rational, pointing out in the process the reason reforms are limitated to a capitalist solution. And all the more reason why a socialist revolution remains on the agenda.

 

[Gravediggers]

You support a reform brought in by the state to prop it up. Robbo doesn't.

Robbo is quite capable of explaining why he holds a certain opinion. But lets not forget he's not a member of the SPGB and although he does support their general platform there can be occasions when even he forgets the nuances of the party position. And in respect of supporting the creation of a democratic structure there is a very important nuance which is essential to a socialist revolution. Namely, capitalism produces its own gravediggers and also arms them with the instruments to abolish it. Hence, despite the fact that the representative democracy of capitalism is limited the political consciousness potentially embodied in the use of the ballot box contains the political power to bring about a revolutionary change in the social relationships.

I personally started digging the grave of capitalism when I became a socialist. But we must recognise such activity is by necessity a collective effort and we will only bury the system of capitalism by arming ourselves with the tools and instruments essential to this task. And in this respect a democratic structure is a prerequisite we can not ignore.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

..despite the fact that the representative democracy of capitalism is limited the political consciousness potentially embodied in the use of the ballot box contains the political power to bring about a revolutionary change in the social relationships....

Despite the fact that the NHS working within capitalism is limited the political consciousness potentially embodied in 'free access at the time of need' contains a political power which can help bring about a revolutionary change in social relationships.

Do you support the NHS as well? Robbo will be dissapointed.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Gravediggers]

Despite the fact that the NHS working within capitalism is limited the political consciousness potentially embodied in 'free access at the time of need' contains a political power which can help bring about a revolutionary change in social relationships.

Do you support the NHS as well? Robbo will be dissapointed.

Louis MacNeice

Interesting conjecture you pose irrespective of its ambiguity but worthy of speculation on possible scenarios for future class struggle. Although IMO we will have to wait and see what the future holds. If the NHS is abandoned to the forces of the market or left to rot through lack of funding it will serve to underline what the SPGB have been saying in respect of reforms.

In that the cost of reforms are continually under pressure from the accumulation of capital and when thought necessary by the powers that be, they are eroded in line with the dictates of the profit system. Initially, the NHS was a stimulus for growth in the private sector. Now however, the balance sheets don't add up - especially with an aging population - so we can expect a degree of reduction in the provision of certain NHS services, especially for the elderly.

Which all the more reason why in the estimation of the SPGB the workers need to understand seeking improvements within capitalism, even when major reforms give the impression they are 'free access at the time of need', they are temporary measures which can be withdrawn when circumstances dictate.

A revolutionary party don't support or oppose reforms

 

[Proper Tidy]

Over and over and over and over and over
Like a monkey with a miniature cymbal
The joy of repetition really is in you
Under and under and under and under and under
The smell of repetition really is on you
And when I feel this way I really am with you

Laid back
Laid back
Laid back, we'll give you laid back
Laid back
Laid back
Laid back, I'll give you laid back

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Interesting conjecture you pose irrespective of its ambiguity but worthy of speculation on possible scenarios for future class struggle. Although IMO we will have to wait and see what the future holds. If the NHS is abandoned to the forces of the market or left to rot through lack of funding it will serve to underline what the SPGB have been saying in respect of reforms.

In that the cost of reforms are continually under pressure from the accumulation of capital and when thought necessary by the powers that be, they are eroded in line with the dictates of the profit system. Initially, the NHS was a stimulus for growth in the private sector. Now however, the balance sheets don't add up - especially with an aging population - so we can expect a degree of reduction in the provision of certain NHS services, especially for the elderly.

Which all the more reason why in the estimation of the SPGB the workers need to understand seeking improvements within capitalism, even when major reforms give the impression they are 'free access at the time of need', they are temporary measures which can be withdrawn when circumstances dictate.

A revolutionary party don't support or oppose reforms

This is not an impression; stop being dishonest.

Once again you've missed the point; what political consciousness is embodied in the NHS regarding the constitution of political subjects? Clue; the answer is not a million miles away from that embodied in the democratic reforms you were signing the praises of (which was the point of my post).

Louis MacNeice

 

[robbo203]

Robbo is quite capable of explaining why he holds a certain opinion. But lets not forget he's not a member of the SPGB and although he does support their general platform there can be occasions when even he forgets the nuances of the party position. And in respect of supporting the creation of a democratic structure there is a very important nuance which is essential to a socialist revolution. Namely, capitalism produces its own gravediggers and also arms them with the instruments to abolish it. Hence, despite the fact that the representative democracy of capitalism is limited the political consciousness potentially embodied in the use of the ballot box contains the political power to bring about a revolutionary change in the social relationships..

I know very well the SPGB's position on obtaining basic democratic rights, actually. However, i do not regard this as a reform in the sense in which we are talking about under the rubric of reformism. Reformism strictly has as its field the political sphere (that is to say it is carried out by the state) and ,as its focus, the economic sphere. Capitalism, after all is essentially defined in socio-economic terms rather than political-legal terms. What we are trying to "reform" via reformism is capitalism which , being a socio/economic construction, means that reformism itself logically speaking, must be socioeconomic in its orientation, its focus, as well. The right to vote, assemble etc relates to the political sphere not the the economic sphere and are therefore not reforms in the sense implied by reformism.

 

[butchersapron]

Bizarre, they're only reforms if they're in economic sphere. We're back to nazism being the same as scando capitalism. Round and round you go. (never mind this crass and outdated separation)

 

[butchersapron]

I rule that not to be a reform

I rule me not to contradict myself. Ever.

 

[Gravediggers]

I know very well the SPGB's position on obtaining basic democratic rights, actually. However, i do not regard this as a reform in the sense in which we are talking about under the rubric of reformism. Reformism strictly has as its field the political sphere (that is to say it is carried out by the state) and ,as its focus, the economic sphere. Capitalism, after all is essentially defined in socio-economic terms rather than political-legal terms. What we are trying to "reform" via reformism is capitalism which , being a socio/economic construction, means that reformism itself logically speaking, must be socioeconomic in its orientation, its focus, as well. The right to vote, assemble etc relates to the political sphere not the the economic sphere and are therefore not reforms in the sense implied by reformism.

Why you have gone to the trouble of making this distinction beats me when clearly the introduction of democracy impacted on the economic relations. IMO this argument is immaterial to the difference between reform and reformism. You need to take a step back and examine your argument for the relevance it makes regarding this discussion and how you are using the word 'logically' here. Reformists use both political and socio-economic reforms to pursue their case. For instance, the introduction of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly were a mixture of both.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Do not deviate from the sanctioned line.

 

[robbo203]

I rule that not to be a reform

I rule me not to contradict myself. Ever.

Look Mr Ferret if you haven't got anything useful or constructive to say, if you are not prepared to engage with the other person's arguments, then why bother. You know you really dont have to meet that self imposed target of 25posts per day uttering inanities

 

[butchersapron]

I just added something useful and constructive. You just don't like it, in fact you have no way around it - hence this guff.

 

[Gravediggers]

This is not an impression; stop being dishonest.

Once again you've missed the point; what political consciousness is embodied in the NHS regarding the constitution of political subjects? Clue; the answer is not a million miles away from that embodied in the democratic reforms you were signing the praises of (which was the point of my post).

Louis MacNeice

Unlike yourself I've never studied cryptology and I have little patience for game theory.

 

[robbo203]

Why you have gone to the trouble of making this distinction beats me when clearly the introduction of democracy impacted on the economic relations. IMO this argument is immaterial to the difference between reform and reformism. You need to take a step back and examine your argument for the relevance it makes regarding this discussion and how you are using the word 'logically' here. Reformists use both political and socio-economic reforms to pursue their case. For instance, the introduction of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly were a mixture of both.

You are missing the point completely. We are talking about refromism are we not? So what does the SPGB mean when it says "capitalism cannot be reformed" or "socialists are opposed to reformism". What is meant by "reform" in this context? What precisely is being "reformed" if not capitalism and what is capitalism, if not an socio-economic construction?.

To say that reform in this context includes political reforns actually weakens the whole case against reformism. You need something that is tightly argued and clearly defined, not fuzzy. The problem is that there is a regretable tendency within the SPGB to use the term reformism in a kind of sloppy catch-all fashion which obscures rather than clarifies the issue.

Of course political reforms impact upon economic relations in various ways - thats not something I have ever denied - but again this is not the point is it. If it was then why would the SPGB say its supports reforms that usher in basic democratic rights but does not support , for example, reformist campaigns to raise the state pension ? Part of the reason is that the SPGB says reformism distract from the revolutionary objective and yet it also says that basic democratic rigths are necessary for the revolution to happen. That in itself says something

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Unlike yourself I've never studied cryptology and I have little patience for game theory.

What does this have to do with my post? A very poor attempt at avoiding the gaping hole in your argument GD. Does the SPGB support the reformed health care system of the NHS?

Louis MacNeice

p.s. and while you're at it you could take back the nasty little piece of dishonesty about free access at the time of need.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

I'm reading the Alan Clarke diaries at the moment and I was startled to see him quote you Louis...

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I'm reading the Alan Clarke diaries at the moment and I was startled to see him quote you Louis...

We shared a liking for the odd glass or three. Apart from that I can't think of any link between us. He obviously had better taste in poetry than he had judgment in politics.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Gravediggers]

What does this have to do with my post? A very poor attempt at avoiding the gaping hole in your argument GD. Does the SPGB support the reformed health care system of the NHS?

Louis MacNeice

p.s. and while you're at it you could take back the nasty little piece of dishonesty about free access at the time of need.

The SPGB have neither supported or opposed the introduction of the NHS. The SPGB is only interested in abolishing the system of capitalism not reforming it. Why you should need reminding of this every couple of weeks suggests you are either unable to grasp the implications of this or suffer from short-term memory loss.

 

[dennisr]

The SPGB have neither supported or opposed the introduction of the NHS.

And no-one else gave a feck about the SPGBs 'position' either way - then as now.

As self confessed fans of Marx - what about his simple point about changing the world rather than simply interpreting it

 

[Knotted]

The SPGB have neither supported or opposed the introduction of the NHS. The SPGB is only interested in abolishing the system of capitalism not reforming it. Why you should need reminding of this every couple of weeks suggests you are either unable to grasp the implications of this or suffer from short-term memory loss.

Probably because you've just said:

The SPGB are not opposed to reforms and we do not necessarily attack their advocacy or dismiss them. We judge each reform on its merits by considering its relevance, benefits, improvements, gains and possible advance it makes on the pursuit of class struggle. If a particular reform meets this criteria we then analyse its content with emphasis on its rational, pointing out in the process the reason reforms are limitated to a capitalist solution. And all the more reason why a socialist revolution remains on the agenda.

You've also written dismissively about the NHS. Why bother going to the trouble of pointing out the limits of NHS if the SPGB refused to support it's introduction on principle? Why not just explain the principle and be done with all this nonsense about free access at the time of need being merely an impression rather than a reality?

I can't blame robbo for being confused about your stance.

 

[Gravediggers]

You are missing the point completely. We are talking about refromism are we not? So what does the SPGB mean when it says "capitalism cannot be reformed" or "socialists are opposed to reformism". What is meant by "reform" in this context? What precisely is being "reformed" if not capitalism and what is capitalism, if not an socio-economic construction?.

I gained the impression that this particular discussion was over the distinction between activity for particular reforms and reformist activity. And not about lumping all activity for reforms under the heading of 'reformist activity'. Indeed, your past postings have clearly made this distinction and the reasons and rational why the SPGB pursue only a course of revolutionary activity rather than combine the two.

To say that reform in this context includes political reforns actually weakens the whole case against reformism. You need something that is tightly argued and clearly defined, not fuzzy. The problem is that there is a regretable tendency within the SPGB to use the term reformism in a kind of sloppy catch-all fashion which obscures rather than clarifies the issue.

By you trying to make a distinction between political and economic reforms you are actually making the argument 'fuzzy'. The SPGB do not use the term reformism in a kind of sloppy catch-all fashion which obscures rather than clarifies the issue. Which is the argument the left use, for in fact our case against the pursuit of reformism is always clarified with a definition of reformism, i.e. political action that will, allegedly, gradually transform capitalism into socialism.

Of course political reforms impact upon economic relations in various ways - thats not something I have ever denied - but again this is not the point is it. If it was then why would the SPGB say its supports reforms that usher in basic democratic rights but does not support , for example, reformist campaigns to raise the state pension ? Part of the reason is that the SPGB says reformism distract from the revolutionary objective and yet it also says that basic democratic rigths are necessary for the revolution to happen. That in itself says something

Precisely, and all the more reason for you to abandon this particular argument