SPGB

[Knotted]

Does the SPGB think:

1) The NHS is a gain for the working class that nevertheless falls well short of socialism and is unnecessary for the SPGB's scheme to seize control of the state and thus it's introduction was not supportable nor is it's existence defendable.

2) The NHS only appears to be a gain for the working class as capitalist governments never hand out something for nothing.

3) Both the above.

 

[Gravediggers]

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?

The SPGB have never dismissed the NHS in the sense of it not being a gain for the working class. We looked at its limitations and restrictions and highlighted the fact that if the costs of running the NHS overrun the benefits to be gained by the capitalist class they would be reduced or the service withdrawn. And this is precisely the threat its presently under.

I've explained the principles involved over and over again yet many on this thread reject them because they are of the opinion there is no conflict between adopting a compromising position with the political structure and the pursuit of a revolution objective. Which logically means, in effect, they have no political principles whatsoever for it involves engaging and collaborating with the class enemy.

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

You can only blame robbo for his own confusion for attempting to make a distinction between political and economic reforms so he could argue that any reforms which involved appealing to the state were reformist. Whereas the SPGB are not concerned to whom the reform is directed - workers or capitalist - for we merely point out no amount of reforms will make any fundamental difference to the social relationships of capitalism. Which any way you look at it is a platform for revolution.

 

[Knotted]

The SPGB have never dismissed the NHS in the sense of it not being a gain for the working class. We looked at its limitations and restrictions and highlighted the fact that if the costs of running the NHS overrun the benefits to be gained by the capitalist class they would be reduced or the service withdrawn. And this is precisely the threat its presently under.

So it's not worth defending because it's doomed anyway. That's a cranky position to say the least, but it's coherent. But basically you have no problem in principle with supporting reforms, you've just got crazy theories to say it's not worthwhile.

I've explained the principles involved over and over again yet many on this thread reject them because they are of the opinion there is no conflict between adopting a compromising position with the political structure and the pursuit of a revolution objective. Which logically means, in effect, they have no political principles whatsoever for it involves engaging and collaborating with the class enemy.

I don't think that's the reason. I think that most here would read some of your statements such as "A revolutionary party don't [sic] support or oppose reforms" as being uncompromising. It's confusing when you then go on to say that in certain special cases you are willing to support certain reforms and implicitly argue that you have no principled problem with supporting other reforms per se.

You can only blame robbo for his own confusion for attempting to make a distinction between political and economic reforms so he could argue that any reforms which involved appealing to the state were reformist. Whereas the SPGB are not concerned to whom the reform is directed - workers or capitalist - for we merely point out no amount of reforms will make any fundamental difference to the social relationships of capitalism. Which any way you look at it is a platform for revolution.

I can't blame him for that. He's just trying to rationalise the SPGB's position. It's not easy.

 

[Gravediggers]

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

And what makes you think that being involved in reformist activity will change the position of the working class?

 

[Knotted]

Has anyone ever talked to a Jehova's Witness for so long that they end up making excuses and shuffling off?

 

[dennisr]

And what makes you think that being involved in reformist activity will change the position of the working class?

Your position certainly has not changed owt in over 100 years.

As I see it, the self-activity of working people in immediate struggles to achieve immediate (if limited...) demands, is the experience through which they are able to draw conclusions about the nature of the present system and its limitations. They are also better able to judge/compare and take up (or ignore...) the various 'revolutionary' ideas/traditions on offer.

Learning through action and practice out of necessity - its what humanity has always done.

If one stands on the sidelines poo-pooing 'reformist' limitations, one will remain ignored for another 100+ years. imo, revolutionaries should be the best reformists if they are going to turn a 'nice' idea - of working class self-emancipation - into a conrete reality rather than an abstract discussion circle for 'nice' ideas. Marx was clear on this point.

After 100+ years - if one has not asked oneself why the small and irrelevant but 'nice' idea grouplet has remained nothing more than a small and irrelevant but 'nice' idea grouplet, then one has really ignored a central element of Marx's writing. One, it could be argued, is guilty of a much greater sin than anything anyone with illusions in reformist ideas is guilty of. After all 'what's the point?' otherwise.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

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.

But why hasn't the SPGB supported the NHS when it has some of the same political potential as the democratic reforms you do support (reforms that have not abolished capitalism)?

This is the third time I've asked the question. Perhaps you'll be able to answer it this time; given the weird ahistorical utopian cul de sac you've parked yourself in it may well be beyond you.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

And what makes you think that being involved in reformist activity will change the position of the working class?

Talking to my parents and grandparents.

Louis MacNeice

p.s. I await the inevitable attempt to limit what counts as the 'position of the working class' so as to make sense of GD' s well intentioned Edwardian world view. Come on humpty.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Has anyone ever talked to a Jehova's Witness for so long that they end up making excuses and shuffling off?

So that's why they stopped visiting

 

[Knotted]

But why hasn't the SPGB supported the NHS when it has some of the same political potential as the democratic reforms you do support (reforms that have not abolished capitalism)?

Basically, they thought it wasn't worth supporting at the time ie. they assumed that it was just capitalism making itself more efficient. They realise they were wrong, but they can't admit that. So now they theorise that it's about to be scrapped (maybe not in the next few years but eventually - give it another century) and there's no use trying to defend it. We are afterall helpless until we abolish the wages system - then we can defend the NHS.

If you pay careful attention they never say that supporting reforms amounts to reformism. Unless someone else is doing it, that is.

 

[dennisr]

Has anyone ever talked to a Jehova's Witness for so long that they end up making excuses and shuffling off?

 

[Knotted]

By the way if anybody thinks I'm being unfair or sarcastic they should read this. It needs to be seen to be believed.

 

[frogwoman]

By the way if anybody thinks I'm being unfair or sarcastic they should read this. It needs to be seen to be believed.

 

[sihhi]

By the way if anybody thinks I'm being unfair or sarcastic they should read this. It needs to be seen to be believed.

There's nothing really wrong with the analysis, in fact there's hardly anything to fault the SPGB's analysis. It's the behaviour of the group towards those outside it who are not convinced of the case for immediate money-abolition that's the problem.

 

[Knotted]

There's nothing really wrong with the analysis, in fact there's hardly anything to fault the SPGB's analysis. It's the behaviour of the group towards those outside it who are not convinced of the case for immediate money-abolition that's the problem.

I couldn't care a less about their attitude to those outside their group. To be perfectly honest they've always struck me as being quite civil.

No there isn't anything wrong with the analysis. The problem is that the analysis blatantly doesn't support their conclusion. The author states:

"No doubt most workers will conclude that any deficiencies in the NHS can be put right by a change of government and that it lies within the power of the political process to achieve a viable health system."

Well maybe, but I'll tell you something for nothing. Most workers will want to defend the NHS regardless of it's deficiencies.

As I say, the SPGB are not wooden ultra-revolutionaries who oppose reforms on principle. If they were they were, then they would have no problem saying, "the NHS despite it's problems is a gain for workers, but we are not intersted in such reforms we are interested in revolution."

That article is nothing but an anti-NHS screed. It's underfunded, it's too expensive for the capitalists, it's on it's way out, pity. But, nevermind the NHS never cured all diseases so it was a failure anyway. Now listen to us talk about socialism.

 

[sihhi]

I couldn't care a less about their attitude to those outside their group. To be perfectly honest they've always struck me as being quite civil.

I've felt sneered at, but there you go. I don't care. I'm off this thread.

 

[Gravediggers]

So it's not worth defending because it's doomed anyway. That's a cranky position to say the least, but it's coherent. But basically you have no problem in principle with supporting reforms, you've just got crazy theories to say it's not worthwhile.

It appears you are attempting a twisty here by saying, "in principle with supporting reforms", when you know full well we are not a reformist party. The SPGB have no position on defending particular reforms from the attacks of the profit system. For we don't see our role to tell workers what to do under such circumstances, when they are quite capable of deciding for themselves and do not require self-appointed leaders to direct their activity.

However, when the condition of the working class is generally under attack has what's occurring in Greece - and may well occur in the UK - it would be foolish for us to implore the workers to stay indoors and be passive and docile like their masters expect. For the capitalists would most certainly take advantage of a lack of reaction and take the risk of imposing even more austerity measures.

I don't think that's the reason. I think that most here would read some of your statements such as "A revolutionary party don't [sic] support or oppose reforms" as being uncompromising. It's confusing when you then go on to say that in certain special cases you are willing to support certain reforms and implicitly argue that you have no principled problem with supporting other reforms per se.

It only becomes confusing when people like yourself make statements that fail to stand up to examination. The only special case we have made for supporting a particular reform is the introduction of democracy, and we have never supported other reforms per se.

I can't blame him for that. He's just trying to rationalise the SPGB's position. It's not easy.

No he's not trying to rationalise the SPGB's position but his own position.

 

[Knotted]

It appears you are attempting a twisty here by saying, "in principle with supporting reforms", when you know full well we are not a reformist party.

But you know full well that you don't have to be reformist in order to support reforms. Stop trying to be slippery. Go look at your own definition.

i.e. political action that will, allegedly, gradually transform capitalism into socialism.

I have nowhere alleged that your lack of a ban on supporting any reform means you believe reforms can gradually transform capitalism into socialism.

According to your definition, supporting reforms does not equate to reformism.

No go write that out 100 times.

The SPGB have no position on defending particular reforms from the attacks of the profit system. For we don't see our role to tell workers what to do under such circumstances, when they are quite capable of deciding for themselves and do not require self-appointed leaders to direct their activity.

Who said anything about being a self-appointed leader?

But again let's emphasise - you have no position on defending particular reforms ie. defending the NHS is compatable with SPGB politics. Why do you insist on rubbishing the NHS for not being perfect and thus not worth defending?

However, when the condition of the working class is generally under attack has what's occurring in Greece - and may well occur in the UK - it would be foolish for us to implore the workers to stay indoors and be passive and docile like their masters expect. For the capitalists would most certainly take advantage of a lack of reaction and take the risk of imposing even more austerity measures.

Stop telling me what you won't do and tell me what you will do.

It only becomes confusing when people like yourself make statements that fail to stand up to examination. The only special case we have made for supporting a particular reform is the introduction of democracy, and we have never supported other reforms per se.

But you have no principled position against supporting other reforms per se. As you yourself pointed out earlier you examine each case for it's merits. As you yourself admit, the NHS was a gain. Conclusion - the SPGB were mistaken about the NHS. Why can't you admit it? What sort of democratic organisation are you if you can't correct your mistakes?

 

[Gravediggers]

Your position certainly has not changed owt in over 100 years.

As I see it, the self-activity of working people in immediate struggles to achieve immediate (if limited...) demands, is the experience through which they are able to draw conclusions about the nature of the present system and its limitations. They are also better able to judge/compare and take up (or ignore...) the various 'revolutionary' ideas/traditions on offer.

Learning through action and practice out of necessity - its what humanity has always done.

If one stands on the sidelines poo-pooing 'reformist' limitations, one will remain ignored for another 100+ years. imo, revolutionaries should be the best reformists if they are going to turn a 'nice' idea - of working class self-emancipation - into a conrete reality rather than an abstract discussion circle for 'nice' ideas. Marx was clear on this point.

And I've also made it clear in a previous post that both Marx and Engles made it quite clear in 1872 in that edition of the CM that theirs and your present position had become dated by events. So that makes you 138 years out of date.

After 100+ years - if one has not asked oneself why the small and irrelevant but 'nice' idea grouplet has remained nothing more than a small and irrelevant but 'nice' idea grouplet, then one has really ignored a central element of Marx's writing. One, it could be argued, is guilty of a much greater sin than anything anyone with illusions in reformist ideas is guilty of. After all 'what's the point?' otherwise.

This moralistic argument implies that despite your revolutionary veneer when you scratch the surface we find a born again liberal.

 

[Knotted]

And I've also made it clear in a previous post that both Marx and Engles made it quite clear in 1872 in that edition of the CM that theirs and your present position had become dated by events. So that makes you 138 years out of date.

Two points.

1) Dennisr didn't mention the Communist Manifesto.

2) Have you even read the 1872 edition? In particular:

One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.”

 

[dennisr]

This moralistic argument implies that despite your revolutionary veneer when you scratch the surface we find a born again liberal.

thats right.

 

[Gravediggers]

But you know full well that you don't have to be reformist in order to support reforms. Stop trying to be slippery. Go look at your own definition.

I'm not trying to be slippery in the reasons why we don't support reforms. For if we did start supporting reforms this would attract reform minded people to our platform and gradually lead to the demise of our revolutionary proposals. And like I've said previously if we did start supporting reforms logically we would also be supporting the political system and all the compromise and collaboration this would involve. No compromise with capitalism means exactly that for we stand for revolution and nothing but.

I have nowhere alleged that your lack of a ban on supporting any reform means you believe reforms can gradually transform capitalism into socialism.

You are twisting again for the SPGB have effectively banned any support for reforms, with the exception of democracy.

According to your definition, supporting reforms does not equate to reformism.

Correct. But if the point you are trying to make here is that logically we should support reforms I not only beg to differ but refer you to what I've previously stated on this issue.

But again let's emphasise - you have no position on defending particular reforms ie. defending the NHS is compatable with SPGB politics. Why do you insist on rubbishing the NHS for not being perfect and thus not worth defending?

You are deliberately trying another twisty here and in the process making a nonsense of your question(s) by putting them in contradistinction with one another. We do not rubbish the NHS neither do we rubbish it for not being perfect. In fact we don't expect anything from the NHS other than a limited service given the constrains of capitalism. And we most certainly do not say the NHS is'nt worth defending. That is a decision we leave to the workers.

Stop telling me what you won't do and tell me what you will do.

Propose a revolutionary transformation of society.

But you have no principled position against supporting other reforms per se.

Yet another twisty. You are getting to sound like a dead parrot.

As you yourself pointed out earlier you examine each case for it's merits. As you yourself admit, the NHS was a gain. Conclusion - the SPGB were mistaken about the NHS. Why can't you admit it? What sort of democratic organisation are you if you can't correct your mistakes?

You have drawn the wrong conclusion. We welcome any improvements the working class can make on their condition but it would be a very big mistake on our part if we failed to remind the workers that any gains are of a temporary nature. For like the trade union struggle reform activity is always on the defensive. Whilst the revolutionary struggle is always on the offensive.

 

[Knotted]

I'm not trying to be slippery in the reasons why we don't support reforms. For if we did start supporting reforms this would attract reform minded people to our platform and gradually lead to the demise of our revolutionary proposals. And like I've said previously if we did start supporting reforms logically we would also be supporting the political system and all the compromise and collaboration this would involve. No compromise with capitalism means exactly that for we stand for revolution and nothing but.

I misread you earlier as you characterising others as characterising you as being class collaborationist. I didn't think you actually considered your support for democracy to be class collaborationism!

So let's see - supporting reforms is not reformism but it is compromise and class collaboration, although it could still be revolutionary. So this makes the SPGB class collaborationist proletarian revolutionaries.

I'll admit that I'm struggling to get my head round that one.

By the way the above is not a principled argument. It's thoroughly opportunistic. You are placing your party's internal concerns above class concerns.

You are twisting again for the SPGB have effectively banned any support for reforms, with the exception of democracy.

"Effectively banned". You can't articulate the principle behind this "effective ban". As I keep saying this is because the principle doesn't exist. It's not part ot the Marxist tradition - not even the 19th century variety that you espouse.

Correct. But if the point you are trying to make here is that logically we should support reforms I not only beg to differ but refer you to what I've previously stated on this issue.

No, I'm saying that logically you should have no problem with supporting reforms. You may have various good reasons to reject various particular reforms.

You are deliberately trying another twisty here and in the process making a nonsense of your question(s) by putting them in contradistinction with one another. We do not rubbish the NHS neither do we rubbish it for not being perfect. In fact we don't expect anything from the NHS other than a limited service given the constrains of capitalism. And we most certainly do not say the NHS is'nt worth defending. That is a decision we leave to the workers.

Come on. The SPGB screed is basically a long excuse for not defending the NHS. If you're not willing to defend it, then why should anybody else?

Yet another twisty. You are getting to sound like a dead parrot.

I'm not twisting your words. I am pointing out that you don't have a principled opposition to supporting reforms per se. You can prove me wrong by articulating that principle.

You have drawn the wrong conclusion. We welcome any improvements the working class can make on their condition but it would be a very big mistake on our part if we failed to remind the workers that any gains are of a temporary nature. For like the trade union struggle reform activity is always on the defensive. Whilst the revolutionary struggle is always on the offensive.

So do you refuse to support all trade union struggles?

 

[robbo203]

You can only blame robbo for his own confusion for attempting to make a distinction between political and economic reforms so he could argue that any reforms which involved appealing to the state were reformist. Whereas the SPGB are not concerned to whom the reform is directed - workers or capitalist - for we merely point out no amount of reforms will make any fundamental difference to the social relationships of capitalism. Which any way you look at it is a platform for revolution.

I really cant make much sense of this. I did not make a distinction between political and economic reforms in order to argue that "any reforms which involved appealing to the state were reformist" . Political refroms also involve appealing to the state but they do not fall under the rubric of "reformism" for the reason I gave i.e. they are not trying to reform capitalism as such as a distinct mode of mproduction but relate essentially to the political sphere. Capitalism is a socioeconomic construction not a political entity and that is why a distinction needs to be made between political reforms and economic reforms.

A further reason is implied in the very point you make above that " no amount of reforms will make any fundamental difference to the social relationships of capitalism". Exactly. And in order to get rid of the "social relationship of capitalism" what does the SPGB propose? It proposes to democratically capture the state to abolish capitalism. So political reforms that enable it to do this do make a differences and for this reason have to be distinguised from economic refroms which is what refromism is about and, unlike political reforms, do nothing to threaten the existence of capitalism itself

 

[Knotted]

If the SPGB were honest and articulated their real reasons (according to Gravedigger) for not defending the NHS, they wouldn't carp about the NHS not being perfect they would say:

"The NHS is a gain for the working class despite the limitations that necessarily follow from being a product of the capitalist state. There is no guarantee that the NHS will last for ever and we have no problem with workers who wish to defend it. Indeed we wish such workers the best of luck in their struggles, limited as they are. However, we are a revolutionary party and do not wish to be contaminated by reform minded people, so if you feel inclined to defend your local NHS trust from cuts, could please not try to join our ranks. I'm sure you're committed activists and all, but you would just bring the tone down at our meetings. We have to have some standards."

 

[robbo203]

If the SPGB were honest and articulated their real reasons (according to Gravedigger) for not defending the NHS, they wouldn't carp about the NHS not being perfect they would say:

"The NHS is a gain for the working class despite the limitations that necessarily follow from being a product of the capitalist state. There is no guarantee that the NHS will last for ever and we have no problem with workers who wish to defend it. Indeed we wish such workers the best of luck in their struggles, limited as they are. However, we are a revolutionary party and do not wish to be contaminated by reform minded people, so if you feel inclined to defend your local NHS trust from cuts, could please not try to join our ranks. I'm sure you're committed activists and all, but you would just bring the tone down at our meetings. We have to have some standards."

OK Knotted lets just follow through your line of thinking here. If we accept you suggestions that reforms need to actively pursued at what point do you make the leap from this position to a revolutionary one , one that argues that we should no longer strive to mend capitalism but end it.

You need to be honest here as well. Effectively what you are saying is that there can really be no room for a revolutionary perspective because refroms must and always will take priority

 

[Knotted]

OK Knotted lets just follow through your line of thinking here. If we accept you suggestions that reforms need to actively pursued at what point do you make the leap from this position to a revolutionary one , one that argues that we should no longer strive to mend capitalism but end it.

You need to be honest here as well. Effectively what you are saying is that there can really be no room for a revolutionary perspective because refroms must and always will take priority

There is no problem with combining support for reforms and a revolutionary perspective. Reformism is believing that reforms are the route to socialism. You can support reforms and still point out that these reforms will not establish socialism. It's not difficult. It's not a thin end of a wedge.

Think about it. If the SPGB's theory actually turns out to be correct and the NHS is about to be decimated then people will resist. The NHS is a huge thing in this country, we're talking massive upheaval - general strikes and more. A movement defending the NHS does not have to limit itself to defending the NHS. People can draw revolutionary conclusions. Not that I think the SPGB's theory is correct, mind.

 

[Gravediggers]

Two points.

1) Dennisr didn't mention the Communist Manifesto.

2) Have you even read the 1872 edition? In particular:

I mentioned the CM to illustrate my point that his conception of revolutionary activity was dated. And if you had cared to read the passage above the one mentioning the lessons of the Paris Commune you would have seen I'm correct. However, if you understand the historical implications of this passage where Marx and Engles admitted their proposition for state-capitalist measures had been overtaken by the dynamics of class struggle and the development of capitalism - that is very doubtful - and suggests you enjoy the capitalist magic roundabout of reformist activity.

 

[frogwoman]

tbh if they tried to get rid of the nhs in this country there would probably be blood in the streets.

 

[Gravediggers]

There is no problem with combining support for reforms and a revolutionary perspective. Reformism is believing that reforms are the route to socialism. You can support reforms and still point out that these reforms will not establish socialism. It's not difficult. It's not a thin end of a wedge.

But it is the thin edge of the wedge. Don't you understand reforms and revolution are not only incompatible but also diametrically opposed. You want your cake and eat it.

Think about it. If the SPGB's theory actually turns out to be correct and the NHS is about to be decimated then people will resist. The NHS is a huge thing in this country, we're talking massive upheaval - general strikes and more. A movement defending the NHS does not have to limit itself to defending the NHS. People can draw revolutionary conclusions. Not that I think the SPGB's theory is correct, mind.

]

We have never suggested the NHS is about to be decimated. You are letting conjecture dominate your reasoning if you think the capitalists are so stupid to do such a thing. The course of action they will most probably take, in order not to kill the golden goose, is to reduce what they consider to be non-essential services to the bone. Services like cosmetic surgery, mental health, varicose veins, rheumatology, etc will severely feel the pinch. And of course they will try and trim the workforce as much has possible - especially in higher and middle management.

They have to maintain the health of the workforce in preparation for an upturn in the economy so it is very unlikely they will decimate the NHS. In particular they will be looking at what illnesses affect the workforce and what illnesses affect the elderly population, for the aged are surplus to requirements and an increasing burden on profits.