SPGB

[Gravediggers]

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.

There we go another twisty full of bollocks and no wonder you're struggling to get your head around it because you are trying every angle to make an argument where they don't exist.

"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.

I'm not sure our principles are part of the 'Marxist tradition' which is full of ambiguities and one of the reasons we consider ourselves part of 'Marxian tradition' which places Marx in an historical context. The "effective ban" on not supporting reforms stems from our principle of not seeking any compromise with capitalism. We however, do not claim any copyright on this principle and have noted other organisations have adopted it to a certain extent.

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.

Another twisty. We don't reject various particular reforms.

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?

There is no excuse for not defending the NHS, on the contrary we provide a plethora of reasons why all gains should be defended but with the essential caveat that the workers need to look beyond reforms and start political activity which ultimately reflects their interests as a class.

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've consistently tried to twist my words just like you are doing here for I've already explained that we do have a principled opposition for not supporting reforms. And if you have no qualms with compromising and collaborating with the class enemy that is your problem not ours.

So do you refuse to support all trade union struggles?

So long as trade union are defending wages and conditions we support them. And we encourage our members to ensure the trade unions are run on democratic lines in respect of holding a ballot when calling for industrial action and also holding a ballot in calling it off.

 

[Gravediggers]

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

OK I might have got your drift wrong but your argument still does not hold up to examination. For instance, the constitutional reforms in Scotland and Wales are political reforms, are they not? Yet how many times have left wing politicians argued they are a gradual step towards socialism? I know for a fact that a majority of labour supporters looked on these constitutional reforms as 'progressive' or a step in the right direction for self autonomy. Now if that is not reformism what is? Again come the referendum on PR what will be the chorus from the left? I leave you to guess.

 

[Gravediggers]

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

Which is all the more reason why they wont try to get rid of the NHS especially when it serves and essential service and purpose. And economically is one of the cheapest health providers on the planet, besides being under the direct political control of the capitalist class. Getting rid of such a valuable asset would be detrimental to their interests, wont you say? That is not to say that they will try to make the NHS even more cost effective than it already is.

 

[Gravediggers]

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."

A nice try at a caricature. There is no chance of a reform minded person entering the SPGB for our membership questionnaire is designed to weed out those who attempt to enter with the impression we support reforms. Some members would argue that socialists should have 'standards', but are rarely specific on what they entail, not that it bothers me for I find that socialist principles produce their own standards. Namely, honesty, integrity and openness are sufficient standards in themselves for promoting the socialist case.

 

[Knotted]

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.

It's a pity they don't say that, though.

 

[Knotted]

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.

I shan't twist your words. I'll just let them stand.

As I keep saying, if the SPGB had a principle that stated that reforms should never be supported, then they would just explain that principle. Read the Socialist Standard - they do exactly what Gravediggers states above ie. they examine reforms on their merits and just happen to conclude that they're not worth it. I've never seen this principle about banning support for reforms articulated.

 

[Knotted]

Which is all the more reason why they wont try to get rid of the NHS especially when it serves and essential service and purpose.

Careful, you might admit that people's willingness to defend the NHS is the reason it continues to exist.

And economically is one of the cheapest health providers on the planet, besides being under the direct political control of the capitalist class. Getting rid of such a valuable asset would be detrimental to their interests, wont you say? That is not to say that they will try to make the NHS even more cost effective than it already is.

Hurray for the capitalist class! You can't trust workers to defend their gains but you can trust the capitalist class.

The SPGB have never dismissed the NHS in the sense of it not being a gain for the working class.

 

[Knotted]

Supporting reforms is a "compromise with capitalism" in exactly the same sense that supporting trade union struggles is a "compromise with capitalism". Both accept the logic of capitalism, neither require the demand for the abolition of the wages system. Why won't Gravediggers say that trade union struggle is a form of class collaboration? Why won't Gravediggers say that supporting democratic reforms is a form of class collaboration? Why is defending the NHS from cuts a form of class collaboration? Can anyone make sense of this?

 

[robbo203]

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..

Im afraid your analysis is unsound on several counts. There is a massive massive problem with combining support for reforms and a revolutionary perspective. The one thing necessarily detracts from the other. If you dont think this is the case look at what happened in history. Look at the Second International. The Social Democratic parties that comprised it sought to combine a minimum programme with the maximum revolutionary programme. Every single one of these parties ended up abandoning the later altogether. How do you explain that?

Reformism is not necessarily believing reforms are the route to socialism. The Labour party is a reformist party but it it has never been socialist. It benevr advocate a maximum programme but unlike the old social democratic parties was 100% reformist from the start. Yes you can technically support refroms and still point out that these reforms will not establish socialism although in that event what becomes of your claim that "Reformism is believing that reforms are the route to socialism"? However ,the whole point of the SPGB critique of reformism is that however well intended the actions of the reformists may be, refromism is not going to solve the problems that workers face. So in effect if you advocate reforms you are basically putting yourself on a treadmill.

Like water finding its own level the apparent gains that workers achieve in one direction will be compensated for in another. You were going to present a critique of the economics behind the SPGB theory of reformism although I haven't seen this yet. I think essentially the SPGB theory is correct. The social wage is not something divorced from, or independent of, money wages. There is an inverse relationship between them insofar as the share of one will go up at the expense of the other. There is no such thing as a free lunch in capitalism. What we should be looking at instead is combined wage so to speak - money wages and the socal wage. This is variable and can be pushed up to an extent but only within limits set by the structural needs of the system itself which, moreover, are cirumstance-dependent. In a recession for example this combined wage will almost inevitably go down in real terms which means that is you manage to hold on to the gains of the social wage, this is almost certainly going to translate into a loss in money wages as the forces of market competition make themselves felt.

I have yet to hear a convincing counter argument against this and in fact what the SPGB has said about reformism has been born about what is happening all around us. In the case of the NHS, it is clearly starting to run up against the structural needs of system for capital accumulation which is financed out surplus value. Since funding for the NHS comes from the same source (via taxation) clearly there comes a point where the latter can threaten the former. Hence the talk of massive cuts in the NHS and the desparate scramble for more cost-effectiveness. The purpose behind all is to reduce some of the pressure on businesses and enhance their competitiveness. From the the state's pioint of view the productive sector of the economy - those industires that produce surplus value rather than consume it - is the goose that lays the golden eggs and there is a distinct danger that if you overtax the goose, it will sicken and its egg production rate will dininish. So there is always a balance that needs to be struck between the comparative benefits of the NHS in terms of efficiency (which is why the the capitalist class supported its introduction) and the needs of capital accumulation.

This is why at the end of the day reformism is a treadmill. It holds out the illusory promise of a process of incremental improvements which some reformists (bot all) see as a material preparation for the socialist transformation of society. The idea is that we solve capitalisms problems one by one till we reach the point where we are in a postion to seamlessly change over to socialism. But it never ever happens like this and never will and reformists need to wake up and smell the coffee and realise that if you really want to a revolutionary change you are going to have to abandon reformism. That may be an unpalatable fact but it is fact neverthless.

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.

If what you say is correct then something will have to give. You cant have your cake and eat it. If the NHS is successfully defended against any cuts this will mean that British capitalism will have to find other ways to secure an adequatre rate of capital accumulation. The obvious candidate is savage cuts in the money wages of workers to compensate for the huge tax burden placed on the capitalists for maintaining the NHS in its present form.

 

[robbo203]

OK I might have got your drift wrong but your argument still does not hold up to examination. For instance, the constitutional reforms in Scotland and Wales are political reforms, are they not? Yet how many times have left wing politicians argued they are a gradual step towards socialism? I know for a fact that a majority of labour supporters looked on these constitutional reforms as 'progressive' or a step in the right direction for self autonomy. Now if that is not reformism what is? Again come the referendum on PR what will be the chorus from the left? I leave you to guess.

No, constitutional reforms are not reformist although that does not necessarily translate into a reason for supporting them. it is not only because it is "reformist" that something can be rejected; it can be rejected on other grounds as well! So what if leftists politicans think such reforms are a step towards socialism? That doesnt make them so, does it? Nor do your observations in any way address the fundamental argument I made for a distinction between reformist-type reforms in trhe economic sphere and mere political reforms.

In fact, I would argue that this defintion of refromism that I have been putting forward which is muc more tightly formuated than the rather woolly usage you have employed is implict in the SPGB's position itself. See for example http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/articles/revorref.html In fact the credibility of the SPGB 's critique of reformism depends on the assumption that is trying to be reformed is the economic behaviour of the system itself which as I say is itself a socio-economic construction not a political one (capitalism is not defined by whether or not it possesses a bourgeois representative democratic form).

It really makes no sense to include political reforms under the heading of reformism. As I said the SPGB (quite rightly) argues that reformism detracts from a revolutionary perspective which is why it does not support reforms. Yet it has said it would support (i.e. work for) certain political refroms such as basic democratic rights like the right to vote and assemble. It would be contradictory and incoherent therefore to include such reforms within a general critique of refromism, would it not?

 

[robbo203]

Supporting reforms is a "compromise with capitalism" in exactly the same sense that supporting trade union struggles is a "compromise with capitalism". Both accept the logic of capitalism, neither require the demand for the abolition of the wages system. Why won't Gravediggers say that trade union struggle is a form of class collaboration? Why won't Gravediggers say that supporting democratic reforms is a form of class collaboration? Why is defending the NHS from cuts a form of class collaboration? Can anyone make sense of this?

No there is a big difference and this stems from a crucial recognition of the role of the state in all this

Yes both reformism and trade unionism "accept the logic of capitalism, neither require the demand for the abolition of the wages system". However whereas trade union is necessarily defensive and by its very nature cannot transcend the logic of capitalism, reformism employs the means by which the system can be trasncended - the state - but chooses in stead to use the state not to end capitalism but to perpetuate it.

This comes back to what I said earlier about the distinction between goal-oriented action and process-oriented action. Political activity (whether reformist or irevolutionary) is goal oriented. Trade unionism essentially is not

 

[Knotted]

Im afraid your analysis is unsound on several counts. There is a massive massive problem with combining support for reforms and a revolutionary perspective. The one thing necessarily detracts from the other. If you dont think this is the case look at what happened in history. Look at the Second International. The Social Democratic parties that comprised it sought to combine a minimum programme with the maximum revolutionary programme. Every single one of these parties ended up abandoning the later altogether. How do you explain that?

The minimum-maximum program deals with reforms under capitalism and the shaping of socialism. The problem is that it doesn't deal with the most important phase ie. the revolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism. The parties of the Second International systematically ignored Marx & Engels dictum that, "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes." The SPGB ignore this as well.

Reformism is not necessarily believing reforms are the route to socialism. The Labour party is a reformist party but it it has never been socialist. It benevr advocate a maximum programme but unlike the old social democratic parties was 100% reformist from the start.

OK, fair point. My definition was too narrow.

Yes you can technically support refroms and still point out that these reforms will not establish socialism although in that event what becomes of your claim that "Reformism is believing that reforms are the route to socialism"? However ,the whole point of the SPGB critique of reformism is that however well intended the actions of the reformists may be, refromism is not going to solve the problems that workers face. So in effect if you advocate reforms you are basically putting yourself on a treadmill.

What do you mean by "solve the problems that workers face"? Do you mean "completely solve all problems" or "partially solve at least some problems"?

Like water finding its own level the apparent gains that workers achieve in one direction will be compensated for in another.

I see no theoretical nor empirical reason to suppose that this is true.

You were going to present a critique of the economics behind the SPGB theory of reformism although I haven't seen this yet.

What I was critiquing was this idea that there is no free lunch from reforms under capitalism. From what Gravediggers has said I'm not even sure if the SPGB believe this anyway. But it's a very straight forward I gave it here.

I think essentially the SPGB theory is correct. The social wage is not something divorced from, or independent of, money wages. There is an inverse relationship between them insofar as the share of one will go up at the expense of the other.

I don't care for the term "social wage", but anyway this is a non-sequitur. I agree that they are not independent, but it doesn't follow that there is an inverse relationship between them.

There is no such thing as a free lunch in capitalism. What we should be looking at instead is combined wage so to speak - money wages and the socal wage. This is variable and can be pushed up to an extent but only within limits set by the structural needs of the system itself which, moreover, are cirumstance-dependent. In a recession for example this combined wage will almost inevitably go down in real terms which means that is you manage to hold on to the gains of the social wage, this is almost certainly going to translate into a loss in money wages as the forces of market competition make themselves felt.

I have yet to hear a convincing counter argument against this and in fact what the SPGB has said about reformism has been born about what is happening all around us. In the case of the NHS, it is clearly starting to run up against the structural needs of system for capital accumulation which is financed out surplus value. Since funding for the NHS comes from the same source (via taxation) clearly there comes a point where the latter can threaten the former. Hence the talk of massive cuts in the NHS and the desparate scramble for more cost-effectiveness. The purpose behind all is to reduce some of the pressure on businesses and enhance their competitiveness. From the the state's pioint of view the productive sector of the economy - those industires that produce surplus value rather than consume it - is the goose that lays the golden eggs and there is a distinct danger that if you overtax the goose, it will sicken and its egg production rate will dininish. So there is always a balance that needs to be struck between the comparative benefits of the NHS in terms of efficiency (which is why the the capitalist class supported its introduction) and the needs of capital accumulation.

This sort of fatalistic anaylsis has a couple of curious upshots. If the NHS were scrapped, according to this theory this would be no loss for the working class as their wages would sky-rocket in proportion to that loss.

The other curious upshot is that successful reformism would lead to the collapse of capitalism. This is why I tend to think of the SPGB as revolutionary in word, but reformist in deed. They retain a formal revolutionary stance, but nevertheless pretend that deteremined reformist party can destroy the logic of capitalism.

This is why at the end of the day reformism is a treadmill. It holds out the illusory promise of a process of incremental improvements which some reformists (bot all) see as a material preparation for the socialist transformation of society. The idea is that we solve capitalisms problems one by one till we reach the point where we are in a postion to seamlessly change over to socialism. But it never ever happens like this and never will and reformists need to wake up and smell the coffee and realise that if you really want to a revolutionary change you are going to have to abandon reformism. That may be an unpalatable fact but it is fact neverthless.

If what you say is correct then something will have to give. You cant have your cake and eat it. If the NHS is successfully defended against any cuts this will mean that British capitalism will have to find other ways to secure an adequatre rate of capital accumulation. The obvious candidate is savage cuts in the money wages of workers to compensate for the huge tax burden placed on the capitalists for maintaining the NHS in its present form.

See above.

By the way, you haven't quite go the hang of Marxist economics. The argument isn't that the capitalists will try to compensate for their losses. The argument is that providing free health care reduces the value of labour as it becomes easier to maintain the working class and this leads to downward pressure on wages.

 

[Knotted]

No there is a big difference and this stems from a crucial recognition of the role of the state in all this

Yes both reformism and trade unionism "accept the logic of capitalism, neither require the demand for the abolition of the wages system". However whereas trade union is necessarily defensive and by its very nature cannot transcend the logic of capitalism, reformism employs the means by which the system can be trasncended - the state - but chooses in stead to use the state not to end capitalism but to perpetuate it.

This comes back to what I said earlier about the distinction between goal-oriented action and process-oriented action. Political activity (whether reformist or irevolutionary) is goal oriented. Trade unionism essentially is not

I'm not talking about socialists in government implementing reforms. I'm just talking about recognising gains as gains and supporting/defending them.

 

[robbo203]

The minimum-maximum program deals with reforms under capitalism and the shaping of socialism. The problem is that it doesn't deal with the most important phase ie. the revolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism. The parties of the Second International systematically ignored Marx & Engels dictum that, "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes." The SPGB ignore this as well.
.

Not quite sure what the above has to do with the issue. Marx was talking about the need to lop off certain aspects of the state in order for the workers to wield it. My point about the max and min programmes was to point out their essential incompatibility and that the minimum of reformist programme would always win out in the end at the expesne of the max programme

What do you mean by "solve the problems that workers face"? Do you mean "completely solve all problems" or "partially solve at least some problems"?.

Reforms can have some effect - this is not denied- but I would say the effect is marginal and circumstances dependent. Reforms can be ignored, whittled down or simply withdrawn come the (inevitable) recession. Many of the apparent gains that workers have made - such as in living stadards - have litte to do with refroms as such - notwithstanding the politicans' patter about how much they have done for us

I see no theoretical nor empirical reason to suppose that this is true.

Well its pretty simple really. If you accept there is a limit to the level of wages that a firm can afford to pay then exceeding this limit impairs the profitability of the firm in question which may then lead to layoffs and the like. Increased unemployemt then reduces the bargaining power of workers and hence the level of wages they can expect to receive. Like I said - its like water finding its own level

What I was critiquing was this idea that there is no free lunch from reforms under capitalism. From what Gravediggers has said I'm not even sure if the SPGB believe this anyway. But it's a very straight forward I gave it here.
.

But there is no such thing as a free lunch under capitalism. Everything has to be paid for in the end - including free subsidised services - out of tax revenues. I cant see how you can possibly deny this

I don't care for the term "social wage", but anyway this is a non-sequitur. I agree that they are not independent, but it doesn't follow that there is an inverse relationship between them.
.

Of course there is an inverse relationship. This is simple logic. If both quantities are combined into a single value then it obviously follows that the share of one must increase only at the expense of the other. This is a tautolgy. Im not talking about their absolute values but their relative values. Their combined value can go up or down but their relative share goes up or down in inverse relationship to the share of the other

This sort of fatalistic anaylsis has a couple of curious upshots. If the NHS were scrapped, according to this theory this would be no loss for the working class as their wages would sky-rocket in proportion to that loss..

Yes thats correct - wages would rise to compensate but I am not suggest this would happen automatically. I am not fatalistic in that respect. Workers would still have to struggle - capitalists are not goping to give it to them on a plate -but the circumstances would have changed making it easier for them to demand higher wages to pay for increased health costs.

The other curious upshot is that successful reformism would lead to the collapse of capitalism. This is why I tend to think of the SPGB as revolutionary in word, but reformist in deed. They retain a formal revolutionary stance, but nevertheless pretend that deteremined reformist party can destroy the logic of capitalism.
..

No this is quite mistaken. Capitalism wont collapse in the absence of a revolutionary majority determined to abolish it. In fact what will happen is that long before refromism stood any chance of becoming "successful" in these terms, irresistable pressure would mount up meaning the reforms would simply be rolled back and whittled down to reduce the burden on capitalist enterprises and restore profitability

By the way, you haven't quite go the hang of Marxist economics. The argument isn't that the capitalists will try to compensate for their losses. The argument is that providing free health care reduces the value of labour as it becomes easier to maintain the working class and this leads to downward pressure on wages.

I think that is a touch pedantic because it really amounts to the same thing. Providing free health care is a cost burden on the capitalist class which has to be paid for somehow. I dont see any great problem with saying this increased cost is "compensated" for by downward pressure on wages resulting a reduced wages bill

 

[butchersapron]

What we've got from robbo here, is in essence, the Lassallean 'iron law of wages' extended across the whole of society. It's something that the w/c developed beyond a few centuries ago.

 

[Knotted]

Not quite sure what the above has to do with the issue. Marx was talking about the need to lop off certain aspects of the state in order for the workers to wield it. My point about the max and min programmes was to point out their essential incompatibility and that the minimum of reformist programme would always win out in the end at the expesne of the max programme

Your question was about why the Second International degenerated into reformism. I've given you my answer so I'm forced to agree with your answer about the incompatability of supporting reforms and supporting a revolutionary program.

Reforms can have some effect - this is not denied- but I would say the effect is marginal and circumstances dependent. Reforms can be ignored, whittled down or simply withdrawn come the (inevitable) recession. Many of the apparent gains that workers have made - such as in living stadards - have litte to do with refroms as such - notwithstanding the politicans' patter about how much they have done for us

I don't care how minimal or circumstantial gains are from reforms. If they are gains then they should be defended.

Well its pretty simple really. If you accept there is a limit to the level of wages that a firm can afford to pay then exceeding this limit impairs the profitability of the firm in question which may then lead to layoffs and the like. Increased unemployemt then reduces the bargaining power of workers and hence the level of wages they can expect to receive. Like I said - its like water finding its own level

Firstly I don't think there is necessarily a limit although I accept that wage gains are limited. Secondly we're not talking about a single firm. I tell you what you should look up - Marx's counter to the theory of the iron law of wages. If wages increase accross the board then companies which are heavily dependent on labour will be at a relative dissadvantage. The economy is dynamic - there are no clear maximum levels of wages. Thirdly "social wages" are only loosely analagous to ordinary wages - you can't simply extend arguments from one to the other.

But there is no such thing as a free lunch under capitalism. Everything has to be paid for in the end - including free subsidised services - out of tax revenues. I cant see how you can possibly deny this

Paid for by whom? Capitalists can afford to pay even if they don't like it.

Of course there is an inverse relationship. This is simple logic. If both quantities are combined into a single value then it obviously follows that the share of one must increase only at the expense of the other. This is a tautolgy. Im not talking about their absolute values but their relative values. Their combined value can go up or down but their relative share goes up or down in inverse relationship to the share of the other

If what you say is a tautology then you are saying nothing at all. If the combined value isn't a constant, then there is no reason to think that an increase in one leads to a decrease in the other.

Yes thats correct - wages would rise to compensate but I am not suggest this would happen automatically. I am not fatalistic in that respect. Workers would still have to struggle - capitalists are not goping to give it to them on a plate -but the circumstances would have changed making it easier for them to demand higher wages to pay for increased health costs.

So the relation isn't an inverse one.

No this is quite mistaken. Capitalism wont collapse in the absence of a revolutionary majority determined to abolish it. In fact what will happen is that long before refromism stood any chance of becoming "successful" in these terms, irresistable pressure would mount up meaning the reforms would simply be rolled back and whittled down to reduce the burden on capitalist enterprises and restore profitability

Yes, this is the formal revolutionary stance. But if you or the SPGB are really arguing that progressive economic reforms are impossible under capitalism, then it follows that reformism is a genuine threat to capitalism.

I think that is a touch pedantic because it really amounts to the same thing. Providing free health care is a cost burden on the capitalist class which has to be paid for somehow. I dont see any great problem with saying this increased cost is "compensated" for by downward pressure on wages resulting a reduced wages bill

It isn't pedantic. I think understanding the economic theory is important. I think you are looking at what you imagine the conclusions of the economic theory to be. I really think it would be worthwhile for you to study Marx a bit more carefully.

 

[butchersapron]

Yes, this is the formal revolutionary stance. But if you or the SPGB are really arguing that progressive economic reforms are impossible under capitalism, then it follows that reformism is a genuine threat to capitalism.

On this their logic is very similar to the sort of trotskysim of the original 4th International and the 'transitional demands' approach - but like so many of their positions they don't have the consistency to follow the logic through into coherent political positions.

 

[Knotted]

On this their logic is very similar to the sort of trotskysim of the original 4th International and the 'transitional demands' approach - but like so many of their positions they don't have the consistency to follow the logic through into coherent political positions.

The transitional program is about linking immediate struggles up with the conquest of power. Whatever you think about it, it doesn't raise demands with the express purpose of making life impossible for the capitalists, it raises demands with the express purpose of raising class consciousness and promoting workers' power. (Workers' power by itself is not socialism of course.)

The Communist Party of Great Britain (Weekly Worker) have a maximalist minimum program which is geared to making capitalism impossible in practice.

 

[butchersapron]

That raising of class consciousness suggested in that approach is predicated on the inability of capital to offer the meaningful reforms demanded though. It's the same basic logic of 'how things happen' at play. The trots have followed the logic through and developed it into a political position - the SPGB just chop off the conclusion.

 

[Knotted]

That raising of class consciousness suggested in that approach is predicated on the inability of capital to offer the meaningful reforms demanded though. It's the same basic logic of 'how things happen' at play. The trots have followed the logic through and developed it into a political position - the SPGB just chop off the conclusion.

Not really. It is perhaps predicated on the inability of capital to continue without economic and military catastrophe - it was written in 1938 remember. But the demands in the program are not there to emphasise that capitalism leads to economic and military catastrophe. The demands are not there to point to the failings of capitalism but to prepare workers for power. For example setting up factory committees is perfectly compatible with the continued rule of capital.

 

[butchersapron]

I think you're just wrong there, the demands are ones that have been developed by the leadership partly to reflect (or push further) real actual w/c aspirations to the point at which capital cannot afford them - if it ever could. The inability of capital to reform itself in short (the system was not only rotting but already dead according to this perspective remember). What you're saying about TDs being intended to act as a bridge is correct, but it's a bridge built originally on what i argue above. The workers councils are built when the system shows to the workers through its inability to enact 'their' transitional demands that they need to act on their own power to do so. There's two parts to the position.

 

[Knotted]

If you read the original transitional program, there isn't even very much in the way of demands for reforms. What could be regarded as reforms in the program - eg. sliding scale of wages are not supposed to be impossible under capitalism. All the time it emphasises working class organisation and workers' control. If we look at, say, CWI versions of the transitional program then you probably have a point.

 

[Gravediggers]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravediggers View Post
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.

It's a pity they don't say that, though.

OK if they do not say that what is your take on this passage?

 

[Knotted]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravediggers View Post
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.



OK if they do not say that what is your take on this passage?

Here's the passage:

However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated. 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.”

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm

"Here and there some detail might be improved."

That's hardly supporting your claim that M&E regarded the demands in the Manifesto as class collaborationist, state capitalist measures.

"...this programme has in some details been antiquated."

That implies that they regarded some details as not being antiquated. All those demands fall short of abolishing the wages system and are thus in your view "state capitalist". You might think M&E were state capitalist, class collaborationist, reformists in 1848, but they clearly remained state capitalist, class collaborationst, reformists in 1872. Plus they said that the working class could not simply lay hold of the state machinery and wield it for it's own purpose. So they had also become anti-democratic Leninist, vanguardist swine by 1872.

 

[Gravediggers]

No, constitutional reforms are not reformist although that does not necessarily translate into a reason for supporting them. it is not only because it is "reformist" that something can be rejected; it can be rejected on other grounds as well! So what if leftists politicans think such reforms are a step towards socialism? That doesnt make them so, does it? Nor do your observations in any way address the fundamental argument I made for a distinction between reformist-type reforms in trhe economic sphere and mere political reforms.

In fact, I would argue that this defintion of refromism that I have been putting forward which is muc more tightly formuated than the rather woolly usage you have employed is implict in the SPGB's position itself. See for example http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/articles/revorref.html In fact the credibility of the SPGB 's critique of reformism depends on the assumption that is trying to be reformed is the economic behaviour of the system itself which as I say is itself a socio-economic construction not a political one (capitalism is not defined by whether or not it possesses a bourgeois representative democratic form).

It really makes no sense to include political reforms under the heading of reformism. As I said the SPGB (quite rightly) argues that reformism detracts from a revolutionary perspective which is why it does not support reforms. Yet it has said it would support (i.e. work for) certain political refroms such as basic democratic rights like the right to vote and assemble. It would be contradictory and incoherent therefore to include such reforms within a general critique of refromism, would it not?

Robbo this argument of yours is not the position of the SPGB for we do not make a distinction between political and economic reforms, indeed IMO and other members there is so much overlap and ambiguity between the two it is not worth the effort and there is nothing to be gained. For instance, the introduction of PR whilst it is clearly a political reform our position is what it always has been in we neither support no oppose such reforms. We made the same stand on the legalisation of homosexuality, which IMO questions your argument for a distinction to be made for it is neither political or economic. Whether or not political reforms are part of the reformists gambit is neither here no there for they are still reforms. If by chance a particular political reform is by its nature reformist I'm sure we shall point this out to the working class.

This whole business stems from the fact that butchers asked you for a reform we would support, and I replied after it was obvious you were being hesitant in replying. Butchers being the political animal he is knew the SPGB supported the introduction of democracy and I don't think he was after a justification, only an explanation, and if I'm wrong on this I'm sure he will correct me. But it seems that way because he hasn't come back on it.

The case for the SPGB stands or falls on democracy and I'm sure the posters on this thread understand that and accept it. We don't have to justify our support by making a distinction that muddies the waters when an explanation will suffice. But let us not forget the struggle for democracy was not only a hard and long fought battle but was also an essential part of class struggle and the battle for ideas. That battle still continues with the SPGB at the forefront.

 

[robbo203]

Your question was about why the Second International degenerated into reformism. I've given you my answer so I'm forced to agree with your answer about the incompatability of supporting reforms and supporting a revolutionary program.
.

OK so do I take it, then, that in supporting the reformist programme you logically reject the revolutionary programme? Put differently you accept as unalterable the fact of capitalism's existence and have no interest therefore in a socialist alternative? Is this a fair summary?

Firstly I don't think there is necessarily a limit although I accept that wage gains are limited. Secondly we're not talking about a single firm. I tell you what you should look up - Marx's counter to the theory of the iron law of wages. If wages increase accross the board then companies which are heavily dependent on labour will be at a relative dissadvantage. The economy is dynamic - there are no clear maximum levels of wages. Thirdly "social wages" are only loosely analagous to ordinary wages - you can't simply extend arguments from one to the other.

Marx's counter to the iron law of wages was essentially that increased wages would eat into the capitalists share of product and the idea that capitalists could respond to increased wages by simply putting up prices was a myth - market competition precluded that oiption. However, this does not mean that there is no limit to how much wages could rise. If that were the case then by the logic of your argument business could continue to pay workers more and more with impunity which is obviously nonsense. The bottom line is that if a firm cannot make a profit, if its operatimng (including wage) costs exceed its revenue it goes bust in which case the workers are laid off. So there is a limit and that limit is set by by the need to maintain profitability.

I dont get your point about the "social wage". The social wage has to be paid for just like the money wages that workers receive directly. Both therefore represent a cost to the capitalists so there are indeed strong prima facie grounds for extending arguments from one to the other contrary to what you say

Paid for by whom? Capitalists can afford to pay even if they don't like it.

But capitalists are in competition with one another not just locally but on a global level. They need to be competitive to compete. Amongst other things that means reducing or externalising their costs including the social wage. You seem to suggesting that you can somehow have capitalism without the basic structural pressures that go with it - like the need to accummulate capital out of surplus value. The cost of the social wage clearly enters into this picture. Why do you think the politicos are talking so much about the need to reduce the budget deficit through sweeping cuts. Its not just idle talk. It is in response to very real structural constraints. The productive or surplus value-producing sector of the ecnomy is under severe pressure and the capitalist state needs to find ways to reduce the burden on this sector while juggling with other considerations as well. Its a balancing act

If what you say is a tautology then you are saying nothing at all. If the combined value isn't a constant, then there is no reason to think that an increase in one leads to a decrease in the other.

But I said quite clearly I wasnt talking about an absolute increase in one leading to a decrease in the other. I was talking about their relative share of the combined value. Yes its a tautolgy to say an increase in one means a decrease in the other but a tautology by defintion is correct even if it adds nothing to the argument. The real thrust of my argument was to get you to focus on the combined value of money wagses and the social wage. It is this combined value that is subject to structural constraints so that if the combined value as limited by these constrains were to amount to, say, £40k pa per worker then an increase in the money wage would necessarily result in a reduction of the social wage within this limit - and of course vice versa. But as I said before, this is not something that happens automatically. The workers have to struggle to maintain their share of the social product.

So the relation isn't an inverse one.

It is and for the reason explained. You have confused an absolute increase with a relative increase

Yes, this is the formal revolutionary stance. But if you or the SPGB are really arguing that progressive economic reforms are impossible under capitalism, then it follows that reformism is a genuine threat to capitalism.

Thats absurd! For starters how can reformism which after all seeks to refrom the way capitalism functions be a threat to its existence? Secondly no one has said progressive economic reforms are not possible under capitalism. What has been said is that they will necessarily be limited (long terms increase in living standards have very little to do with refroms as such) and circumstance-dependent. A reform granted at one point in time can be withdrawn at another. Or just ignored. Reforms like the NHS were not a threat to capitalism in any way shape or form. In fact , it was some of the big capitalists including Tory capitalists who were in the forefront in pushing for the kind of changes advocated in the Beveridge Report. Would they do that if they thought the welfare state was some kind of genuine threat to capitalism? I think not

 

[Proper Tidy]

That battle still continues with the SPGB at the forefront.

Bless

 

[Gravediggers]

Here's the passage:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm

"Here and there some detail might be improved."

That's hardly supporting your claim that M&E regarded the demands in the Manifesto as class collaborationist, state capitalist measures.

"...this programme has in some details been antiquated."

That implies that they regarded some details as not being antiquated. All those demands fall short of abolishing the wages system and are thus in your view "state capitalist". You might think M&E were state capitalist, class collaborationist, reformists in 1848, but they clearly remained state capitalist, class collaborationst, reformists in 1872. Plus they said that the working class could not simply lay hold of the state machinery and wield it for it's own purpose. So they had also become anti-democratic Leninist, vanguardist swine by 1872.

I knew you would not accept the implications of that passage and attempt to place them entirely out of their historical context. For to place this passage in its historical context means accepting the struggle for certain reforms to improve the condition of the working class has been dated by events. So in your mind the class struggle and capitalism has not moved on since 1848 and we can safely ignore the fact of the dynamics of class struggle and stick with the old scripts for they justify your position to support reforms and be a revolutionary. Like I've previously pointed out this position is not only incompatible but also denies that the two positions are diametrically opposed.

It is you who is implying that M&E had, "become anti-democratic Leninist, vanguardist swine by 1872", not us. In fact we take the view that what they were explaining here is the state machinery is only for the benefit of the minority class and the sooner it is transformed, converted or fashioned into an instrument of self-emancipation the sooner the revolution becomes a fact. Leninist insist on retaining the state we say the first act of the revolutionary delegates will be to abolish it for the simple reason it do not suit our purpose.

 

[Knotted]

OK so do I take it, then, that in supporting the reformist programme you logically reject the revolutionary programme? Put differently you accept as unalterable the fact of capitalism's existence and have no interest therefore in a socialist alternative? Is this a fair summary?

Oops, there should have been a "not" in there, as in:

I've given you my answer so I'm not forced to agree with your answer about the incompatability of supporting reforms and supporting a revolutionary program.

Marx's counter to the iron law of wages was essentially that increased wages would eat into the capitalists share of product and the idea that capitalists could respond to increased wages by simply putting up prices was a myth - market competition precluded that oiption. However, this does not mean that there is no limit to how much wages could rise. If that were the case then by the logic of your argument business could continue to pay workers more and more with impunity which is obviously nonsense. The bottom line is that if a firm cannot make a profit, if its operatimng (including wage) costs exceed its revenue it goes bust in which case the workers are laid off. So there is a limit and that limit is set by by the need to maintain profitability.

But the limit is dependent on the market, on technology, on overheads and probably other factors I can't think of. Non of which are set in stone. So yes wage increases are limited, but you cannot pinpoint a limit.

I dont get your point about the "social wage". The social wage has to be paid for just like the money wages that workers receive directly. Both therefore represent a cost to the capitalists so there are indeed strong prima facie grounds for extending arguments from one to the other contrary to what you say

It isn't a wage. It might be a cost to the capitalists, but it isn't a wage. Increases in wages have certain effects, increases in the social wage have other effects. Remember that the limit to wages is not set in stone.

But capitalists are in competition with one another not just locally but on a global level. They need to be competitive to compete. Amongst other things that means reducing or externalising their costs including the social wage. You seem to suggesting that you can somehow have capitalism without the basic structural pressures that go with it - like the need to accummulate capital out of surplus value. The cost of the social wage clearly enters into this picture. Why do you think the politicos are talking so much about the need to reduce the budget deficit through sweeping cuts. Its not just idle talk. It is in response to very real structural constraints. The productive or surplus value-producing sector of the ecnomy is under severe pressure and the capitalist state needs to find ways to reduce the burden on this sector while juggling with other considerations as well. Its a balancing act

Well yes. Let's stop all this talk the "social wage" and talk about taxes. These are the costs that the capitalists are paying to the state. This includes taxes for military expenditure. They can pay it and survive. They will indeed complain that high taxes make them uncompetative. But still they tend to survive - especially the big capitalists.

But I said quite clearly I wasnt talking about an absolute increase in one leading to a decrease in the other. I was talking about their relative share of the combined value. Yes its a tautolgy to say an increase in one means a decrease in the other but a tautology by defintion is correct even if it adds nothing to the argument.

If one increases relatively compared to the combined value then it has a greater share of the combined value. Yep definately a tautology. I don't know what this has to do with "inverse relations".

The real thrust of my argument was to get you to focus on the combined value of money wagses and the social wage. It is this combined value that is subject to structural constraints so that if the combined value as limited by these constrains were to amount to, say, £40k pa per worker then an increase in the money wage would necessarily result in a reduction of the social wage within this limit - and of course vice versa. But as I said before, this is not something that happens automatically. The workers have to struggle to maintain their share of the social product.

I see no theoretical or empirical reason to believe that the limit to the combined value is fixed or independent of increases in either value.

It is and for the reason explained. You have confused an absolute increase with a relative increase

I'm pretty sure I understand what you are saying.

Thats absurd! For starters how can reformism which after all seeks to refrom the way capitalism functions be a threat to its existence? Secondly no one has said progressive economic reforms are not possible under capitalism. What has been said is that they will necessarily be limited (long terms increase in living standards have very little to do with refroms as such) and circumstance-dependent. A reform granted at one point in time can be withdrawn at another. Or just ignored. Reforms like the NHS were not a threat to capitalism in any way shape or form. In fact , it was some of the big capitalists including Tory capitalists who were in the forefront in pushing for the kind of changes advocated in the Beveridge Report. Would they do that if they thought the welfare state was some kind of genuine threat to capitalism? I think not

If the reforms break these strict limits, you seem to be suggesting that capitalism will collapse of it's own accord.

The NHS has come a long way from the Beveridge Report by the way. To put it simply - if the NHS were purely about creating an efficient working class, then they wouldn't treat pensioners.

 

[Knotted]

I knew you would not accept the implications of that passage and attempt to place them entirely out of their historical context. For to place this passage in its historical context means accepting the struggle for certain reforms to improve the condition of the working class has been dated by events. So in your mind the class struggle and capitalism has not moved on since 1848 and we can safely ignore the fact of the dynamics of class struggle and stick with the old scripts for they justify your position to support reforms and be a revolutionary. Like I've previously pointed out this position is not only incompatible but also denies that the two positions are diametrically opposed.

I'm just reading the words. It's what they say. They say nothing about "the struggle for certain reforms to improve the condition of the working class being dated". The Communist Manifesto did not say anything about struggling for reforms to improve the condition of the working class, they talk about "despotic inroads on the rights of property" by the working class after it has seized power.

It is you who is implying that M&E had, "become anti-democratic Leninist, vanguardist swine by 1872", not us. In fact we take the view that what they were explaining here is the state machinery is only for the benefit of the minority class and the sooner it is transformed, converted or fashioned into an instrument of self-emancipation the sooner the revolution becomes a fact. Leninist insist on retaining the state we say the first act of the revolutionary delegates will be to abolish it for the simple reason it do not suit our purpose.

You can't take them at their word. You have to, as you would put it, "twist their words". They are not talking about who benefits from state machinery they are talking about whether the working class should seize the state machinery as it is.