SPGB

[Gravediggers]

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.

Yes its pretty well obvious that you are just reading the words and has such completely failing to put them into their historical context. When M&E wrote the Communist Manifesto they wrote in the context of a developing capitalism and in recognition that capitalism had not yet reached the stage of producing an abundance of products. They therefore suggested the state-capitalist measures in Section II as a means of shortening this stage of development in the knowledge that without an abundance of products socialism would be incapable of meeting human needs.

By 1872 the picture had changed entirely and to such an extent that Section II had been largely made redundant. Admittedly, capitalism was not yet fully developed into a globalised integrated production unit, but they had formed the impression it was developed sufficiently to produce an abundance in products, and also to admit the measures laid down in the manifesto had been made 'antiquated' by historical developments.

Since 1848 (and 1872) capitalism is now fully developed in the sense of becoming a globalised integrated production unit and in respect of the political dominance of the state machinery. Which means in effect that with capitalism having served its purpose by producing an abundance, and unable to deliver this abundance, it has made itself redundant. Therefore, the measures proposed by M&E are now completely out of date and bear no relevance to the present day class struggle, other than like M&E urged their writings have to be put into their historical context. Which by the way is the Marxian tradition.

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.

Its you who is twisting words yet again. Of course they are talking about who benefits from the state machinery in the knowledge that the state is not neutral. And therefore for the working class to abolish the instrument of their oppression.

 

[robbo203]

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..

Well like I said the bottom line is can an enterprise continue to make profit in the face of increased costs. That is a a prret definite limit isnt it?

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..

I know it isnt a wage strictly speaking but it is not called a social wage for no reason. Both an increase in the social wage and an increase in the money wage have an effect in common in that they both have to be paid for and so represent a cost - even if there is a difference in how the cost is paid for in each case

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...

Sure they tend to survive but like I said the state has to juggle with a number of considerations. It cant afford to impose a tax burden so great that it kills the goose that lays the golden eggs. So it curbs the tax burden at some point and so limits what it can afford to pay out in terms of the social wage

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.

The bottom line is profit. Without profit, enterprises can offer no further wage increases becuase the enterprises will be no more. They will have gone bust. Its as simple as that. Similarly governments can offer no furher increases in the social wage for the reason that the wherewithal to pay for it will no longer be forthcoming. In point of fact long befpore this end game has even been arrived at, increasing counter pressue on both money wages and the social wage will have begun to take effect if industry is to compete efffectively

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

I am saying that there is not a snowball's chance in hell of this happening. Of course tecnbically if the costs faced by businesses ]everywhere exceeded their revenue then I guess ca[pitalism would collapse. But capitalism simply does not operate like that does?. Well before such a completely hypothetical situation wagses would begin falling as the growing toll of unemployment made itself felt

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.

True there are other considerations here beside creating an efficient working class. Apart from anything else pensioners are voters too. Also they are what we will all end up becoming if we dont peg it on the way. Nevertheless this does not in any way detract from the fact that findings of the Beverrdge Report had the support of significant sections of the capitalist class who saw state welfare as a more cost effective solution than the haphazrad peiucemeal solutions offered by private enterprise. That remains the case today and that is why all the main capitalist parties - labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories - have committed themselves to the maintenance of the NHS in some form despite growing concern about the rising costs it faces

 

[robbo203]

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.

Actually this confrims precisely the point I was making that the SPGB tends to use the term reformism in a rather vague sloppy catchall fashion and that that far from a clear cut distinction between economic refroms and political refroms "muddying the waters" it is precisely this apporach to the question of reformism that does that.

My argument is that the SPGB seriously undermines it own case case against reformism by doing this. You have not confronted, but only skirted around, the basic question I asked at the outset - what precisely is being "reformed" when we talk about refromism? The logical answer is that reformism is an attempt to reform capitalism and that capitalism being a socio economic constructiuon, not a political or legal entity, this means that reforms that come under the rubric of reformism must essentially be economic reforms. Introducing PR is not reformist , it is simply a political reform. Whether it is worth supporting is another argument altogether but you cannot coherenty oppose it on the vague grounds that it is somehow reformist

Its the same with the legalisation of homosexuality. True this is not a political reform nor an economic reform but it another kind of reform - a social reform - which, like political reforms, are not reformist.

The SPGB needs to rethink this question of reformism, it is one of a number of areas where it is very vulnerable to criticism

 

[Gravediggers]

Actually this confrims precisely the point I was making that the SPGB tends to use the term reformism in a rather vague sloppy catchall fashion and that that far from a clear cut distinction between economic refroms and political refroms "muddying the waters" it is precisely this apporach to the question of reformism that does that.

My argument is that the SPGB seriously undermines it own case case against reformism by doing this. You have not confronted, but only skirted around, the basic question I asked at the outset - what precisely is being "reformed" when we talk about refromism? The logical answer is that reformism is an attempt to reform capitalism and that capitalism being a socio economic constructiuon, not a political or legal entity, this means that reforms that come under the rubric of reformism must essentially be economic reforms. Introducing PR is not reformist , it is simply a political reform. Whether it is worth supporting is another argument altogether but you cannot coherenty oppose it on the vague grounds that it is somehow reformist

Its the same with the legalisation of homosexuality. True this is not a political reform nor an economic reform but it another kind of reform - a social reform - which, like political reforms, are not reformist.

The SPGB needs to rethink this question of reformism, it is one of a number of areas where it is very vulnerable to criticism

So now we find social reforms are added to the rubric of reforms? What next will we find if we dig a little bit deeper? But will it make any difference what so ever when basically the SPGB do not support or oppose reforms and also we make it quite that not all reforms are of a reformist nature. You are typically making a mountain out of a molehill in a rather poor attempt to keep your ego intact because you failed to detect that all butchers was after was an explanation and not a justification.

Isn't far simpler and easier to get off your high horse and admit you are making a mistake and on a hiding to nothing? But knowing you, you have decided to take the bit between your teeth and run with it come hell or high water, just to prove your obstinacy.

 

[Knotted]

Yes its pretty well obvious that you are just reading the words and has such completely failing to put them into their historical context. When M&E wrote the Communist Manifesto they wrote in the context of a developing capitalism and in recognition that capitalism had not yet reached the stage of producing an abundance of products. They therefore suggested the state-capitalist measures in Section II as a means of shortening this stage of development in the knowledge that without an abundance of products socialism would be incapable of meeting human needs.

By 1872 the picture had changed entirely and to such an extent that Section II had been largely made redundant. Admittedly, capitalism was not yet fully developed into a globalised integrated production unit, but they had formed the impression it was developed sufficiently to produce an abundance in products, and also to admit the measures laid down in the manifesto had been made 'antiquated' by historical developments.

Since 1848 (and 1872) capitalism is now fully developed in the sense of becoming a globalised integrated production unit and in respect of the political dominance of the state machinery. Which means in effect that with capitalism having served its purpose by producing an abundance, and unable to deliver this abundance, it has made itself redundant. Therefore, the measures proposed by M&E are now completely out of date and bear no relevance to the present day class struggle, other than like M&E urged their writings have to be put into their historical context. Which by the way is the Marxian tradition.

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

Its you who is twisting words yet again. Of course they are talking about who benefits from the state machinery in the knowledge that the state is not neutral. And therefore for the working class to abolish the instrument of their oppression.

It's a pity they don't say that either.

 

[Knotted]

Well like I said the bottom line is can an enterprise continue to make profit in the face of increased costs. That is a a prret definite limit isnt it?

You're trying to do an "all other things being equal" type of argument. It might just work for a single company, but if we are talking about wage increases accross the board then we are probably talking about price increases, different investments, different business strategies, different companies being affected in differenet ways etc. You can't talk about wage increases and fix everything else. Economics just isn't that easy.

I know it isnt a wage strictly speaking but it is not called a social wage for no reason. Both an increase in the social wage and an increase in the money wage have an effect in common in that they both have to be paid for and so represent a cost - even if there is a difference in how the cost is paid for in each case

You could increase the social wage at the expense of military expenditure ie. without the capitalists having to pay an extra penny. But besides that, the repercussions of increases the social wage will have different repercussions of increases in wages. It's all a bit more complicated than you might think.

Sure they tend to survive but like I said the state has to juggle with a number of considerations. It cant afford to impose a tax burden so great that it kills the goose that lays the golden eggs. So it curbs the tax burden at some point and so limits what it can afford to pay out in terms of the social wage


The bottom line is profit. Without profit, enterprises can offer no further wage increases becuase the enterprises will be no more. They will have gone bust. Its as simple as that. Similarly governments can offer no furher increases in the social wage for the reason that the wherewithal to pay for it will no longer be forthcoming. In point of fact long befpore this end game has even been arrived at, increasing counter pressue on both money wages and the social wage will have begun to take effect if industry is to compete efffectively

How close is the state from killing the goose that lays the golden eggs? Is it absolute necessity that drives state policy? I don't think so. I think there is considerable give. Capitalism can survive in states with high expenditure, it can survive in war zones, it can survive social upheaval. It's not the fragile creature you make it out to be.

I am saying that there is not a snowball's chance in hell of this happening. Of course tecnbically if the costs faced by businesses ]everywhere exceeded their revenue then I guess ca[pitalism would collapse. But capitalism simply does not operate like that does?. Well before such a completely hypothetical situation wagses would begin falling as the growing toll of unemployment made itself felt

I think we're getting closer to your real point. Don't struggle for any advances - you won't win.

True there are other considerations here beside creating an efficient working class. Apart from anything else pensioners are voters too. Also they are what we will all end up becoming if we dont peg it on the way. Nevertheless this does not in any way detract from the fact that findings of the Beverrdge Report had the support of significant sections of the capitalist class who saw state welfare as a more cost effective solution than the haphazrad peiucemeal solutions offered by private enterprise. That remains the case today and that is why all the main capitalist parties - labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories - have committed themselves to the maintenance of the NHS in some form despite growing concern about the rising costs it faces

I agree that this is part of it. However, if I remember correctly, the Beveridge report was also concerned about the possibility of post war upheaval. The welfare state was introduced under pressure from the working class.

 

[Knotted]

For Gravediggers:

During the subsequent regimes, the government, placed under parliamentary control – that is, under the direct control of the propertied classes – became not only a hotbed of huge national debts and crushing taxes; with its irresistible allurements of place, pelf, and patronage, it became not only the bone of contention between the rival factions and adventurers of the ruling classes; but its political character changed simultaneously with the economic changes of society. At the same pace at which the progress of modern industry developed, widened, intensified the class antagonism between capital and labor, the state power assumed more and more the character of the national power of capital over labor, of a public force organized for social enslavement, of an engine of class despotism.

Marx, The Civil War in France.

If we're talking about historical context, let's be clear that when Marx and Engels were talking about the gigantic strides made by modern industry since 1848, they weren't implicitly saying that the socialist revolution could march straight to socialism overnight without having to go throught a phase of "despotic inroads on the rights of property". If you can think for yourself for a minute rather than think as an SPGB propaganda machine, it should be obvious that if Marx and Engels had come to such an important conclusion then they would have taken the trouble to spell it out rather than leave it as some sort of cryptic note that only the SPGB code breakers can see.

But also in the passage quoted above it is clear that Marx saw the development of modern industry as shaping the character of the state. Here you don't see cryptic messages in Marx and Engels, here you can't even read what they say. Shall I quote it again?

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.”

This isn't anarchist or maximalist anti-statism ie. states are bad 'mkay. It is a comment about the character of the bourgeois state and whether it can be used by the working class.

Why did Marx draw this conclusion. Well if we read on:

Paris, the central seat of the old governmental power, and, at the same time, the social stronghold of the French working class, had risen in arms against the attempt of Thiers and the Rurals to restore and perpetuate that old governmental power bequeathed to them by the empire. Paris could resist only because, in consequence of the siege, it had got rid of the army, and replaced it by a National Guard, the bulk of which consisted of working men. This fact was now to be transformed into an institution. The first decree of the Commune, therefore, was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people.

This is what Marx had learnt. You don't try to capture the state through the electoral process in order to neutralise the army and the police or use them for your own purposes - you need to substitute the forces of the state for the armed people.

Did the commune immediately abolish the wages system and establish socialism in one city? No. Did Marx raise any criticism of them for not doing this? No. Did they make despotic inroads on the rights of property? Yes. Did Marx complain? No. Was the commune what you inanely call "state capitalism"? Yes. Did Marx have any problem with "state capitalism"? No.

Now of course Marx and Engels could have been wrong. If you had the courage of your convictions you would argue your case regardless of what Marx and Engels had said. You wouldn't have pretend they say one thing whereas in fact they say the opposite.

 

[robbo203]

So now we find social reforms are added to the rubric of reforms? What next will we find if we dig a little bit deeper? But will it make any difference what so ever when basically the SPGB do not support or oppose reforms and also we make it quite that not all reforms are of a reformist nature. You are typically making a mountain out of a molehill in a rather poor attempt to keep your ego intact because you failed to detect that all butchers was after was an explanation and not a justification.

Isn't far simpler and easier to get off your high horse and admit you are making a mistake and on a hiding to nothing? But knowing you, you have decided to take the bit between your teeth and run with it come hell or high water, just to prove your obstinacy.

Thats a bit rich. Instead of getting all haughty and dismissive about it, how about actually dealing with arguments I have been trying to present. Your gratuitous ad hoiminens sniff of evasion. I do think there is a serious problem with the way in which the the SPGB goes about dealing with the question of reformism and if you think this is making a mountain out of a molehill then, evidently, you havent a clue.

Considering that the "reform or revolution" question is arguably the central question around which the whole impossibilist tradition emerged your whole laissez faire approach to this matter is frankly shocking. Oh it doesn matter, you say, cos we neither support nor oppose refroms anyway. Not the point Gravedigger. The point is WHYdo you oppose them. Whats the rationale for this oppposition? It is surely to assert that capitalism cannot be run in the interests of the working class, that the dynamics of the system, its inner economic "laws", resist the attempts of reformist political parties , however well meaning, to induce the leopard to change its spots.

This crucial point begins to be lost once you start including under the rubric of reformism, reforms that are not of an essentially economic nature. You are the one who is muddying the water not me in this instance. And its not a molehill that we are looking at either. It is part of the very reason why the SPGB came into existence

In an early post you commented

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.

This however does not prevent you from now saying that you make it quite clear that

not all reforms are of a reformist nature.

Which is what I have been trying to tell you all along!

Like I said your whole approach to the question of refromism is muddled, and sloppy. I dont know if its just you or the SPGB in general , I suspect some members would not agree with your comments above. So what reforms. in you esteemed opinion, are "not of a reformist nature". Wait, let me guess. Ah yes, its reforms like the institutionalisation of basic democratic rights which the SPGB has committed itself to supporting. Political reforms in short. So its not true that that "SPGB do not support or oppose reforms", is it? It does support some reforms notably these. And yet you can say that we do not make a distinction between political and economic reforms, becuase there is so much overlap and ambiguity between the two it is not worth the effort and there is nothing to be gained Spot the contradiction!

Look, all I am trying to say is that the SPGB case against reformism is based on an economic analysis of capitalism and that logically speaking that means that the kind of refroms that it is talking about here are essentially economic reforms. Political reforms like PR or social refroms like the legalisation of gay rights are not refromist in this sense and just becuase they are not refromist does not mean you must neccesarily support or oppose them. You dont need to invoke the bogey of "refromism" on each and every occasion you know.

If you had tried to engage with the argument I have tried to present here instead of airly dismissing it in your usual fashion you might have begun to have gasped the significance of making a distinction between reformist reforms and non-reformist reforms. The irony is that you now finally concede that not all reforms are of a reformist nature. But if I understand you correctly you simply can't be arsed to explain the differnence cos there is so much overlap and ambiguity between the two it is not worth the effort and there is nothing to be gained

Thats a bit pathetic dont you think? Basically you are saying that we must just accept what the SPGB says ex cathedra that "not all reforms are of a reformist nature" without being given any kind of coherent explanation as to why this must be so!

 

[Gravediggers]

Considering that the "reform or revolution" question is arguably the central question around which the whole impossibilist tradition emerged your whole laissez faire approach to this matter is frankly shocking. Oh it doesn matter, you say, cos we neither support nor oppose refroms anyway. Not the point Gravedigger. The point is WHYdo you oppose them. Whats the rationale for this oppposition? It is surely to assert that capitalism cannot be run in the interests of the working class, that the dynamics of the system, its inner economic "laws", resist the attempts of reformist political parties , however well meaning, to induce the leopard to change its spots.

The whole crux of you tedious argument is that we are opposed to reforms when you know full well that is not the case. Indeed, there have been numerous occasions when you have argued this on this thread.

This crucial point begins to be lost once you start including under the rubric of reformism, reforms that are not of an essentially economic nature. You are the one who is muddying the water not me in this instance. And its not a molehill that we are looking at either. It is part of the very reason why the SPGB came into existence

In an early post you commented

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.

This however does not prevent you from now saying that you make it quite clear that

not all reforms are of a reformist nature.

Which is what I have been trying to tell you all along!

And you knew all along that this in fact is our position yet you insist on making a distinction which in our opinion is unnecessary, just because we support the introduction of democracy.

Like I said your whole approach to the question of refromism is muddled, and sloppy. I dont know if its just you or the SPGB in general , I suspect some members would not agree with your comments above. So what reforms. in you esteemed opinion, are "not of a reformist nature". Wait, let me guess. Ah yes, its reforms like the institutionalisation of basic democratic rights which the SPGB has committed itself to supporting. Political reforms in short. So its not true that that "SPGB do not support or oppose reforms", is it? It does support some reforms notably these. And yet you can say that we do not make a distinction between political and economic reforms, becuase there is so much overlap and ambiguity between the two it is not worth the effort and there is nothing to be gained Spot the contradiction!

There is no contradiction between not supporting and not opposing reforms and supporting the introduction of democracy. If we failed to support the introduction of democracy that would be in contradiction to our case for our whole case rests or falls on democracy.

Look, all I am trying to say is that the SPGB case against reformism is based on an economic analysis of capitalism and that logically speaking that means that the kind of refroms that it is talking about here are essentially economic reforms. Political reforms like PR or social refroms like the legalisation of gay rights are not refromist in this sense and just becuase they are not refromist does not mean you must neccesarily support or oppose them. You dont need to invoke the bogey of "refromism" on each and every occasion you know.

Robbo it is you who is invoking the bogey of reformism on each and every occasion viz this silly distinction you think is vital to our case. We're of the opinion the only distinction necessary is between reforms and reformism.

If you had tried to engage with the argument I have tried to present here instead of airly dismissing it in your usual fashion you might have begun to have gasped the significance of making a distinction between reformist reforms and non-reformist reforms.

We done this years ago so what is the argument?

The irony is that you now finally concede that not all reforms are of a reformist nature. But if I understand you correctly you simply can't be arsed to explain the differnence cos there is so much overlap and ambiguity between the two it is not worth the effort and there is nothing to be gained

We have not, "finally concede that not all reforms are of a reformist nature". Again this has always been our case, so what is the argument?

Thats a bit pathetic dont you think? Basically you are saying that we must just accept what the SPGB says ex cathedra that "not all reforms are of a reformist nature" without being given any kind of coherent explanation as to why this must be so!

Again you are making a non-argument here in the knowledge that we do provide a coherent explanation for our position. Indeed you have provided and used this explanation several times on this thread.

 

[Gravediggers]

For Gravediggers:


Marx, The Civil War in France.

If we're talking about historical context, let's be clear that when Marx and Engels were talking about the gigantic strides made by modern industry since 1848, they weren't implicitly saying that the socialist revolution could march straight to socialism overnight without having to go throught a phase of "despotic inroads on the rights of property". If you can think for yourself for a minute rather than think as an SPGB propaganda machine, it should be obvious that if Marx and Engels had come to such an important conclusion then they would have taken the trouble to spell it out rather than leave it as some sort of cryptic note that only the SPGB code breakers can see.

Why should they have to spell it out when they were stating the obvious?

But also in the passage quoted above it is clear that Marx saw the development of modern industry as shaping the character of the state. Here you don't see cryptic messages in Marx and Engels, here you can't even read what they say. Shall I quote it again?

Quote:
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.”

This isn't anarchist or maximalist anti-statism ie. states are bad 'mkay. It is a comment about the character of the bourgeois state and whether it can be used by the working class.

This is exactly the point I made and emphasised that the state can not be used by the workers.

Why did Marx draw this conclusion. Well if we read on:

Quote:
Paris, the central seat of the old governmental power, and, at the same time, the social stronghold of the French working class, had risen in arms against the attempt of Thiers and the Rurals to restore and perpetuate that old governmental power bequeathed to them by the empire. Paris could resist only because, in consequence of the siege, it had got rid of the army, and replaced it by a National Guard, the bulk of which consisted of working men. This fact was now to be transformed into an institution. The first decree of the Commune, therefore, was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people.

This is what Marx had learnt. You don't try to capture the state through the electoral process in order to neutralise the army and the police or use them for your own purposes - you need to substitute the forces of the state for the armed people.

You again fail to place this passage in its historical context and forgetting that since then we have seen the introduction of democracy. And in the process also forgetting that M&E endorsed democracy as an instrument for self-emancipation. In fact Engles made the point that democracy had made the days of the barricades obsolete. If we were to take the implication of your argument, albeit out of its historical context, how long do you think this substitute of the state would last against the modern armed forces?

Did the commune immediately abolish the wages system and establish socialism in one city? No. Did Marx raise any criticism of them for not doing this? No. Did they make despotic inroads on the rights of property? Yes. Did Marx complain? No. Was the commune what you inanely call "state capitalism"? Yes. Did Marx have any problem with "state capitalism"? No.

Now of course Marx and Engels could have been wrong. If you had the courage of your convictions you would argue your case regardless of what Marx and Engels had said. You wouldn't have pretend they say one thing whereas in fact they say the opposite.

We do argue our case "regardless of what Marx and Engels had said" and some socialist do argue that on many occasions M&E were wrong to propose certain measures and even that they drew the wrong conclusions from the lessons to be learned from class struggle. Others, myself included, argue that the Marxian tradition places Marx thoughts in their historical context, which Marx himself argued for. By adopting this platform we place M&E in the circumstances of the time and see an explanation for the positions they adopted are appertaining to that era of class struggle.

This enables us to then state, 'Yes there are lessons to learned from past class struggles, but those lessons will only be learned if we place them in a modern context'. I suggest this is the very point you are ignoring.

 

[Knotted]

Why should they have to spell it out when they were stating the obvious?

Do you really expect me to treat such bluster with anything but contempt?

This is exactly the point I made and emphasised that the state can not be used by the workers.

See it's not me twisting your words but you, look what you actually said:

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.

You wish to transform, convert or fashion the state into an instrument of self-emancipation. That sounds like using it to me.

Again Marx and Engels:

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.”

Perhaps you wish to transform, convert or fashion it first before you lay hold of it?

You again fail to place this passage in its historical context and forgetting that since then we have seen the introduction of democracy. And in the process also forgetting that M&E endorsed democracy as an instrument for self-emancipation.

The passage says nothing about democracy. What are you on about? Do you mean parliamentary democracy?

In fact Engles made the point that democracy had made the days of the barricades obsolete.

If Engels said somewhere that Democracy makes the days of the barricades obsolete, then he forgot to tell the Paris commune.

If we were to take the implication of your argument, albeit out of its historical context, how long do you think this substitute of the state would last against the modern armed forces?

I'm not making any argument. I'm just pointing out what Marx and Engels said. I'm just curious why you are so keen to distort their words. But to answer your question - it rather depends on whether sections of the soldiers can be won over.

How long do you think a revolutionary socialist party heading parliment can last without a military coup? Or is that just not cricket?

We do argue our case "regardless of what Marx and Engels had said" and some socialist do argue that on many occasions M&E were wrong to propose certain measures and even that they drew the wrong conclusions from the lessons to be learned from class struggle. Others, myself included, argue that the Marxian tradition places Marx thoughts in their historical context, which Marx himself argued for. By adopting this platform we place M&E in the circumstances of the time and see an explanation for the positions they adopted are appertaining to that era of class struggle.

This enables us to then state, 'Yes there are lessons to learned from past class struggles, but those lessons will only be learned if we place them in a modern context'. I suggest this is the very point you are ignoring.

But you think that advocating reforms is class collaboration. How do you place that in historical context? See for example:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm

 

[robbo203]

The whole crux of you tedious argument is that we are opposed to reforms when you know full well that is not the case. Indeed, there have been numerous occasions when you have argued this on this thread. .

Really? So you think that I said the SPGB is "opposed to reforms" when I have been at pains to point that there is big difference between opposing reforms and opposing reformism and that this is precisely the point that the SPGB constantly makes. Goes to show that you haven't been paying a soddin bit of attention to what I have been arguing, so intent have you been on haughtily putting down poor old robbo. Next time I rise to the defence of the SPGB remind me not to do so

And you knew all along that this in fact is our position yet you insist on making a distinction which in our opinion is unnecessary, just because we support the introduction of democracy..

This gets from bad to worse. You say you know that it is the SPGB's position that "not all reforms are of a reformist nature." and yet you ask why am I making distinction (between these reforms and reforms that are of a reformist nature) when it is all so "unecessary". Curious that. If it is so unneccesary why on earth would you say not all reforms are of a reformist nature in the the first place. eh? This is precisely to make a distinction between these reforms and those that are of a "reformist nature". To say your argument is completely confused and contradictory would be an understatement.

There is no contradiction between not supporting and not opposing reforms and supporting the introduction of democracy. If we failed to support the introduction of democracy that would be in contradiction to our case for our whole case rests or falls on democracy.
.

There certainly is a contradiction! If you say you dont support reforms then there is no way you can say you support a political refrom like the introduction of democracy (which incidentally i support thought this is not reformist) without this involving a contradiction. What you really mean to say is that you dont support reformist refroms i.e. economic reforms and that is something I would go along with too. However you think it is not "necessary" to make a distinction between these and other reforms and it is precisely because of this that your whole postion comes across as completely incoherent and muddled. How can you possibly support the "introduction of democracy" without making it clear that this reform is distinguishable form other reforms beats me.

Robbo it is you who is invoking the bogey of reformism on each and every occasion viz this silly distinction you think is vital to our case. We're of the opinion the only distinction necessary is between reforms and reformism..

Well evidently this is not true is it? Youve just admitted on this forum that "not all reforms are of a reformist nature" meaning that you distinguish between these reforms and those reforms that are of a reformist nature. So clearly you dont think the only distinction necessary is between reforms and reformism.. You actually distingiush between different kinds of reforms as well which is what I have been saying all along is what the SPGB needs to do and yet you have the nerve to upbraid for saying that!

 

[Knotted]

Considering that the "reform or revolution" question is arguably the central question around which the whole impossibilist tradition emerged your whole laissez faire approach to this matter is frankly shocking. Oh it doesn matter, you say, cos we neither support nor oppose refroms anyway. Not the point Gravedigger. The point is WHYdo you oppose them. Whats the rationale for this oppposition? It is surely to assert that capitalism cannot be run in the interests of the working class, that the dynamics of the system, its inner economic "laws", resist the attempts of reformist political parties , however well meaning, to induce the leopard to change its spots.

Tell you what you might find interesting, have a read of the original SPGB manifesto from 1905. It's not much of a manifesto, but it critiques other nominally socialist tendencies. Note that it doesn't mention reform or reformism once. It's good stuff - it's not formulaic, it looks at each of these tendencies in their own right and gives a fair criticism.

All this stuff about never supporting or opposing reforms is surely just a latter day add-on after the party became a hopeless, formulaic, braindead sect.

 

[Gravediggers]

Do you really expect me to treat such bluster with anything but contempt?

The facts of the matter are it had already been spelled out in, The Civil War in France so I'm not blustering but pointing out that the lessons of that struggle had confirmed that capitalism had taken great strides in development. And M&E underlined this development in the 1872 preface to the CM. The purpose of a preface is to give very broad strokes not lengthy details!

See it's not me twisting your words but you, look what you actually said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravediggers
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.

You wish to transform, convert or fashion the state into an instrument of self-emancipation. That sounds like using it to me.

And I also said previously, that the first act of the socialist delegates is to abolish the state'. So how can we use the state when it no longer exists?

Again Marx and Engels:

Quote:
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.”

And I've also said previously that the key word here is, 'simply'. The state is not neutral and can only represent ruling class interests so the sooner it is abolished the sooner the capitalist are denied using it for their own purposes.

Perhaps you wish to transform, convert or fashion it first before you lay hold of it?

Putting the cart before the horse again.

The passage says nothing about democracy. What are you on about? Do you mean parliamentary democracy?

Of course the passage says nothing about democracy. I was pointing out that the development of capitalism since 1872 had included the introduction of democracy which entirely changed the dynamics of class struggle. You are again ignoring the historical context.

If Engels said somewhere that Democracy makes the days of the barricades obsolete, then he forgot to tell the Paris commune.

He did not forget to tell the Paris Commune because democracy had not been introduced at that time. This again illustrates you are either twisting or deliberately ignoring the historical context.

I'm not sure which particular article or correspondence Engles mentions this but unlike you he did put it into historical context by say that the lessons of the Paris Commune had illustrated the days of the barricades were over and that the introduction of democracy in Germany had shown that socialism could be brought about by peaceful means.

I'm not making any argument. I'm just pointing out what Marx and Engels said. I'm just curious why you are so keen to distort their words. But to answer your question - it rather depends on whether sections of the soldiers can be won over.

How long do you think a revolutionary socialist party heading parliment can last without a military coup? Or is that just not cricket?

I'm not distorting their words just putting their various writings in the context of the circumstances they found themselves in. What makes you think a military coup is a probability? Its possible, but unlikely, given that in such a situation we could expect the members of the armed forces to be affected by socialist ideas

But you think that advocating reforms is class collaboration. How do you place that in historical context? See for example:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm

I'm not disagreeing with your previous description of Marx. Obviously, this is another example of Marx trying to speed up the development of capitalism. That development is now complete so the sooner we move onto socialism the better.

 

[Knotted]

The facts of the matter are it had already been spelled out in, The Civil War in France so I'm not blustering but pointing out that the lessons of that struggle had confirmed that capitalism had taken great strides in development. And M&E underlined this development in the 1872 preface to the CM. The purpose of a preface is to give very broad strokes not lengthy details!

Firstly, try to keep your story straight. Either they didn't need to spell it out because it was obvious or they did actually spell it out. You can't say both.

I've discussed this already. What am I to do? Quote it again so that you won't comprehend it again. I give up.

And I also said previously, that the first act of the socialist delegates is to abolish the state'. So how can we use the state when it no longer exists?

But you didn't say that. I showed you didn't say that. What am I to do? You can't even comprehend what you've written. Is English your first language?

And I've also said previously that the key word here is, 'simply'. The state is not neutral and can only represent ruling class interests so the sooner it is abolished the sooner the capitalist are denied using it for their own purposes.

I don't believe you did say that previously. The quote says nothing about abolishing the state. I pointed this out before. Check the quote. Do you want me to quote it a third time? Will you understand this time? What am I to do with you?

Putting the cart before the horse again.

You wish to transform the state into an instrument of self-emancipation without using it. All this transforming business seems like a waste of time.

Of course the passage says nothing about democracy. I was pointing out that the development of capitalism since 1872 had included the introduction of democracy which entirely changed the dynamics of class struggle. You are again ignoring the historical context.

He did not forget to tell the Paris Commune because democracy had not been introduced at that time. This again illustrates you are either twisting or deliberately ignoring the historical context.

I'm not sure which particular article or correspondence Engles mentions this but unlike you he did put it into historical context by say that the lessons of the Paris Commune had illustrated the days of the barricades were over and that the introduction of democracy in Germany had shown that socialism could be brought about by peaceful means.

Found the quote for you:

For here, too, the conditions of the struggle had changed fundamentally. Rebellion in the old style, street fighting with barricades, which decided the issue everywhere up to 1848, had become largely outdated.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1895/03/06.htm

Engels is talking about 1848 not 1871, so you've got the historical context wrong. Also note that he say's "largely outdated".

I'm not distorting their words just putting their various writings in the context of the circumstances they found themselves in. What makes you think a military coup is a probability? Its possible, but unlikely, given that in such a situation we could expect the members of the armed forces to be affected by socialist ideas

A military coup is a certainty. Absolute certainty. Look at Chile 1973 or Indoneasia 1965, and that wasn't even in response to a revolutionary party. Your revolution would be drowned in blood. Being in control of parliament makes not a jot of difference.

I'm not disagreeing with your previous description of Marx. Obviously, this is another example of Marx trying to speed up the development of capitalism. That development is now complete so the sooner we move onto socialism the better.

No it isn't. Read the damn thing.

Plus you were saying that the development of capitalism was sufficient in 1871 to the extent that calling for reforms was obsolete then. How come it wasn't obsolete nine years later?

 

[butchersapron]

Found the quote for you:

For here, too, the conditions of the struggle had changed fundamentally. Rebellion in the old style, street fighting with barricades, which decided the issue everywhere up to 1848, had become largely outdated.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1895/03/06.htm

Engels is talking about 1848 not 1871, so you've got the historical context wrong. Also note that he say's "largely outdated".

Some more historical context here - this was from an article that Engels wrote for for publication in the SPD paper. Kautsky and Liebknecht edited it so that it seemed to offer an argument closer to what Kautsky and Liebknecht were trying to impose on the SPD - the necessity for a solely peaceful parliamentary approach - rather than engels own, which included things like the search for better tactics in street fighting - i.e . stuff like

This is the main point which must be kept in view, also when examining the outlook for possible future street fighting

was omitted.

Engels was furious when he found out, and demanded full publication - the SPF agreed to but lied again.

 

[Knotted]

Wow, didn't know about that one. Shocking stuff, especially as the old boy was on his last legs.

 

[Gravediggers]

Really? So you think that I said the SPGB is "opposed to reforms" when I have been at pains to point that there is big difference between opposing reforms and opposing reformism and that this is precisely the point that the SPGB constantly makes. Goes to show that you haven't been paying a soddin bit of attention to what I have been arguing, so intent have you been on haughtily putting down poor old robbo. Next time I rise to the defence of the SPGB remind me not to do so

What you actually said is copied below, of which the key sentences are: Oh it doesn matter, you say, cos we neither support nor oppose refroms anyway. Not the point Gravedigger. The point is WHYdo you oppose them. Whats the rationale for this oppposition? What more can I say other here it is in black and white that you did say we are opposed to reforms.

In regards to your passing remark of rising to the defence of the SPGB I will take that with a pinch of salt. I have most certainly been grateful and appreciate your intervention on this thread - and said so in my conversations with other members of the SPGB. But nobody from the SPGB requested this intervention for you joining the fray to discuss the socialist case. If you are having second thoughts on the matter that is entirely your choice and I for one would most certainly not even consider asking you to leave.

Quote by robbo Considering that the "reform or revolution" question is arguably the central question around which the whole impossibilist tradition emerged your whole laissez faire approach to this matter is frankly shocking. Oh it doesn matter, you say, cos we neither support nor oppose refroms anyway. Not the point Gravedigger. The point is WHYdo you oppose them. Whats the rationale for this oppposition? It is surely to assert that capitalism cannot be run in the interests of the working class, that the dynamics of the system, its inner economic "laws", resist the attempts of reformist political parties , however well meaning, to induce the leopard to change its spots.
[/QUOTE

 

[robbo203]

All this stuff about never supporting or opposing reforms is surely just a latter day add-on after the party became a hopeless, formulaic, braindead sect.

I dont think that is fair comment, Knotted. Though there are times when I get exasperated with the sheer dogmatism and knee jerkism of some of its members, the SPGB is very far from being a "hopeless, formulaic, braindead sect". You are saying this without any knowlege of the Party. Ive been there. done it and have the T shirt to prove it. Despite what impressions you might have gleaned to the contrary, the SPGB is no monolith and it does indeed have a thriving internal democracy that is second to none. No sect would ever be so at odds with itself over every nuance of party policy. And calling it braindead is just dumb frankly

 

[Knotted]

I dont think that is fair comment, Knotted. Though there are times when I get exasperated with the sheer dogmatism and knee jerkism of some of its members, the SPGB is very far from being a "hopeless, formulaic, braindead sect". You are saying this without any knowlege of the Party. Ive been there. done it and have the T shirt to prove it. Despite what impressions you might have gleaned to the contrary, the SPGB is no monolith and it does indeed have a thriving internal democracy that is second to none. No sect would ever be so at odds with itself over every nuance of party policy. And calling it braindead is just dumb frankly

OK the braindead comment is probably over the top.

They are very sectish. It's not even to do with the hostility clause, although that doesn't help. It's examplarfied by this:

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.

I would note that this is not just Gravediggers, s/he is borrowing from one of the old SPGB documents on the Beveridge report.

The reason it is so perfectly sectarian is that it places internal SPGB concerns ahead of class concerns.

 

[robbo203]

What you actually said is copied below, of which the key sentences are: Oh it doesn matter, you say, cos we neither support nor oppose refroms anyway. Not the point Gravedigger. The point is WHYdo you oppose them. Whats the rationale for this oppposition? What more can I say other here it is in black and white that you did say we are opposed to reforms.

Fair enough. That was a simple mistake on my part made in haste. I should have said "why do you oppose reformism" not "why do you oppose reforms". I think that this would have been obvious from the context and from what I have said previously on the reforms/reformism issue. Of course i realise full well that the SPGB does not "oppose reforms" because, as I pointed out earlier, opposing reforms would ironically amount to a kind of reformism in itself

However, the basic argument still stands. The rationale for its anti/refromist stance is surely to assert that capitalism cannot be run in the interests of the working class, that the dynamics of the system, its inner economic "laws", resist the attempts of reformist political parties , however well meaning, to induce the leopard to change its spots Incorporating non economic reforms under the rubric of reformism just confuses the issue

 

[Gravediggers]

Firstly, try to keep your story straight. Either they didn't need to spell it out because it was obvious or they did actually spell it out. You can't say both.

I'm not saying both, just pointing out that the preface underlines the conclusions of, The Civil War in France.

I've discussed this already. What am I to do? Quote it again so that you won't comprehend it again. I give up.

I have understood what M&E are saying, however the obvious problem is that your understanding is different to mine. And the reason for this is because you fail to put M&E in their historical context. All I'm trying to explain is that the modern day class struggle is entirely different from when they were recording the events of class struggle during their time. Whilst it seems you are saying nothing has changed.

But you didn't say that. I showed you didn't say that. What am I to do? You can't even comprehend what you've written. Is English your first language?



I don't believe you did say that previously. The quote says nothing about abolishing the state. I pointed this out before. Check the quote. Do you want me to quote it a third time? Will you understand this time? What am I to do with you?

OK this is what I said from post 1948: 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. And yes the quote does not say about abolishing the state but when you put it into historical context and apply it to the present day the key word of 'simply' takes on far more significance than you give it credit for!

You wish to transform the state into an instrument of self-emancipation without using it. All this transforming business seems like a waste of time.

What gives you the impression that the workers can use the state for their own purpose?

Found the quote for you:


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1895/03/06.htm

Engels is talking about 1848 not 1871, so you've got the historical context wrong. Also note that he say's "largely outdated".

I may have got the date wrong but my argument for historical context still stands. Of course he said, 'largely outdated' can't fault him on that score because he's applying the dynamics of class struggle. And if we apply it to the present day ...... .....?

A military coup is a certainty. Absolute certainty. Look at Chile 1973 or Indoneasia 1965, and that wasn't even in response to a revolutionary party. Your revolution would be drowned in blood. Being in control of parliament makes not a jot of difference.

None of the examples you give apply to a socialist revolution where we are looking at a majority of the workers the gaining class consciousness and taking political power. The logic of your argument disregards the power of the ballot box and the necessity for measuring socialist support.

No it isn't. Read the damn thing.

Plus you were saying that the development of capitalism was sufficient in 1871 to the extent that calling for reforms was obsolete then. How come it wasn't obsolete nine years later?

I've read it and clearly it was an appeal to the French workers to speed up the development of capitalism and possibly an attempt to stave of the forces of reaction. I'm not suprised Marx switched position in this respect. He could be an entirely pragmatic reformist when the occasion demanded.

 

[Gravediggers]

Fair enough. That was a simple mistake on my part made in haste. I should have said "why do you oppose reformism" not "why do you oppose reforms". I think that this would have been obvious from the context and from what I have said previously on the reforms/reformism issue. Of course i realise full well that the SPGB does not "oppose reforms" because, as I pointed out earlier, opposing reforms would ironically amount to a kind of reformism in itself

Glad we've cleared that up. However, even if the sentence were to be amended like you suggest it would still be out of context with the previous sentences don't you think?

However, the basic argument still stands. The rationale for its anti/refromist stance is surely to assert that capitalism cannot be run in the interests of the working class, that the dynamics of the system, its inner economic "laws", resist the attempts of reformist political parties , however well meaning, to induce the leopard to change its spots Incorporating non economic reforms under the rubric of reformism just confuses the issue

OK we beg to differ.

 

[Gravediggers]

1

 

[Gravediggers]

I would note that this is not just Gravediggers, s/he is borrowing from one of the old SPGB documents on the Beveridge report.

The reason it is so perfectly sectarian is that it places internal SPGB concerns ahead of class concerns.

Since when is it not the concern of the workers not to seek a revolutionary transformation in the social relationships? And since when is it in the interests of the workers to seek reforms from capitalism? Your attempt to claim that revolution and reforms are compatible is not worthy of discussion.

 

[frogwoman]

Fact of the matter is that most people (well here anyway, and in this historical/economic setting) would rather have reforms and the odd strike than violent riots with molotov coctails being thrown, blood in the streets, etc. Until you get your head round this basic fact, the SPGB will be doomed to failure Im afraid (that's leaving aside the slight possibility that the revolutions and riots DO come and they refuse to support them because of disagreeing on some trivial little point of doctrine)

 

[FreddyB]

Since when is it not the concern of the workers not to seek a revolutionary transformation in the social relationships? And since when is it in the interests of the workers to seek reforms from capitalism? Your attempt to claim that revolution and reforms are compatible is not worthy of discussion.

 

[frogwoman]

Another thing your building needa a makeover:

 

[Gravediggers]

Fact of the matter is that most people (well here anyway, and in this historical/economic setting) would rather have reforms and the odd strike than violent riots with molotov coctails being thrown, blood in the streets, etc. Until you get your head round this basic fact, the SPGB will be doomed to failure Im afraid (that's leaving aside the slight possibility that the revolutions and riots DO come and they refuse to support them because of disagreeing on some trivial little point of doctrine)

The proposals of the SPGB do not include a violent revolution, on the contrary we propose a majority revolution through the ballot box. There are two main reasons for this: Firstly, the use of the ballot box in the hands of a politically conscious and organised working class who are committed and serious on capturing political power for themselves means that in all probability the revolutionary transformation will mainly be of a non-violent nature. If a recalcitrant violent minority attempt to usurp this legitimate majority expression of the workers they have to dealt with. Secondly, any society which is brought into existence by violence only continues to exist by the use of further violence.

 

[Gravediggers]

Another thing your building needa a makeover:

It has had a makeover just recently, both inside and out. I shall get an upto date photo posted tomorrow.