SPGB

[Proper Tidy]

Secondly, any society which is brought into existence by violence only continues to exist by the use of further violence.

Can you actually back up this assertion?

 

[Gravediggers]

Can you actually back up this assertion?

America, Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan, DR Congo, Iraq, Iran, Algeria, Afghanistan, Syria to name but a few.

 

[editor]

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

I bet that had a lovely shop front once. Looks like a botched DIY job now.

 

[Proper Tidy]

America, Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan, DR Congo, Iraq, Iran, Algeria, Afghanistan, Syria to name but a few.

But that doesn't come close to proving your point at all.

You imply a certain inevitability in your first assertion. Is it inevitable?

 

[dennisr]

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.

harry perkins

 

[Knotted]

America, Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan, DR Congo, Iraq, Iran, Algeria, Afghanistan, Syria to name but a few.

Don't forget Belgium.

 

[Knotted]

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



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.

I think a lot has changed since the 1870's. I don't think this is the reason we understand the words of M&E differently. The reason is that you are ignoring the words and imagining what you think they should be given what you imagine you would say in that historical context.

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!

I'm sure there's a point in the above somewhere.

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

What gives you the impression I have that impression?

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 ...... .....?

The argument as you presented it doesn't stand. And yes we do have to think for ourselves.

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.

This is true.

The logic of your argument disregards the power of the ballot box and the necessity for measuring socialist support.

This is also true. I don't know what point you are making.

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.

Read the pamphlet. I mean the words on the page, not the words in your head.

I'm not suprised Marx switched position in this respect. He could be an entirely pragmatic reformist when the occasion demanded.

You mean a class collaborationist, pragmatic reformist who was still wedded to the idea of workers' militias replacing the standing army despite the awesome power of the ballot box? Surely a man whom the SPGB should treat with hostility?

 

[DotCommunist]

Another thing your building needa a makeover:

brutalist chic, comrade. What do you want- a decadent western construction of chrome and glass with interactive screens like some shrine to capitalism? My pen is hovering over the List here

 

[Knotted]

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.

What does the SPGB's declaration of principles say about reforms and reformism?

The reason it's not worthy of discussion, is that the idea that supporting reforms is incompatable with calling for revolution is an idea that the SPGB have sneaked in under their own noses. They have no theory, no principle, no argument on this score. It's just a topic that it's impolite to raise.

I would suggest that this idea is part of the SPGB's attempt to explain their own failure. It's those reformist ideas that are contaminating the minds of the workers. The SPGB have to counter this by preaching against anything that could be taken to be a product of a "reformist mindset". There is no good reason for all this preaching, but it gives the members hope.

 

[JimN]

brutalist chic, comrade. What do you want- a decadent western construction of chrome and glass with interactive screens like some shrine to capitalism? My pen is hovering over the List here

 

[JimN]

Sorry folks, I'm having difficulty uploading an image of the new head office frontage on here.

 

[fractionMan]

Another thing your building needa a makeover:

Utopia beckons!

 

[Gravediggers]

I bet that had a lovely shop front once. Looks like a botched DIY job now.

When it was bought in the early 50's it was a wreck both inside and out. Apparently, like most of the properties on Clapham High St, it was a converted town house. The reason for the DIY resulted from an arson attempt by the National Front.

P.s. Can you help JimN to get present photo uploaded?

 

[Gravediggers]

harry perkins

Hmm am I to assume that harry perkins would only be satisfied with a violent revolution? What a crockhead.

 

[Gravediggers]

What does the SPGB's declaration of principles say about reforms and reformism?

The reason it's not worthy of discussion, is that the idea that supporting reforms is incompatable with calling for revolution is an idea that the SPGB have sneaked in under their own noses. They have no theory, no principle, no argument on this score. It's just a topic that it's impolite to raise.

I would suggest that this idea is part of the SPGB's attempt to explain their own failure. It's those reformist ideas that are contaminating the minds of the workers. The SPGB have to counter this by preaching against anything that could be taken to be a product of a "reformist mindset". There is no good reason for all this preaching, but it gives the members hope.

There is a very good reason for being opposed to a "reformist mindset" mainly, has you well know the tactic of reformism has been tried over and over again and failed. For we are still stuck with capitalism despite all the time and effort devoted to enacting countless reforms. If all that energy and activity had on the other hand been concentrated on a "revolutionary mindset" how long do you think capitalism would have lasted?

 

[Knotted]

There is a very good reason for being opposed to a "reformist mindset" mainly, has you well know the tactic of reformism has been tried over and over again and failed. For we are still stuck with capitalism despite all the time and effort devoted to enacting countless reforms. If all that energy and activity had on the other hand been concentrated on a "revolutionary mindset" how long do you think capitalism would have lasted?

You see this is the problem debating with you. Sometimes for you a "reformist mentality" merely means willingness to support or defend certain reforms. At other times it means getting rid of capitalism by using reforms. The terms you use change meaning from post to post. There is no consistency, no logic holding your arguments together, just free-floating standard SPGB rhethoric.

 

[Gravediggers]

Don't forget Belgium.

Plenty more examples beside Belgium where private and state capitalism used violence to enforce its domination. And 'inevitably' continues to do so. Granted violence comes in many variety's and once capitalism becomes established it takes on a legalised form examplified with the killers in uniform.

Nevertheless, the violence of poverty alone, is a big enough stick to keep the workers in line.

 

[Gravediggers]

You see this is the problem debating with you. Sometimes for you a "reformist mentality" merely means willingness to support or defend certain reforms. At other times it means getting rid of capitalism by using reforms. The terms you use change meaning from post to post. There is no consistency, no logic holding your arguments together, just free-floating standard SPGB rhethoric.

This allegation is totally unfounded, indeed where is the evidence on this thread or in our publications that we lump reforms and the tactic of reformism together? The fact of the matter is we consistently make the distinction between the two, for the very reasons and explanations provided in previous posts.

Whereas, it's noticeable your second sentence is inconsistent in its twisty assumption and conclusion that you can get rid of capitalism by using reforms e.g. reformism.

 

[Knotted]

This allegation is totally unfounded, indeed where is the evidence on this thread or in our publications that we lump reforms and the tactic of reformism together? The fact of the matter is we consistently make the distinction between the two, for the very reasons and explanations provided in previous posts.

I wasn't talking about the SPGB but you, Gravediggers.

Whereas, it's noticeable your second sentence is inconsistent in its twisty assumption and conclusion that you can get rid of capitalism by using reforms e.g. reformism.

Huh? My writings skill might not be great, but your comprehension skills are terrible. If you're unsure about what I'm saying, just ask and I'll try to clarify.

 

[Gravediggers]

I wasn't talking about the SPGB but you, Gravediggers.

Either way where is the evidence?

Huh? My writings skill might not be great, but your comprehension skills are terrible. If you're unsure about what I'm saying, just ask and I'll try to clarify.

OK here's the sentence, "At other times it means getting rid of capitalism by using reforms". How else can I comprehend this other than the presumption being, its possible to get rid of capitalism by using reforms. If on the other hand the word 'attempt' or 'try' were inserted in the sentence it would reflect our position. By omitting either word you are twisting our position so it appears to fit your allegation.

Nice try but completely off track.

 

[Knotted]

Either way where is the evidence?

Let's have a look at your previous pronouncements.

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

Supporting particular reforms leads means the party attracts "reform minded people" and means supporting the political system, compromise and collaboration.

This is not adopting a reformist stance, remember. This is just supporting certain reforms.

Another one:

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.

Supporting reforms is incompatable with revolution. Remember this is not saying reformism is incompatable with revolutionary politics. It's just about supporting certain reforms.

Now contrast:

This allegation is totally unfounded, indeed where is the evidence on this thread or in our publications that we lump reforms and the tactic of reformism together? The fact of the matter is we consistently make the distinction between the two, for the very reasons and explanations provided in previous posts.

If you don't literally lump together support for particular reforms with reformism, it's pretty difficult to understand the distinction you make between them. You (I'm talking about you, not the SPGB) regard both of them as incompatable with revolutionary politics, you regard both of them as a form of compromise and collaboration with the political system.

What's this distinction you are talking about? Of course you recognise the difference between reforms and reformism. But that's just a matter of understanding the meanings of the terms. A reform is a political act whereas reformism is a political program. The two are not even comparable. Perhaps you mean politically favouring certain reforms is distinct from reformism. But as we've seen you don't make that distinction in practice. That is except when the "reforms are reformist", of course. But this whole business of reformist reforms and non-reformist reforms is just a self-serving circular argument.

All in all what you say is as clear as mud and it appears to change with every post.

OK here's the sentence, "At other times it means getting rid of capitalism by using reforms". How else can I comprehend this other than the presumption being, its possible to get rid of capitalism by using reforms. If on the other hand the word 'attempt' or 'try' were inserted in the sentence it would reflect our position. By omitting either word you are twisting our position so it appears to fit your allegation.

Nice try but completely off track.

Yes, alright, you can have your pedantic point. I should have said "attempting to get rid of capitalism by using reforms." As I say, my writing skills need a lot to be desired. You needn't be so paranoid.

 

[pfbcarlisle]

Work in progress -

 

[whichfinder]

I bet that had a lovely shop front once. Looks like a botched DIY job now.

It did but it had to be bricked up in the seventies following repeated attacks by the National Front and other anti-democrats.

http://prolerat.org/HOfront.html

 

[Gravediggers]

Let's have a look at your previous pronouncements.



Supporting particular reforms leads means the party attracts "reform minded people" and means supporting the political system, compromise and collaboration.

This is not adopting a reformist stance, remember. This is just supporting certain reforms.

Correct

Another one:


Supporting reforms is incompatable with revolution. Remember this is not saying reformism is incompatable with revolutionary politics. It's just about supporting certain reforms.

Also correct

Now contrast:


If you don't literally lump together support for particular reforms with reformism, it's pretty difficult to understand the distinction you make between them. You (I'm talking about you, not the SPGB) regard both of them as incompatable with revolutionary politics, you regard both of them as a form of compromise and collaboration with the political system.

Spot on, except what I say and what the SPGB say are exactly the same.

What's this distinction you are talking about? Of course you recognise the difference between reforms and reformism. But that's just a matter of understanding the meanings of the terms. A reform is a political act whereas reformism is a political program. The two are not even comparable.

You are trying to make an argument when none exists. Of course they are not comparable in terms of meaning two different approaches to political activity, who said they were? However, their outcome is comparable in terms of essentially nothing changes for we are still stuck with capitalism. So what is all the fuss?

Perhaps you mean politically favouring certain reforms is distinct from reformism. But as we've seen you don't make that distinction in practice. That is except when the "reforms are reformist", of course. But this whole business of reformist reforms and non-reformist reforms is just a self-serving circular argument.

We do make that distinction in practice and its not a self-serving circular argument. We neither support or oppose reforms, but we are opposed to reformism. But you knew this already.

All in all what you say is as clear as mud and it appears to change with every post.

What is clear is the numerous attempts you have made to twist our position and muddy the water. And each one like this one has failed.

Yes, alright, you can have your pedantic point. I should have said "attempting to get rid of capitalism by using reforms." As I say, my writing skills need a lot to be desired. You needn't be so paranoid.

This is a bit rich! You asked for an explanation and when I gave one I'm then accused of being pendantic because I spotted yet another attempt by you to twist our position to fit your allegations.

I'm finding these constant attempts to twist our position pretty tiresome and disingenuous to say the least.

 

[prolerat]

 

[Knotted]

So the distinction you are making is just that reforms are political actions and that reformism is a political program. That is your constant reminders of this distinction are just reminding us how the English language works. Fair enough.

By the way, assumptions of disingenuity, twisting words and so forth are characteristic of someone who's natural reaction is to be disingenuous and twist words themselves. People tend to accuse others of their own faults. Nobody wants to be treated how they treat others. Really, I am not accusing you of trying to get rid of capitalism by reforms. How on earth you come to this conclusion after all I have written, is beyond me. You seem genuinely paranoid.

 

[Gravediggers]

So the distinction you are making is just that reforms are political actions and that reformism is a political program. That is your constant reminders of this distinction are just reminding us how the English language works. Fair enough.

By the way, assumptions of disingenuity, twisting words and so forth are characteristic of someone who's natural reaction is to be disingenuous and twist words themselves. People tend to accuse others of their own faults. Nobody wants to be treated how they treat others. Really, I am not accusing you of trying to get rid of capitalism by reforms. How on earth you come to this conclusion after all I have written, is beyond me. You seem genuinely paranoid.

OK I'll take your word for it that you are genuinely interested in the case for socialism. So what in fact are you accusing us of?

 

[Knotted]

OK I'll take your word for it that you are genuinely interested in the case for socialism.

Did I give you my word that I am genuinely interested in the case for socialism?

So what in fact are you accusing us of?

I'm accusing you of inventing a principle saying, "we must never support nor oppose any reforms," without justifying this principle except in the most craven, "it would be bad for the SPGB" type of way.

(Of course you also apply the principle inconsistently - although you have some sort of excuse saying some reforms aren't reformist or some such. I'm not so interested in this little wrinkle.)

Perhaps there is a confusion. Supporting reforms need not be supporting them as a parlimentary party collaborating with other parliamentary parties to push legislation through. "Supporting" could be just pointing out the benefits of a reform and attending rallies in it's favour.

 

[Gravediggers]

Did I give you my word that I am genuinely interested in the case for socialism?

Pendantic neutrality.

I'm accusing you of inventing a principle saying, "we must never support nor oppose any reforms," without justifying this principle except in the most craven, "it would be bad for the SPGB" type of way.

Lets be clear I didn't invent this principle. In fact it is the principle reason for the formation of the SPGB. You kindly made a link to our original manifesto of 1905 which includes a record of the class collaboration that took place within the SDF at that time, and although the manifesto fails to specifically mention reforms or reformism, and neither does the Declaration of Principles (DoP), the party was formed on the platform of socialism and only socialism. So right from the outset we adopted an attitude of no compromise with capitalism, other than the introduction of democracy.

The experience of the class collaboration within the SDF is reflected in Clause 7. of the DoP which is commonly referred to has our 'hostility clause'. But this clause also gives the reasons why we are hostile to all other political parties, viz 'expression of class interests' and 'diametrically opposed'. Hence, our position towards reforms in general and reformism in particular is the logical conclusion of this clause in practice.

We do not support reforms just because it would be 'bad for the party' by attracting reform minded people to its ranks. For any support for reforms would also dilute the meaning of a socialist revolution. Support for reforms also implies the instruments for self-emancipation are to found through working with the political structure of capitalism. Whereas, we say its essential the workers forge their own instruments out of the self-activity of the class struggle.

The SPGB considers itself to be the standard bearer for a socialist revolution and as such it provides a choice for those members of the working class who have come to an understanding that a socialist revolution is the only solution to the problems which confront their class.

(Of course you also apply the principle inconsistently - although you have some sort of excuse saying some reforms aren't reformist or some such. I'm not so interested in this little wrinkle.)

Perhaps there is a confusion. Supporting reforms need not be supporting them as a parlimentary party collaborating with other parliamentary parties to push legislation through. "Supporting" could be just pointing out the benefits of a reform and attending rallies in it's favour.

And if we were to do that we would no longer be a revolutionary party. You can't have your cake and eat it. Like I've said no compromise.

 

[Knotted]

Lets be clear I didn't invent this principle. In fact it is the principle reason for the formation of the SPGB. You kindly made a link to our original manifesto of 1905 which includes a record of the class collaboration that took place within the SDF at that time, and although the manifesto fails to specifically mention reforms or reformism, and neither does the Declaration of Principles (DoP), the party was formed on the platform of socialism and only socialism. So right from the outset we adopted an attitude of no compromise with capitalism, other than the introduction of democracy.

Exactly, it's a real criticism. It doesn't just lump the SDF into a ready made category.

The experience of the class collaboration within the SDF is reflected in Clause 7. of the DoP which is commonly referred to has our 'hostility clause'. But this clause also gives the reasons why we are hostile to all other political parties, viz 'expression of class interests' and 'diametrically opposed'. Hence, our position towards reforms in general and reformism in particular is the logical conclusion of this clause in practice.

You're doing what you do with Marx and Engels. You're reading in what isn't there.

We do not support reforms just because it would be 'bad for the party' by attracting reform minded people to its ranks. For any support for reforms would also dilute the meaning of a socialist revolution.

Don't be daft.

Support for reforms also implies the instruments for self-emancipation are to found through working with the political structure of capitalism. Whereas, we say its essential the workers forge their own instruments out of the self-activity of the class struggle.

That's simply not true. You don't have to say that reforms lead to self-emancipation - you can explicitly deny it if need be.

The SPGB considers itself to be the standard bearer for a socialist revolution and as such it provides a choice for those members of the working class who have come to an understanding that a socialist revolution is the only solution to the problems which confront their class.

But you're not the only ones...

And if we were to do that we would no longer be a revolutionary party. You can't have your cake and eat it. Like I've said no compromise.

Why???