SPGB

[Gravediggers]

edit:
Lenin:
Quote:
Marx not only most scrupulously takes account of the inevitable inequality of men, but he also takes into account the fact that the mere conversion of the means of production into the common property of the whole society (commonly called “socialism”) does not remove the defects of distribution and the inequality of "bourgeois laws" which continues to prevail so long as products are divided "according to the amount of labor performed".

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm

Lenin is just reiterating what Marx confirmed that the wages system and bourgeois law would continue under state capitalism.

Lenin had EXACTLY the same definition of socialism as the SPGB. He merely noted the defects still inherent in this first stage of socialism/communism - something the SPGB fail to do.

I'm afraid not. For Lenin state capitalism was socialism, or socialism equaled state capitalism. And if you so wish I can get you the text where he states this.

This is the problem you have learning from the SPGB without reading the original texts. You just learn all the self-serving SPGB distortions.

Blustering nonsense.

Edit: I can't take this theory seriously. I'm not particularly interested in it anymore. I've looked at four or five different versions, and I've spotted flaws in all of them. They're all the product of extemely tortured reasoning. Just try thinking it through for yourself. Who are the capitalists? Where is the capital? Is there any market competition? If not what drives the economy? If so how so? Just ask yourself these questions.

The tortured reasoning you are complaining of are from those Leninist who try to square the circle on the theory of state capitalism and socialism. All the SPGB have done is originated the theory on state capitalism and consistently provided an explanation for its existence.

 

[Gravediggers]

Of course they don't. They just refer to what is the lower phase, even if they don't call it that.

So what do we call it?

 

[Proper Tidy]

State Capitalism - Part 2 - Discussion
Tony Cliff 2004
Comment


US, Japan, Germany and State Capitalism
Kostas Cossis 1992
Comment


State Capitalism in Crisis
Chris Harman 1987
Comment


State Capitalism - Discussion
John Molineux 2004
Comment


State Capitalism and Russia Under Stalin
Sean Vernell 2006
Comment


The theory of state capitalism
Ben Selwyn 2008
Comment


State Capitalism in Russia
Simon Guy 2009 - Length: 01-04-57 minutes
Comment


State Capitalism in Eastern Europe
Mike Haynes 2009 - Length: 01-10-55 minutes
Comment


http://www.resistancemp3.org.uk/cgi-bin/namekeysearch.pl

You see, what you've done there, RMP3, is post up a load of SWP links on the mere mention of state-capitalism. Of course, if you'd have read my post you'd have realised that I was arguing against SPGB's blanket definition of state capitalism, not the SWP's, which is a little bit more selective. As it happens, the swappies theory of state-cap is also bollocks, but that is another debate.

 

[Gravediggers]

State Capitalism - Part 2 - Discussion
Tony Cliff 2004
Comment

But you forgot to mention: State Capitalism: The wages system under new management, by Adam Buick and John Crump, Macmillan (1986). Which covers the theory empirically and its written by a member of the SPGB and a former member. Here's a review from the Socialist Standard which may cause other posters to reconsider their present political position of supporting state capitalism. But there again most on the left automatically reject anything the SPGB have to say because it undermines their whole outlook on socialist understanding. Whatever, have a good read.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/overview/state.pdf

 

[Knotted]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm

Lenin is just reiterating what Marx confirmed that the wages system and bourgeois law would continue under state capitalism.

This is one of those occassions where you have to read the words on the page and not the words in your head.

I'm afraid not. For Lenin state capitalism was socialism, or socialism equaled state capitalism. And if you so wish I can get you the text where he states this.

No you can't. This is because the text isn't written on the page, but only in your head.

Blustering nonsense.

I believe it.

The tortured reasoning you are complaining of are from those Leninist who try to square the circle on the theory of state capitalism and socialism. All the SPGB have done is originated the theory on state capitalism and consistently provided an explanation for its existence.

You'll have to talk to somebody who cares about the wacky theory of state capitalism.

 

[Knotted]

So what do we call it?

You do indeed call the lower phase of socialism/communism socialism. Although recently you (Gravediggers) have taken to calling the common ownership of the means of production (ie. socialism) state capitalism. Which is weird. The higher phase of socialism/communism is not mentioned at all by the SPGB.

 

[Knotted]

Gravediggers, I do not have to recognise your terminology. If you wish to call something "state capitalist", you have to accept that I might find that label unsatisfactory. If you wish to call common ownership of the means of production "socialist", you have to accept that I might regard this as merely the first or lower phase of socialism.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

The point is he liquidated the capitalist class. I don't see very much difference between democratically controlled common property and democratically controlled state property. It seems like only a semantic difference to me.

Genuine common ownership, as opposed to only the idea of it.

Common ownership is meaningless unless it means collective control.

 

[Knotted]

Genuine common ownership, as opposed to only the idea of it.

Common ownership is meaningless unless it means collective control.

I agree.

I think common ownership - realised through direct democracy - is (in a new and minimal form) a form of state. If it is genuinely democratic it means that minorities have to give way to majorities ie. there are still some coercive methods that the majority have recourse to. This I would call a state. According to Marxist theory this state, minimal and novel as it already it is, will whither away. I tend to agree with this contention - if the source of anatagonism in society are removed then even direct democracy should become antiquated. I think William Morris is worth reading on this score, he was bold enough to imagine a fully socialist society where all vestiges of capitalism have been abolished. There are many idiosyncratic features of Morris's utopia, but in terms of what it lacks it makes for very interesting reading.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

I think common ownership - realised through direct democracy - is (in a new and minimal form) a form of state. If it is genuinely democratic it means that minorities have to give way to majorities ie. there are still some coercive methods that the majority have recourse to. This I would call a state.

Your idea of what makes a 'state' is far more rudimentary than my own. As long as it might ever be necessary to use force/restraint of some kind against any kind of minority do we already have a state..?

Direct democracy is direct precisely because it is unmediated i.e stateless. The 'walls' that remain aren't really walls because there's nothing outside the garden... as it were.

A bit like how common ownership isn't really ownership. The commons are taken as they are given... but in advancing a political project it may only be possible to go from points of reference derived from class society. "From each according to ability, to each according to need" is far more difficult to explain than collective ownership.

According to Marxist theory this state, minimal and novel as it already it is, will whither away. I tend to agree with this contention - if the source of anatagonism in society are removed then even direct democracy should become antiquated. I think William Morris is worth reading on this score, he was bold enough to imagine a fully socialist society where all vestiges of capitalism have been abolished. There are many idiosyncratic features of Morris's utopia, but in terms of what it lacks it makes for very interesting reading.

The kind of state that withers away is the revolutionary "people's state" with institutions it has retained such as police, courts, armed forces, administrations etc. that is in the process of being transformed democratically, dismantled basically, but it still a state as such (and it's just about possible for there to be a counter-revolution).

[The Socialist Party reject DOTP, btw, something I think is still fully prescient, if not in full content.]

Morris' utopia is quite of his time, but he has the right idea. I think when technological accumulation has begun (after the first phase, the socialist pattern of distribution has taken shape and replaces capitalist infrastructure - also political) then everyone can be mostly self-sufficient in smaller scale (if not individual) terms, so questions like 'who will share this produce... blahblahblah' won't be much of a problem.

And post-boxes will be tangerine imo.

 

[Knotted]

Your idea of what makes a 'state' is far more rudimentary than my own. As long as it might ever be necessary to use force/restraint of some kind against any kind of minority do we already have a state..?

Direct democracy is direct precisely because it is unmediated i.e stateless. The 'walls' that remain aren't really walls because there's nothing outside the garden... as it were.

A bit like how common ownership isn't really ownership. The commons are taken as they are given... but in advancing a political project it may only be possible to go from points of reference derived from class society. "From each according to ability, to each according to need" is far more difficult to explain than collective ownership.

What I call a state and what you call a state might be different things, but this is just a semantic disagreement. I think we are in agreement that democracy of any form assumes measures of force/restraint (your terms) coercion (my term) against minorities.

The kind of state that withers away is the revolutionary "people's state" with institutions it has retained such as police, courts, armed forces, administrations etc. that is in the process of being transformed democratically, dismantled basically, but it still a state as such (and it's just about possible for there to be a counter-revolution).

[The Socialist Party reject DOTP, btw, something I think is still fully prescient, if not in full content.]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is something quite different from the first phase of socialism. DOTP is the transition from capitalism to socialism. The SPGB systematically confuse terms. I'm trying to unmuddle the SPGB's mess.

Morris' utopia is quite of his time, but he has the right idea. I think when technological accumulation has begun (after the first phase, the socialist pattern of distribution has taken shape and replaces capitalist infrastructure - also political) then everyone can be mostly self-sufficient in smaller scale (if not individual) terms, so questions like 'who will share this produce... blahblahblah' won't be much of a problem.

And post-boxes will be tangerine imo.

Morris' utopia is very influenced by Ruskin. But I don't think that's relelvant to this particular question. Decision making should be just and equitable. Why should majority decisions necessarily be the most just and equitable?

I'll explain again. A decision might agrieve a minority greatly while providing the majority with a small benefit. If the free development of each is a condition for the free development of all then democracy should be irrelevant in such cases.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Well, coercion is going to be a last resort i.e crime. However, democratic planning is absolutely necessary for many industries/forms of production.

I don't see the problem as decisions are inevitably based on objective criteria. Participatory democracy means things can be considered carefully and rationally, giving full scope for compromises.

 

[Knotted]

Well, coercion is going to be a last resort i.e crime. However, democratic planning is absolutely necessary for many industries/forms of production.

I'm not even necessarily talking about crime. What if a minority refuses to accept a majority decision?

I don't see the problem as decisions are inevitably based on objective criteria. Participatory democracy means things can be considered carefully and rationally, giving full scope for compromises.

Do you not see that this means that democratic decisions become a rule of thumb rather than an absolute rule. In Morris' utopia the minority has the right to veto the majority decision and the decision is put off for further discussion.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is something quite different from the first phase of socialism. DOTP is the transition from capitalism to socialism. The SPGB systematically confuse terms. I'm trying to unmuddle the SPGB's mess.

What gets called 'lower phase of socialism' has more to do with labour time vouchers (entirely outdated), not the existence of the state.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Do you not see that this means that democratic decisions become a rule of thumb rather than an absolute rule. In Morris' utopia the minority has the right to veto the majority decision and the decision is put off for further discussion.

Sure.

But the condition for the development of each being the condition for the development of all is bound to govern production (why hog metal when you won't be able to mine it later?).

Even in a so-called 'lower phase of socialism' what real antagonisms are even imaginable?

 

[Knotted]

What gets called 'lower phase of socialism' has more to do with labour time vouchers (entirely outdated), not the existence of the state.

Not really. It is to do with bourgeois equal right - this may or may not include labour time vouchers (or some other voucher). The SPGB want to reduce the question to labour time vouchers and the productive forces (which is all very stalinist btw). But as I've been trying to point out there is more to the question than productive forces.

 

[butchersapron]

Sure.

But the condition for the development of each being the condition for the development of all is bound to govern production (why hog metal when you won't be able to mine it later?).

Even in a so-called 'lower phase of socialism' what real antagonisms are even imaginable?

Is this some sort of joke? Antagonisms based exactly on the operation of bourgeois right.

 

[Knotted]

Sure.

But the condition for the development of each being the condition for the development of all is bound to govern production (why hog metal when you won't be able to mine it later?).

Even in a so-called 'lower phase of socialism' what real antagonisms are even imaginable?

There will be certain stratifications in society, uneven development, relative poverty and relative wealth. There will be agrarian questions. There will be a need to modernise much of the world. There will also be the habits and ethics that will be retained from the old era to some degree.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Not really. It is to do with bourgeois equal right - this may or may not include labour time vouchers (or some other voucher). The SPGB want to reduce the question to labour time vouchers and the productive forces (which is all very stalinist btw). But as I've been trying to point out there is more to the question than productive forces.

The antagonisms are, in any case, to do with remuneration basically, not democracy. As far as democracy goes - what other mediating principle is there ever going to be, unless we live in something like the Venus Project where no such thing is necessary? Democracy will serve to resolve any disputes that may occur.

But you also mention:

There will be certain stratifications in society, uneven development, relative poverty and relative wealth. There will be agrarian questions. There will be a need to modernise much of the world. There will also be the habits and ethics that will be retained from the old era to some degree.

All of this necessitates democracy (and socialism in the first place)!

In the SPGB about three years' ago there was being discussed the idea put forward that those who currently live in poverty under capitalism could be 'compensated' by those who are in relatively in better conditions. Basically that there'll be a redistribution within the initial stage of socialism.

 

[Knotted]

All of this necessitates democracy (and socialism in the first place)!

In the SPGB about three years' ago there was being discussed the idea put forward that those who currently live in poverty under capitalism could be 'compensated' by those who are in relatively in better conditions. Basically that there'll be a redistribution within the initial stage of socialism.

This may happen, but it takes the form of a charitable resolution. It is not necessarily in the immediate interests of those in more affluent areas to compensate the more poverty stricken areas. You cannot assume everyone will share this moral motivation.

 

[Gravediggers]

Not really. It is to do with bourgeois equal right - this may or may not include labour time vouchers (or some other voucher). The SPGB want to reduce the question to labour time vouchers and the productive forces (which is all very stalinist btw). But as I've been trying to point out there is more to the question than productive forces.

Untrue, the SPGB reject the use of LTV.

 

[Gravediggers]

In the SPGB about three years' ago there was being discussed the idea put forward that those who currently live in poverty under capitalism could be 'compensated' by those who are in relatively in better conditions. Basically that there'll be a redistribution within the initial stage of socialism.

Untrue, and utter fantasy.

 

[Knotted]

Untrue, the SPGB reject the use of LTV.

I know. The point is that you think the first phase of socialism as characterised by Marx in the Critique of the Gotha Program is entirely about the use of labour time vouchers.

 

[butchersapron]

The antagonisms are, in any case, to do with remuneration basically, not democracy. As far as democracy goes - what other mediating principle is there ever going to be, unless we live in something like the Venus Project where no such thing is necessary? Democracy will serve to resolve any disputes that may occur.

But you also mention:



All of this necessitates democracy (and socialism in the first place)!

In the SPGB about three years' ago there was being discussed the idea put forward that those who currently live in poverty under capitalism could be 'compensated' by those who are in relatively in better conditions. Basically that there'll be a redistribution within the initial stage of socialism.

There's precisely nothing wrong with the idea of equalisation funds. But why make stuff up? Can we have less theology on this thread too please.

 

[Gravediggers]

Have you read State and Revolution?

You're not understanding. When socialists talked about socialism, they might not have been making any distinction between socialism and communism, but in effect they were refering to the first phase of socialism/communism. It has become the standard convention.

You have lost the plot here. If the first phase is socialism what is the second phase? Its become standard convention amongst the left to confuse the issue by following in Lenin's footsteps.

Not only that but the SPGB's definition of socialism is the first phase of socialism/communism ie. common ownership of the means of production.

Untrue.

See my edit in my last post. Lenin has exactly the same definition of socialism as the SPGB does.

Untrue. Where in all his writings has Lenin made exactly the same definition of socialism as the SPGB does? I and others would like to see that.

Please read State and Revolution before you criticise it.

I have read it and that's why I criticise all of Lenin's madcap ideas.

 

[Gravediggers]

I know. The point is that you think the first phase of socialism as characterised by Marx in the Critique of the Gotha Program is entirely about the use of labour time vouchers.

No the point is we reject the use of LTV, along with his other suggestions in the Gotha Program. These suggestions were just a thought of his contained in a letter to a comrade and were not cast in stone and the 'Gotha Program' was never published by Marx. In fact the Gotha Program was part of a private correspondence which we now would refer to has brain storming.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Untrue, and utter fantasy.

I'm pretty damn sure I'm right.

 

[Gravediggers]

This may happen, but it takes the form of a charitable resolution. It is not necessarily in the immediate interests of those in more affluent areas to compensate the more poverty stricken areas. You cannot assume everyone will share this moral motivation.

The very reason why its unnecessary. Especially in the circumstances of an abundance.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Untrue, and utter fantasy.

Robbo can verify it.

 

[butchersapron]

It was 'marginal notes' and clearly of burning immediate political importance - hence it's existence. Please don't in the future fall back on it to defend your position as regards the state if you're going to take this approach.