SPGB

[Gravediggers]

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.

And these are all problems and issues which will have to be dealt with through participatory democracy to cater for the minority who do not wish for 'modernisation' fostered upon them.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

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.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, just pointing out they've taken this matter into consideration.

 

[butchersapron]

That's nice of them. Is there an appeal process?

 

[Gravediggers]

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



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

Lol. What a ridiculous suggestion. One minute you are complaining that I write like a robot and the next you are suggesting I become one.

 

[Knotted]

SPGB's object:

The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.

What Lenin said was commonly called socialism:

The [mere] conversion of the means of production into the common property of the whole society.

There are no differences here, except the more complete SPGB definition which includes a phrase about democratic control. But even there are no differences.

Lenin:

Democracy means equality. The great significance of the proletariat's struggle for equality and of equality as a slogan will be clear if we correctly interpret it as meaning the abolition of classes.

It is clear that Lenin regarded the first phase of socialism as taking the form of equality and democracy. It's not that I have to search very hard for quotes like this, State and Revolution is awash with them.

There is simply no difference between what the SPGB call "socialism" and what Lenin called the "first phase of socialism". When I say there is no difference, there is not even differences in the terms used. I don't have to make any inferences. They are literally and exactly the same.

Of course you might regard Lenin cynically and say he didn't really mean what he said. But you cannot deny what he said. It is simply a matter of undeniable fact that what Lenin called the "first phase of socialism" is exactly what the SPGB call "socialism".

It shouldn't be too surprising either. It is not some sort of coincidence. Both Lenin & the Bolsheviks and the SPGB had their origins in the Second International. They both took their conceptions from the same source. What's particularly interesting and exciting about State and Revolution is that it brings to fore all those little neglected revolutionary themes that Marx and Engels explored. Lenin doesn't distort anything, he just puts back the bits that were taken out by Kautsky, Plekhanov, Liebknecht (snr) & co.

 

[Knotted]

Lol. What a ridiculous suggestion. One minute you are complaining that I write like a robot and the next you are suggesting I become one.

Reading and accepting what has been said is not the same as agreeing with what has been said. You are not allowed an opinion about what was said and what was not said, because it is a matter of fact, it is a matter of record. You are of course completely free to reject or criticise what has been said.

 

[Gravediggers]

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.

Wrong on both counts. I've never called or equated common ownership with state capitalism. In fact its you whose equating the two. If the higher phase is not mentioned at all by the SPGB and they also don't put a name to the lower stage it appears you are going way off beam so your twisted logic fits your assumptions and conclusions.

 

[Gravediggers]

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.

This has been obvious right from the start. Indeed its all part of your game plan to confuse the issue.

 

[butchersapron]

Is knotted also an operative do you think?

 

[Knotted]

This has been obvious right from the start. Indeed its all part of your game plan to confuse the issue.

Everything I say could be wrong. But regardless, you have to acknowledge that I have opinions which differ from yours. There is no reason to think that my beliefs can be translated into SPGB terminology. You have to engage me on my own terms - at least to some extent.

 

[Knotted]

By the way, you're sounding paranoid again.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/aug07/

The compensation model suggests that, in return for having to put up with living under these relatively disadvantageous circumstances, such individuals should be compensated in terms of having priority access to those goods at the luxury or frivolous end of the socially agreed hierarchy of production of goals. This is not only a question of natural justice; it will help to ease some of latent tensions that might arise in the development towards a fully rounded and mature socialist society.

 

[Gravediggers]

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.

Which you are against?

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.

You are in fact trying to unmuddle the mess the left have made for themselves and in the process making an arse of it.

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?

Because that's what the majority think at the time. A democracy are not going to get it right every time and if they are wrong there will be every opportunity to correct the decision.

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.

So you are not a democrat I take it? The end of society as we know it.

 

[Knotted]

Look, I've explained why I think democracy is of limited use twice. You've ignored my explanation twice. I'm not doing it third time.

But you make the mistake of assuming that I take a moral stand against democracy. It is not a question of saying democracy is always good or democracy is always bad. A society based on direct democracy with the means of production in the hands of the people would be a huge step forward from what we have today. Saying this does not mean that even this democratic socialist society would be the ultimate achievement.

 

[Gravediggers]

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

They will have to accept the consequences of the majority decision.

Do you not see that this means that democratic decisions become a rule of thumb rather than an absolute rule.

It depends on the circumstances. Murder for instance is an absolute while the erection of a camp site is a rule of thumb for natural disasters.

[/
In Morris' utopia the minority has the right to veto the majority decision and the decision is put off for further discussion.

And Morris is wrong. In this scenario nothing gets done because there is continual stalemate.

 

[Knotted]

Every now and then I think being trained in the use of the dialectic is necessary. This sentiment doesn't usually last. but I at least think it helps some people a great deal. It would help Gravediggers. Yay, yay - nay, nay.

 

[Knotted]

They will have to accept the consequences of the majority decision.

What if their complicity is required?

It depends on the circumstances. Murder for instance is an absolute while the erection of a camp site is a rule of thumb for natural disasters.

You're not understanding the point. Following majority decisions should not be an absolute rule.

And Morris is wrong. In this scenario nothing gets done because there is continual stalemate.

Only if all sides are beligerent. I don't think Morris was assuming the continued existence of the SPGB for example.

 

[Gravediggers]

I'm pretty damn sure I'm right.

OK name of speaker, venue, title, date, etc, and I'll check a.s.a.p.. No problem.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

OK name of speaker, venue, title, date, etc, and I'll check a.s.a.p.. No problem.

That letter section I posted.

It's a sound idea (though it had more to do with productive planning than I suggested). I was just responding to Knotted; it's not important or anything...

 

[Gravediggers]

Robbo can verify it.

That explains it. More than likely that is Robbo's position or suggestion and not the position of the SPGB. Probably the question of the satisfaction of needs in the immediate term was being discussed on the WSM Forum and Robbo suggested his solution to compensate relative poverty.

Of course only he can verify this.

 

[Knotted]

That letter section I posted.

It's a sound idea (though it had more to do with productive planning than I suggested). I was just responding to Knotted; it's not important or anything...

That letter frames the question very nicely, in my opinion.

 

[Gravediggers]

Everything I say could be wrong. But regardless, you have to acknowledge that I have opinions which differ from yours. There is no reason to think that my beliefs can be translated into SPGB terminology. You have to engage me on my own terms - at least to some extent.

And that works both ways and goes without saying.

 

[Knotted]

Of course.

 

[two sheds]

Sorry i don't understand any of this stuff. Can i pose a more theoretical question - what happens when there is a shortage of something like water or fuel in an SPGB-approved socialist society?

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

That letter frames the question very nicely, in my opinion.

Indeed. That's probably why I remembered it.

 

[Knotted]

Is Robin Cox an SPGB member?

 

[Gravediggers]

Reading and accepting what has been said is not the same as agreeing with what has been said. You are not allowed an opinion about what was said and what was not said, because it is a matter of fact, it is a matter of record. You are of course completely free to reject or criticise what has been said.

And your retort to my opinion on what Lenin said was just accept what he said has fact, and stay stumm.

 

[TremulousTetra]

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.

lolage, such wordage, on what was again a piss take.

BTW. What I was actually winding up about was your definition;

[snip]Majority state ownership combined with a market driven economy, fair enough, [snip]. Capitalism, surely, needs to be applied as a term when there is at least one of the following: significant private ownership of the MOP, and/or a primarily market driven economy. Capitalism does not just mean 'not socialism'.

ETA
Join in this property debate, if you want. IMO this 'misunderstanding' of Marxism is prevalent.

 

[Knotted]

And your retort to my opinion on what Lenin said was just accept what he said has fact, and stay stumm.

Has fact??

All I am saying is that it is a matter of record what Lenin wrote. You can't deny the record. You can disagree with Lenin. You can claim Lenin was engaging in some sort of deception. But you have to accept the matter of record of what was written. Facts are stubborn things...

 

[Gravediggers]

Is Robin Cox an SPGB member?

No. And that's a fact and for the record and you can hold any opinion you like, its immaterial, irrelevant and has bugger all bearing on what is being discussed at this moment in time.