Discussion on the SP-GB (split from antifascism) [Archive]

View Full Version : Discussion on the SP-GB (split from antifascism)

Holden Caulfield

25th July 2009, 22:38

As I have already mentioned it is the SPGB, who have incidentaly called themselves the Socialist Party for a little longer the the CWI have.

Devrim

The SPGB are a joke, all their talk of democracy is sheer bullshit, its total intelligencia-biased elitism, they shouldn't be paid much attention to.

robbo203

26th July 2009, 23:03

The SPGB are a joke, all their talk of democracy is sheer bullshit, its total intelligencia-biased elitism, they shouldn't be paid much attention to.

Thats a bit OTT. You can criticise the SPGB for some things but what you are saying here is complete bullshit. How many organisations do you know of that are controlled by the membership at large through their branches, that have no secret meetings, have everything including their dirty laundry open and available to the public, that reject the whole principle of leadership and that actively work to seek their own demise come the revolution. Not many I bet. Sure there is an admissions "test" - (e.g. what do you meanby socialism or capitalism ) but its only to make sure that people applying to join are genuine socialists. The alternative is an opportunist "broad church" policy which is a recipe for diluting ones socialism completely. But this is not an "intelligance-biased elitism". The point is that the SPGB actually want to recruit more members; elitists want to keep the organisation to themselves. Have you actually ever been to an SPGB meeting or branch? They are not the ogres you make them out to be. You have a very wrong perception of them

Holden Caulfield

27th July 2009, 00:04

Hit The North

27th July 2009, 00:54

Thats a bit OTT.

No, it's on the money.

How many organisations do you know of that are controlled by the membership at large through their branches, that have no secret meetings, have everything including their dirty laundry open and available to the public, that reject the whole principle of leadership and that actively work to seek their own demise come the revolution.

Yes, but all of that comes to nought, because the SPGB never does anything.

And if they demise after the revolution, who would notice? It's not like they would be a force during the revolution because... guess what? Yeah, that's right, they never do anything.

Devrim

27th July 2009, 05:04

robbo203

27th July 2009, 07:40

the claim of total democracy in an organisation you need to pass a test to join is total elitism, it is saying to genuine workers who may want to join the party they are too stupid to have an opinion, that they must go away an learn before they can become a party member (not learn through everyday struggle) and it sets a dangerous president. I could not imagine a situation where I was out active for a party and had to answer a workers question of 'how do i join you guys?' with 'you need to pass a test...seriously'

I have came into contact with most left wing groups, perhaps I was a little harsh with my choice or words but my criticism stands it bollocks, no they are not ogre not many self-identifying communists are (except Sparts and maybe the CPGB-ML haha) but their organisational model is asking to be criticised.

No I disagree. Like I said it not "elitism" to try to ensure that the people who join your organisation are basically socialists. My criticism of the SPGB is that it goes a bit too far and is a bit too rigorous in this respect in the sort of questions it asks e.g. you cannot hold any kind of religious ideas as a member. To me that is a superfluous requirement. However it is actually very very important that people should have a basic understanding of the organisation they are applying to join e,g what do you mean by "socialism". If you dont have that basic understanding - you read too much into the word "test"; its basically just a friendly chat with your local branch in most instances - then you run into real difficulties.

I throw the challenge back to you. If you do not have some kind of procedure for ensuring that people who join the organisation are socialists then what is to stop non-socialists or even anti-socialists from joining? How what you answer that point? Ironically , the opportuinist "broad church" approach is the one that really does encourage elitism and undermine democracy. What happens is that you you have all sorts of people joining your organisation pulling in diffferent directions. The organisational dynamics of this set up then require a leadership to emerge to impose its own views on the membership to ensure organisational coherence.

Most left wing organisation are so small that they never actually reach the stage where such tensions would manifest themselves. (in fact the SPGB is a mass movement compared to some of these tiny groups) but I wouldnt mind betting they are far more prone to splintering becuase of the lack of any mechanism to ensure agreement on the fundamantals from the start.

As for the charge that the SPGB does nothing, this is absurd. What do most left wing groups do? Hold meetings, run a newspaper or website, sell their stuff at demos or strikes. The SPGB is no different and probably has more of a presence than most. This myth of the SPGB doing nothing like so many of the other myths about the SPGB stems from a basic misunderstanding of its position. For example, many of its members are active trade unionists and some very prominent figures in shop steward movement. I vaguely remember a guy called Wally Preston who had a very considerable reputation as a trade unionist. Not many knew he was also a member of the SPGB. This is because unlike many on the Left, the SPGB tend to separate out their politics from their other activities

I have just finished reading David Perrin's book "The Socialist Party of Great Britain: Politics , Economics and Britain's Oldest Socialist Party" (Bridge Books , 2000). It is an excellent read and highly informative on a whole range of topics from crisis theory to the organisational structure of a socialist society. It is much more systematic and theoretical than Bob Barltrops anecdotal but well written book about the SPGB called The Monument.

I would seriously recommend you get hold of a copy of Perrin's book, not only becuase it is informative and interesting in itself, but becuase goes a long way towards disposing of the many myths surrounding the "Small Party of Good Boys"

robbo203

27th July 2009, 11:21

I always thought that the actual test bit was a joke. I think that to join a political organisation you should understand it's politics though. It is really important. How can you have an organisation which is controlled by the members when the members don't understand it's politics. The alternative to doing this is to recruit anybody who will join on agreement with very vague socialist ideas, and then have a centre that hands down the line from on high, which is how most leftist organisations run.
Devrim

Devrim, How would you ensure that people joining an organisation would know what it is about without in some sense "testing" them i.e. asking them

Devrim

27th July 2009, 11:42

Devrim, How would you ensure that people joining an organisation would know what it is about without in some sense "testing" them i.e. asking them

To join the ICC one has to be in agreement with its platform, and we spend time disscussing this platorm with candidate members. I think that it is just the image of a 'test', which puts me off, but yes of course you need to talk to people.

Devrim

robbo203

27th July 2009, 11:54

To join the ICC one has to be in agreement with its platform, and we spend time disscussing this platorm with candidate members. I think that it is just the image of a 'test', which puts me off, but yes of course you need to talk to people.

Devrim

I think that is exactly the same with the SPGB. You go along to a branch and talk it over and then the branch formally moves to accept your application. The only exception to this are far flung members out in the sticks who apply by post. But yes the word "test" is a bit unfortunate and possibly misleading. Its not so much a test of your knowlege as of your values and "failing the membership application test" does not have any connotations of stupidity contrary to some the rather naive criticisms that have been bandied about.

I think large parts of the Left have simply misunderstand what the SPGB is about . It is part of the mythology that has been built up around the the SPGB becuase lets face it, the SPGB - and no doubt the ICC too -represents a particularly potent challenge to the state capitalist pretensions of many leftists

Devrim

27th July 2009, 12:09

But yes the word "test" is a bit unfortunate and possibly misleading. Its not so much a test of your knowlege as of your values and "failing the membership application test" does not have any connotations of stupidity contrary to some the rather naive criticisms that have been bandied about.

By how you make it sound here we are possibly more stringent. I think the words were a little inappropriate; "failing the test" would mean you don't agree with the ideas of the organisation. In which case you shouldn't be in for both your sake and theirs.

I think large parts of the Left have simply misunderstand what the SPGB is about . It is part of the mythology that has been built up around the the SPGB becuase lets face it, the SPGB - and no doubt the ICC too -represents a particularly potent challenge to the state capitalist pretensions of many leftists

The ICC ran a short series on the SPGB in its press on the occasion of their 100th aniversary:

The Socialist Party of Great Britain is 100 years old this year. Formed in June 1904 it has maintained the same platform through wars, revolution and recession, it continues to attract the interest of people who are looking for an alternative to capitalism and who have rejected the distortions of socialism offered by bourgeois currents like Stalinism and Trotskyism. The question we have to ask, however, is whether this group genuinely offers a positive way forward for those proletarian minorities searching for a revolutionary critique of the present system. In order to provide a serious answer to this question, we need to place the SPGB in its historical context - to understand its place in the history of the workers' movement and to provide an analysis of what it represents today.
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/272_spgb_01.htm
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/273_spgb.htm
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/274_spgb.htm
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/276_spgb_part4.htm

Devrim

Hit The North

27th July 2009, 12:35

As for the charge that the SPGB does nothing, this is absurd... I vaguely remember a guy called Wally Preston who had a very considerable reputation as a trade unionist. Not many knew he was also a member of the SPGB. This is because unlike many on the Left, the SPGB tend to separate out their politics from their other activities [emphasis added]

This is the problem. The SPGB never intervene as an organisation only as individuals. Its precisely because they separate their politics from "their other activities" (whatever those activities are) that they are open to the charge of impotence.

Coincidently, I recently watched a recording of a debate between the SPGB and Ian Bone, entitled, Which Way to Revolution? Here, Bone illustrates the SPGB conception of revolution as thus: one night we're watching Newsnight on the TV and Peter Snow is there with his swingometer and he declares, "We now have a majority for socialism." We turn off the TV and go to bed. Wake up the next day and nothing has changed either in society or the individual. He counterposes to this a process of revolutionary activity whereby we take control of our lives, our society and our relationships, in the act of changing the world.

You can find the entire debate here if you scroll towards the bottom of the page: http://ianbone.wordpress.com/you-tube-videos/

I challenge anyone to discern exactly which way to revolution the SPGB espouse? Apart from some vague notion of one day the vast majority coming around to the ideas of socialism, they seem quite clueless.

BobKKKindle$

27th July 2009, 13:10

Apart from some vague notion of one day the vast majority coming around to the ideas of socialism, they seem quite clueless. Unfortunately, this strategy is not as far away from the Trotskyist tradition as we may like to think. Militant Tendency planned to introduce socialism by means of an "enabling act" once parliament contained a majority of socialist MPs that would allow for the nationalization of major monopolies and banks. This approach is based on the assumption that socialism is synomyous with state ownership of the means of production and, by rejecting mass action, ignores the ability of the bourgeoisie to use violence to defend their class rule, as well as the class nature of the existing state appratus. It also ignores the fact that revolutionary change and the abolition of capitalist property relations is not just about institutional transformations; it also involves psychological changes, that arise from people taking power away from their rulers, and controlling their own lives, as part of a community of autonomous individuals. It is this element of revolution that led to the spirit of artistic and sexual experimentation in Russia, but Militant Tendency (and the SPGB) would have us believe that socialism is something that can be handed down by a bunch of MPs sitting in the House of Commons. I think this is one of the things that Ian Bone is getting at, and he is exactly right.

JohnnyC

27th July 2009, 13:50

Militant Tendency (and the SPGB) would have us believe that socialism is something that can be handed down by a bunch of MPs sitting in the House of Commons.
I don't think that's true in case of SPGB.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/gbodop.html

That this emancipation must be the work of the working class itself.Working class emancipation necessarily excludes the role of political leadership. The Socialist Party has an absolute need of supporters with understanding and self-reliance. Even if we could conceive of a leader-ridden working class displacing the capitalist class from power such an immature class would be helpless to undertake the responsibilities of democratic socialist society.

It is dangerous and futile to follow those who support violence by workers against the armed force of the state. Violent revolution has sometimes meant different faces in the capitalist class, always meant dead workers, and never meant the liberation of the working class. Unless workers organize consciously and politically and take control over the state machinery, including its armed forces, the state will be ensured a bloody victory.
Political democracy is the greatest tool (next to its labour-power) that the working class has at its disposal. When the majority of workers support socialism, so-called "revolutionary" war will not be required. The real revolution is for workers to stop following leaders, to start understanding why society functions as it does and to start thinking for themselves.

The only way to achieve socialism is for the working class to recognize this and consciously and politically work to replace capitalism with socialism. The Socialist Party of Great Britain does not support the idea of reforming capitalism and therefore does not work for reforms.

robbo203

27th July 2009, 14:00

This is the problem. The SPGB never intervene as an organisation only as individuals. Its precisely because they separate their politics from "their other activities" (whatever those activities are) that they are open to the charge of impotence..

To the contrary, I actually think there is a case to be made for separating political and other activities at least at the organisational level. What is actually the point of, say, some left wing organisation intervening as an organisation in, lets say, a trade union dispute. By intervening I dont mean just selling your newspapers around the picket line - even the SPGB do or have done this, I believe - I mean sticking your nose as an organisation in the actual conduct of the strike. To me that would be quite rightly dismissed by the workers as sheer opportunism driven by the desire to recruit members rather than any genuine concern for these workers involved. The SPGB certainly comments on the conduct of strikes but it does not intervene in this sense. It is up to individual members of the party to unite with fellow workers in prosecuting the trade union struggle in their workplaces (some members of the SPGB are in the IWW) and this can be done more effectively when you are not coming across as political recruiters of some left wing outfit which most workers would spurn anyway. The same argument would apply to housing associations, PTAs and so on. The problem is that the left has, as I said, built up this bogus mythology of the SPGB that it £"does nothing" when in point of fact its members as individuals are often highly active in various activities. Yes informally one thing can lead to another. A fellow trade unionist might ask an SPGBer "so what are your politics then". To me this a far more effective approach than to have a constant barrage of slogans directed at you by some politico

Coincidently, I recently watched a recording of a debate between the SPGB and Ian Bone, entitled, Which Way to Revolution? Here, Bone illustrates the SPGB conception of revolution as thus: one night we're watching Newsnight on the TV and Peter Snow is there with his swingometer and he declares, "We now have a majority for socialism." We turn off the TV and go to bed. Wake up the next day and nothing has changed either in society or the individual. He counterposes to this a process of revolutionary activity whereby we take control of our lives, our society and our relationships, in the act of changing the world.

You can find the entire debate here if you scroll towards the bottom of the page: http://ianbone.wordpress.com/you-tube-videos/

I challenge anyone to discern exactly which way to revolution the SPGB espouse? Apart from some vague notion of one day the vast majority coming around to the ideas of socialism, they seem quite clueless.

I have certain reservations about the SPGB's conception of the revolutionary process which I think it too limited. However what you are presenting here is again a complete caricature. It simply does not tally with my understanding of the SPGB.

That the SPGB does put an inordinate emphasis on the need for socialist consciousness is true enough. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the idea of a political party performing the role of a propgandist or educational organisation. In fact , i would say it is an absolutely indispensable role. Without socialists you cannot have socialism and education or propganda is a vital part of this as recognised by people like Marx, Engels and William Morris. But to say that all the SPGB see as likely to happen this side of socialism is that working class becomes incrementally more socialist minded until one fine sunny day it enacts socialism is just so much bullshit. It shows a poor understanding of the views of the SPGB. Have a look at some of their pamphlets like "Socialism as a Practical Alternative" and you will see they quite emphatically do talk about the need for very considerable proparation and practical organisation for socialism. There is even a sympathetic reference to the need for workers councils or something similar that I came across the other.

But as I say I dont think the actual perception of what the revolutionary process entails is adequately dealt with by the SPGB. It is too restrictive in its view of the relationship between theory and practice. However, you cannot knock the SPGB for doing what so many on the left have completely abandoned - putting forward a genuine non market anti-statist socialist alternative to capitalism

BobKKKindle$

27th July 2009, 14:09

I don't think that's true in case of SPGB.

They say it right here, as the title of one of their principles:

"That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working class must organize consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic"

I think it's clear from this extract that the SPGB thinks the working class can take over the existing state apparatus and use it for a progressive purpose. The fact that they refer explicitly to "this machinery" as the thing they want to conquer after having described the role that the state currently plays in protecting the class rule of the bourgeoisie indicates that, for the SPGB, the state is neutral as an institution, in that they do not believe that current state is geared towards the interests of a particular class, but can be used for any purpose, depending on which class controls it, such that the working class can conquer political power by filling the House of Commons with socialist MPs. This is directly opposed to the Marxist and Anarchist traditions because we recognize that the existing state is a bourgeois state, based on the separation of armed bodies of men from the broader population, as well as an artificial separation of economic and political spheres, such that its fundamental structure is geared towards the interests of the bourgeoisie, and cannot be used to implement a transition to socialism. For that reason we call for the absolute destruction of the existing state as part of the revolutionary process. The SPGB rejects this analysis, and so, for all their hostility to reformism, they are part of the same political tradition as reformists such as Bernstein, as well as Hegel - a tradition which sees the state as neutral, and, in the case of the SPGB, idealistically rejects violence.

Die Neue Zeit

27th July 2009, 14:51

Yehuda Stern

27th July 2009, 15:49

Unfortunately, this strategy is not as far away from the Trotskyist tradition as we may like to think. Militant Tendency planned to introduce socialism by means of an "enabling act" once parliament contained a majority of socialist MPs that would allow for the nationalization of major monopolies and banks.

That's pretty much the way the IMT believes socialism will be introduced in Britain to this day; however, since Militant was formed by people who refused to join the Fourth International in Trotsky's times because the FI demanded them to cease their entryism in Labour, and given that they only rejoined in 1953, when the International was througouhly Pabloist, I find absolutely no reason to consider them part of the "Trotskyist tradition." Even the SWP belongs there more than the IMT.

As for the SPGB tests: I think it's an incredibly stupid way to check a candidate's agreement with the organization's program. Tests, in the since of having someone sit in a classroom and answer questions on a form, are in general a terrible way of testing someone's knowledge and thought process. Especially when it comes to Marxism, where analysis and coming to conclusions requires a lot of reading and thought, and some discussion is of course incredibly important too.

Hit The North

27th July 2009, 16:22

robbo203,

Obviously the difference here is that the SPGB do not follow a Leninist model of party building, with its emphasis on creating a dynamic, interventionist organisation comprising the most class conscious and militant workers. This is clear. It is far less clear what they do stand for, however.

Bobkindles is mistaken, I think, to see their approach to transforming the state as being essentially parliamentarian. I don't think its that coherent. The SPGB do not stand in elections and, as far as I know don't support a parliamentary road to socialism. But, for me, this just means that the mystery thickens.

However what you are presenting here is again a complete caricature.
Well, it's not my characterisation but Ian Bone's. At the same time, the rather ineffectual defence of the SPGB position by the SPGB speaker, left me non-the-wiser to how they counter Bone's critique. But while we're on the subject of caricature, your depiction of the opportunist, newspaper-selling outside militant is at least just as misleading as Bone's.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the idea of a political party performing the role of a propagandist or educational organisation.

Me neither, except when, divorced from a coherent practice, it becomes the end in itself. Because then you end up with abstract propaganda and a schoolteachery approach to the class struggle. Most workers will not arrive at a firm embrace of socialism through the educational pamphlets and meetings of the SPGB - or of the SWP, for that matter. They have a role. But many workers will come round to our ideas as a consequence of their day-to-day struggle against capital. Part of the job of revolutionaries is intervening in that struggle in such a way that it is deepened and broadened; that the best activists in a local, transitory struggle can be pulled towards a permanently engaged opposition to capital, as a militant organised alongside other militants in a revolutionary organisation. That's why we add the imperative to 'organise' alongside those of 'educate' and 'agitate'.

I'm obviously not claiming that this has been a successful strategy for the so-called vanguard 'parties' - we're dealing with models of organisation here. However, in the hundred year existence of the SPGB, have they made any progress at all?

The third problem with the SPGB has been highlighted by Bobkindles: their principled repudiation of violence. Knowing where this kind of pacifism leads the oppressed, it is hoped that the SPGB never have the decisive influence over the proletariat and its struggle against capital. This is aside from raising the question whether the SPGB will turn its back on workers if they do deal violently with their oppressors. If so, what use would they be during a real revolution?

Their answer (in the Bone debate, at least) seems to be to deny that this will be needed as they imagine themselves a revolutionary scenario of impeccable manners and rationality where the bosses just surrender with a heavy sigh to the interests of the majority (not a behavioural trait they've so far been noted for!). Is this a feasible scenario?

robbo203

27th July 2009, 16:25

They say it right here, as the title of one of their principles:

"That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working class must organize consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic"

I think it's clear from this extract that the SPGB thinks the working class can take over the existing state apparatus and use it for a progressive purpose. The fact that they refer explicitly to "this machinery" as the thing they want to conquer after having described the role that the state currently plays in protecting the class rule of the bourgeoisie indicates that, for the SPGB, the state is neutral as an institution, in that they do not believe that current state is geared towards the interests of a particular class, but can be used for any purpose, depending on which class controls it, such that the working class can conquer political power by filling the House of Commons with socialist MPs. This is directly opposed to the Marxist and Anarchist traditions because we recognize that the existing state is a bourgeois state, based on the separation of armed bodies of men from the broader population, as well as an artificial separation of economic and political spheres, such that its fundamental structure is geared towards the interests of the bourgeoisie, and cannot be used to implement a transition to socialism. For that reason we call for the absolute destruction of the existing state as part of the revolutionary process. The SPGB rejects this analysis, and so, for all their hostility to reformism, they are part of the same political tradition as reformists such as Bernstein, as well as Hegel - a tradition which sees the state as neutral, and, in the case of the SPGB, idealistically rejects violence.

Sorry but this is load of complete bunkum. It more and more confirms my belief that many on the left know virtually nothing about the SPGB but feel content to rely vague sweeping and often wholly inaccurate generalisations to criticise the organisation.

Lets look at some of this claims:

"I think it's clear from this extract that the SPGB thinks the working class can take over the existing state apparatus and use it for a progressive purpose."

Absolute rubbish. The SPGB is actually committed to the immediate abolition of the state - and capitalism - upon the democratic capture of political by the working class which needless to say would also involve the self abolition of this class and every other class. The SPGB has consistently opposed the idea of a so-called transitional society in which the state would continue to exist. I certainly agree with them on that.

The fact that they refer explicitly to "this machinery" as the thing they want to conquer after having described the role that the state currently plays in protecting the class rule of the bourgeoisie indicates that, for the SPGB, the state is neutral as an institution, in that they do not believe that current state is geared towards the interests of a particular class, but can be used for any purpose, depending on which class controls it

How can you possibly say such a thing having just quoted the particular principle from the SPGB's Declaration that "as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers". It is absolutely clear that the SPGB does not regard the state as neutral but rather an institition of class society

The SPGB rejects this analysis, and so, for all their hostility to reformism, they are part of the same political tradition as reformists such as Bernstein, as well as Hegel - a tradition which sees the state as neutral, and, in the case of the SPGB, idealistically rejects violence

Wrong wrong and wrong again.

The SPGB does advocate the immediate destruction of the state but does not propose replacing it with another state (which could only imply the continuation of class society and hence a new ruling class to dominate the subordinate class in society - the workers)

The SPGB is a trenchant critic of Bernstein and all reformists. Your problem is that like many on the left you don't understand what is meant "reformism" since you seem to equate it with parliamentary electoralism. That is not refromism. Refromism means the attempt to administer capitalism by means of legally enacted refroms. Dictatorships can be just as much reformist as liberal democracies

Finally the SPGB does not reject violence - another myth on the part of the left - but would be prepared to use it if necessary as a last resort. It is not a pacifist organisation as Perrin makes clear in his book (cited earlier)

I am truly astounded by the poor level of understanding of the SPGB exhibited by some of its critics who nevertheless dont feel inhibited from roundly condemning the organisation they evdiently know so little about...

Zurdito

27th July 2009, 16:32

robbo203

27th July 2009, 16:37

As for the SPGB tests: I think it's an incredibly stupid way to check a candidate's agreement with the organization's program. Tests, in the since of having someone sit in a classroom and answer questions on a form, are in general a terrible way of testing someone's knowledge and thought process. Especially when it comes to Marxism, where analysis and coming to conclusions requires a lot of reading and thought, and some discussion is of course incredibly important too.

But the SPGB does not have a "test" in the sense you describe it - someone sitting down in a class rooom and answering the questions. Presumably next you will be say that there is an invigilator and time limit of three hours!

This is yet another caricature. Actually the process is very low key and informal and involves interaction - a friendly chat - between the branch and the applicant. It seems to be rather similar to the way in which applications to the ICC are processed.

The question - indeed the challenge - I make to all those who reject the idea of checking whether peoples ideas basically correspond to the organisation they are applying to join is how are you going to ensure that non-socialists and even anti-socialists might not join the organisation and eventually eliminate its claim to be a socialist organisation altogther by sheer weight of numbers. I have yet to hear a single coherent argument in favour of this opportunist "broad chuch" approach - only deafining silence!

Zurdito

27th July 2009, 16:40

The question - indeed the challenge - I make to all those who reject the idea of checking whether peoples ideas basically correspond to the organisation they are applying to join is how are you going to ensure that non-socialists and even anti-socialists might not join the organisation and eventually eliminate its claim to be a socialist organisation altogther by sheer weight of numbers.

No, by its program. If it's a revolutionary program and you fight for it, you're a socialist.

robbo203

27th July 2009, 16:50

How do they propose to abolish the state once they have won a majority in parliament? Don't they think that a party with a program to immediately abolsih the state, even getting close to winning a general election (or let's be honest, even getting close to getting a few MP's) would provoke a brutal crackdown by the state? Are they then going to "react" with violence as a "last resort"? Because in that case I don't think they are going to even get close to getting an MP, they'll all be sitting in Guantanamo before it gets to that stage.

Just what the left needs, more principled, dead saints who lead their followers to obliteration (thankfully the SPGB don't have any).

This is sheer idealism not hard headed realism. To imagine that a genuine socialist movement could expand to the point at which it consisted of millions of workers and NOT radically transform the whole political and social climate in which capitalism is administered is just nonsense . Nature abhors a vacuum ; so does society. As a socialist movement grows it will radically transform the social enviornment in which it operates. Since a genuine socialist movement can only be a democratic movement it follows that the growth of that movement will massively entrench democratic values not weaken them. The capitalist will itself have to adapt to the changing cirumstances - all capitalist state only function by virtue of the acquiesence of the populations they rule over and when this is withdrawn as happened in Eastern Europe there is sod all the state can do. Socialist ideas by the time the movement is a very substantial one will have penetrated everywhere, including even the armed forces. It will be far too late by then for the state to do anything about it. By far the most likely course of action is that it will be bending over backwards in a bid to buy off or bribe the workers with more reforms but to no avail.

robbo203

27th July 2009, 16:57

No, by its program. If it's a revolutionary program and you fight for it, you're a socialist.

This is totally inadequate as an answer. If there is no way of checking the views of those who join you could let people in who may not altogether agree with the programme or even reject large parts of it. Once in, you could not stop them radically transforming the programme if they wanted because you could not say to them "you joining the organisation was dependent on acceptance of its programme". Frankly you would be stuffed - destroyed by your own opportunism

RevolverNo9

27th July 2009, 17:14

Sorry, you can complain about people 'just not understanding' the SPGB all you like, but their politics are quite explicitly expressed - it is a strange (incomprehensible) attempt to combine reformist strategy with a static fidelity to revolutionary concepts (unchanged in over a hundred years...)

Here is the SPGB on 'the voting system' and 'revolutionary' change, in their own words:

('Socialist Principles Explained' - http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/spe%282000%29.pdf)

The sort of bloody revolution that introduced
capitalism in one country after another is out of date. Four main factors now
make it essential to work for a revolution that is peaceful, democratic and
which uses the voting system in those countries which have it:
1. Most modern capitalist states are now so well-armed, so well informed and
so wealthy and powerful that an armed insurrection trying to overthrow an
established state machine would be doomed to failure.
2. When violence has been used to establish a regime, it can only be
maintained by violence or the threat of it (like capitalism). A socialist
society cannot be built upon such foundations.
3. There is no way of knowing, and showing, that such a violent revolutionary
movement represents the wishes of the great majority. Many workers
would oppose it simply because it was violent and destructive. Only a vote
can prove that the majority insist upon the overthrow of capitalism.
4. A sufficiently massive majority vote makes violence unnecessary because
it demonstrates that opposition would be pointless.'

(p. 16)

I am the one that is 'astounded'... the last line is just plain naivity. As a whole the programme just reads farcically, with socialist delegates under the 'legitimacy' of a majority vote going about the deeds that should be the deeds of the workers themselves:

The election of a majority of socialist delegates will not be an instruction to
them from the whole population to go on running capitalism, as it is to
political parties today. It will be an instruction, first, to take control of the
armed forces of the state so that they cannot be used against the people.
Secondly, it will be an instruction to enact legislation transferring the
ownership and control of all companies producing, distributing and
administering society's goods and services into the hands of the whole of
society. Once this is done, the job of socialist delegates to parliaments and
other democratic assemblies will be complete. Their tasks will be at an end
and they will return to ordinary life.

p. 17

Also, despite your protestation, clearly the SPGB does see institutions of state power (in this case 'the voting system' of liberal democrartic parlimentarian states) as showing at least the potential for facilitating proletarian power.

Perhaps this sounds quaint, but my understanding is that the conquest of power by the working class must be accomplished by the workers themselves, through their own revolutionary organisations and institutions. This is emphatically not the programme of the SPGB, whose admitted fidelity to revolutionary socialism as a concept is confounded by their extraordinarily limited conception of what social transformation is or might look like.

It is no wonder therefore, that the SPGB are all but invisible in the modern labour and social movements.

Zurdito

27th July 2009, 17:18

Zurdito

27th July 2009, 17:25

This is totally inadequate as an answer. If there is no way of checking the views of those who join you could let people in who may not altogether agree with the programme or even reject large parts of it. Once in, you could not stop them radically transforming the programme if they wanted because you could not say to them "you joining the organisation was dependent on acceptance of its programme". Frankly you would be stuffed - destroyed by your own opportunism

Obviously if you are under genuine threat of infiltration you have to take measures against this but let's keep the discussion concrete. This is a question of tactics, not principle. A tiny group publicly holding an "exclusive" member policy is pretentious and makes them look ridiculous.

I don't think stating the question in terms that the potential member has "to prove they are a socialist" is ever a useful way to state it, it looks elitist. You can send trusted comrades to tactfully meet up with people who ask to join, in order to see if they are serious, without publicly and proudly presenting it as some kind of "vetting process" or in some kind of "well he thinks he's a socialist, but doesn't fully understand our position on the Kosovo issue, so for now can't join", sense. In my opinion if someone agrees with our action program in general terms and is committed to fighting for our demands in the workplace or university, then they can join. They shouldn't have to have read Marx etc. I don't know where the SPGB stands on that issue though.

RevolverNo9

27th July 2009, 17:56

This is sheer idealism not hard headed realism. To imagine that a genuine socialist movement could expand to the point at which it consisted of millions of workers and NOT radically transform the whole political and social climate in which capitalism is administered is just nonsense . Nature abhors a vacuum ; so does society. As a socialist movement grows it will radically transform the social enviornment in which it operates. Since a genuine socialist movement can only be a democratic movement it follows that the growth of that movement will massively entrench democratic values not weaken them.

I hate the kind of debates where people just bandy around the same accusations but nevertheless I must say that is pure idealism and expresses an utterly inadequate conception of what social transformations are, how the different ways that social structure constrains and empowers people. What are these millions of workers doing? We have had mass-socialist movements counting millions of workers in the past - they are inspiring things, but they certainly don't guarantee a social process that ruptures with the present and the reproduction of capitalism and current class-relations. In Europe, after the war, above all in Germany, there were millions of workers on the streets. Your simplistic narrative for socialist change can't explain the blocked path to socialism, unless your use of the word 'genuine' is key here - the mass-movements of the past have not been 'genuinely' socialist.

The problems you (and the SPGB) do not pose the question of power, and of the state. Millions on the street alone are not enough to rupture the social order - they must, as you say, 'entrench' active democracy but this requires certain kinds of particpation and organisation, the sort that is able to produce revolutionary organs of the working class that not only realise democracy but - crucically - empower workers. The working-class in history, in the white heat of revolutionary struggles, has forged such organs of their own power: the soviet, or workers' council. Such revolutionary modes of empowerment and organisation then have the ability both to defend the workers' movement, to enable its democracy and furthermore to pose the question of political power.

But such organisation and its continued success has not and will not arise sponteneously - and it is here that the importance of socialist politics and organisations come in and this leads to the second important failing in the SPGB: their zero-understanding of how class-consciousness develops. It does so unevenly, which is why the revolutionary party - a party of workers and activists committed to revolutionary stategy - as a method of organisation is such an important break with the older model of working-class organisation, the social-democratic and labour parties which sought to unite the whole movement regardless of the uneveness in working-class consciousness. The reality, until there is the kind or transformation of consciousness that only a revolutionary reconfiguration of social relations can achieve, the majority of the population will not flock to the revolutionary camp. Given this, the SPGB's apparent strategy, of seeking to raise working-class education apart from the social and economic struggles that workers are constantly engaged in, is an utter non-starter - it totally ignores real existing social constraints to a mass-revolutionary consciousness.

As for the charge that the SPGB does nothing, this is absurd. What do most left wing groups do? Hold meetings, run a newspaper or website, sell their stuff at demos or strikes. The SPGB is no different and probably has more of a presence than most. This myth of the SPGB doing nothing like so many of the other myths about the SPGB stems from a basic misunderstanding of its position.

No, left groups should and, sometimes, shocking enough, do do more than sell papers and promote propoganda. A revolutionary organisation should be activist and interventionist - only this kind of activity will actually win workers to revolutionary organisation, that experience of practive and political ideas in action. Towards the beginning of the thread it was said that it was a mistake for political parties to come into a struggle simply impressing their own organisational identity onto workers. Phrased like that, yes, intervention appears unhelpful, and an opportunist intervention only based on recruitment is obviously both reprehensible and doomed to fail. But the actual practice of intervention and agitation can be different. I have recently had the humbling privilege to witness for myself the effects that such agitation can have in the current Vestas dispute on the Isle of Wight. If it wasn't for the positive involvement of outside activists on the island, building links with workers, organising meetings, circulating literature and ideas, elevating confidence etc... the inspiring occupation that is now taking place would not exist. Period. The experience has been a thrilling vindication of the methods of revolutionary interventionism, because, at its heart, lies the principle that intervention is not work carried out on behalf of the workers - it is work that actively facilitates the wider empowerment of workers to act for themselves. This has what has been achieved on the Isle of Wight, and it is actually humbling to speak to the workers, their families and members of the community, because they are all so so grateful to the people who have given up their time and resources to come here. It totally undercuts the hackneyed stereotypes of robo-trots imposing themselves bossily upon workers.

I think in the entirety of my active political life I have seen the SPGB at events about two or three times... which suggests that rather than a politics of active interventionism and dynamic empowerment of workers, they organisation sees its a role as a passive guardian of socialist ideas, who with perseverence will be able to win the masses to socialism.

Also, well done to Bobkindles to pointing out the 'enabling act' that lay at the heart of the Millies' programme... this is not really scrutinised enough today re: the politics of the CWI/IMT...

robbo203

27th July 2009, 18:15

The eastern European deformed workers states didn't collapse because one day the masses stopped accepting them, they were privatized by the bureaucracies themselves - why be an administrator when you can be the owner? Obviously it was a complex process and the class struggle influenced the bureacracies options, but suggesting that these states were brought down by unarmed mass action is silly IMO. .

Certainly the process by which these state capitalist regimes imploded is more complex than merely the withdrawal of working class consent, I agree. But nevertheless popular discontent and disaffection was a very major factor and as you concede it influenced the options available to the bureaucracies

Your argument overall is too optimistic. The bourgeosie has the ability to carry out economic sabotage on populations which momentarily reject the policies necessarry for private property to function - for example through hyper-inflation when they can't get wage cuts and redundancies accepted, through lock-outs in response to price controls, etc. Chile is a great example. They will starve us out in every way possible, and lookignthrough hsitory this has always been a way to swing back important sections of public opinion to accepting (actively or passively) the forces of reaction.
.

My argument is too optimistic? I think your is way too defeatist. Who was it who said of the capitalist class, if we all spat we could drown them (Jimmy whatshisname, the "red clydesider"?) The point being that they are numerically tiny and totally dependent on us the workers. It is we who allow them to be where they are. The problem with your argument is that you are not allowing for the fact that nowhere yet is there a significant socialist minded section of the population. Public opinion can be swayed this way or that because frankly public opinion is still rooted in a basic acceptance of capitalism

I could go on - there is much in what you subsequently say which I totally disagree with - but really this a thread about the SPGB and it is kind of moving away from that

robbo203

27th July 2009, 19:10

What are these millions of workers doing? We have had mass-socialist movements counting millions of workers in the past - they are inspiring things, but they certainly don't guarantee a social process that ruptures with the present and the reproduction of capitalism and current class-relations. In Europe, after the war, above all in Germany, there were millions of workers on the streets. Your simplistic narrative for socialist change can't explain the blocked path to socialism, unless your use of the word 'genuine' is key here - the mass-movements of the past have not been 'genuinely' socialist....

Sorry but this is sheer romantic wishful thinking. I wish it were otherwise but it is not. Where were these mass socialist movements "counting millions of workers" . Nah, its bollocks and you know it. There have substantial protest movements against this or that aspect of capitalism, certainly, but clear-cut authentic socialist movements???? Movements that stood unambiguously for a moneyless wageless stateless alternative to capitalism. Where is your evidence?

The problems you (and the SPGB) do not pose the question of power, and of the state. Millions on the street alone are not enough to rupture the social order - they must, as you say, 'entrench' active democracy but this requires certain kinds of particpation and organisation, the sort that is able to produce revolutionary organs of the working class that not only realise democracy but - crucically - empower workers. The working-class in history, in the white heat of revolutionary struggles, has forged such organs of their own power: the soviet, or workers' council. Such revolutionary modes of empowerment and organisation then have the ability both to defend the workers' movement, to enable its democracy and furthermore to pose the question of political power.....

This is one of those vague attempts to sociologise you way out of a situation without pinning yourself down to the specifics. What on earth do you mean "do not pose the question of power and of the state". I am well aware of the power wielded by the state but the ability of the state to wield such power ultimately comes down to the acquiescence of the population over which such power is wielded. Another thing , since we are talking about the SPGB here it is not that they rule out the formation of worker councils at all - on the contrary. They just dont make a festish of this particular organisational form as some on the left do. You should read Martov on the question of the soviets as a useful corrective

But such organisation and its continued success has not and will not arise sponteneously - and it is here that the importance of socialist politics and organisations come in and this leads to the second important failing in the SPGB: their zero-understanding of how class-consciousness develops. It does so unevenly, which is why the revolutionary party - a party of workers and activists committed to revolutionary stategy - as a method of organisation is such an important break with the older model of working-class organisation, the social-democratic and labour parties which sought to unite the whole movement regardless of the uneveness in working-class consciousness. The reality, until there is the kind or transformation of consciousness that only a revolutionary reconfiguration of social relations can achieve, the majority of the population will not flock to the revolutionary camp. .....

I am not 100% sure what you are getting at but the last sentence I kind of agree with and this is the basis of my own disagreement with the SPGB perspective on the revolutionary transformation. I see the need for the growth of a non-market non-state sector - intentional communities and so on -prefiguring a future socialist as an important component of this process alongside political propaganda. Your claim that the SPGB exhibits zero understanding of how class consciousness develops . Now come on, this is just plain silly as you must surely know and as even the most cursory reading of SPGB literature will soon show. But there is a small element of truth in it insofar as the SPGB does tend to overlook other ways in which class consciousness - or more specifically socialist consciousness - can be encouraged

Given this, the SPGB's apparent strategy, of seeking to raise working-class education apart from the social and economic struggles that workers are constantly engaged in, is an utter non-starter - it totally ignores real existing social constraints to a mass-revolutionary consciousness......

Yet again we have here another myth about the SPGB - that is seeks to raise working education apart from the social and economic struggles that workers are constantly engaged in. IN fact the SPGB points out time and time again that the ideas arise from these struggles. So what on earth are you talking about? We are all involved in the class struggle whether we like it or not or whether we know it or not. Some in the left have this very peculiar view that the class struggle is something we choose to engage in and the SPGB has somehow opted not to choose to engage in said struggle. As if...

No, left groups should and, sometimes, shocking enough, do do more than sell papers and promote propoganda. A revolutionary organisation should be activist and interventionist - only this kind of activity will actually win workers to revolutionary organisation, that experience of practive and political ideas in action. Towards the beginning of the thread it was said that it was a mistake for political parties to come into a struggle simply impressing their own organisational identity onto workers. Phrased like that, yes, intervention appears unhelpful, and an opportunist intervention only based on recruitment is obviously both reprehensible and doomed to fail. But the actual practice of intervention and agitation can be different. I have recently had the humbling privilege to witness for myself the effects that such agitation can have in the current Vestas dispute on the Isle of Wight. If it wasn't for the positive involvement of outside activists on the island, building links with workers, organising meetings, circulating literature and ideas, elevating confidence etc... the inspiring occupation that is now taking place would not exist. Period. The experience has been a thrilling vindication of the methods of revolutionary interventionism, because, at its heart, lies the principle that intervention is not work carried out on behalf of the workers - it is work that actively facilitates the wider empowerment of workers to act for themselves. This has what has been achieved on the Isle of Wight, and it is actually humbling to speak to the workers, their families and members of the community, because they are all so so grateful to the people who have given up their time and resources to come here. It totally undercuts the hackneyed stereotypes of robo-trots imposing themselves bossily upon workers.......

Well that is interesting but this kind of intervention you seem to be advocating here is precisely not what i was talking about. I was talking about the kind of "sterotypical robo-trots" you refer who use any and every strike or protest as means of opportunistically recriuit more members. It an example of bad faith in my view.

Curiously enough I agree with the kind of intervention you advocate but actually feel this should not be done at a party organisational level but individual workers . I can recall at the time of the famous miners strike in 1984 the SPGB did commend the class solidarity expressed by workers in supporting the miners in their struggle. I dont know if this qualifies as "interventionist" in your terms but actually to go much beyond that as a political organisation and actively intervene runs the risk of coming acorss as being precisely the kind of opportunistic organisation out to recruit members which you apparently reject

[QUOTE=RevolverNo9;1502139]
I think in the entirety of my active political life I have seen the SPGB at events about two or three times... which suggests that rather than a politics of active interventionism and dynamic empowerment of workers, they organisation sees its a role as a passive guardian of socialist ideas, who with perseverence will be able to win the masses to socialism.
QUOTE]

Once again this is a caricature and in the absence of more information it is hard to comment. I see you live in Oxford . Well as far as I know there is no SPGB presence in Oxford so maybe that accounts for your observations. In any case the SPGB is hardly a mass movement even if it is bigger than most left organisations so the chances of coming across an SPGBer must be rated as rather slim amyway, would you not think?

Devrim

27th July 2009, 19:16

I don't think stating the question in terms that the potential member has "to prove they are a socialist" is ever a useful way to state it, it looks elitist. You can send trusted comrades to tactfully meet up with people who ask to join, in order to see if they are serious, without publicly and proudly presenting it as some kind of "vetting process" or in some kind of "well he thinks he's a socialist, but doesn't fully understand our position on the Kosovo issue, so for now can't join", sense. In my opinion if someone agrees with our action program in general terms and is committed to fighting for our demands in the workplace or university, then they can join. They shouldn't have to have read Marx etc. I don't know where the SPGB stands on that issue though.

I think that there is a crucial issue here. Members of a political organisation should understand the politics of their organisation. Otherwise, what you end up with is a centre handing down the line to the members who don't. It is imposible to build an organisation which is controlled by it's members if they don't understand it's politics.
Devrim

The Ungovernable Farce

27th July 2009, 19:25

I don't like having a test for rank-and-file party membership, but I do like the idea that those directly responsible for the formal political program have party-professional certification (which, among other things, would include a more comprehensive final exam than the SPGB's admissions test).

Thank you for explaining why the SPGB's attitude to membership is so much better than most of the left's. In an undemocratic hierarchical group where the correct line is laid down by the Glorious Leader and everyone else follows, it doesn't matter what the rank-n-file think; if the membership actually have a say in the political programme, it is worth making sure that they agree with your principles. Otherwise you get members like this (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1072612/Teenage-Trotsky-Cabinets-new-adviser-radical-Islam.html) (sorry to use the Mail as a source).

Sorry but this is load of complete bunkum. It more and more confirms my belief that many on the left know virtually nothing about the SPGB but feel content to rely vague sweeping and often wholly inaccurate generalisations to criticise the organisation.
To be fair, this is kind of an accurate criticism in itself. With active groups, it's a lot harder to know nothing about them - love 'em or hate 'em, everyone knows who the SWP are. If the SPGB were more active, people would understand them better.

The SPGB is a trenchant critic of Bernstein and all reformists. Your problem is that like many on the left you don't understand what is meant "reformism" since you seem to equate it with parliamentary electoralism. That is not refromism. Refromism means the attempt to administer capitalism by means of legally enacted refroms. Dictatorships can be just as much reformist as liberal democracies

It doesn't matter whether you call it reformism or electoralism, it's doomed either way. There's a lot of good stuff about the SPGB, but their insistence on peacefully capturing parliament makes them useless - they come up with a perfectly good criticism of Leninist vanguardism, then negate it by saying we just need to elect the right MPs to parliament and trust them to abolish capitalism for us.

robbo203

27th July 2009, 19:32

Sorry, you can complain about people 'just not understanding' the SPGB all you like, but their politics are quite explicitly expressed - it is a strange (incomprehensible) attempt to combine reformist strategy with a static fidelity to revolutionary concepts (unchanged in over a hundred years...)

Here is the SPGB on 'the voting system' and 'revolutionary' change, in their own words:.

I am afraid you are another one of those who do not understand what is meant by reformism by equating reformism with electoralism. These are two quite different concepts. Even dictatorships can be reformist.

I am the one that is 'astounded'... the last line is just plain naivity. As a whole the programme just reads farcically, with socialist delegates under the 'legitimacy' of a majority vote going about the deeds that should be the deeds of the workers themselves::.

But it is the workers themselves that abolish capitalism in the SPGB view. The SPGB sees itself merely as an instrument of working class emancipation (SPGBers are themselves workers!). Once power has been captured and the state abolished (immediately) the SPGB goes out of existence. It is one of the very few organisation actively seeking its own demise in this sense

Also, despite your protestation, clearly the SPGB does see institutions of state power (in this case 'the voting system' of liberal democrartic parlimentarian states) as showing at least the potential for facilitating proletarian power.::.

But I havent denied that; thats not what my "protestations" were about, were they? But yes the SPGB does argue that power is legitimised through the vote and logically needs to be de-legitimised as it were by the same means. In this sense it argues that the vote is a guage of the degree of social consensus around the need for socialism which is vital not only to inform the socialist movement of its own strength - you cannot have socialism without an adequate majority of class conscious socialists - but also to signal to any remaining opponents of socialist that their time is up and the legitimacy and authority of capitalist rule has been revoked democratically. In this way it is argued the socialist transformation of society will be greatly facilitated. Your criticisms of the SPGB reveal a somewhat naive and misguided view of what its case is actually about and overlooks that it is actually rather more subtle than you imagine it to be. Again I suggest you read Perrin's book on the subject cited earlier

Perhaps this sounds quaint, but my understanding is that the conquest of power by the working class must be accomplished by the workers themselves, through their own revolutionary organisations and institutions. This is emphatically not the programme of the SPGB, whose admitted fidelity to revolutionary socialism as a concept is confounded by their extraordinarily limited conception of what social transformation is or might look like.
.

Well you can only maintain that if you believe members of the SPGB are not also members of the working class! Unlike vanguardist trotskyist organisations like the SWP , the SPGB does not see itself as playing a political leadership role . It is simply a tool for class conscious workers to use and socialism can only be brought about when a sufficient number of class conscious workers intend to use it to get rid of capitalism. Then the SPGB goes out of existence along with capitalism

robbo203

27th July 2009, 19:47

It doesn't matter whether you call it reformism or electoralism, it's doomed either way. There's a lot of good stuff about the SPGB, but their insistence on peacefully capturing parliament makes them useless - they come up with a perfectly good criticism of Leninist vanguardism, then negate it by saying we just need to elect the right MPs to parliament and trust them to abolish capitalism for us.

No thats emphatically what they dont say. Its the workers themselves, they say, that must abolish capitalism. If the state could be captured and dismantled (instantly) in any other way (eg a general referendum) than by the electoral process then I would imagine the SPGB would gladly seize on this. But the reality is that one has to put up with a process that involves sending delegates to parliament as a guage of socialist consciousness. They are simply passive reflectors or indicators, in other words, and moreover totally accountable to the movement itself. So the question of whether one sends the right MPs to parliament just does not enter into the picture at all. You could just as easily pick your delegates by lottery or by some other random process

Zurdito

28th July 2009, 11:03

Certainly the process by which these state capitalist regimes imploded is more complex than merely the withdrawal of working class consent, I agree. But nevertheless popular discontent and disaffection was a very major factor and as you concede it influenced the options available to the bureaucracies

But this misses the crucial point. Nobody will seriosuly deny that the workers movement can bring the bourgeois regime into crisis without armed struggle. I am arguing that it can't overthrow it, that if it is not prepared for civil war, organized in a vanguard party, it will be liquidated in a brutal counterrevolution worse than anything suffered in the pre-revolutionary situation. Ask the Chilean working class.

My argument is too optimistic? I think your is way too defeatist

I don't consider myself defeatist, but I think if you are going to call me on "sheer idealism" you should be prepared to be called naive for your own position that a revolutionary organization could ever get into the position of winning 50% of the public through purely peaceful means.

Your claim that we could all "spit and drown them" makes it sound so easy, but the reality is that if the workers vanguard cannot take the leadership of the class, then bourgeois ideology will keep its hold - and that workers vanguards face brutal repression whenever they present a serious obstacle to the policies needed to make capitalist property relations viable. If it were so easy to just win over the leadership of the class:
How do you explain every single strategic defeat suffered by isolated sectors of the class who were at the forefront of the struggle against the bourgeoisie's offensive?
How do you explain that in most cases the majority of the population ends up, sooner or later, spitting at the workers vanguard, and not with them? And in such a context how do you justify this discourse which liquidates the minority in struggle into some ideal "50%"?
How do you suggest they pass from the defensive to the offensive without the use of conspiracy and violence, when the bourgoeisie is using all its resources to employ both of these against them?

Hit The North

28th July 2009, 12:11

the SPGB does not see itself as playing a political leadership role . It is simply a tool for class conscious workers to use

This raises the question of what kind of a resource the SPGB is for workers in struggle. Does it provide facilities of any kind? Help raise slogans? Introduce militants from one workplace to militants in another?

The fact that it does not intervene in the rank and file as an organisation, but only as individuals who, according to Robbo's testimony, are reluctant to even mention their membership of the SPGB, the answer would appear to be no.

So how is it a tool for class conscious workers?

robbo203

28th July 2009, 12:28

But this misses the crucial point. Nobody will seriosuly deny that the workers movement can bring the bourgeois regime into crisis without armed struggle. I am arguing that it can't overthrow it, that if it is not prepared for civil war, organized in a vanguard party, it will be liquidated in a brutal counterrevolution worse than anything suffered in the pre-revolutionary situation. Ask the Chilean working class.

Quite a few people will seriously deny what you claim - including, it should be said, Marx and Engels who maintained that a peaceful socialist revolution was entirely possible in certain countries even in their day. I would argue that the possibility of such an approach has, if anything, massively expanded since then. We dont need a friggin leninist vanguard party to lead us like sheep into the promised land. The emancipation of the working class must be carried out by the working class itself - a basic principle of revolutionary marxism

I don't consider myself defeatist, but I think if you are going to call me on "sheer idealism" you should be prepared to be called naive for your own position that a revolutionary organization could ever get into the position of winning 50% of the public through purely peaceful means.

I am not claiming there will not be some violence - obviously I cannot rule that out in the absence of a crystal ball - but on balance the probability lies with the revolution being accomplished peacefully. It certainly far preferable that this should be so - do you not agree? - unless you entertain some sick romantic fantasy that armed struggle is a good thing. In this day and age to advocate that is just plain stupid and suicidal. I note you have completely ignored my argument why I consider a peaceful democratic approach to revolution as being far more likely

Your claim that we could all "spit and drown them" makes it sound so easy, but the reality is that if the workers vanguard cannot take the leadership of the class, then bourgeois ideology will keep its hold - and that workers vanguards face brutal repression whenever they present a serious obstacle to the policies needed to make capitalist property relations viable. If it were so easy to just win over the leadership of the class:
How do you explain every single strategic defeat suffered by isolated sectors of the class who were at the forefront of the struggle against the bourgeoisie's offensive?
How do you explain that in most cases the majority of the population ends up, sooner or later, spitting at the workers vanguard, and not with them? And in such a context how do you justify this discourse which liquidates the minority in struggle into some ideal "50%"?
How do you suggest they pass from the defensive to the offensive without the use of conspiracy and violence, when the bourgoeisie is using all its resources to employ both of these against them?

Look, I dont give a stuff about the so called workers vanguard. All that elitist Leninist claptrap leaves me cold. It is a certain recipe for shoring up capitalism in the form of state capitalism. So I am totally unpersuaded by your arguments which are predicated on the ridiculous anti-socialist idea of the "workers vanguard". One of the reasons why popular unrest and upheaval has singularly failed to lead to socialism is because workers continue to place their trust in leaders and of course becuase the outlook of workers is still essentially pro-capitalist. But since elitist leninists consider that workers are just to thick to come to socialist conclusions this side of the revolution - to quote Lenin they are only capable of "trade union consciousness" - this means that these leninists see no burning imperative to advance the case for a genuine socialist alternative to capitalism but prefer instead to patronisingly dangle opportunist reforms in front of the workers to induce them to follow the self appointed vanguard. Little wonder we havent got socialism yet. With "friends" like this who needs enemies?

Zurdito

28th July 2009, 12:43

Well most of that post was just you expressing your feelings on the matter, which we all already knew.

But:

But since elitist leninists consider that workers are just to thick to come to socialist conclusions this side of the revolution - to quote Lenin they are only capable of "trade union consciousness"

Lenin didn't say this. Either you are foolishly taking someone else's word for it, or ar being dishonest by cropping a quote at both ends, which shows ideological desperation.

And regarding your point about "not needing a leninist vamguard party" because the liberation of the working class can only be carried out by the working class itself - I completely agree with the second quote, but what does it have to do with the first, since by definition a Leninist organization only becomes a vanguard party when it groups the working class vanguard.

Of course you are not obliged to agree with this just because Lenin said it, but I am waiting to see how you justify liquidating the most advanced workers into some abstract "50%", rather than advocating the need to group round an organized program to lead the class. Given that the class struggle is combined and uneven - or do you deny this? If so on what basis? And what about countries where the urban proletariat is the minority?

And btw you don't seem to understand what a workers vanguard even is. I was referring to the most advanced sectors of the class, who are in struggle - at most times a minority. Not to a party leadership. Your dislike of vanguardism is no excuse for ignoring questions of how to deal with a situation where minority sectors are politicized and in struggle and the majority are not. i.e. the reality we face today.

The Ungovernable Farce

28th July 2009, 18:42

Well most of that post was just you expressing your feelings on the matter, which we all already knew.

But:

Lenin didn't say this. Either you are foolishly taking someone else's word for it, or ar being dishonest by cropping a quote at both ends, which shows ideological desperation.

We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc.
From What Is To Be Done (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ii.htm)? In context, it looks even more damning, really.

Yehuda Stern

28th July 2009, 18:45

But the SPGB does not have a "test" in the sense you describe it - someone sitting down in a class rooom and answering the questions. Presumably next you will be say that there is an invigilator and time limit of three hours!
That is what I understood from what I've heard, but it's possible that I was mistaken. I was told that it is exactly like a test one would take at a school or university. If I am wrong, then I apologize. Still, the bottom line appears to be that the test is based solely on discussion - when it is how the candidate functions in actions that shows his true understanding of both the theory and practice of Marxism. Of course theoretical discussions are a must, but they are useless without the test of practice.

The question - indeed the challenge - I make to all those who reject the idea of checking whether peoples ideas basically correspond to the organisation they are applying to joinWell, you are lying again - shocking, I know. Either way, if you - or rather, someone who isn't you, someone who attempts to understands what the people he is debating with say - read back my post, you will see that I never suggested an open organization.

From What Is To Be Done (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ii.htm)? In context, it looks even more damning, really.

You're new at this, aren't? That was Lenin original Kautsky-influenced point of view, which he changed radically following the 1905 revolution.

The Ungovernable Farce

28th July 2009, 18:49

Lenin didn't say this.

That was Lenin.
I wasn't responding to the claim that Lenin changed his mind after he wrote that, which would require a fuller response; I was just responding to Zurdito claiming Lenin didn't say it.

Zurdito

28th July 2009, 20:11

I don't think it looks "damning" at all, I think it directly contradicts robbo's argument. How can you bring an idea to someone if they are not capable of understanding it?

What the quote in its entirety proves is that Lenin knew full well that the mass of the working class could surpass trade union consciousness, but that the economic struggle alone is not going to lead to this, rather political propaganda work by an initially small minority, alongside and within the economic struggle, is neccessarry.

Led Zeppelin

28th July 2009, 20:33

From What Is To Be Done (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ii.htm)? In context, it looks even more damning, really.

Actually, no, in full context it destroys the myth:

Let us start with the myth which claims that, according to Lenin’s views in 1902 and forever, the workers cannot come to socialist ideas of themselves, that only bourgeois intellectuals are the carriers of socialist ideas.

We will be eager to see what WITBD actually said on this point; but there is an introductory point to be made beforehand.

It is a curious fact that no one has ever found this alleged theory anywhere else in Lenin’s voluminous writings, not before and not after WITBD. It never appeared in Lenin again. No Leninologist has ever quoted such a theory from any other place in Lenin.

This should give pause at least. In ordinary research, a scholar would tend to conclude that, even if Lenin perhaps held this theory in 1902, he soon abandoned it. The scholar would at least report this interesting fact, and even perhaps try to explain it. The Leninologists do not behave in this fashion. On the contrary, they endlessly repeat that the virtually nonexistent theory (nonexistent after WITBD) is the crux of Leninism forever and onward – though they never quote anything other than WITBD. (The explanation for the curious fact itself will emerge from the points that follow.)

Did Lenin put this theory forward even in WITBD? Not exactly.

The fact is that Lenin had just read this theory in the most prestigious theoretical organ of Marxism of the whole international socialist movement, the Neue Zeit. It had been put forward in an important article by the leading Marxist authority of the International, Karl Kautsky. And this was why and how it got into WITBD. In WITBD Lenin first paraphrased Kautsky. [2] Then he quoted a long passage from Kautsky’s article, almost a page long. Here is Kautsky, whom Lenin then looked up to as the master (some said the “pope”) of socialist theory:

Of course, socialism, as a doctrine, has its roots in modern economic relationships ... But socialism and the class struggle arise side by side and not one out of the other; each arises under different conditions. Modern socialist consciousness can arise only on the basis of profound scientific knowledge. Indeed, modern economic science is as much a condition for socialist production as, say, modern technology, and the proletariat can create neither the one nor the other, no matter how much it may desire to do so; both arise out of the modern social process. The vehicle of science is not the proletariat, but the bourgeois intelligentsia [emphasis by Kautsky]: it was in the minds of individual members of this stratum that modern socialism originated, and it was they who communicated it to the more intellectually developed proletarians ... Thus, socialist consciousness is something introduced into the proletarian class struggle from without and not something that arose within it spontaneously. [3]

There it is – the whole theory laid out, the devilish crux of “Leninism”; and it turns out to be the product of Kautsky’s pen! When Lenin paraphrased it a few pages before, he began, “We have said that ...” – that is, he tied it up immediately as the accepted view of the movement (or so he seemed to think). His summary was by no means as brash as Kautsky’s formulation. But we will return to Lenin’s formulation.

Why did Kautsky emphasize this view of socialist history at this time? The reason is perfectly clear: the new reformist wing of the movement, the Bernsteinian Revisionists, were arguing that all one needed was the ongoing movement of the workers, not theory; that the spontaneous class activity of the trade-union movement and other class movements was enough. “The movement is everything, the goal is nothing” was Bernstein’s dictum, thereby seeking to shelve theoretical considerations in favor of shortsighted concentration on the day-to-day problems. Reform was the concern of today (the movement); revolution had to do with tomorrow (theory). Kautsky’s generalization about the role of the “bourgeois intelligentsia” in importing socialist ideas into the raw class movement was one way, in his eyes, of undercutting the Revisionist approach. And this, of course, gave it equal appeal for other opponents of the new right wing, like Lenin.

It is no part of my subject to explain why Kautsky was misguided in this line of argument, and why his theory was based on a historical half-truth. But it is curious, at any rate, that no one has sought to prove that by launching this theory (which he never repudiated, as far as I know) Kautsky was laying the basis for the demon of totalitarianism.

So it turns out that the crucial “Leninist” theory was really Kautsky’s, as is clear enough to anyone who really reads WITBD instead of relying only on the Leninological summaries. Did Lenin, in WITBD, adopt Kautsky’s theory?

Again, not exactly. Certainly he tried to get maximum mileage out of it against the right wing; this was the point of his quoting it. If it did something for Kautsky’s polemic, he no doubt figured that it would do something for his.

Certainly this young man Lenin was not (yet) so brash as to attack his “pope” or correct him overtly. But there was obviously a feeling of discomfort. While showing some modesty and attempting to avoid the appearance of a head-on criticism, the fact is that Lenin inserted two longish footnotes rejecting (or if you wish, amending) precisely what was worst about the Kautsky theory on the role of the proletariat.

The first footnote was appended right after the Kautsky passage quoted above. It was specifically formulated to undermine and weaken the theoretical content of Kautsky’s position. It began: “This does not mean, of course, that the workers have no part in creating such an ideology.” But this was exactly what Kautsky did mean and say. In the guise of offering a caution, Lenin was proposing a modified view. “They [the workers] take part, however,” Lenin’s footnote continued, “not as workers, but as socialist theoreticians, as Proudhons and Weitlings; in other words, they take part only when they are able ...” In short, Lenin was reminding the reader that Kautsky’s sweeping statements were not even 100% true historically; he pointed to exceptions. But he went on to a more important point: once you get beyond the original initiation of socialist ideas, what is the role of intellectuals and workers? (More on this in the next point.)

Lenin’s second footnote was not directly tied to the Kautsky article, but discussed the “spontaneity” of the socialist idea. “It is often said,” Lenin began, “that the working class spontaneously gravitates towards socialism. This is perfectly true in the sense that socialist theory reveals the causes of the misery of the working class ... and for that reason the workers are able to assimilate it so easily,” but he reminded that this process itself was not subordinated to mere spontaneity. “The working class spontaneously gravitates towards socialism; nevertheless, ... bourgeois ideology spontaneously imposes itself upon the working class to a still greater degree.” [4]

This second footnote was obviously written to modify and recast the Kautsky theory, without coming out and saying that the Master was wrong. There are several things that happen “spontaneously,” and what will win out is not decided only by spontaneity! – so went the modification. It cannot be overemphasized that if one wants to analyze Lenin’s developing views about “spontaneity” one cannot stick at this by-play in WITBD, but rather one must go on to examine precisely what the developing views were going to be. All that was clear at this point was that Lenin was justifiably dissatisfied with the formulation of Kautsky’s theory, however conveniently anti-Bernstein it might have been. We will see more about his dissatisfaction.

Even Kautsky’s theory, as quoted in WITBD, was not as crass as the Leninologists make it out to be (while calling it Lenin’s theory, to be sure). The Leninologists run two different questions together: (a) What was, historically, the initial role of intellectuals in the beginnings of the socialist movement, and (b) what is – and above all, what should be – the role of bourgeois intellectuals in a working-class party today.

Kautsky was not so ignorant or dull-witted as to believe (as so many Leninologists apparently do) that if it can be shown that intellectuals historically played a certain initiatory role, they must and should continue to play the same role now and forever. It does not follow; as the working class matured, it tended to throw off leading strings. The Leninologists do not argue this point because they do not see it is there.

As a matter of fact, in the International of 1902 no one really had any doubts about the historical facts concerning the beginnings of the movement. But what followed from those facts? Marx for one (or Marx and Engels for two) concluded, from the same facts and subsequent experiences, that the movement had to be sternly warned against the influence of bourgeois intellectuals inside the party. [5] “Precisely in Germany these are the most dangerous people,” they averred. The historical facts were so many reasons to take the dangers seriously, to combat intellectuals’ predominance as a social stratum in the movement.

No one in the international movement was more forceful or frequent than Lenin in decrying and combating the spread of intellectuals’ influence in the movement. This is easy to demonstrate, but I will not take the space to do so here. In any case a mere couple of well-chosen specimens would not be enough. Just to cull the most virulent passages alone would fill a book. As against this indubitable fact, let us ask a question: can anyone cite any passage in which Lenin ever advocated increased influence, or predominant influence, by intellectuals in the party?

There is no such passage, in point of fact. None is cited by the Leninologists. Their whole case on this point is hung on a deduction (of theirs) from a theory in WITBD which is essentially Kautsky’s, it turns out. We know indeed that the typical social-democratic reformist party is very much dominated on top by intellectuals derived from the bourgeoisie. We do not typically see the leaders of these parties denouncing this state of affairs. On the other hand, Lenin’s collected works are chock-full of denunciations of increased influence by intellectuals. Obviously, this does not settle the matter, but still less is it reasonable to rest virtually the whole case against Lenin, on this point, on what is not in Lenin’s 1902 book.

In the Russian movement, the Marxist left’s denunciations of intellectuals in the movement started with the founding congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party itself (the congress to which WITBD was directed). In fact, the Bolshevik-Menshevik split over the notorious membership rule (who could be a party member) was directly connected with the Mensheviks’ anxiety to make it easier for nonparty intellectuals to be accounted as members, while Lenin fought to make it harder. (This is hardly disputed.) The Leninological myth that, according to Lenin’s “concept of the party,” the organization is to consist only or mainly or largely of bourgeois intellectuals – this is contrary to fact.

Lastly, since it is a question of a “party concept” alleged to be peculiar to Lenin and Leninism, we should find that it is not true of the other Russian socialist parties – the Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries. But just the reverse is true. The case is most clear-cut with regard to the S-Rs, for while this party aspired to represent the peasants’ interests and mentality, it was very far from being a party of peasants. Notoriously it was a party composed overwhelmingly of bourgeois intelligentsia. (You need only read the main scholarly work on the S-Rs, by O.H. Radkey.) The proportion of bourgeois intellectuals in the Mensheviks or supporting the Mensheviks was greater than in the case of the Bolsheviks, not less.
Socialist Consciousness and Intellectuals (http://www.marx.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm#section1)

Die Neue Zeit

29th July 2009, 01:51

Hal Draper's anti-Kautsky stance is based on his conflation of "socialist consciousness" on the one hand and class consciousness on the other:

http://books.google.com/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&pg=PA636&lpg=PA636&dq=lenin+lih+%22profoundly+true%22&source=bl&ots=5i4wcpCOVn&sig=3LO3uXKTg1WkJCvrVPfzynGPgY8&hl=en&ei=M51vSvOnAZH8sgO7_63OCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

Read the Kautsky quote in full:

The vehicle of science is not the proletariat, but the bourgeois intelligentsia: modern socialism arises among individual members of this stratum and then is communicated by them to proletarians who stand out due to their intellectual development, and these then bring it into the class struggle of the proletariat where conditions allow.

So perhaps Kautsky had the wrong adjective before "intelligentsia," but the process is still the same. The worker-class movement, as opposed to the class as a whole, is introduced to socialist ideas from an outside force (outside the movement specifically, though not necessarily outside the class, due to the possibility of there being working-class "theory nuts" and "schoolmasters").