SPGB Election interview

[robbo203]

http://www.bigsmoke.org.uk/?p=77382

Sock it to 'em ;)

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

He is a impressive orator and well dexterous in Socialist philosophy. If I resided in his district, he'd have my vote.

[Dr Doom]

If I resided in his district, he'd have my vote.

why ? these dudes think that a working class revolution will be brought about through voting. i mean jesus christ the role of parliament has changed since the 19th century but the spgb dont seem to get this and continue to support and encourage shit that hasn't been appropriate for over a hundred years. this especially irritates me because they are actually spot on regarding most other issues.

[Manic Impressive]

why ? these dudes think that a working class revolution will be brought about through voting. i mean jesus christ the role of parliament has changed since the 19th century but the spgb dont seem to get this and continue to support and encourage shit that hasn't been appropriate for over a hundred years. this especially irritates me because they are actually spot on regarding most other issues.

I'm sorry but I'm not sure you've given a reason why parliament shouldn't be used as a tool against the ruling class. Care to elaborate? And would you care to offer a more productive, less suicidal approach at this stage of the class struggle?

[Grenzer]

I'm sorry but I'm not sure you've given a reason why parliament shouldn't be used as a tool against the ruling class. Care to elaborate? And would you care to offer a more productive, less suicidal approach at this stage of the class struggle?

I'm not exactly sure that this is what he's saying, I mean it could be, but anyway..

Parliament is another avenue of struggle, but at the same time, the strategy that the SPGB pursues in regards to it is Parliamentary Cretinism. It is true that many revolutionaries have an infantile fear of parliament, as if it somehow magically corrupts all those who enter. This myth should be dispelled.

The SPGB is an anachronism; a relic from a bygone age, but I don't necessarily mean that in a bad way. As we can see, the approaches of modern Stalinists, Trotskyists, and anarchists aren't any better; worse in some ways. It's from an age where the socialist movement was far stronger than it's ever been the past hundred years, which is significant in some way. My hat off to them for willing to not reject parliamentary on principle and give in to arbitrary revolutionary sloganeering and posturing, in this regard at least.


They had, from the beginning of their legislative career, been more imbued than any other faction of the Assembly with that incurable malady Parliamentary cretinism, a disorder which penetrates its unfortunate victims with the solemn conviction that the whole world, its history and future, are governed and determined by a majority of votes in that particular representative body which has the honor to count them among its members, and that all and everything going on outside the walls of their house is nothing compared with the incommensurable events hinging upon the important question, whatever it may be, just at that moment occupying the attention of their honorable house.

There is no point in having a parliamentary presence the party is not willing to have a strategy to bring workers into the party. It essentially becomes a doctrine of defeat and nihilism. If you want to see impossibilism done right, I recommend reading De Leon. Parliament as a tool is useless unless the party is also willing to pursue a strategy to merge with the workers' movement and build the party as the class for itself.

All due respect of course, the people I have met from the SPGB seem to generally be dedicated and theoretically well informed in Marxism, but this strategy is really going nowhere..

[Tim Finnegan]

You have to give it to the SPGB, they may be hopelessly anachronistic, but at least they're consistent about it. I have infinite preference for an SPGBer who you can trust to plod along as he's always done than an ortho-Trot who has equally archaic theory but will abandon ship for Social Democracy Island the moment he gets a suggestive wink from the Labour left.

[robbo203]

Welll, though I have some criticisms of the mainstream* SPGB ideas to "getting there", to be fair the SPGB does not make a fetish of "parliamentarianism" or "electoralism" and critiques of the SPGB based on the assumption that they do, are misplaced and misdirected. Here is a link to a recent pamphlet of theirs which explains their position well

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/whats-wrong-using-parliament

In my opinion, a lot of the criticism of the SPGB's advocacy of the use of the parliamentary method is based on inappropriate inferences drawn from the observing the way in which reformist capitalist political parties - such as the Labour Party - have "betrayed" the working class once they got their grubby hands on political power. The problem, however, is not the parliamentary method per se but reformism and SPGB critics tend all to often to confuse the two. In fact the SPGB's approach is fully in the spirit of Marx and Engel's own endorsement of the need to capture political power democratically for the purposes of effecting a social revolution.

I have never understood why some critics make such a fetish of anti-parliamentarianism (if I might slightly turn the tables here!). It seems to me that the parliamentary approach of voting for a socialist political organisation whose sole purpose is a revolutionary one and which does not advocate reforms as a means of attracting support, is actually an eminently sensible and sound one. Socialism can only be introduced if and when a working class majority understand and want it. How else can you guage the extent of that support except by the parliamentary method? Equally importantly, how else do you signal to those opponents of socialism who seek the retention of capitalism that they no longer possess the authority and legitimacy to do so? From the point of view of facilitating the socialist revolution in the smoothest, the most rapid and most effective way possible - which surely be in our interests to do - the electoral approach, as I see it, is unrivalled.

Never mind "parliamantary cretinism" - people who attack the parliamentary or electoral approach on these grounds all too often display, in my opinion, a complete sociological naivete in respect of the dynamics of large scale social transformation. You need some procedure that is able to efficiently and effectively coordinate such a transformation. What other option is there? None that I can see. Its all very welll criticising the SPGB but I have yet to encounter an approach to changing society that avoids the need to democratically capture state power that is convincing and likely to be effective.

To try to violently overthow the state would be absolute lunacy and, not only that, would require a authoritarian elitist hierarchical mode of organisation to be even remotely successful which would be totally out of keeping with the whole idea of working class self emancipation . A general strike - while Im not opposed to the idea - has very limited applicability since starvation, as the saying goes, always works on the side of the bosses. Mutualistic ideas such as the formation of worker cooperatives - which again is not a bad idea in itself - is not going to mount a credible challenge to the huge concentration of capital in the hands of the capitalist class.

So, no, I have no problems with the SPGB's view of the parliamentary method. What I have some problem with, perhaps, is its over emphasis on what might be called "abstract propagandism". Putting forward the case for a socialist society is of course absolutely essential but is it enough? I dont think it is but that is another matter



* It is a myth to suppose that the SPGB is a monolithic organisation and, for as long as I have known it, there have always been different tendencies within the Party with different emphases pulling in slightly different directions. There has always been vigorous debate within the SPGB on all sorts of things and the great thing about the SPGB is that it always been transperently open and scrupulously democratic - even when it comes to hanging its dirty laundry out in public. Leftists organisations could learn a thing or two from the SPGB - the UK's oldest socialist political party

[Manic Impressive]

I'm not exactly sure that this is what he's saying, I mean it could be, but anyway..

Parliament is another avenue of struggle, but at the same time, the strategy that the SPGB pursues in regards to it is Parliamentary Cretinism. It is true that many revolutionaries have an infantile fear of parliament, as if it somehow magically corrupts all those who enter. This myth should be dispelled.
Could you explain what you mean by parliamentary cretinism? Do you mean it in the same way as Engels means it in the quote? If so the quote is a little out of context and in no way relates to our politics. It's from Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Germany about a section of the left who had won some petty REFORMS.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/germany/ch15.htm
Also if you think using parliament is a valid tactic under what circumstances should socialists use it? If not in the way that we propose to?


The SPGB is an anachronism; a relic from a bygone age, but I don't necessarily mean that in a bad way. As we can see, the approaches of modern Stalinists, Trotskyists, and anarchists aren't any better; worse in some ways. It's from an age where the socialist movement was far stronger than it's ever been the past hundred years, which is significant in some way. My hat off to them for willing to not reject parliamentary on principle and give in to arbitrary revolutionary sloganeering and posturing, in this regard at least.
I obviously disagree if anything the original members were ahead of their time. We can see that workers in this century are rejecting the failed methods of Leninist strategy and are organizing themselves democratically and without leaders. Occupy and to a lesser extent Zeitgeist are examples of this, even if the rest of their politics are utopian, nevertheless we have been in contact with both groups in an educational capacity which has generally won us some respect within sections of both for not trying to co-opt the movements but to give our input on where we think they are going wrong. I also don't see how you can say that our politics are anachronistic. The theory of a transition period is irrelevant unless you believe that workers cannot become socialists under capitalism. Capitalism has developed to such a degree that production can easily feed, clothe and house everyone on earth and more. The only progression left is revolution. This cannot be described as a policy of the past it is a policy set firmly in the here and now. Then take our definition of class where we say that the vast majority of the petit bourgeouis has lost all relevance as they cannot compete with the bourgeois proper making revolution firmly in their interests. This two class definition is hardly a relic of a by-gone age but something which we believe has changed since the time of Marx and Engels. So anachronistic or better as Tim puts it hopelessly anachronistic is like the out of context Engels quote, more than a little unfair.

The fact is if you believe that the proletariat must emancipate themselves and think that we should at least try to make a revolution with the least amount of bloodshed possible then using parliament is the most efficient way to do so.


There is no point in having a parliamentary presence the party is not willing to have a strategy to bring workers into the party. It essentially becomes a doctrine of defeat and nihilism. If you want to see impossibilism done right, I recommend reading De Leon. Parliament as a tool is useless unless the party is also willing to pursue a strategy to merge with the workers' movement and build the party as the class for itself.
We'd love to have more members, who wouldn't? And in all honesty we should probably be doing better than we have done during the current recession. But the thing is we don't see the party as the class, we don't think that we will be the one and only but just a part of something larger. The party is the means by which we educate the rest of our class and try to inspire some class conciousness. As for De Leon perhaps you should compare us to the ILP to see which one had a better track record and which one of us is still going. Not that we say we'd never work with unions. Quite the opposite unions will become essential in the lead up to revolution as they will most probably be the organizations within which the working class will organize the workplaces in order to transition into socialism. We just say we don't work with reformist unions, which unfortunately at the moment are all of them are.


All due respect of course, the people I have met from the SPGB seem to generally be dedicated and theoretically well informed in Marxism, but this strategy is really going nowhere..
Ah you must be talking about the SPGBers on Libcom :D no hard feelings though as always we love a bit of criticism take a look at how others have seen us over the years. Some of them are hilarious http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2004/no-1198-june-2004/others-have-seen-us

[robbo203]

Seems Danny Lambert for the SPGB (see OP video) contesting Lambeth & Southwark in London got 2938 votes or 1.9%. of the total. Rather better than the vote for TUSC which managed only 1891 or 1.2% . Does this tell us something?

[Tim Finnegan]

That when people are picking which "socialist whatever" they want to use as a protest vote, they go for a nice bold name like "Socialist Party" over an awkward one like "Trade Union and Socialist Coalition"?

[Manic Impressive]

TBH that's my first reaction as well. Lambeth and Southwark where we probably campaigned hardest did get almost double the votes of last time which is good. But you've also got to consider that TUSC got a hell of a lot more promotion than we did. people had the oppertunity to vote for TUSC as well as us so many who voted for us didn't also vote for them even though they had the chance. That's the odd thing.

[Tim Finnegan]

Presumably they know a Trotskyist front when they see one.

[Martin Blank]

"Trade Union and Socialist Coalition"

Interesting you should bring that up. When I was on both the BBC and London Elects websites earlier today, the TUSC was being referred to as the "Trade Union and Solidarity Coalition". Now, was this just strange coincidence or one site copying the mistake of the other, or is there something the TUSC comrades are not telling us?

[robbo203]

Interesting you should bring that up. When I was on both the BBC and London Elects websites earlier today, the TUSC was being referred to as the "Trade Union and Solidarity Coalition". Now, was this just strange coincidence or one site copying the mistake of the other, or is there something the TUSC comrades are not telling us?

I think it is called "Trade Union and Socialist Coalition" - see its website here. http://www.tusc.org.uk/policy.php. Although that said there's nothing socialist about it all - just a predictable list of reformist demands includiing the demand for nationalisation - mere state capitalism, in other words

[Tim Finnegan]

Interesting you should bring that up. When I was on both the BBC and London Elects websites earlier today, the TUSC was being referred to as the "Trade Union and Solidarity Coalition". Now, was this just strange coincidence or one site copying the mistake of the other, or is there something the TUSC comrades are not telling us?
One of the participating parties is called "Solidarity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_%28Scotland%29)" (a.k.a "Scottish Socialist Party-Sheridanite"), so I think they just got mixed up.

[Dave B]

The SPGB take a position similar, but if anything to the left, of the one Engels laid out in one of his last major works in 1895;

Works of Frederick Engels 1895

Introduction to Karl Marx’s

The Class Struggles in France 1848 to 1850

“great importance must be attached to one of the historical documents of the German labour movement: the Preface written by Frederick Engels for the 1895 re-issue of Marx's Class Struggles in France.” — Rosa Luxemburg.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1895/03/06.htm#n449

As anti reformist impossibilists and opposing minimum programmes etc we would be against the implied suggestion of the intermediate meddling in the running of capitalism and of capitalist institutions.

The SPGB were from the start outside the 2nd international, unlike the Bolsheviks for instance, as we considered it reformist.

Although I think we were invited to and sent two delegates to the 1904 meeting in Amersterdam.



But we obviously recognised the hazards of revolutionary cretinism;


All revolutions up to the present day have resulted in the displacement of the rule of one class by the rule of another; but all ruling classes up to now have been only small minorities in relation to the ruled mass of the people. One ruling minority was thus overthrown; another minority seized the helm of state in its stead and refashioned the state institutions to suit its own interests.

Thus on every occasion a minority group was enabled and called upon to rule by the given degree of economic development; and just for that reason, and only for that reason, it happened that the ruled majority either participated in the revolution for the benefit of the former or else simply acquiesced in it. But if we disregard the concrete content in each case, the common form of all these revolutions was that they were minority revolutions. Even when the majority took part, it did so — whether wittingly or not — only in the service of a minority; but because of this, or even simply because of the passive, unresisting attitude of the majority, this minority[- potentially a bureaucratic caste or new state capitalist class?- ] acquired the appearance of being the representative of the whole people.


[there is some background to that essay by Fred on using universal suffrage etc re the threat and consequences of it being removed at the time- just in case someone thinks I am unfamiliar with it]

[robbo203]

Quote:
All revolutions up to the present day have resulted in the displacement of the rule of one class by the rule of another; but all ruling classes up to now have been only small minorities in relation to the ruled mass of the people. One ruling minority was thus overthrown; another minority seized the helm of state in its stead and refashioned the state institutions to suit its own interests.

Thus on every occasion a minority group was enabled and called upon to rule by the given degree of economic development; and just for that reason, and only for that reason, it happened that the ruled majority either participated in the revolution for the benefit of the former or else simply acquiesced in it. But if we disregard the concrete content in each case, the common form of all these revolutions was that they were minority revolutions. Even when the majority took part, it did so — whether wittingly or not — only in the service of a minority; but because of this, or even simply because of the passive, unresisting attitude of the majority, this minority[- potentially a bureaucratic caste or new state capitalist class?- ] acquired the appearance of being the representative of the whole people.




Do you have a link to this quote?

[Dave B]

it is from the same link given above it, I think

ie probably;

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/intro.htm


I can't get into MIA at the moment, which is annoying as I was in the middle of a Trotsky and Lenin never read Das Kapital either post.

[Dave B]

http://marxengels.public-archive.net/en/ME1852en.html


that one works

[robbo203]

Ian Bone seems to be chuffed at the thought...

http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2012/05/05/yeeeesss-spgb-polls-nearly-3000-votes-in-lambeth-and-southwark/

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Impressed with Lambert's interview. Quite a persuasive speaker, though I always think that people with East End accents have a natural advantage, they always seem more charming/in touch/honest when they talk. Maybe it's just me!

I'm very tempted to start attending a few SPGB meetings. I just can't get my head around their stance on elections and Parliament.

[robbo203]

Impressed with Lambert's interview. Quite a persuasive speaker, though I always think that people with East End accents have a natural advantage, they always seem more charming/in touch/honest when they talk. Maybe it's just me!

I'm very tempted to start attending a few SPGB meetings. I just can't get my head around their stance on elections and Parliament.

Well why not have a decko at that pamphlet of theirs on the subject

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/p...ing-parliament

I dont personally have much of a problem with their stance on that matter. On one or two other matters, yes, but that's another matter;)

[Die Neue Zeit]

There is no point in having a parliamentary presence the party is not willing to have a strategy to bring workers into the party. It essentially becomes a doctrine of defeat and nihilism. If you want to see impossibilism done right, I recommend reading De Leon. Parliament as a tool is useless unless the party is also willing to pursue a strategy to merge with the workers' movement and build the party as the class for itself.

All due respect of course, the people I have met from the SPGB seem to generally be dedicated and theoretically well informed in Marxism, but this strategy is really going nowhere..

Finally, a comrade chimes in to properly define majority political support from the working class. "The [mass] party[-movement itself] as the class for itself" is crucial.

I should also add that re. legalisms, the DeLeonists had the additional avenue of trying to mobilize support for constitutional amendments (whether proposed by Congress or by Article V conventions bypassing said Congress), something that could be seen as more principled than parliamentary fetishes.

[robbo203]

Finally, a comrade chimes in to properly define majority political support from the working class. "The [mass] party[-movement itself] as the class for itself" is crucial.

It is but so is the need for some universally grasped mechanism or procedure by which to coordinate or effect any large scale process of social transformation

[robbo203]

Update from Ian Bone's website http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2012/05/05/yeeeesss-spgb-polls-nearly-3000-votes-in-lambeth-and-southwark/


SOME KIND OF WONDERFUL…………SPGB POLLS NEARLY 3,000 VOTES IN LAMBETH AND SOUTHWARK
I am indeed grateful to General Grumble for pointing this out…………totally incredible achievement……….what does it portend…………the SPGB candidate Daniel lambert got 2,900 votes……………the comrades long march to socialism through the ballot box has lift off….hats off to Adam Buick and all the lads and lasses at Clapham high street!!

******the more i think about it the more wonderful this result is……..the SPGB standing on a pure platform of utopian socalism through the ballot box have outpolled TUSC with its reformist anti- cuts position. Even the SPGB cant work it out…….thanks to general grumble again…

From their blog
“What is intriguing is why the vote for TUSC should have been smaller than the vote for us (1047 less in Lambeth & Southwark and 439 less in Merton & Wandsworth). Since TUSC was offering a programme of attractive reforms (“jobs with a living wage for all”, “no cuts”, “cheap, efficient and safe public transport”, “affordable homes for all”, “free education”) while we just advocated socialism, it might have been expected that they would have got more votes than us.

There are various possible explanations ranging from a statistical one (6 and 7 candidates in the constituencies compared with 13 lists) to the political ones that TUSC appealed mainly for the votes of trade unionists in the public sector while our appeal was directed at workers generally or even that some who voted for us deliberately didn’t vote for them because they didn’t believe in their reformist approach or the feasibility of their reforms within capitalism.”

“Just recalculated and we did get more votes in the 4 London boroughs combined than the BNP: 4281 as against their 4086.”

http://spgb.blogspot.co.uk/

[Manic Impressive]

That's a real coup getting more votes from two boroughs than the BNP did in all four they contested. That's an encouraging sign certainly.

[ridethejetski]

Perhaps all that time at speakers corner is paying off