SPGB - Socialist Party of Great Britain

[Peoples' War]

I could never understand the anti-Leninist stance of these guys, who base it on quotes taken out of context.

They have a poor history of organizing and taking advantage of situations to educate and awaken class conscious.

So, can anyone else give me some details on these guys?

[Comrade Jandar]

I've looked into them as well and they definitely have some strange views. They are basically impossiblist social democrats. They simultaneously believe that full communism can be instituted immediately, but believe this will be done through gaining control of parliaments and not violent class struggle.

[Peoples' War]

I've looked into them as well and they definitely have some strange views. They are basically impossiblist social democrats. They simultaneously believe that full communism can be instituted immediately, but believe this will be done through gaining control of parliaments and not violent class struggle.
I'd label them Kautskyites.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'd label them Kautskyites.

Uh, no.

What has been called by some the "Small Party of Good Boys" has a very poor rendition of an "Educate! Educate! Educate!" strategy that ignores mass agitation and institutional organization.

Besides the legal cretinism, they easily forget the difference between parliamentary majorities and the hurdles needed for constitutional change, on the one hand, and majority political support from the working class, on the other.

[Zukunftsmusik]

They are basically impossiblist social democrats. They simultaneously believe that full communism can be instituted immediately, but believe this will be done through gaining control of parliaments and not violent class struggle.

I thought the impossibilist line was to deny participation in parliaments/parliamentary politics?

[The Idler]

The SPGB is the one of the oldest Socialist Parties in the world still actively campaigning. It is probably the third largest party on the left of Labour in Britain. SPGB candidates also outpolled BNP and TUSC in elections a few months ago in London. It has a reputation for integrity and an higher rate of retention of members than most others. It is the most transparent democratic group, the only one who publish under Creative Commons out of principle and has consistently opposed all wars. Internally members activity is as voluntarist as the kind of society the SPGB aim for, no forced/coerced labour etc. The SPGB is upfront about what it stands for, the class taking activity as the class rather than as any party organisation, also not posing with a policy it doesn't really agree with to look popular. It has also made various key unique contributions to theory especially in economics. They were some of the earliest in Britain to discuss Russia as state capitalist which the SWP took from SPGB meetings as their position.

The SPGB criticise the actions of Lenin based on some of the early actions Lenin took when in power. Criticism of Lenin has been covered widely in SPGB writings (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/search/node/lenin)and even on revleft, there are two pamphlets on this, "Russia 1917-1967: A Socialist Analysis" and more about the end of the Soviet Union "Eastern Europe: Collapse of Empire" but there is a recent article here (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2004/no-1193-january-2004/lenin-socialist-analysis). There is a fantastic speech on Martov (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/audio/martov-and-anti-bolshevik-approach-revolution) too which I couldn't recommend more giving a listen to. Its worth noting however, that in March 1915 when the Bolsheviks published a declaration condemning World War I and the Russian government, the Socialist Standard was the only left-wing paper that published it, all the others refused it.

You might well think there is a contradiction between "impossibilism", "ignorance of institutional organisation" and parliamentary activity, but any of the smears as "impossibliists", "social democrats" and labels as "Kautskyites" shouldn't be taken seriously. Some of this rubbish is reminiscent of the old now-defunct CPGB ridiculous slurs of "liars, murderers etc." when invited for a debate during the Stalin-era. Many years later they did debate and one recording is also available online. What views are called "strange" here actually have long been the views of those in the mainstream Marxist movement including Engels, Luxemburg and Pannekoek.

There is a recent pamphlet called "What's Wrong with Using Parliament?" (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/whats-wrong-using-parliament) which criticises the anarchist abstentionism. It is a complete myth that the SPGB believe socialism will be instituted through parliament rather than class struggle. When a majority want socialism, it will come through class struggle and not through Parliament (or any party storming Westminster Palace), any socialist delegates in Parliament will neutralise the use of the armed forces by opponents with minimal violence. William Morris once said we will then use Parliament as a dung-heap.

[GerrardWinstanley]

I attended some SPGB meetings at university. Nice guys in my experience, although I probably wouldn't join them today since their strategy left a lot to be desired. (the Campaign for a New Workers Party damp squib for example)

I can't say I understand the anti-Leninist charge. They are a Trotskyist/Bolshevist party to the best of my knowledge.

[GerrardWinstanley]

Oops, schoolboy error. I had them confused Socialist Party of England and Wales who are the ones I used to be involved with.

[The Idler]

BTW, if anyone wants to learn more, the SPGB summer school is Friday 6 July. Only three weeks away so book asap. I can't wait.
Summer School - 6th to 8th July 2012 ... - World Socialist Movement (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/event/summer-school-6th-8th-july-2012-birmingham-0)

[Comrade Jandar]

any socialist delegates in Parliament will neutralise the use of the armed forces by opponents with minimal violence.

Can you please explain that part to me? How exactly will they be "neutralised?"

[The Idler]

The armed forces will be neutralised with widespread socialist ideas, no wages, no soldiers to operate the weapons, and tens of millions of class conscious workers (including workers currently employed in the armed forces) will have shown themselves willing to take political action for a stateless socialist society in a demonstrable, clearly estimable way that happens also to be deemed historically democratically "legitimate". Far far safer and less risky than charging the barricades and trying to storm your way into Westminster Palace with a skirmish.

[Grenzer]

The armed forces will be neutralised with widespread socialist ideas, no wages, no soldiers to operate the weapons, and tens of millions of class conscious workers (including workers currently employed in the armed forces) will have shown themselves willing to take political action for a stateless socialist society in a demonstrable, clearly estimable way that happens also to be deemed historically democratically "legitimate". Far far safer and less risky than charging the barricades and trying to storm your way into Westminster Palace with a skirmish.

Ideas alone aren't going to win over workers. You need something more tangible. The SPGB has been operating on maximalist rhetoric alone for the past 100 years, and they've actually declined in size of the years and have never had any amount of influence. Amazing that these continued failures have not provoked a questioning of the current strategy. Their approach is essentially economist. Sit around and wait for the workers to decide that they want socialism, when in reality you have to work with the masses in their political struggle against capitalism.

The people of the SPGB seem like fairly good, knowledgeable comrades; but it's been pretty clear that their strategy is never going to help achieve socialism. As an example of what I mean, why doesn't the party have organs to provide aid for the poor and the hungry? These kind of things are vital to connect to the workers and build support, but no socialist parties are doing these things. Having those kinds of party organs is extremely helpful whether one believes in utilizing a transitional programme, or a purely maximalist one like the SPGB.

[The Idler]

The SPGB are workers, members of the working-class who have been won over to socialism through ideas. Originally less than a hundred, now hundreds of members, a wider readership and thousands voted for the SPGB's candidates who only stood in two constituencies. During World War I, the state passed laws to ensure the SPGB publication the Socialist Standard was banned from the front, during World War II the Standard was putting the anti-war case when the main Communist organisation was urging workers to sign-up. SPGB members are also active in trade unions for better wages and working-conditions for the interests of members of the trade union. Even if the SPGB workers wanted to, the SPGB workers couldn't stand aside from the class struggle. If anything, the slogan "We are the 99%" seems to vindicate the SPGB position on class composition of society.

The ideas presented by the SPGB are of socialism, in order to win workers to socialism, rather than to broad anti-capitalism or palliatives for capitalism. You can't separate the means from the end. The SPGB believe in stating their objective openly, clearly, unambigiously and not a priori thinking workers are less capable of reaching an understanding of the case than party members. It's called the class struggle because its hard and takes a long time which requires patience. If by influence, some sort of imposition on unwilling workers is being suggested, then the SPGB believes the emancipation of the workers will be the work of workers themselves. Where is the strategy that can bypass this class struggle? Palliatives, aid, and economistic support even connected to ambiguous objectives for socialism (or merely economic anti-capitalism) have come and gone. There's no shortage of alternative strategies offering quicker fixes but so far they seem to have been band-aids without addressing the root of the problem.

There's certainly room for something creative addressing workers tangible experiences and circumstances, the core of a Socialist Party should revolve around an unambiguous object of workers creating socialism (since it represents such a stark transformation) for sake of complete clarity. The food aid is reminiscent of the Black Panthers in the U.S. which used community programs one called the Community Pantry, which seemed to reach many people for a while but ran into limitations and failed to propel the workers to power. Although it was a creative idea, isn't trying to wage a political struggle on economic grounds considered economistic? In which case the ruling-class will win?