The SPGB - What are they all about?

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

It's been a long few hours trying to understand the SPGB's view. I found out about them after listening to an old radio broadcast courtesy of The Idler (http://www.revleft.com/vb/incredible-radio-interview-t173779/index.html?t=173779&highlight=Harry+Young). Pretty interesting guy (Harry Young).

Anyway, what can you guys tell me about this party, ideologically speaking?
Please use sources if possible, I would like some nice clean explanations coupled with some even cleaner (if any) accusations that don't incite pretty much everything that is the opposite of the word "comrade".

[The Idler]

What Harry Young had in enthusiasm he may have lacked in clarity. The SPGB stand for a socialist society defined as stateless, classless society of free access to be established democratically and voluntarily. The SPGB have no leaders (members with privileges over other members) and make policy decisions by party poll of the entire membership. Every member has equal say in decisions. They're transparent, all meetings are open to the public and publish all their committee minutes on the basis of empowering the class. These internal policies are prefigurative of the kind of society as their object. They are the longest existing socialist party in britain having been established in 1904. They were the first to publish the bolshevik declaration against war. They're probably the third biggest socialist/communist party in britain. Their journal has been going uninterrupted since 1904, was banned for export in WW2, and all is published under creative commons to empower the class. The SPGB theory of the soviet union as state capitalist is where the SWP got their theory from.

Wikipedia has a good explanation too. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spgb)
I quite like the audio lecture on the historical place
The Historical Place of the Socialist Party of Great Britain (http://archive.org/details/TheHistoricalPlaceOfTheSocialistPartyOfGreatBritai n)

[Peoples' War]

Shitting on Lenin, using out of context quotes.

[Ostrinski]

Shitting on Lenin, using out of context quotes.Which is dumb but they still have better politics than most Leninist parties.

[Peoples' War]

Which is dumb but they still have better politics than most Leninist parties.
Yeah, not going to deny that.

[robbo203]

Looks like the s##t is hitting the fan over on the SPGB forum

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion

with bannings in the air and tempers flaring. People have had stuff binned for saying things out of favour with Party thinking.

Its a sad time for the poor old SPGB which Ive always held to be scrupulously democratic and open - more than any other organisation I am aware of . The irony is that religious socialists are banned from membership of the SPGB on the grounds that, amongst other things, religion is "irrational" and yet what the current furore demonstrates is that we all have an irrational side to us - as well as a rational side - whether we are in the SPGB or not

[Hit The North]

There's this great saying by Rosa Luxemburg that those who don't move never notice their chains. In the case of the SPGB one could argue that those who don't do anything never notice their differences.

[robbo203]

There's this great saying by Rosa Luxemburg that those who don't move never notice their chains. In the case of the SPGB one could argue that those who don't do anything never notice their differences.

This is not exactly fair comment. The SPGB does "do things". For its small size - although larger than most left wing sects - it probably punches well above its weight. What it does is "abstract propagandism" - spreading ideas - which it does rather well, certainly in terms of the readibility of its material which is superior to most. Unless of course you consider spreading ideas to be "doing nothing" which is an absolutely ludicrous idea. Spreading ideas is a fundamental aspect of class struggle and inseparable from the latter. Why otherwise bother to join Revleft if you are not interested in ideas

No, the real criticism of the SPGB lies elsewhere and this is the point that most left wing critics of the SPGB conspicuously miss

[Hit The North]

This is not exactly fair comment. The SPGB does "do things". For its small size - although larger than most left wing sects - it probably punches well above its weight.
I guess I should have written "those who take no action never notice their differences." But rhetorical flourishes aside, it is difficult to see how the SPGB lands any punches at all in the class struggle.



No, the real criticism of the SPGB lies elsewhere and this is the point that most left wing critics of the SPGB conspicuously miss

We have to ask whether 'abstract propaganda' is worthwhile or sufficient on its own. But I agree that the SPGB has deeper problems. In my view it is that their theory and practice makes no sense. What do you think the main criticism of the SPGB should be?

[robbo203]

I guess I should have written "those who take no action never notice their differences." But rhetorical flourishes aside, it is difficult to see how the SPGB lands any punches at all in the class struggle.



We have to ask whether 'abstract propaganda' is worthwhile or sufficient on its own. But I agree that the SPGB has deeper problems. In my view it is that their theory and practice makes no sense. What do you think the main criticism of the SPGB should be?

Of course abstract propaganda is "worthwhile". No, its more than that - its actually indispensable to the proces of revolutionary change . The idea that you can move from one kind of society to another without this engaging consciousness and the ideas people hold in their head is so absurd as to beggar belief. I have never looked on the term "abstract propagandism" perjoratively. But as you hint the question is really about whether you consider it to be enough or sufficient in itself. I dont think it is and that is where the point about theory and practice comes into play. One thing should inform the other and vice versa

Again I dont think it is fair to say the SPGB does not "land any punches at all in the class struggle". Ideas count in the class struggle and the idea of a communist alternative to class monopoly of the means of production is precisely what is meant by landing a punch in the class stuggle. It is call for workers to go beyond the class-in-itself and to become the class-for-itself that Marx spoke of and to take possession of the means of production for the benefit of all. That aside , SPGB consists of workers, no less than any other organisation, and many SPGBers have been active and militant trade unionists. One in particular who I recall - Wally Preston - was a firebrand renowned throughout the shop stewards movement for his militancy . Wally died a few years ago but he was quite an amazing character.

The SPGB itself as an organisation does not get involved in the industrial struggle as such but confines itself to the political side of the class struggle. It would argue that workers need to set aside political differences in the industrial struggle in order to more effectively pursue their common class interests.

[The Idler]

I think it is all too common to assume your opponent does not understand your case. However, if you genuinely expect a party from a tendency who argues against reformism to march and call for; Get Cameron Out, Right to Work, Tax the Rich, Jail the Bankers, Stop the BNP, We're All Hezbollah now, then serious doubts exist as to the understanding of the SPGB and its tendency.

As for robbo203's argument that the religious should be admitted to the SPGB, just because the SPGB contains irrationality (I would argue exclusively in the practices not in the theory and still far less than any other party), it is not an argument for introducing more irrationality (which is the definition of religion when counterposed to science).

The claim is made that the SPGB does not get involved in the industrial struggle. Doesn't the SPGB support all strikes for better conditions? Can this be said for any other party?

[robbo203]

As for robbo203's argument that the religious should be admitted to the SPGB, just because the SPGB contains irrationality (I would argue exclusively in the practices not in the theory and still far less than any other party), it is not an argument for introducing more irrationality (which is the definition of religion when counterposed to science).


I am saying that the mere holding of religious views is no impediment to being a socialist whatsoever - that is, someone who wants and understands socialism. There are plenty of atheists who are avidly pro-capitalist so whould you ban atheism in the SPGB? Of course not. Preventing religious minded socialists from joining a socialist Party is irrational when the whole point of a political party is membership growth based on acceptance of the goal of that party.

We should not make a fetish of science. Science has a legitimate place in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the world around us but it is not the be all and end all of everything. The expression "scientific socialism" makes my toes curl, frankly. There is fine line to be drawn between a scientific approach and "scientism" .

Besides, as Kuhn has ably demonstrated in his classic work on the structure of scientific revolutions, science and scientists are just as much prone to irrational impulses as anyone else. We are all, without exception, rational and irrational - whether we are religious or not, scientists or not. Its what makes us human beings and not robotic automotons, after all

[Thirsty Crow]

What I would be interested most is the view on the parliamentary road to (global) socialism.
More specifically, given the bloody history of repression of as democratic a workers movement as they get, how is it possible, and why should communists view the mechanisms and institutions of bourgeois democracy as viable instruments for the revolutionary working class. Or in other words, why would the ruling class surrender their hegemony for the sake of democracy as an abstract ideal?
Though, bear in mind that I very much sympathize with the underlying concerns for the necessity of keeping violence to a minimum.