Socialist Party: Economist republicanism

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/937/economist-republicanism



The Socialist Party's economism was on full display during a session on the monarchy and the state reports Peter Manson

In a sense it could be regarded as an advance that a session on the monarchy was even included in the Socialism 2012 programme. But the low priority given to the question of how we are ruled was demonstrated by the very poor attendance at the session entitled ‘The royal delusion’, which was introduced by national committee member Becci Heagney.

Overwhelmingly her talk was dominated by questions relating to the distribution of wealth. While the workers are told we must cut back, millions are wasted on the royal family, whose individual members have huge personal fortunes. And it was not true that the monarchy earned its keep by bringing in the tourists, other SPEW comrades argued. They would come in anyway if a socialist government opened up the palaces to visitors! Well, so long as we keep pulling in the tourists, that must be good for ‘the country’.

While comrade Heagney’s presentation was not without class content - the monarchy was a pro-capitalist institution symbolising privilege and would in the last analysis be used against the working class - it did not deal at all with its ideological role in the here and now. The fact that the institution is supposed to be not only ‘above politics’, but ‘above class’ too - the fact that it symbolises a classless ‘national interest’ - seemed to pass her by.

I argued from the floor that what really ought to cause outrage was not so much the wasted millions - in reality petty cash compared to the state budget as a whole - but the monarchical notion that we workers are held to be mere ‘subjects’ within the ‘one nation’ British order. We should prioritise amongst our immediate demands not only the abolition of the monarchy, but the dismantling of the whole constitutional monarchy system: get rid of the second chamber, no monarchical president (or presidential prime minister), accountable and recallable MPs on a worker’s wage, the replacement of the standing army by a people’s militia - in short, a democratic republic.

SPEW comrades were unanimous, however, that none of this was “a campaigning priority”. One said that we should not feature the monarchy on placards or on the front page of The Socialist, but should rather bring it up only in connection with cuts and so on. Another said we must fight for socialism and only bother about the monarchy when it “gets in the way” of that fight. Once again the central ideological role of the institution was ignored.

I was allowed back in to point out once more that the institution should not be regarded as just a “reserve weapon”, in the words of one comrade. The fact that the majority of our class either supported the monarchy or had a neutral attitude towards it ought to cause us great concern. If workers are prepared to tolerate such a symbol of ruling class power, how on earth could they be won to the notion of “socialism”: ie, working class power?

In her reply comrade Heagney informed us that one SPEW branch had indeed run an anti-monarchy stall at the time of the jubilee. But we “can’t campaign on it every day”. For her the monarchy was “not a central issue” (which made me wonder why she had bothered to talk about it in the first place). What mattered was “getting the government out”. To be replaced by an alternative government administering capitalism under the constitutional monarchy state, obviously.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Jeez - you must have been badly stuck for something to copy and paste today.

[Q]

Comrade DNZ, you have a tendency of highlighting the least relevant parts.

Some comments on my part:


I argued from the floor that what really ought to cause outrage was not so much the wasted millions [...] but the monarchical notion that we workers are held to be mere ‘subjects’ within the ‘one nation’ British order. We should prioritise amongst our immediate demands not only the abolition of the monarchy, but the dismantling of the whole constitutional monarchy system: get rid of the second chamber, no monarchical president (or presidential prime minister), accountable and recallable MPs on a worker’s wage, the replacement of the standing army by a people’s militia - in short, a democratic republic.
This is indeed a good point. The monarch under capitalism is merely a symbol of a much vaster state apparatus and indeed social order. One that is, to be succinct, top-down. A democratic republic is indeed much more than merely beheading the state of its crown. It is proletarian rule; collectivist, social rule. The fight against the monarchy symbolises the question of how we are ruled in the first place as it brings up the question of what will replace it. Likewise, in France for example this question would probably be taking the form of anti-presidentialism.


I was allowed back in to point out once more that the institution should not be regarded as just a “reserve weapon”, in the words of one comrade. The fact that the majority of our class either supported the monarchy or had a neutral attitude towards it ought to cause us great concern. If workers are prepared to tolerate such a symbol of ruling class power, how on earth could they be won to the notion of “socialism”: ie, working class power?
This too is an important point. In the Netherlands as well the queen is a highly popular figure. This means we should be explaining the role of the crown within society and, at the same time, oppose petty presidential-republican substitutes.


For her the monarchy was “not a central issue” [...]. What mattered was “getting the government out”. To be replaced by an alternative government administering capitalism under the constitutional monarchy state, obviously.
Somewhat of a snide remark, but it does bring home the whole point of why this is an important issue.

[Grenzer]

I agree with the sentiment of this article, but I think it was conveyed in a very crude manner.

The CWI is undoubtedly heavily economist in orientation. They're focusing on austerity measures; the kind of day to day economic struggles that really have no intrinsic connection to the broader issue of the working class seizing political power. Historically, this position has been associated with the Mensheviks, but that's neither here nor there.

The priorities here should be reversed: the question of political power needs to be taking the central issue here: the workers have no political power under the current regime, nor can they until they seize the means of production and smash the capitalist state apparatus. This question of political power is absolutely central, but instead it looks like the CWI is preferring to push it to the background, or even exclude it entirely at times. This strategy tends to tail the most backwards elements of the class, and lead to the dominance of bourgeois ideology among the masses.

The first step in changing the economic conditions of the capitalist system is in the proletariat's seizure of political power, not vice versa. This was certainly case with October.

This is to say nothing of their hatred of the idea of Marxist unity, and instead pushing this idea of a mass reformist labour party. Labour 1.1.

[Aurora]

A crap article, there are valid criticisms of the SP but i'm not finding much here.

We should prioritise amongst our immediate demands not only the abolition of the monarchy, but the dismantling of the whole constitutional monarchy system: get rid of the second chamber, no monarchical president (or presidential prime minister), accountable and recallable MPs on a worker’s wage, the replacement of the standing army by a people’s militia - in short, a democratic republic.
I recognize that there are no workers councils and no workers party to take the place of the bourgeois state but if you call for the abolition of the monarchy and the upper house why not continue and call for the abolition of the lower house too?
I don't think it's too out of place with a radical demand like replacing the standing army with a workers militia(and i say workers here because why talk of a 'peoples militia' in advanced Britain)

This is to say nothing of their hatred of the idea of Marxist unity, and instead pushing this idea of a mass reformist labour party. Labour 1.1.
The SP has been involved in many 'marxist unity' projects so this accusation is unfounded, if there's a criticism of the SP here it's not that they 'hate' marxist unity but rather that they too happily jump at the chance at it and do so in a lowest common denominator type of way, dropping what should be the basis of any unity, revolution and socialism, to bring in other groups namely the SWP.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Comrade DNZ, you have a tendency of highlighting the least relevant parts.

I'm sure for that article I scored two out of three on the good highlights. That average skilled workers' wage highlight was probably a hiccup of mine. ;)


This is indeed a good point. The monarch under capitalism is merely a symbol of a much vaster state apparatus and indeed social order. One that is, to be succinct, top-down. A democratic republic is indeed much more than merely beheading the state of its crown. It is proletarian rule; collectivist, social rule. The fight against the monarchy symbolises the question of how we are ruled in the first place as it brings up the question of what will replace it. Likewise, in France for example this question would probably be taking the form of anti-presidentialism.

Two points:

1) I think there's more tourist revenues with symbolic "monarchs" than without. Versailles or the Italian equivalent doesn't draw as many tourists as Buckingham. Comrade Cockshott suggested that, if there has to be a symbolic "monarch," he or she should be randomly selected from among eligible voters.
2) For reasons discussed elsewhere, anti-presidentialism as a position, against "petty presidential-republican substitutes," applies only to countries with proletarian demographic majorities (http://www.revleft.com/vb/comparative-presidential-systems-t166053/index.html). :p

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

How can you have a demarchic monarchy? The two are mutually exclusive! :confused::confused:

It's like saying, we'll launch a dictatorship, but we'll do it democratically.

Or, you know, i'll wean myself off of meat, by having a juicy fillet steak to remind me how fucking much I love meat.

:rolleyes:

[Zeus the Moose]

I recognize that there are no workers councils and no workers party to take the place of the bourgeois state but if you call for the abolition of the monarchy and the upper house why not continue and call for the abolition of the lower house too?
I don't think it's too out of place with a radical demand like replacing the standing army with a workers militia(and i say workers here because why talk of a 'peoples militia' in advanced Britain)

So there's no difference whatsoever between the monarchy and the House of Lords on the one side (being instruments of minority rule) and the House of Commons on the other (which is at least some concession to rule by the majority, albeit in a limited and incomplete way)? Do you not see the value of having a directly-elected legislature, probably in addition to a pyramid of workers councils which are generally portrayed as indirectly elected in their upper echelons?


The SP has been involved in many 'marxist unity' projects so this accusation is unfounded, if there's a criticism of the SP here it's not that they 'hate' marxist unity but rather that they too happily jump at the chance at it and do so in a lowest common denominator type of way, dropping what should be the basis of any unity, revolution and socialism, to bring in other groups namely the SWP.

"Unity of organisations claiming to be Marxist" != "Marxist unity." The rest of your post actually underlines that point; the unity the SP (of England and Wales in this case) was engaging in was unity on a lowest common denominator of "resistance," rather that unity on a minimum programme under which the working class could at least successfully pose the question of political power. As you rightly point out, the problem is much less unity and more the quality of said unity.

[Die Neue Zeit]

How can you have a demarchic monarchy? The two are mutually exclusive! :confused::confused:

I said "symbolic" for a reason. The figurehead with little real constitutional power is randomly selected. :glare:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I said "symbolic" for a reason. The figurehead with little real constitutional power is randomly selected. :glare:

And what are their living conditions?

Because, presumably, if they don't like in buck house, and they don't have £millions to play with every year, then you're just anointing some random, ordinary member of the population 'king' or 'queen' over the rest of us. What's the point?

Besides, the whole point about monarchy is that we don't resist it because of the falsity of the 'tourism revenue' argument, nor because of its active-dictatorial history, but because we refuse to be subjects to some dickhead. Of course, with your Bonapartist credentials, i'm sure you'd have no aversion to subjecting the entire population to some dickhead with a crown, under the guise of some crappy 'figurehead' argument.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That was comrade Cockshott's suggestion, not mine. Between his and actually scrapping the symbolic "monarchy," I could care less (but I do oppose it in its current hereditary form). As for your aside at the end, you're implying that the careful likes of Gramsci were somehow Bonapartists despite what they explicitly wrote.

[l'Enfermé]

Sometimes, Comrade Boss, you make me wonder if you understand even the most uncomplicated concepts, like, say, Bonopartism. In July, you did admit to me that you're not "one for reading", you said " I prefer to work it out myself", so I guess that's completely reasonable; why stick to the definition of Bonopartism when you can invent a different one yourself("work it out"). Why, let's invent a new definition for every word, whenever it suits your fancy, The Boss.

Right.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

"The term Bonapartism is often used to refer to a situation in which counter-revolutionary military officers seize power from revolutionaries, and then use selective reformism to co-opt the radicalism of the popular classes. In the process, Marx argued, Bonapartists preserve and mask the power of a narrower ruling class."

Given the above definition (Wikipedia, but I don't see it as a particularly unreliable source for a simple definition), I don't see how what I said was unreasonable at all. My point is quite clear.

When I say i'm not one for reading, that doesn't = I don't read what is relevant. I just prefer, as I think any serious historian does, to combine reading of sources and literature with independent thinking, rather than just using a heap of out-dated literature to satisfy my own biased political views. :thumbup1:

[Hit The North]

The CWI is undoubtedly heavily economist in orientation. They're focusing on austerity measures; the kind of day to day economic struggles that really have no intrinsic connection to the broader issue of the working class seizing political power.


Lol at the idea that the working class seizing political power is an immediate question in the UK today. At the moment, capital is waging a war against the working class, attempting to degrade its position in society even further. Practically every opinion poll in the UK has shown that millions of workers actually support the austerity drive of the current coalition, so I'd suggest that socialists focussing on fighting that austerity drive and building resistance to it should be pretty high up on the agenda. No amount of beautifully written abstract propaganda regarding workers power will mean a damn if the working class isn't fighting because it won't have a sense of having any power.


The priorities here should be reversed: the question of political power needs to be taking the central issue here: the workers have no political power under the current regime, nor can they until they seize the means of production and smash the capitalist state apparatus. Then this begs the question as to how the working class can empower itself within capitalism in order to bring it tumbling down? What is the power that it translates into political power?


This question of political power is absolutely central, but instead it looks like the CWI is preferring to push it to the background, or even exclude it entirely at times. This strategy tends to tail the most backwards elements of the class, and lead to the dominance of bourgeois ideology among the masses. Without necessarily disagreeing with you, I think its a bit harsh to say their strategy tails the most backward elements of the class. To do that, they would have to support the continuation of the monarchy, put an end to immigration, and wage a war against the poor - because those are the kind of things the most backward element of the class support. On the contrary, the economism of the SPEW tails the most progressive elements of the class, such is the state of class consciousness in the current period.


The first step in changing the economic conditions of the capitalist system is in the proletariat's seizure of political power, not vice versa. This was certainly case with October. Well, no, the soviets had already effectively captured the means of production and exchange and, consequently, the bourgeois state was disintegrating; the October seizure of political power merely formalised it.

[Agathor]

I'm drunk. Fuck capitalism.

[Aurora]

So there's no difference whatsoever between the monarchy and the House of Lords on the one side (being instruments of minority rule) and the House of Commons on the other (which is at least some concession to rule by the majority, albeit in a limited and incomplete way)? Do you not see the value of having a directly-elected legislature, probably in addition to a pyramid of workers councils which are generally portrayed as indirectly elected in their upper echelons?
Meh i was having an ultraleft mood swing :blushing: there is of course a difference between them, in that it's possible to form a workers opposition within the Commons, outside of that no i don't think theres much difference all are parts of the bourgeois state and must in time be scrapped, to call for the abolition of the lower house is inappropriate at present though because the development of alternate working class organs is nonexistent.

There could be some value to directly elected legislatures i'm not sure to be honest, i'd be interested in your thoughts on the subject, but any such thing would be created by the workers organs and be formed in opposition to the commons, there will be no going over of the commons to the workers.


"Unity of organisations claiming to be Marxist" != "Marxist unity." The rest of your post actually underlines that point; the unity the SP (of England and Wales in this case) was engaging in was unity on a lowest common denominator of "resistance," rather that unity on a minimum programme under which the working class could at least successfully pose the question of political power. As you rightly point out, the problem is much less unity and more the quality of said unity.
Ok fair enough, if that was Ghost Babel's point then it was a misunderstanding on my part.