Debate between Labour Party Marxists and SPGB - 21 Sept 2013, London

[The Idler]

Can the Labour Party ever bring us socialism?
A debate between the SPGB and Labour Party Marxists
Calthorpe Arms, 252 Grays Inn Road, London, City of London, WC1X 8JR

[Comrade Jacob]

Didn't we have socialism under Atlee? Resources nationalised, healthcare nationalised, main industries nationalised, education, welfare boost etc.
I do not think labour today or any electoral party can bring this country socialism at this point. Revolution or a flat out unredeemable collapse of capitalism can only bring socialism.

[whichfinder]

Didn't we have socialism under Atlee? Resources nationalised, healthcare nationalised, main industries nationalised, education, welfare boost etc.

No.

In 1945 when, for the first time, the Labour Party held office with a parliamentary majority, the election pledge to nationalise basic industries was at once put into effect and a number of industries were nationalised, including coal, transport, electricity, gas and the Bank of England. The workers soon found that nationalisation or State capitalism does not differ from private capitalism as far as the exploitation of the workers is concerned. They still needed their trade unions, and the strike weapon, to protect themselves against their employers.

Nationalisation has nothing to do with Socialism and involves no infringement of the fundamental features of capitalism. Apart from nationalisation carried out for military purposes, it is usually concerned with the problem of controlling powerful private monopolies or subsidising unprofitable but vital branches of industry in the interests of the capitalist class as a whole, and to prevent an increase of unemployment.


I do not think labour today or any electoral party can bring this country socialism at this point. Revolution or a flat out unredeemable collapse of capitalism can only bring socialism.Socialism is a system in which the means for producing and distributing wealth will be owned by society as a whole. Under capitalism the land, factories, offices, mines, railways and other instruments of production and distribution are monopolised by a section of society only, who thus form a privileged class. Socialism will end this, for, with the means of life owned in common by the entire community, it will be a classless society in which exploitation and oppression will have been abolished. All human beings will be social equals, freely able to co-operate in running social affairs.

Capitalism will not collapse of its own accord, but will continue from crisis to crisis until the working class consciously organise to abolish it.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/event/can-labour-party-ever-bring-us-socialism-london-200pm

[The Idler]

Didn't we have socialism under Atlee? Resources nationalised, healthcare nationalised, main industries nationalised, education, welfare boost etc.
I do not think labour today or any electoral party can bring this country socialism at this point. Revolution or a flat out unredeemable collapse of capitalism can only bring socialism.
Pretty sure he's trolling. ... I think?

[whichfinder]

Pretty sure he's trolling. ... I think?

Whatever... all helps the viewing tally!

BTW, time of the debate is 2.00pm

[Thirsty Crow]

Pretty sure he's trolling. ... I think?
I read the first sentence as sarcasm.
Though that could be wrong.

[Reticential]

Can the Labour Party ever bring us socialism?



I can imagine that being a really, really short debate.

[The Idler]

It was mentioned yesterday by a CPGBer to an SPGBer, that the CPGB would be in attendance at this meeting presumably arguing the Labour Party could bring us socialism.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Didn't we have socialism under Atlee? Resources nationalised, healthcare nationalised, main industries nationalised, education, welfare boost etc.
I do not think labour today or any electoral party can bring this country socialism at this point. Revolution or a flat out unredeemable collapse of capitalism can only bring socialism.

I think you're kind of misrepresenting the Labour Party Marxists' stance. They do not think the Labour Party was ever a socialist party. As their Aims and Principles state: "Ideas of reclaiming the Labour Party and the return of the old clause four are totally misplaced. From the beginning the party has been dominated by the labour bureaucracy and the ideas of reformism. The party must be refounded on the basis of a genuinely socialist programme as opposed to social democratic gradualism or bureaucratic statism". I think it is notable that here they say that the labour party must be refounded while in the first point on their aims and principles list they talk about their central aim being "to transform the Labour Party into an instrument for working class advance and international socialism". There is a bit of a difference on starting a new, socialist, labour party and transforming the current one. I think what they mean is that Labour has a close connection with the working class (one can argue about wether that is true or not) so Labour is a force to be engaged with and their followers must be convinced of the need for a socialist Labour.

I think that any talk about transforming the Labour Party (not working class following but party-structure) into an instrument for socialism is futile, if their aim is getting a new party that has a similar working class following like labour that is a bit closer to something I can agree with. However, I think it is still somewhat problematic to limit yourself to working within the Labour party.

Is there any chance this debate will be recorded and uploaded online? I'd be interested in hearing it.

[Q]

I think that any talk about transforming the Labour Party (not working class following but party-structure) into an instrument for socialism is futile, if their aim is getting a new party that has a similar working class following like labour that is a bit closer to something I can agree with. However, I think it is still somewhat problematic to limit yourself to working within the Labour party.
I think this is missing the point somewhat. The LPM have quite some comrades in the CPGB, so it makes sense to consider this from their angle: The CPGB wants to build an explicit Marxist party, they aim to unite self-proclaimed Marxists on this basis. They are known for this of course. At the same time however, and closely linked to the far left, there is the question of how to engage with the existing Labour movement. Does the far left need to build a Labour party mark 2 (as the left has been trying to do for the past 20 years now, without much success) or do we need to engage with the existing Labour party mark 1 and try to transform that? This ties into the "merger formula" type of reasoning that seeks to unite Marxism with the existing movement and, in the process, transform that movement, or as the LPM say, refounded.


Is there any chance this debate will be recorded and uploaded online? I'd be interested in hearing it.
Knowing the CPGB, there will be a video. Knowing the SPGB, there will be an audio recording.

[The Idler]

Bad news is our audio recorders are out of London at the moment. If you can bring a phone with recording facility on it then offer to do this with the chair.

[brigadista]

there are Marxists in the Labour party?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

there are Marxists in the Labour party?

Yes, they're just like the Marxists in the Chinese Communist Party


In all frankness, at this point labour doesn't really represent the working class in any meaningful way, it's post-class politics.And communists really shouldn't be tailing unions since they are the most backward section of the working class, after all the commodity the unions sell is labour peace. And where were communists in the streets of london 2012?

[helot]

So how did this debate go? Was there really any need for something more than "lol"?

[The Idler]

Small attendance (around 9) for a cordial relatively unstructured debate covering the history of the Labour Party. There may be a write up in Weekly Worker on Thursday. Q may be able to confirm or deny this.