Impossibilism Arguments

[Servia]

What would be the argument against impossibilism and the argument for?

[The Idler]

James Connolly put it best in Socialism Made Easy Chapter 2 on Practical Politics. This is a really good summary. http://www.marxist.net/ireland/conno...ialism/ch2.htm
PRACTICAL POLITICS LET US BE PRACTICAL. WE WANT SOMETHING PR-R-RACTICAL. Always the cry of hum-drum mediocrity, afraid to face the stern necessity for uncompromising action. That saying has done more yeoman service in the cause of oppression than all its avowed supporters. The average man dislikes to be thought unpractical, and so, while frequently loathing the principles or distrusting the leaders of the particular political party he is associated with, declines to leave them, in the hope that their very lack of earnestness may be more fruitful of practical results than the honest outspokenness of the party in whose principles he does believe. In the phraseology of politics, a party too indifferent to the sorrow and sufferings of humanity to raise its voice in protest, is a moderate, practical party; whilst a party totally indifferent to the personality of leaders, or questions of leadership, but hot to enthusiasm on every question affecting the well-being of the toiling masses, is an extreme, a dangerous party. Yet, although it may seem a paradox to say so, there is no party so incapable of achieving practical results as an orthodox political party; and there is no party so certain of placing moderate reforms to its credit as an extreme - a revolutionary party. The possessing classes will and do laugh to scorn every scheme for the amelioration of the workers so long as those responsible for the initiation of the scheme admit as justifiable the 'rights of property'; but when the public attention is directed towards questioning the justifiable nature of those 'rights' in themselves, then the master class, alarmed for the safety of their booty, yield reform after reform - in order to prevent revolution. Moral - Don't be 'practical' in politics. To be practical in that sense means that you have schooled yourself to think along the lines, and in the grooves those who rob you would desire you to think. ... Engels was also scornful of the Parisian Possibilists. Liebknecht grew the SPD from a tiny sect to Germany's largest party by the end of the 19th Century by the arguments he made in his work No Compromise, No Political Trading http://www.marxists.org/archive/lieb...ocomp2.htm#s18
Socialism, however, is this, and socialism cannot conquer nor redeem the world if it ceases to believe upon itself alone. Therefore, we will not turn from the old tactics, nor from the old program. Ever advancing with science and economic development, we are what we were and we will remain what we are. Liebknechts political partner August Bebel also argued Quote: If a fight of this nature were undertaken tomorrow in our country we would assist with vigour, but we would take good care not to contract any compromise that might diminish our independence, and would not abandon the defence of working-class interests, not even in moments when the struggle may be hottest. The Jaurés method is of use only in making anarchists. Daniel Deleon on Reform and Revolution
We Socialists are not reformers; we are revolutionists. We Socialists do not propose to change forms. We care nothing for forms. We want a change of the inside of the mechanism of society, let the form take care of itself. We see in England a crowned monarch; we see in Germany a sceptered emperor; we see in this country an uncrowned president, and we fail to see the essential difference between Germany, England or America. That being the case, we are skeptics as to forms. We are like grown children, in the sense that we like to look at the inside of things and find out what is there.

[The Idler]

Liebknecht also said

Pity for poverty, enthusiasm for equality and freedom, recognition of social injustice and a desire to remove it, is not socialism. Condemnation of wealth and respect for poverty, such as we find in Christianity and other religions, is not socialism. The communism of early times, as it was before the existence of private property, and as it has at all times and among all peoples been the elusive dream of some enthusiasts, is not socialism. The forcible equalization advocated by the followers of Baboeuf, the so-called equalitarians, is not socialism.

[Thirsty Crow]

The thing that immediately springs to mind is the impossiblists' insistence on the majority of a population consciously and knowingly accepting socialism.

That, when taken to its practical conclusions, would mean that somehow it would be necessary to actually check both the knowledge and the acceptance; the former is clearly impossible to do, and the latter would require a referendum perhaps or at least extensive polls so that impossibilists might soothe their conscience.

The point about referendum is that the system of bourgeois rule does not hand us over that option; it never will.

EDIT: a referendum on the mode of production, that's what I meant.

[RedWorker]

Impossibilists are against all reforms to capitalism. Well, the obvious counter-argument is the fact is that some reforms unquestionably improve the quality of life of people, and the view that all of the left should unite in calling for such reforms, in addition to calling for socialism. Sometimes I have seen this pro-impossibilist argument being made by some people: "If the quality of life is improved, people are less likely to desire socialism". To me that argument feels pretty... eh... disgusting, inhuman.

Anyway, although I do not identify as a "impossibilist" I like the SPGB and other such organizations, taking a usually coherent view and calling for true socialism, although sometimes they have unfairly criticized certain people and things.

[The Idler]

The argument that reforms are bad because they are claimed to make people less likely to desire socialism is not an argument made by the SLP, the old Socialist League or the SPGB. I'm pretty sure I've heard that argument from another tendency, Maoism perhaps? And yes, it is a stupid argument.

As for the left uniting for reforms+socialism, what about the majority on the left such as the thousands of members of the Labour Party who just want the reforms bit and wish to preserve class society and the free market? How can revolutionary socialists unite with them in a democratic way without conceding democratic majorities to the pro-reformists and anti-socialists?

[The Idler]

To clarify I'm talking above about the old SLP.

[robbo203]

The thing that immediately springs to mind is the impossiblists' insistence on the majority of a population consciously and knowingly accepting socialism.

That, when taken to its practical conclusions, would mean that somehow it would be necessary to actually check both the knowledge and the acceptance; the former is clearly impossible to do, and the latter would require a referendum perhaps or at least extensive polls so that impossibilists might soothe their conscience.

The point about referendum is that the system of bourgeois rule does not hand us over that option; it never will.

EDIT: a referendum on the mode of production, that's what I meant.


If you dont first obtain a socialist majority then, by default and of necessity a revolution that brought to power a socialist minority would leave that minority with no other option than to administer capitalism. In administering capitalism that minority would inevitably be transformed from being a socialist minded minority to a pro-capitalist reformist-minded minority, abandoning socialism as a revolutionary goal. You cannot administer capitalism in any other way than in the interests of capital.

For all its defects, and despite the claims of the knee jerk dogmatists on the Left, the electoral approach does offer a way in which one can assess the relative strength of the socialist constituency in capitalist society. As Engels noted

The franchise has been, in the words of the French Marxist programme, transformé de moyen de duperie qu'il a été jusquici en instrument d'emancipation — transformed by them from a means of deception, which it was before, into an instrument of emancipation. And if universal suffrage had offered no other advantage than that it allowed us to count our numbers every three years; that by the regularly established, unexpectedly rapid rise in our vote it increased in equal measure the workers’ certainty of victory and the dismay of their opponents, and so became our best means of propaganda; that it accurately informed us of our own strength and that of all opposing parties, and thereby provided us with a measure of proportion second to none for our actions, safeguarding us from untimely timidity as much as from untimely foolhardiness — if this had been the only advantage we gained from the suffrage, it would still have been much more than enough....

(Introduction to Karl Marx’s The Class Struggles in France 1848 to 1850)

This is not to rule out extra parliamentary approaches however. The one thing does not have to be advocated at the expense of the other. Rather a variety of approaches should be adopted, in my view, as a multipronged strategy for bringing about a socialist revolution . But whatever approach is adopted it should be consistent with the goal being advocated. That is to say, the socialist movement has to be a democratic bottom-up movement for fundamental change. The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself and not some vanguard, however enlightened

[consuming negativity]

Plenty of successful revolutions occurred without any specific ideology having majority over the others; people tend to unite against a government with a variety of criticisms and ideas of how to fix them. Not only that, but in the USSR, its transition to proper capitalism was led by the leadership against popular opinion. What that says to me is that it is in the interests of leaders to make capitalist reforms when living in an otherwise capitalist world. And we've seen that pattern basically everywhere socialists formed governments throughout the 20th century, with exceptions for the large amount of them who were ousted by the CIA.

Following this, there are two possible explanations. Either government by a vanguard party necessarily leads to social stratification and the selling out of the revolution, or the revolutions of the 20th century took place in a global context that prevented them from progressing towards proper communism any further than they did. It can be inferred as well, though, that an unpopular governing body will be less stable and unable to effectively implement policy. In this sense, a majority of a population hostile to socialism could prevent its ideological dominance. But what I don't think we can say definitively is that socialists must be an absolute majority at the time of revolution in order to establish some system of socialism in whatever form. They just have to be seen as legitimate and have the influence and support associated with that. Which is very much realistic and attainable.

[Leo]

Aside from the fact that embracing the name impossiblism means accepting what we want is impossible, organizations like the SLP and the SPGB had a vision of parliamentarianism. In the case of the SPGB, they actually believe that the capitalist mode of production will change on the election ballot - which too is impossible. These would be the basic arguements against impossibilism. On the plus side, these currents were reactions to the degeneration of the Second International and the development of reformist and compromising positions in them. Nevertheless, as communists, our point must be that what we want is not only possible but also necessary and being uncompromising is the only practical our goal, a classless world.

[Thirsty Crow]

For all its defects, and despite the claims of the knee jerk dogmatists on the Left, the electoral approach does offer a way in which one can assess the relative strength of the socialist constituency in capitalist society. As Engels notedWhat's dogmatic about advocating extra-parliamentary activity when it comes to an organization of communists? I mean, it might be dogmatically argued for (much like you seem to think that Engels' views are a) relevant given the historical changes and even b) correct in the context of the time), but doesn't need to.

And you didn't answer my specific question. I'm not arguing for a minority takeover of state power as much as you seem to be confused about that; I'm asking how do the impossibilists propose to verify the existence of a) informed acceptance of socialism (knowledge) and b) well, acceptance in the first place.

My contention is that referendum isn't suitable for that.

[robbo203]

What's dogmatic about advocating extra-parliamentary activity when it comes to an organization of communists? I mean, it might be dogmatically argued for (much like you seem to think that Engels' views are a) relevant given the historical changes and even b) correct in the context of the time), but doesn't need to.


There's nothing dogmatic about advocating extra-parliamentary activity and I never suggested there was. I advocate that too along with parliamantary activity. What is dogmatic is the kneejerk reaction of some on the left against the use of the parliamentary approach in principle which some of them confuse with "reformism" which means something quite different altogether. The SPGB has a rather good pamphlet on the revolutionary use of parliament to effect a revolutiuonary change and nothing else. See here

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



And you didn't answer my specific question. I'm not arguing for a minority takeover of state power as much as you seem to be confused about that; I'm asking how do the impossibilists propose to verify the existence of a) informed acceptance of socialism (knowledge) and b) well, acceptance in the first place.

My contention is that referendum isn't suitable for that.

I didnt suggest you or anyone else in particular advocate a minority takeover. I simply asserted the absolute need for a socialist majority if socialism is to happen. The verification of the existence of such a majority can reasonably be inferred from the existence of electoral majority voting for political parties that stand for socialism and nothing but. This problem of verification would apply under any model proposed but I think the parliamantary model is the one that best deals with it in my opinion. Can you suggest a better way?

[The Idler]

Aside from the fact that embracing the name impossiblism means accepting what we want is impossible, organizations like the SLP and the SPGB had a vision of parliamentarianism. In the case of the SPGB, they actually believe that the capitalist mode of production will change on the election ballot - which too is impossible. These would be the basic arguements against impossibilism.I think the claim that impossibilists having a vision of parliamentarism would probably be news to the old SLP, I'd argue the SPGB and certainly Morris' old Socialist League. The idea that the capitalist mode of production will change on the election ballot is not an impossibilist idea.

[Thirsty Crow]

The verification of the existence of such a majority can reasonably be inferred from the existence of electoral majority voting for political parties that stand for socialism and nothing but. This problem of verification would apply under any model proposed but I think the parliamantary model is the one that best deals with it in my opinion. Can you suggest a better way?

My premise is that if a working class movement threatened the domination of capital this parliamentary model would cease to be viable; I'm referring here to the authoritarian (not in the sense employed by anarchists) state forms would most likely take hold in such a case. I think the trust you put implicitly in the bourgeoisie, not to either a) scrap the ballot altogether or b) not to manipulate it is too big.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

So - what exactly is wrong with a proletarian minority seizing state power? Socialists advocate the dictatorship of the proletariat, not the democracy "of the entire people", as later Soviet ideologues used to say. If the proletariat, or those layers and groups in the proletariat that are able to organise themselves as a political force for the overthrow of capitalism, is in the minority, that means minority rule. Anyone who can not accept that is, I would say, not a socialist but a petit-bourgeois democrat.

Another major problem with "impossibilism", apart from the fetishism of democracy, nonviolence etc., is that their notion of "reformism" is not something any other Marxist group shares - to the SPGB, any political engagement that is not participation in interminable debates and electioneering is reformist - for the rest of us, the fight for reforms is not reformist - the subordination of the maximum programme to the fight for reforms is. When the SPGB crowd accuses people of reformism, they are really speaking another language - a dialect peculiar to the SPGB.

[The Idler]

My premise is that if a working class movement threatened the domination of capital this parliamentary model would cease to be viable; I'm referring here to the authoritarian (not in the sense employed by anarchists) state forms would most likely take hold in such a case. I think the trust you put implicitly in the bourgeoisie, not to either a) scrap the ballot altogether or b) not to manipulate it is too big.
The parliamentary model did cease to be viable during World War II hence why general elections were suspended and the SPGB continued its activity. There was no fetishisation or obsession with parliamentary elections.


Another major problem with "impossibilism", apart from the fetishism of democracy, nonviolence etc., is that their notion of "reformism" is not something any other Marxist group shares - to the SPGB, any political engagement that is not participation in interminable debates and electioneering is reformist - for the rest of us, the fight for reforms is not reformist - the subordination of the maximum programme to the fight for reforms is. When the SPGB crowd accuses people of reformism, they are really speaking another language - a dialect peculiar to the SPGB.
There's no fetishisation of nonviolence (or violence) either. The notion of reformism is shared at least in Britain alone by the old SLP, the SPGB, the old Socialist League as mentioned above. And no, reformism does not mean any political engagement that is not debates or participating in elections. Claiming to speak for 'the rest of us' if you're talking about any non-impossibilists is dubious.

[robbo203]

My premise is that if a working class movement threatened the domination of capital this parliamentary model would cease to be viable; I'm referring here to the authoritarian (not in the sense employed by anarchists) state forms would most likely take hold in such a case. I think the trust you put implicitly in the bourgeoisie, not to either a) scrap the ballot altogether or b) not to manipulate it is too big.

I dont put trust in the bourgeosie, implicitly or otherwise. But I do consider that the likelihood or ability of them to stop the the growing working class movement is inversely related to the size of that movement. By the time the movement is of any significant size it will be far too late to stop the momentum

[Thirsty Crow]

I dont put trust in the bourgeosie, implicitly or otherwise. But I do consider that the likelihood or ability of them to stop the the growing working class movement is inversely related to the size of that movement. By the time the movement is of any significant size it will be far too late to stop the momentumYou missed my point; if it is the minimum precondition for establishing socialism that a majority of a population actively accepts it, prior to getting rid of the institutions of bourgeois rule you'd need a referendum.
And my contention is that prior to that hypothetical referendum, in all likelihood, there won't be institutions of liberal democracy left; which means that even a strong workers' movement, but numerically not yet a majority, will be deprived of the chance to verify if indeed there's a majority.

This I believe is how this particular impossibilist position collapses unto itself and socialists then either a) peacefully accepts the new state of affairs and some sort of compromise with authoritarian/fascist forms of bourgeois rule, or b) discards this particular impossibilist position.

And you haven't even addressed my point about informed acceptance of socialism; how are impossibilists going to check whether every vote has real and informed acceptance behind it (since you can't really assume that it is impossible that people would vote out of other kinds of reasons)?

And I'm afraid that pure violence and armed force can indeed be used like this to actually stop the momentum you're talking about, and effectively at that.

[robbo203]

You missed my point; if it is the minimum precondition for establishing socialism that a majority of a population actively accepts it, prior to getting rid of the institutions of bourgeois rule you'd need a referendum.
And my contention is that prior to that hypothetical referendum, in all likelihood, there won't be institutions of liberal democracy left; which means that even a strong workers' movement, but numerically not yet a majority, will be deprived of the chance to verify if indeed there's a majority.

.

I believe the very opposite would be true. Bourgeois society would adapt to the growth of a socialist movement by becoming more liberal , "more democratic" and accommodating, not less. It would have no option but to do so. A process of selection would ensure that outcome.

You are effectively taking an elitist view of history suggesting that the basic democratic rights like the right to vote or form political parties and publish political literature is something that was handed to us by the ruling class. No it was not. It was wrested from the ruling class by working class agitation. A growing socialist movement would represent a degree of working class militancy hitherto not witnessed. It would fundamentally change the whole climate of social opinion in the process and politicians, as we know, have to court social opinion to some extent if they stand any chance of getting elected. Their very opportunism is their Achilles Heel . Unless you want to defend the Great Man theory of History here, I think they too will be dragged albeit possibly kicking and screaming, in the same broad direction as the march of events dictated increasingly by the socialist movement itself, democratically organised from the bottom up.

Capitalist political parties in the twilight of capitalism will be desparately falling over themselves in a bid to bribe workers with reforms, I believe. Many of them I suspect will present themselves as socialist for the same reason. There are historical precdents You see this in the case of Bismarck, the German Chancellor in the late 19th who having first introduced his anti socialist law was forced to backtrack in the face of the growth of the German SDP regardless. By 1882, we find him informing the Reichstag "many of the measures that we have adopted for the welfare of the land are socialistic and we need more socialism in our state" (Michael Harrington, Socialism, Saturday Review Press, New York 1972, p6. Of course Bismarck's socialism was a fake socialism, (the kind that Lenin came to admire) but the point still stands. Bismarck was forced by events to backtrack and accommodate. The same is true of many other events in recent hisotry. Just look at the fall of state capitalism in Eastern Europe. If the state capitalist ruling class was so powerful as to prevent such an outcome, why didnt it?

The fact of the matter is that all forms of capitalist governance rests ultimately on the tacit consent or acquesecence of the majority. Take away that and nothing can stop the majority from democratically bringing about socialism

[Thirsty Crow]

I believe the very opposite would be true. Bourgeois society would adapt to the growth of a socialist movement by becoming more liberal , "more democratic" and accommodating, not less. It would have no option but to do so. A process of selection would ensure that outcome. First of all, I think there is a real factual basis for this kind of error. But we'll get to it.

Just to simplify my point, I'm referring to historical instances such as the famed and fraternal collaboration between the social democrats in power and the Freikorps in Germany, the rise of Italian fascism, Spain 1936.

As for the basis of the error:


Capitalist political parties in the twilight of capitalism will be desparately falling over themselves in a bid to bribe workers with reforms, I believe.
The thing is, the political faction of the ruling class might wanna do this, but the actual situation of capital is what is really determining here. In other words, when political crisis and the crisis of the accumulation process coincide, forget about any significant reforms. I even think that the situation today is that of imperative devaluation of capital in one way or another which really precludes any successful bribery on a grand scale if there is a militant working class movement.
The point being that at particular situations involving definite barriers to capital, liberal democracy itself with its political rights and business as usual (as opposed to open imperialist ventures for instance) becomes the barrier as well.


You are effectively taking an elitist view of history suggesting that the basic democratic rights like the right to vote or form political parties and publish political literature is something that was handed to us by the ruling class. No it was not.I think you're quite aware that you're attributing views I don't hold to me here, but you got carried away by the argument here.

To clarify, it is irrelevant for my particular point how democratic rights were won historically. Of course, I don't think they were merely handed out; that was won through decades and decades of struggle, over dead workers' dead bodies.

Honestly, the implications of what you're attributing to me here are outright nasty. I'd appreciate if you acknowledged that you're wrong here. I think we've had enough discussions here for you to be able to tell I hold no such views, not by a long shot, if you thought about this more closely.

[robbo203]

First of all, I think there is a real factual basis for this kind of error. But we'll get to it.

Just to simplify my point, I'm referring to historical instances such as the famed and fraternal collaboration between the social democrats in power and the Freikorps in Germany, the rise of Italian fascism, Spain 1936.


I dont think there is any comparison between such examples and a hypothetical situation in which there is a significant and moreover necessarily worldwide socialist movement, My point is that the growing impact of such a movement must have an a profound effect on the overall social climate which in turn would selectively favour a kind of capitalism that tends towards liberal bourgeois democracy at that twilight phase of capitalism.



As for the basis of the error:

The thing is, the political faction of the ruling class might wanna do this, but the actual situation of capital is what is really determining here. In other words, when political crisis and the crisis of the accumulation process coincide, forget about any significant reforms. I even think that the situation today is that of imperative devaluation of capital in one way or another which really precludes any successful bribery on a grand scale if there is a militant working class movement.
The point being that at particular situations involving definite barriers to capital, liberal democracy itself with its political rights and business as usual (as opposed to open imperialist ventures for instance) becomes the barrier as well.

Whether or not they might not be able to deliver significant reforms is neither here nor there. The point is that they will be compelled by events to offer reforms on a greater scale even if it means effecting policies that significantly reverse the unequal distribution of wealth and hit the capitalist class in its own pocket



I think you're quite aware that you're attributing views I don't hold to me here, but you got carried away by the argument here.

To clarify, it is irrelevant for my particular point how democratic rights were won historically. Of course, I don't think they were merely handed out; that was won through decades and decades of struggle, over dead workers' dead bodies.

Honestly, the implications of what you're attributing to me here are outright nasty. I'd appreciate if you acknowledged that you're wrong here. I think we've had enough discussions here for you to be able to tell I hold no such views, not by a long shot, if you thought about this more closely.

I think your are being over sensitive here. Im not accusing you of deliberately holding an elitist view. Im simply saying the implications of your argument unintentionally go to support such a view. This is a common argument among the Left, the idea that the ruling class is at liberty to just suspend democratic rights as and when it sees fit (and this then is used as an argument against any kind of electoral approach since it is claimed that democratic rights would simply be suspended if ever socialists posed a serious threat). I think such an argument is naive and false. It overlooks that all power is exercised on the basis of tacit consent or acquiesence and that the ruling class is not free to do whatever it so choses. It is massively constrained by the outlook and actions of those over whem it governs. (there is also the subsidiary point that ruling class is not a monolith but is constantly prone to factionalism and conflicting interests)

Capitalism continues not because the ruling class insists that it does but becuase the working class overwhelmingly consents to its continuation. Look what happened when state capitalist regimes collapsed one after another in Eastern Europe with little or no bloodshed. True, this wasnt a case of workers no longer supporting capitalism, unfortunately, but still the principle is the same. They withdrew their support for the regimes which then lost legitimacy and without legitimacy they could not govern

[synthesis]

The argument that reforms are bad because they are claimed to make people less likely to desire socialism is not an argument made by the SLP, the old Socialist League or the SPGB. I'm pretty sure I've heard that argument from another tendency, Maoism perhaps? And yes, it is a stupid argument.

The lessons of the 20th century would seem to suggest that it's not that reforms make the working class less inclined towards socialism, but that socialism makes the ruling class more amenable to reform.

[synthesis]

Capitalism continues not because the ruling class insists that it does but becuase the working class overwhelmingly consents to its continuation. Look what happened when state capitalist regimes collapsed one after another in Eastern Europe with little or no bloodshed. True, this wasnt a case of workers no longer supporting capitalism, unfortunately, but still the principle is the same.

How on Earth is the principle still the same?

[Leo]

I think the claim that impossibilists having a vision of parliamentarism would probably be news to the old SLP

Why? Are you aware that they have participated in US elections consistently for decades?


I'd argue the SPGB

The SPGB not only participates in elections regularly but rejects the vision of a revolution and believe that socialism will come when the working masses develop consciousness and vote for them.


and certainly Morris' old Socialist League.

Morris' old Socialist League was not an impossiblist group though. Yes, they were anti-parliamentarian, there was some anarchist influence there as well. I'd say this group belongs to a different tradition, closest to the Anti-Parliamentary Communist Federation formed by Guy Aldred.


The idea that the capitalist mode of production will change on the election ballot is not an impossibilist idea.

It is an idea held by certain impossiblists, while others are more critical of it. Electoral practices are, however, certainly shared by most impossiblists.

[Rugged Collectivist]

The lessons of the 20th century would seem to suggest that it's not that reforms make the working class less inclined towards socialism, but that socialism makes the ruling class more amenable to reform.

But if reforms aren't an obstacle on the road to socialism, why does the ruling class implement them as a counter-measure when the working class seems to be heading in that direction? Are they just stalling the inevitable?

[Remus Bleys]

But if reforms aren't an obstacle on the road to socialism, why does the ruling class implement them as a counter-measure when the working class seems to be heading in that direction? Are they just stalling the inevitable?
Reforms, as has been traditionally seen helped capitalism. The demands of the original manifesto were themselves working class reforms, but the implementation of them ultimately benefited capital. Not saying the 1848 manifesto's demands were wrong, I think given the circumstances they were correct but don't act like these revolutionary demands weren't taken up and performed by the bourgeoisie for the working class, rather the more radical bourgeoisie adopted them to benefit capital.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Reforms, as has been traditionally seen helped capitalism. The demands of the original manifesto were themselves working class reforms, but the implementation of them ultimately benefited capital. Not saying the 1848 manifesto's demands were wrong, I think given the circumstances they were correct but don't act like these revolutionary demands weren't taken up and performed by the bourgeoisie for the working class, rather the more radical bourgeoisie adopted them to benefit capital.

Exactly. I'm asking how one can acknowledge that reforms are used by the bourgeoisie to stave off working class militancy while simultaneously supporting reforms.

[The Idler]

Why? Are you aware that they have participated in US elections consistently for decades?Yes are you aware they stand for the ideology of "socialist industrial unionism" — belief in a fundamental transformation of society through the combined political and industrial action of the working class organized in industrial unions? This is not parliamentarism.




The SPGB not only participates in elections regularly but rejects the vision of a revolution and believe that socialism will come when the working masses develop consciousness and vote for them.
And during World War 2 when general elections were suspended? You will find the SPGB were still arguing for revolution. The SPGB do not argue socialism hinges on workers voting for them.



Morris' old Socialist League was not an impossiblist group though. Yes, they were anti-parliamentarian, there was some anarchist influence there as well. I'd say this group belongs to a different tradition, closest to the Anti-Parliamentary Communist Federation formed by Guy Aldred.Are you aware the same Guy Aldred stood for parliament in 1962?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Exactly. I'm asking how one can acknowledge that reforms are used by the bourgeoisie to stave off working class militancy while simultaneously supporting reforms.

Well, first of all it needs to be kept in mind that most of these reforms eat into the rate of profit. The bourgeoisie can "afford" them when other factors lessen the decline of the rate of profit, as in the postwar period for example, but they aren't sustainable in the long term.

Now, either the bourgeoisie can afford the reforms, or it can't. If it can't, obviously we are working against the bourgeoisie by agitating for reforms. If it can, reforms will be enacted whether we participate in the struggle for reforms or not. If we don't, then, one, the reforms won will be much less than those the pressure of a militant labour movement would win, and two, this spreads illusions in the ability of the bourgeoisie to make a "better" capitalism.

[The Idler]

Well, first of all it needs to be kept in mind that most of these reforms eat into the rate of profit. The bourgeoisie can "afford" them when other factors lessen the decline of the rate of profit, as in the postwar period for example, but they aren't sustainable in the long term.

Now, either the bourgeoisie can afford the reforms, or it can't. If it can't, obviously we are working against the bourgeoisie by agitating for reforms. If it can, reforms will be enacted whether we participate in the struggle for reforms or not. If we don't, then, one, the reforms won will be much less than those the pressure of a militant labour movement would win, and two, this spreads illusions in the ability of the bourgeoisie to make a "better" capitalism.
Viewing reforms simply as something the bourgeois can afford or not, is economism, a reduction that Marxists have always rejected. The struggle of class against class is a political struggle. The section of society most vulnerable to illusions in reforms are workers, since the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Well, first of all it needs to be kept in mind that most of these reforms eat into the rate of profit. The bourgeoisie can "afford" them when other factors lessen the decline of the rate of profit, as in the postwar period for example, but they aren't sustainable in the long term.

Now, either the bourgeoisie can afford the reforms, or it can't. If it can't, obviously we are working against the bourgeoisie by agitating for reforms. If it can, reforms will be enacted whether we participate in the struggle for reforms or not. If we don't, then, one, the reforms won will be much less than those the pressure of a militant labour movement would win, and two, this spreads illusions in the ability of the bourgeoisie to make a "better" capitalism.

Wouldn't winning better reforms increase the illusion that the bourgeoisie can make a better capitalism? And wouldn't a singular focus on reforms distract workers from the larger goal of revolution? I've never met anyone who said "Today we'll raise the minimum wage. Tomorrow, revolution". Though, I'll concede that maybe the pessimism regarding revolution is due to the fact that even modest reforms seem herculean.

[Remus Bleys]

Viewing reforms simply as something the bourgeois can afford or not, is economism, a reduction that Marxists have always rejected. The struggle of class against class is a political struggle. The section of society most vulnerable to illusions in reforms are workers, since the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas.
I think for once you are on to something here, but don't you think that this is a little inconsistent for you to argue? I mean, then how will a majority come to accept socialism if the ruling ideas are that of the ruling class - if you genuinely see this but simultaneously uphold this strange idea of a majoritarian revolution - no, not even that, a majoritarian fully class conscious revolution - then how do you escape the paradox of having to overthrow the bourgeoisie in order to have a majority consciousness (which is a highly fluid and dynamic issue impossibilists ignore) in order to overthrow the bourgeoisie?

Reforms have been used by capital to benefit capital - marxism is appropriated by the bourgeoisie both ideologically (stalinism, social democracy) and in action (reforms - which may have improved the standards of living also improved capitals real domination over man).

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Viewing reforms simply as something the bourgeois can afford or not, is economism, a reduction that Marxists have always rejected.

At this point, you just seem to be making accusations up randomly and hoping one will stick. No, noticing the relation between the enactment and repeal of reforms and the momentary tendency of the rate of profit to fall either slowly or drastically is not economism - I don't deny the political struggle (of course, I do deny the utility of SPGB parliamentarianism, but that is not even an aspect of the political struggle, but unprincipled politicking.


The struggle of class against class is a political struggle. The section of society most vulnerable to illusions in reforms are workers, since the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas.

And if socialists did as the SPGB wants them to and avoided the struggle for reforms, those who think the bourgeoisie can improve the situation of workers would be vindicated.


Wouldn't winning better reforms increase the illusion that the bourgeoisie can make a better capitalism?

Not necessarily. First of all, communists have to agitate for an escalation of the demands of the class, placing the labour movement in open conflict with the bourgeoisie. If the bourgeoisie gives an inch, ask for a mile. Second, these better reforms would have been won through workers' militancy, which directly demonstrates the social power of the working class.


And wouldn't a singular focus on reforms distract workers from the larger goal of revolution?

That doesn't seem to be the case. Prior to the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks were among the most consistent fighters for reforms, both economic and political reforms benefiting minorities (something SPGB types have a particular animus for). Yet they were also the most consistent fighters for the revolution.

[Leo]

Yes are you aware they stand for the ideology of "socialist industrial unionism" — belief in a fundamental transformation of society through the combined political and industrial action of the working class organized in industrial unions? This is not parliamentarism.

No, it is not. And they've never managed to succed in a single election. Nevertheless, they've been consistent in their participation in elections.


And during World War 2 when general elections were suspended? You will find the SPGB were still arguing for revolution. The SPGB do not argue socialism hinges on workers voting for them.

I think this is a really sad line of defence. When general elections were suspended, the SPGB didn't close down the party, yes. Obviously, they don't think socialism can come from the ballot if there are no ballots, and they were committed to their ideas enough that they didn't close down the party when they couldn't stand in elections. Also, they too never managed to succed in any elections. Nevertheless, they do hold that socialism will come from the ballot, and they've called for workers to support and defend democracy so that they can vote for socialism. They are parliamentarians.


Are you aware the same Guy Aldred stood for parliament in 1962?

Yes, he supported the USSR under Khruschev as well. In other words he betrayed, so?

SPGB supported Solidarity in Poland to my knowledge.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Not necessarily. First of all, communists have to agitate for an escalation of the demands of the class, placing the labour movement in open conflict with the bourgeoisie. If the bourgeoisie gives an inch, ask for a mile. Second, these better reforms would have been won through workers' militancy, which directly demonstrates the social power of the working class.

But what makes you think the workers will ask for a mile? What makes you think they'll want more than reform? I can see some merit to the idea that a good section of the working class will have to be conscious socialists before the revolution can take place, and I don't think reforms necessarily lead to that.

[Thirsty Crow]

I dont think there is any comparison between such examples and a hypothetical situation in which there is a significant and moreover necessarily worldwide socialist movement, My point is that the growing impact of such a movement must have an a profound effect on the overall social climate which in turn would selectively favour a kind of capitalism that tends towards liberal bourgeois democracy at that twilight phase of capitalism.
Do you really want to claim that the first to examples (SPD and Freikorps, Italian fascism), directly connected to the international revolutionary way inaugurated by the October Revolution, don't offer any grounds for a comparison?



Whether or not they might not be able to deliver significant reforms is neither here nor there. The point is that they will be compelled by events to offer reforms on a greater scale even if it means effecting policies that significantly reverse the unequal distribution of wealth and hit the capitalist class in its own pocket
This is preposterous really.
So the idea is that - without regard for the viability of proposed reforms - the ruling class will outright lie when not really in the position to carry these reforms through.
And a supposedly international, militant workers' movement would lap it up.

My contention is that precisely those reforms that "significantly reverse the unequal distribution of wealth and hit the capitalist class in its own pocket" aren't at all possible to carry out under certain conditions.

Not only that your wrong in that it's neither here nor there - this is the crucial question under the assumption of a militant workers' movement.


I think your are being over sensitive here. Im not accusing you of deliberately holding an elitist view.I might be overly sensitive, but as a matter of fact, I think you're wrong.


I'm simply saying the implications of your argument unintentionally go to support such a view. They do not.

I showed why the question of the historical way democratic rights were won is really irrelevant for my particular point here (the point is concerned with state of affairs after the historical battle for democracy so to speak).


This is a common argument among the Left, the idea that the ruling class is at liberty to just suspend democratic rights as and when it sees fit (and this then is used as an argument against any kind of electoral approach since it is claimed that democratic rights would simply be suspended if ever socialists posed a serious threat). I'm sure you're familiar with the saying, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

But to explain a bit, no I don't think you're representing my views fairly here. It's not that the ruling class can do whatever they fucking please in a Machiavellian fashion; I'm claiming that the definite situation of capital might at a point require this for the very preservation of the capitalist system. Try to really argue only against what I say here.



It is massively constrained by the outlook and actions of those over whem it governs. (there is also the subsidiary point that ruling class is not a monolith but is constantly prone to factionalism and conflicting interests)What you neglect in this, which is on its own correct, is that they are also massively constrained by the needs of capital, and that includes the breathing space capital can afford the working class.

This is the whole point. Under conditions you never addressed and I explicitly stated here - coincidence of a political crisis and a crisis of accumulation (really entailing massive devaluation) - liberal democracy itself becomes a barrier.

And about explaining Fascism for instance. I'd very much like to see an explanation that isn't the one I'm briefly outlining here, and that it isn't inherently voluntarist and idealist (or in other words, focusing on specific qualities of a national ruling class). So yeah, when we're dealing with implied points, you can take that as my statement that you're view in relation to fascism and authoritarian states is voluntarist, idealist, and self-defeating basically.


Viewing reforms simply as something the bourgeois can afford or not, is economism, a reduction that Marxists have always rejected.
This simply isn't "economism" as the term was used by, for instance, Lenin and the Bolsheviks, and nowadays by the CPGB.
Not only that you're not on something here, but you're actually wanting to ride the wave of a particular tradition in Marxism when completely falsifying the term at hand.

[The Idler]

At this point, you just seem to be making accusations up randomly and hoping one will stick. No, noticing the relation between the enactment and repeal of reforms and the momentary tendency of the rate of profit to fall either slowly or drastically is not economism - I don't deny the political struggle (of course, I do deny the utility of SPGB parliamentarianism, but that is not even an aspect of the political struggle, but unprincipled politicking.Can you understand there might be more than two positions, either taking a position completely hostile to any form of participation in parliamentary elections or parliamentarism?




And if socialists did as the SPGB wants them to and avoided the struggle for reforms, those who think the bourgeoisie can improve the situation of workers would be vindicated.
Why are socialists trying to steal the bourgeoisie's thunder? The bourgeoisie will always be the reformists par excellence able to offer the highest wages provided the exploiter and exploited relationships stays in place. Most workers, being non-socialists at the moment would be willing to take that bargain especially faced with revolutionaries (who've been fighting for reform) and bourgeoisie who've never completely ruled out reform.



Not necessarily. First of all, communists have to agitate for an escalation of the demands of the class, placing the labour movement in open conflict with the bourgeoisie. If the bourgeoisie gives an inch, ask for a mile. Second, these better reforms would have been won through workers' militancy, which directly demonstrates the social power of the working class.The thing with the give an inch, take a mile analogy is it gives the impression of evolutionary socialism. That reforms such as a welfare state provided out of taxes solely for use by citizens, is a stepping stone, when as can be seen today, with some resistance, it can be reversed, to be funded privately and cater to private interests.
Trade union rights were hard-won and hard-lost too.




That doesn't seem to be the case. Prior to the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks were among the most consistent fighters for reforms, both economic and political reforms benefiting minorities (something SPGB types have a particular animus for). Yet they were also the most consistent fighters for the revolution.
Which minorities? The Petrograd Soviet? What the SPGB are proposing goes way beyond what the most of the Bolsheviks were proposing.

No, it is not. And they've never managed to succed in a single election. Nevertheless, they've been consistent in their participation in elections.Consistently participating in elections is not parliamentarism.




I think this is a really sad line of defence. When general elections were suspended, the SPGB didn't close down the party, yes. Obviously, they don't think socialism can come from the ballot if there are no ballots, and they were committed to their ideas enough that they didn't close down the party when they couldn't stand in elections. Also, they too never managed to succed in any elections. Nevertheless, they do hold that socialism will come from the ballot, and they've called for workers to support and defend democracy so that they can vote for socialism. They are parliamentarians.
They don't hold socialism can come from the ballot. In fact this was the dispute over the Spanish Civil War which the SPGB case was that democracy is integral but not discrete to socialism so did not support the Republican side.



SPGB supported Solidarity in Poland to my knowledge.
The SPGB supported workers struggling for democracy but did not support Solidarity in Poland.

Stating 'either the bourgeoisie can afford the reforms, or it can't. If it can't, obviously we are working against the bourgeoisie by agitating for reforms. If it can, reforms will be enacted whether we participate in the struggle for reforms or not.' is economism.

[robbo203]

This is preposterous really.
So the idea is that - without regard for the viability of proposed reforms - the ruling class will outright lie when not really in the position to carry these reforms through.
And a supposedly international, militant workers' movement would lap it up.

My contention is that precisely those reforms that "significantly reverse the unequal distribution of wealth and hit the capitalist class in its own pocket" aren't at all possible to carry out under certain conditions.

You are talking about now when revolutionary socialism is not even on the agenda. I am talking about a hypothetical future situation when a revolutionary socialist movement is a very significant force, not only locally but throughout the world. Not only will the ruling class not be able to prevent by decree such a movement from moving forward but it will itself strive mightily to coopt and contain the movement through reforms. But the movement will not be bought off through reforms prtecisely because its consciously revolutionary.

You seem to have come around to agreeing that the ruling class will not be able to politically obstruct such a movement but merely assert that those reforms that "significantly reverse the unequal distribution of wealth and hit the capitalist class in its own pocket" aren't at all possible to carry out under certain conditions. You dont explain why and what these "certain conditions" are

Point is that the conditions then will inevitably be very different then compared with what they are now. What is inconceivable may well not be then. I think it will be irresistable political pressure arising out of a fundamentally transformed social climate that will force the ruling class to impose upon themselves restraints that severely hit their personal consumption levels. Its perhaps not a very good example but during and after the Great Depression there was a significant tendency among the wealthy to cut down on their conspicuous consumption of wealth. This was a direct response to changed public opinion that saw such displays of wealth as vulgar and insensitive in the face of mass misery

I think something like that will happen in ruling class circles in the context of a society in which there has emerged a politicallly significant force of revolutionary socialists. If only because of their own survival instincts the capitalists will volunarily impose cuts on their disposable income in order to craft the impression that we are "all in the same boat". This will translate into increased state revenue via taxation with which to fund refroms.

Ironically it is the revolutionary rejection of the refomrist strategy that will ensure the ruling class grant refroms more readily than would otherwise be the case

[Thirsty Crow]

You are talking about now when revolutionary socialism is not even on the agenda.
Not really. I'm talking about a type of a situation.


I am talking about a hypothetical future situation when a revolutionary socialist movement is a very significant force, not only locally but throughout the world.Well this is all fine, but too much of an abstraction from either concrete and possible conditions and conditions prevailing today.

Anyway, I would argue that the likelihood of a world socialist, militant workers' movement in a different type of situation - that of full blown and healthy capital accumulation - is not that big.

I think that a cursory glance at historical developments shows that the proletariat had step by step become revolutionary in times of crises of different kinds.


Not only will the ruling class not be able to prevent by decree such a movement from moving forward but it will itself strive mightily to coopt and contain the movement through reforms. But the movement will not be bought off through reforms prtecisely because its consciously revolutionary.Not by decree, but by bloodshed and force.


You seem to have come around to agreeing that the ruling class will not be able to politically obstruct such a movement but merely assert that those reforms that "significantly reverse the unequal distribution of wealth and hit the capitalist class in its own pocket" aren't at all possible to carry out under certain conditions. You dont explain why and what these "certain conditions" are
These conditions first of all are conditions of outright imperialist war.
They are also conditions more narrowly economic, when capital cannot reproduce itself at an expanded rate and make a profit, which incurs mass unemployment, intensified exploitation, and severe strains on the state budget directed towards social reproduction (since this is intimately tied to capital's profits).
Finally, there is the condition of political crisis, of rifts in the ruling class when it seemingly loses the ability to smoothly govern (which is predicated on liberal democracy as you say) which might, and did historically, give rise to authoritarian and outright fascist currents forcibly manufacturing social peace


I think it will be irresistable political pressure arising out of a fundamentally transformed social climate that will force the ruling class to impose upon themselves restraints that severely hit their personal consumption levels.Personal consumption levels are completely irrelevant here as taxes on personal income can do nothing to stabilize the situation for capital and enable favorable conditions for its expanded reproduction in the long run.

Conspicuous consumption is a small deal compared to the encroachments on capital and its social-political power that would be represented by a world militant workers' movement.

The deal with the ruling class is that they have both strategies at their disposal; and it just might happen that the second, now unimaginable, one becomes the favored one, or the absolutely dominant one in a hybrid form of the two, due to concrete conditions. Outright force and repression, scrapping democratic rights. Only this is my point.