Questions about the SPGB/WSM

[RedKobra]

I've already asked The Idler one of my questions, as he's a member of the SPGB (I think) but I thought I'd open them up to the rest of you.

For me my biggest apprehension about the SPGB/WSM is:

1: (i) The idea that the emergence of socialism is a result primarily of the self-consciousness raising of all people (the actual building of socialism just being a formality once we've all decided that's what we want). Not self-consciousness raising as a result of struggle, not as a result of political activity but seemingly in response to Capitalism on an intellectual, individual by individual basis. This seems to me to verge a little toward Hegelian Idealism, Am I incorrect? In that it claims our chains are in our minds not on our wrists.

(ii) Also it seems to fudge the numbers game that it's essentially involved in. How many is "all of us" in practice? Everyone minus 1? Everyone minus 100? Everyone minus 10,000? Because I find the idea that everyone in the entire world could agree on anything, ever is a little far fetched. There will always be people who are unreasonable, irrational, reactionary, contrarian, stubborn.etc it seems to fly in the face of all human experience to claim that some form of majoritarianism won't be necessary to bring about socialism and that, unfortunately, implies imposition on at least someone.

The question I asked The Idler was...


2: Given that the SPGB believe that their democratic aims can be achieved by winning seats in parliament how would they react to a parliamentary majority, i.e - 50% +1 of the seats. They wouldn't have a majority of Britains on side and so would not have the mandate they seek, additionally they don't believe in socialism in one country, so would they form a government and betray their policy of not governing under capital? If the answer is no would they support a minority government of the opposition? This seems unlikely so the minority government would fall resulting in more elections. How long do the SPGB think this could be maintained before the public grew sick of the SPGB's unwillingness to govern?

These aren't designed to be gotcha questions, I'm genuinely interested in what SPGB supporters, members and sympathisers have to say on the matter.

[The Idler]

There are a few SPGBers here, but as the one who seems to post the most, I'll have a go;
(1)(i)Self-consciousness raising on an intellectual, individual by individual basis (which may be the Hegelian approach although I'm no expert) is not the idea of the emergence of socialism that the SPGB/WSM hold (contrary to what some critics claim). Self-consciousness raising as a result of class struggle is. The SPGB/WSM argue 'don't support us if you don't support socialism' and 'vote for yourselves'. To me this is partly about consciousness but also not the activity of a group who think of the class struggle as optional extra, a party bringing socialism or the conscious leading the unconscious.

(ii)On majoritarianism, there can be no denying that there are opponents of socialism now and there will be in future. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but under democratic systems its not only a choice between tyranny of the majority or tyranny of the minority. Democratic decisions mean decisions taken by majorities but minorities freedom to openly express and organise to defend minority views. Minority views can even be acted upon to a certain degree in certain circumstances. I don't think its anarchist tyranny of minority to argue this but some 'socialist' sects seem to think any sort of concession to minority views is disastrous. With regard to imposing particular impositions, you might not wish society to impose particular radio stations on its populace so this would not be something necessary to take a binding majority decision on. The SPGB/WSM do not have as broad prescriptions as some 'socialists' for all aspects of society. But if free access to means of production is an imposition then I'm afraid society may just impose that on unwilling opponents.

(2) The SPGB do not stand in parliamentary elections to form majority or minority governments. The idea of an 'SPGB government' is anathema and has been derided by the SPGB in the past. One impossibilist in Canada did take a parliamentary or legislative seat and used it for propaganda purposes. Precisely what attitude gets taken to legislation was the subject of a small dispute in 1911 which you can read in Appendix A here (http://socialiststudies.org.uk/polemic%20upton.shtml). As for minor parties with minority representation without a mandate, the approach of Sinn Fein to parliament hasn't diminished their support, neither has Ukip's approach to the European Parliament and neither has the meagre voting record of George Galloway.

[RedKobra]

Thanks a lot for taking the time to answer my questions Idler. Thats very useful information.

[RedKobra]

What ever party's program I read, no matter how much I agree with their aims & principles, the thing that always stops me in my tracks is when it comes to the question of violence. We all know and seemingly unanimously agree that it is simply not in the character of capitalists to surrender the means of production without a savage fight, using every means available to the bourgeois state. Some groups advocate armed working class insurrection, others advocate a self defense only policy, some argue for Ghandiesque pacifist resistance. Which ever you personally prefer its really hard not to see a massacre of the working class. They have guns, grenades, rockets, tanks, helicopters, jets, highly trained uber-bastards in kevlar. What specifically gives you reason to think we can win? And this is a question for anybody.

[Blake's Baby]

To be honest RedKobra, I'd start a new thread for that if I were you.

[RedKobra]

Will do.

[SonofRage]

I've already asked The Idler one of my questions, as he's a member of the SPGB (I think) but I thought I'd open them up to the rest of you.

For me my biggest apprehension about the SPGB/WSM is:

1: (i) The idea that the emergence of socialism is a result primarily of the self-consciousness raising of all people (the actual building of socialism just being a formality once we've all decided that's what we want). Not self-consciousness raising as a result of struggle, not as a result of political activity but seemingly in response to Capitalism on an intellectual, individual by individual basis. This seems to me to verge a little toward Hegelian Idealism, Am I incorrect? In that it claims our chains are in our minds not on our wrists.


I think that it's a bit of both. I think consciousness arises out of class struggle, but class struggle doesn't necessarily lead to fighting for or winning socialism. It's easy for a fight for better conditions in any area to be pulled into reformism or turn into "state socialism", whether of the Bolshevik or the social democratic variety. If your clear goal isn't socialism (the classless, stateless, money-less socialism, not the capitalism with a friendly face socialism), you'll end up just building trade-union consciousness or liberalism.



(ii) Also it seems to fudge the numbers game that it's essentially involved in. How many is "all of us" in practice? Everyone minus 1? Everyone minus 100? Everyone minus 10,000? Because I find the idea that everyone in the entire world could agree on anything, ever is a little far fetched.

Perhaps I betray my anarchism here, but I tend to think decisions should be made at as local a level as possible. For socialism to really work, it has to be a global system (if not the entire world, a large chunk of it).



There will always be people who are unreasonable, irrational, reactionary, contrarian, stubborn.etc it seems to fly in the face of all human experience to claim that some form of majoritarianism won't be necessary to bring about socialism and that, unfortunately, implies imposition on at least someone.


I think that's true, but I also think a lot of the unreasonableness, the irrationality, etc. is a result of the conditions we all live under. Right now we're really in a war of position (in a Gramscian sense) and I think a lot of these types will change as a real socialist movement would gather strength.



The question I asked The Idler was...



2: Given that the SPGB believe that their democratic aims can be achieved by winning seats in parliament how would they react to a parliamentary majority, i.e - 50% +1 of the seats. They wouldn't have a majority of Britains on side and so would not have the mandate they seek, additionally they don't believe in socialism in one country, so would they form a government and betray their policy of not governing under capital? If the answer is no would they support a minority government of the opposition? This seems unlikely so the minority government would fall resulting in more elections. How long do the SPGB think this could be maintained before the public grew sick of the SPGB's unwillingness to govern?


These aren't designed to be gotcha questions, I'm genuinely interested in what SPGB supporters, members and sympathisers have to say on the matter.

It looks like the Idler answered this for you. :)


What ever party's program I read, no matter how much I agree with their aims & principles, the thing that always stops me in my tracks is when it comes to the question of violence. We all know and seemingly unanimously agree that it is simply not in the character of capitalists to surrender the means of production without a savage fight, using every means available to the bourgeois state. Some groups advocate armed working class insurrection, others advocate a self defense only policy, some argue for Ghandiesque pacifist resistance. Which ever you personally prefer its really hard not to see a massacre of the working class. They have guns, grenades, rockets, tanks, helicopters, jets, highly trained uber-bastards in kevlar. What specifically gives you reason to think we can win? And this is a question for anybody.

I think this is a tough question. I think it's naive to think that the ruling class would simply let us vote them out of power. Part of winning people over to socialism is going to mean winning the support of members of the military as well. I think that's more likely than winning the support of the police, given their role in how the system works but we do have to win some of them over as well.