From The People - Autumn 2009 SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE SPGB By Bernard Bortnick The Socialist Party of Great Britain, or World Socialist Party as it is known among its international affiliates, bears some deceptive similarities to the Socialist Labor Party. It opposes the “vanguard party” idea, reforms of capitalism, and favors a democratic society run by workers in which goods and services are produced for use and hues to the Marxian concept from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs. But a closer look, underline critical difference between the SPGB and the SLP. The following commentary is based upon 5 recent issues of the SPGB’s monthly Socialist Standard. Marxist Basis According to the SPGB’s “Declaration of Principles” (reprinted unaltered in every issue of the Socialist Standard since 1904), the party advocates or recognizes that: • Socialism is a society based upon common ownership and democratic control of production and distribution (Objective); • They recognize exploitation of the working class by the capitalist class (1st paragraph); • They recognize that the working class is the sole producer of wealth (1st paragraph); • That the class struggle between workers and capitalists can only be resolved by the overthrow of the latter and conversion of private property into the common democratic ownership by “the whole people” (3rd paragraph); • That emancipation of the working class must be accomplished by the working class itself (5th paragraph); • That the revolutionary process requires the conversion of the political powers of the state “into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic” (6th paragraph) (“privilege, aristocratic” relates to lingering feudal titles and airs of royalty prevalent in Great Britain); • SPGB in seeking working class emancipation must be hostile to all other political parties that otherwise do not have this position (7th paragraph) • SPGB calls upon the working class for support while waging war against all other political parties (8th paragraph). The most troubling part of this Declaration is the conflict between paragraph 6 and paragraph 3 and 5 calling for the conquest of “the powers of government that are to be converted from “an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation.” How this is to be done is left to the imagination and certainly flies in the face of Marx’s well known observation of one of the failures of the Paris Commune, that the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes. Buried in some past discussion, which I’m not aware of, is some rationalization of this contradiction. Although the SLP supports contesting political offices of the capitalist state, it does so in order to propagate the program of the party and, if elected using, such offices to oppose legislation contrary to working class interests; but ultimately, with a plurality, to eliminate all political offices while the seat of government is transferred to the organized industrial constituencies that the working class has established through their Industrial Union governmental structure. In this regard, notably absent from the Declaration, and indeed their periodical, is any hint or word about unionism, class conscious unionism or otherwise; for if the means of production are to be democratically owned and operated in behalf of society, where is the organizational lever that is to effect this revolutionary change? They insist that it is seizure of the offices of the political state. In fact, in the five issues of Socialist Standard that I received, not a word is to be found about unionism or organized actions of segments of the working class in Great Britain or anywhere else. The constant and incessant struggles at the workplace are just ignored, whether organized or otherwise. Marx offered at least one important clue to the working class movement about the role of the unions at the end of Value Price and Profit, in noting that “They fail generally from limiting themselves to a guerilla war against the effects of the existing system, instead of simultaneously trying to change it, instead of using their organized forces as a lever for the final emancipation of the working class, that is to say the ultimate abolition of the wages system.” (My emphasis) Marx was telling Socialists that workers should be organized at the point of production to oppose the wages system. Certainly the phrase “limiting themselves” suggests a larger role, if not a key role, of unionism. This is apparently completely lost on the SPGB adherents but it was not on De Leon and the SLP in its formative period. In fact, such observations impelled the SLP toward the concept of Socialist Industrial Unionism. Organization The SPGB seems to be governed by an executive committee of 10 people that meets monthly, but major decisions are made by the membership as a whole meeting annually. There is no equivalent of a National Secretary as a point correspondent. Also, there is no editor of the party paper, but an editorial committee. It may be that material conditions in Great Britain, with denser populations and viable mass transit, favor this arrangement. Moreover, early in its formative period the SPGB forbade “leaders” per se. This may have something to do with the dominant figure of Hyndman in the split from the reformist Social Democratic Federation in 1904, although I am not clear on this matter. In any case, they are adamant that there be no leaders within the party, reflecting their aversion to any sort of leadership role within the new society. Establishing Socialism The SPGB insists that socialism is not possible on an individual national basis. They take their departure from the fact that capitalism is a world system, inasmuch as nation states linger on. Great Britain is a part of the EU, and in accord with its development and amalgamation into a single political entity theoretically their position seems to be correct. However, EU working class unity, and world working class unity, seem remote considering that even among various capitalist states working class unity has yet to be achieved. This apparently reinforces their inclination to address the working class as an undifferentiated mass, “the electorate,” not as workers with the potential for unity at the point of production. The SPGB advocates the end of the profit system, capitalism. It proposes that this be done by “the electorate” (working class?) acting “for themselves organizing democratically and without leaders to bring about the kind of society” they advocate in their publication. This “immaculate conception” will come about with a plurality of SPGB candidates elected to political office. What happens after that is unclear, with the following qualification: “...the more of you who join the Socialist Party the more we will be able to get our ideas across, the more experiences we will be able to draw on and greater will be the new ideas for building the movement which you will be able to bring us.” (“Introducing the Socialist Party,” in every issue of the Socialist Standard) In other words, let’s all get together and figure out what we are going to do, thereby putting organizing to a purpose in limbo. SPGB Paper The Socialist Standard is a monthly with a magazine format of 24 pages, with outer dimensions of about 8.5” x 12” and an introductory cover about the major and minor items. Articles vary in focus, with some historical items, apparently well researched and written. Recent articles, for example, commented on the current state of the Japanese Communist Party, Sir Thomas More and the anniversary of Marx’s Critique of Political Economy. There are always book reviews and news of meetings, lectures and debates. A number of party publications are advertised, as well as cups, DVD’s and books. The SPGB conducts debates with other parties (Labor, Tory, etc.), anarchists, or apparently whoever rises to the challenge, and these are announced in the periodical. They are in this sense confrontational and employ the debate format as a tactic. In four issues I counted 24 contributors, including editorial staff. Some contributed more than one article
