United Kingdom local elections, 2014 - London - SPGB campaign

Actually, knives could treat the common cold: it'd be a bit drastic, but death is a cure of sorts.

Anyway, to get back on track: the reasonm I mentioned Sinn Fein was that they contestedf elections, but didn't take their seats. Would you agree (absent the issue of nationalism) that this could be a valid course for a revolutionary socialist movement?

I can't remember where I picked up the Neurath point, I just remembered it as standing out and sounmding like a useful definition.

Democracy has existed in many different class formations, from the village commune to the capitalist firm,l it is not tied to any one class formation. Hopwever, enough sidetracking, the point remains that is uis useful to know how many guns you have, and to let the otehr side know they are outmatched.

"Valid" in the sense that it is not necessarily reformist, perhaps, but not valid in the sense that it is a good idea. What's the point? The resources of the group, and the energy of the members (WRP in particular used to grind people down by making them participate in endless election campaigns; anyone can see for themselves how much good it did them), are being wasted on something that offers no benefit, not even a tribune for propaganda.

But "democracy" isn't one thing; democracy in the Greek slaveowning polis was different from the semi-feudal democracy of early America, and both differ from modern bourgeois democracy. The same goes for "the state" - the state is not some kind of timeless form that transcends the concrete details of class society. The bourgeois state (a term your comrade-in-arms places in inverted commas) is not the same thing as a feudal or Asiatic state etc.

Since you mentioned Ireland, though, how many people are currently voting for the Workers' Party who would under no circumstances pick up a weapon and fight for the stickies? Voting does not demonstrate any sort of commitment, for armed struggle or otherwise (I realise "guns" are metaphors in your post, but the revolution will include armed struggle, something many people don't have the nerves or stomach for - not to mention the distinctly unpleasant possibility of being cured of the cold by an enemy bullet). And being "outgunned" does not necessarily lead to defeat - in the later periods of the Civil War, the Bolshevik authorities had the support of only a minority of the population, but were able to project power as needed and crushed the opposing forces.

Your last post is too long to quote with the quote function here giving me a blank post.


You assert


'Guesde ... was roundly criticised by Marx for failing to see the importance of struggle for reform '


From an article from the Socialist Standard (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/s...ion-principles) you regard as unreadable.


In 1880 four men met in the study of Marx's house in North London: Marx himself, Engels, Paul Lafargue (who was then still living in London) and Jules Guesde, who had come over specially from France. Marx dictated to Lafargue, who acted as secretary of the meeting, the preamble to a list of immediate demands which had been prepared by Guesde for the elections of 1881.


Marx was not involved in drawing up this programme and was in fact critical of certain parts of it, especially the demand for a legal minimum wage, though he did not contest the desirability of the party adding such a programme of reforms to its socialist objective (one of the points on which we say he was in error).


All the currently available French versions of this preamble differ from the version published in L'Egalité (and various other French journals) in June 1880. One of these differences is important: the inclusion after "means of production" in the second clause of "(land, factories, ships, banks, credit, etc)". The Pelican translation does not contain this but Aaron Noland, in his The Founding or the French Socialist Party (p.7), quotes this phrase as if it had been in the draft dictated by Marx.


Engels quotes Marx as saying 'if they [Lafargue and Guesde] are Marxists, then] I am not [a] Marxist'. The most logical interpretation of this is that Marx was not aiming to create a large-scale, systematic movement that looked to his theories and writings. Exactly the trap you seem to have fallen for in citing Marx against Guesde.


Engels elaborates further which parts Marx may have objected to in 1883 letter to Bernstein (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...s/81_10_25.htm) 'how little Guesde was the mouthpiece of Marx appears from Guesde’s insistence on putting in his foolish minimum wage demand, and since not we but the French must take the responsibility for this we finally let him have his way although he admitted that theoretically it was nonsense. '


and in a letter in 1890 to Laura Lafargue (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...s/90_05_10.htm) 'Paul spoke very well — a slight indication of the universal strike dream in it, which nonsense Guesde has retained from his anarchist days — (whenever we are in a position to try the universal strike, we shall be able to get what we want for the mere asking for it, without the roundabout way of the universal strike). '


or what you might call 'proletarian militancy'!


The legal minimum wage is clause 3 of the economic section, or what Bolsheviks might call the minimum demands, seems to have half of it implemented under capitalism.


You also claim
'Guesde and the "Guesdists" stood in elections, not in order to win them and win the right to administer the bourgeois state for four years, as the SPGB does, but in order to use bourgeois parliaments as tribunes for socialist propaganda. As, for that matter, did the Bolsheviks.'


As few impossibilists have been elected to parliament, they have used it as a tribune for spreading socialist propaganda. When the Bolsheviks captured political power they administered the state. Who has an obsession with capturing political power of the state conferring 'legitimacy' here? Certainly not the SPGB contrary to your claims. As one dead Russian stated about 'legitimacy';


'The demand for the convocation of a Constituent Assembly was a perfectly legitimate part of the programme of revolutionary Social-Democracy, because in a bourgeois republic the Constituent Assembly represents the highest form of democracy'.


Menshevik? No. Whiteguard? No. Pogromist? Well, this was a quote from the great man of history himself, Lenin.


As for 'Menshevik, whiteguard and pogromist literature the SPGB has printed or quoted approvingly', I'm not sure any whiteguard or pogromist literature has been printed or quoted by the SPGB approvingly, and certainly not in support of whiteguard or pogromist aims. This seems to be attempt at guilt by association, and a highly sectarian one at that, by implying the Mensheviks were not socialists.


I have no idea why who you are are would make keyboard warrior a daft insult, but I am glad you think the proletariat should be shot as little as possible. You do however think the SPGB are some sort of pacifists, when they are not. It's not pacifist to argue against 'In most cases this means that, for a period, the bourgeoisie and their supporters should be shot as much as possible, as swiftly as possible, and as overwhelmingly as possible.'. The SPGB don't argue for a blueprint or program, but if this is the Trot program (is this the minimum demands, the transitional or the maximum?), then they're in more trouble than I thought.


Since, you might not 'give a toss' about reading the Socialist Standard regularly, perhaps it interferes with cleaning your proletarian rifle, I will give some more examples from other than the last three issues which disproved your claim. Food, starvation and hunger has been covered recently in July 2013, January 2012, August 2010, December 2009, April 2009 etc. Disease and ill-health has been covered recently in March 2012, May 2011, October 2009 etc. Immigrants, racism and discrimination has been covered recently in January 2014, October 2013, March 2012 etc.


I'm afraid it is you who misses the point in the 'What do we mean by revolution' article, which is trying to explain revolution (and debunk racism) not the causes of racism. What's pious is the attempt to paint the SPGB as naïve about racism. The SPGB pamphlet on Racism (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/racism) states ' it presents racism as an idea with social roots, to be related to and explained by the economic anarchy of capitalism. Its fault is that it is only a partial explanation, encouraging the delusion that racism can be eliminated by ironing out the humps and troughs of capitalism's economic cycle, perhaps through some skilful juggling by clever politicians and “experts”. But the roots of racism, as this pamphlet has attempted to show, go deeper than that.'


The SPGB does not take sides, not with the Mensheviks, the whiteguards or the interventionists. The SPGB is resolutely and consistently politically independent and refuses to take sides. Accusing the SPGB of Bernsteinism is another smear, since you omit the immediately following paragraph which states 'Of course, establishing socialism is not just a question of voting for a socialist candidate and waiting for a majority of socialist MPs to vote it in (much as people do today who vote for a party which promises some reform of capitalism). People have to have organised themselves outside parliament into a mass democratic socialist party, into trade unions and other workplace organisations, into neighbourhood councils and the like.'
If your case that the SPGB notion of class composition is 'bizarre', then you are conceding here that it is not 'bizarre'. Your claim that 'I would be surprised if the number of proletarians exceeds 50%' is workerist. Not the Leninist disorted definition of 'workerism' but 'workerism' nonetheless.

TUSC are standing over 550 candidates in the upcoming elections. Are the SPGB standing candidates in the same wards? It seems a lot of posts on this forum are very negative about TUSC. I have nothing against the SPGB and wish them to succeed in their campaign.
I get frustrated by all the sectarianism on the left. All this talk of 'smashing capitalism' seems, to me to be deeply misguided. Power can only ever be taken but history tells us that there has to be a mass broad based movement from the general population to achieve any concrete victory for workers in the ongoing class war.
It seems as though any attempts at building this movement, such as left unity or TUSC will be attacked by others 'on the left' with a clear critique of their agendas. The main argument against them appears to be that they will only be token reformist organisations to left of The Labour Party and wish to maintain a moderate form of capitalism. None of the activists that I know who are standing have any such ideology or agenda and are solid comrades committed to achieving a socialist planet.
There are lots of discussions about political theory and who has the most knowledge of Das Kapital. I believe that theory is important and ideological differences may be irreconcilable however it is critical to tap into the consciousness of the masses. I think Marx has written quite extensively about this himself. Just try having a discussion about the tendency of the rate of profit to fall or the age of consent being a capitalist constraint with your colleagues at work. Gauge the confused looks on their faces. Then discuss with them how their bills and rent are going up, wages are going down, their jobs are at threat, public services are being cut, the NHS is being privatised and the system is rigged and corrupt and that they have absolutely no say in the decision making process and you will get them engaged, get them active and organised.
If you really need to go into theory that deeply then you will discover that we don't even live in a capitalist system anyway. Adam Smith himself said labor had to have free movement and capital had to be fixed for free markets to exist. The ruling class wouldn't allow capitalism to exist for a second. Profits are privatised and losses are socialised. Corporate welfare for the multinationals and neo-liberalism for the general population. So if you do have to define socialism in it's purest theoretical confines then please stop using the word capitalism to describe the current economic system.
Anyway, divided we are weak and atomised but united we are a force that can achieve real, concrete victories for our class.
Kindest regards and Solidarity