###
- This topic has 70 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
###
Hi Osama, You cannot introduce socialism without majority support for socialism. The very nature of socialism requires that people understand and want it. The history of political parties such as the German Social Democratic party which, in the late 19th century, was easily the largest organisation in the world to claim to stand for a revolutionary transformation and with whom Marx and Engels had connections, prove this. The SDP succumbed to the revisionist ideas of reformists like Eduard Bernstein – a leading figure in the SDP – and advocated a "minimum" programme of reforms alongside a "maximum" programme of social revolution. What happened? Well, what happened is that workers were attracted to the SDP because of its minimum programme and eventually the maximum programme was effectively abandoned. The SDP emerged in the 20th century as a straightforward capitalist party standing for capitalism and nothing else. There is a hard lesson to be learnt from that!
Osama Jafar wrote:* could parties that arent socialist (member by member) convect socialism & itd experience?We don't think so. That is why we only admit to membership of our party those who inderstand what socialism is (a classless, stateless, moneyless society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production) and why we campaign only for socialism and not for any reforms to present-day, capitalist society of minority ownership and production for profit. If we didn't do either of these things we would end up as just another party out to reform capitalism and be of no use for furthering the cause of socialism.
The problem of marx is that he was more commeted to his findings (which are obvious) than society, & that is a drawback for him & for SPGP.over night socialism with or without majority wont happen, the proper road is to begin practicing socialism whatever small in level & number its society is. So SPGB isnt SOCIALIST TOO; SPGB is catching well the idea of what socialism is?!. what i propose isnt utopianism or reformist; its transformationism! & practicism!.though ive applied to SPGB but i have great disagreements
Take a look at our Editorial from October 1904 titled 'The Futility of Reform' and let us know if you need it in plainer languagehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1900s/1904/no-02-october-1904/editorial-futility-reform'Transformationism' might be what we would reject as gradualism. 'Practicism' might be what we would reject as utopianism.What would likely be gradual is persuading members of the working class to support establishment of socialism not policies as stepping stones.By all means, grow-your-own-veg but Monsanto, Wallmart-ASDA etc. still rule the food markets.
Osama Jafar wrote:The problem of marx is that he was more commeted to his findings (which are obvious) than society, & that is a drawback for him & for SPGP.over night socialism with or without majority wont happen, the proper road is to begin practicing socialism whatever small in level & number its society is. So SPGB isnt SOCIALIST TOO; SPGB is catching well the idea of what socialism is?!. what i propose isnt utopianism or reformist; its transformationism! & practicism!.This is an argument about how to get to socialism which has been going on since Marx's day (and before): between those who emphasised the need to win control of political power to bring about society-wide social change (who included Marx) and those who were in favour of setting up socialist/communist communities outside the capitalist economy which would eventually spread until they became the new society (an idea associated with people like Robert Owen and Charles Fourier).The trouble with the second position is that you cannot escape from capitalist society. Most of the socialist colonies set up in Marx's day failed. So have those since. Those that haven't failed, such as the kibbutzim is Israel, have adapted to capitalism, selling their products on the market and employing outside wage-labour. In any event, establishing socialism involves establishing social control over the big industrial means of productions (factories, railways, etc) which can never be taken over by socialist colonies or outcompeted by them.The only way to socialism is via a socialist-minbded majority winning control of political power. Once this majority has come to exist socialism can be established very quickly. What cannot happen "over night" is the emergence of that majority. That's what takes time.
thank you ALB for your valuable addition, and i think that you agree with me that socialism could incompass & tolerate capitalism unlike capitalism; by nature. And i think you agree with me again that socialism/capitalism its not just a matter of who owns & control, its in individuals character.The HOW to get has a broad arsenal of options; for example, like marx i support wining political control even with a minority; but even that need real socialist by character at least, & that what i ment not just seting communs though that communs was a valuabe experience.
Osama Jafar wrote:The problem of marx is that he was more commeted to his findings (which are obvious) than society, & that is a drawback for him & for SPGP.over night socialism with or without majority wont happen, the proper road is to begin practicing socialism whatever small in level & number its society is. So SPGB isnt SOCIALIST TOO; SPGB is catching well the idea of what socialism is?!. what i propose isnt utopianism or reformist; its transformationism! & practicism!.though ive applied to SPGB but i have great disagreementsThose shortcuts have been tried several times, and all have failed, and they have created more anti-communists workers than pro-socialism workers. It sounds like the allegations of the Maoists: To catch the theory in route, they did not catch the route and they catch the theory either, the ended up worshipping personalities and idols. Socialism by pieces is only a reformist shortcutMarx was connected to the capitalist society, and he even went back to the primitive communist society, and he was working on Asian mode of production too, that is the society that he had to study, socialism can not be studied, because it has never existed, and only the workers can establish it, nobody can make a blueprint of the socialist society. That is what the left wingers of different varieties did and it did not work, and it was a total failure, and continue being a failure around the whole world.The obvious ones are the failures of the leftwingers, if nobody can see that , it would be better to wear binoculars. It the vast majority of the workers become socialists and want socialism, this economical system will last less than a roach on a chicken nest, the problem is that those that believe in the vanguard party to lead, do not think that the workers are able to do that. The so called vanguard party is another failure, and should be placed in the museum of antiquities We are spending more times showing what is not socialism, instead of educating about socialism due to mess created by the left wingers, the reformists, and the Leninists. Without socialists they would not be any socialism.We have been working on the conception of what socialism is for more than 100 years, and we have spent 100 years denouncing and rejecting reformism and Leninism, therefore, we do have an idea of what socialism really is, or should be.We have never had to retract for what we have always said, because we are based on principles, the left wingers are always amending and changing their routes, because they are based on wrong principles, leaders and personalities, and when the idol dies everything goes down with the leader
Osama Jafar wrote:The HOW to get has a broad arsenal of options; for example, like marx i support wining political control even with a minority; but even that need real socialist by character at least, & that what i ment not just seting communs though that communs was a valuabe experience.Winning political control "with a minority" won't lead to socialism either (it wasn't Marx's view and it's not ours).If we credit them with really wanting socialism, this was the view of Lenin and the Bolsheviks and people like Castro and Che Guevera: a minority who want socialism seize power and then use it to try to educate the rest of the population into becoming socialists. It didn't work out like that as in the meantime the minority in control of political power has to ensure that production keeps going and, without the conditions for socialism, this can only be on the basis of capitalism — extracting a surplus from the working population who are paid wages. In the end in Russia (perhaps not so much in Cuba) the minority emerges as a new privileged, ruling class. No, the only way to socialism is through the democratic political action of a majority of socialist-minded workers.As to communes, we don't have any objection to people going and living on one if they want. It's one way to survive under capitalism. But you don't have to live on one to be a socialist (and living on one doesn't make you socialist).
What happened in Russia is party state capitalism, but what SPGB propose is workers state capitalism the highest & Rudest Stages of capitalism which we are already in.Thanks for you all, i have no further addition.
Osama Jafar wrote:What happened in Russia is party state capitalism, but what SPGB propose is workers state capitalism the highest & Rudest Stages of capitalism which we are already in.Thanks for you all, i have no further addition.Workers state capitalism ? That is a Gumbo soup, and it does contradict many socialist principles already established 1) In a socialist society we are not going to have any more proletarian, or wage earner, it is going to be the end of wage slavery, and economical exploitation.2) In a socialist society the state will vanish, because we would not need an apparatus elevated above the society in order to oppress, and repress , in all all its attachments, such as police, and army will be vanished3) In a socialist society capitalism will not exists, and socialism is not going to be an economical system, and the law of value of exchange will disappear, therefore, the society of profits will vanish.So, how workers state capitalism can be established ? Probably, you do not know the meaning and definition of state capitalism.There is not essential different between state capitalism and market capitalism, the only different is that the means of production are in the hands of the state apparatus, and there is a ruling class.Are we going to have a ruling class in a socialist society ?The answer is not, it will be the elimination of the bourgeois and the proletarian class. I have not seen in any writing of the PG the intentions of establishing a workers state capitalism, probably, is something that you have figured out in your mind. Do you have any evidence of that principle ? When you find it, let me know. In Russia is was more than Party State Capitalism,, that was the simplistic allegations of the Trotskyists during the time of Stalin, it was the dictatorship of a ruling class, that took power and control thru a coup d;tat, who had controlled over the means of productions, and obtain surplus value from the labour of the working class. The Bolshevik only composed around 1-10% of the population of Russia, and the great majority were peasants. Can we say that the US or England is a Party capitalism ?A political party is the political organ of a social class, but in a socialist society, politic will not longer exist
Osama Jafar wrote:The problem of marx is that he was more commeted to his findings (which are obvious) than society, & that is a drawback for him & for SPGP.over night socialism with or without majority wont happen, the proper road is to begin practicing socialism whatever small in level & number its society is. So SPGB isnt SOCIALIST TOO; SPGB is catching well the idea of what socialism is?!. what i propose isnt utopianism or reformist; its transformationism! & practicism!.though ive applied to SPGB but i have great disagreementsWhat is going to take a long period of time is to obtain a socialist education, and the desires to replace capitalism with socialism,That is the job that the left winger do not want to do, they want a coup d'tat done by a minority, and then, they will reject the coup of the right wingers, there is not difference between them, and they will ask to the workers to go to the street to confront the police, and when they do their own, they also send their own army to repress the working peoples, they will be called reactionaries The historical evidences has shown that all those Blanquists groups have been eliminated by a more powerful force. Just look at the FARC in Colombia, they are already negotiating with the rulers, and then, they might be wipe out completely, or they might end becoming part of the ruling class, or part of the state. They should know that peace under capitalism is only a fairy tale, market is the cause of wars, have they eliminated the capitalist market ? It is still thereThe Palmeros, Macheteros, Montoneros, and others hundred of Blanquists groups have been disbanded, or killed by the rulers, they had a large membership and now they are null, the only things that they left were a bunch of widow and children without families. Your were talking about practicism, but Trotsky said that there is nothing more practical than a machine gun. Theory and political education was thrown in the trash bing , it only pertains to the members of the central committee. That is a broken record that I have heard many times in my life, it is an horror movie.This is an article that explain the futility of socialism by pieces:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/myth-transitional-society
Osama Jafar wrote:What happened in Russia is party state capitalism, but what SPGB propose is workers state capitalism the highest & Rudest Stages of capitalism which we are already in.Thanks for you all, i have no further addition.You can't make an outrageous suggestion like that and then refuse to discuss it or try to back it up. Needless to say, we don't stand for any kind of state capitalism which is just the management of the wages system and capital accumulation by state officials. I thought you accepted that we stood for a
Osama Jafar wrote:* could be over night find yourself in moneyless, stateless majority led society?How can there be state capitalism without a state and capitalism without money?
Osama Jafar wrote:What happened in Russia is party state capitalism, but what SPGB propose is workers state capitalism the highest & Rudest Stages of capitalism which we are already in.Thanks for you all, i have no further addition.I think that's what they call a mic drop.https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/shortcuts/2016/may/02/obama-out-mic-drop-white-house-correspondents-dinner
I agree it is possible to have a moneyless class society with a state (a number have existed in the past) but not that it is possible to have a moneyless capitalist society (a cashless one perhaps, but that's not the same).Capitalism is a buying and selling society in which the human ability to work is bought and sold and results in the capitalist firms that employ them appropriating a surplus from their work, a surplus which takes a monetary form and most of which is re-invested as more capital. A society which exploited the producers but where the surplus extracted from them did not take this form would still be an exploitative class society but not capitalism
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.