Abstentionism vs electoralism
- This topic has 76 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
There is a difference between saying that capitalism can't be reformed to work to the benefit the working class (your, valid, point) and saying that some reforms can be obtained even if only on a temporary basis as long as they dont "threaten capital's ability to expand itself". There are even some reforms that benefit workers that actually do help capital's ability to expand itself, e.g. education and health provisions. It's not a black and white situation. But, as Robbo has pointed out, this is not a case for Socialists advocating any eform measures (but might be for a Socialist MP or councillor voting for some). .
twc wrote:Capitalism can’t be reformed to benefit workers without threatening its very own conditions of existence—capital acting as capital, i.e. private capitalist-class return on investment dominating all social practice, i.e. dominating the working class.By what criterion can anyone judge that a “reform” will bring “benefit”, to the working class, when the entire social system reproduces itself by exploiting the working-class?Capital necessarily reproduces itself to the detriment, not to the benefit of the working class!The process of capitalist reproduction ensures that its conditions of continued repetitive existence are necessarily self-correcting, self adjusting, self adapting.In short, if you temporarily weaken capital, it systemically reacts and survives, because society must function and, under capital’s domination, society must function on its terms of existence, or not at all.And because capital adapts to its very own nature, any temporary “benefit” to its class enemy necessarily succumbs to capital’s own necessity.The class struggle, fought out under capitalist conditions, of capital simply acting out its very own inflating self—expanding itself through employing the working class—cannot permanently be won against it on a field it already controls.If working-class benefits, that threaten capital’s ability to expand itself, could be won under capitalist dominant conditions, why Socialism?I understand what you are saying here and have a lot of sympathy for the argument but, even so, I think it has an overly mechanistic ring about it. Its implications can be interpreted as endorsing a somewhat fatalistic view of the world. That, in turn, could react upon or sap, the intensity of class struggle to resist the downward pressure exerted by capital on working conditions and wage levels. After all, it is historically the case, surely, that workers have been able to secure improved conditions and wages and that there was nothing automatic about this. The capitalists did not grant these improvements out of the generosity of their hearts. They had to be struggled for There's that great quote from Marx in Value Price and Profit: "Profits [or wages] is only settled by the continuous struggle between capital and labor, the capitalist constantly tending to reduce wages to their physical minimum, and to extend the working day to its physical maximum, while the working man constantly presses in the opposite direction. The matter resolves itself into a question of the respective powers of the combatants." So the question of struggle cannot be excised as a factor in determining the social outcome – even if the system is rigged in favour of capital as you rightly point out. This is true even at a time of recession when relative wages and conditions are being pushed downwards by the inexorable force of capital readjusting to adverse circumstances. If workers did not offer some resistance their plight would be even worse. There's one more observation I would make. We are talking about reforms that would vaguely bring benefits to workers. But specifically in the context of the socialist case against reformism (which I fully support) what does this actually mean? I put it to you that there are some "reforms" that dont actually fall under the general rubric of "reformist" in that sense, at all. For instance, how would a reform in the field of civil liberties, such as the extension of franchise, be subject to the inevitable readjustments capital makes in the face of workers’ demands that you speak of? I think when we are talking about reformism we are referring to a specific class of reforms that are economic in character. That is to say, their FOCUS is the economic sphere and their FIELD of operation is political – the state via state legislation. Trade Union struggle is NOT reformist because even if its focus is also the economic sphere, its field is not political (but economic) In short, what makes a reform “reformist” in these terms is the specific configuration of its focus and its field being the economic sphere and the political sphere, respectively. Any reform offering a different kind of configuration does not strictly come under the rubric of reformism. I think this is implied in the argument you present which focuses on the essentially economic character of the process by which capital readjusts to ensures its own reproduction to the detriment of workers interests. But you dont tend to find something similar going when the focus is the political sphere. For instance, what sort of compensatory adjustment has capitalism made in response to the demand that the franchise be extended that is analogous to what goes on in the economic sphere? All the evidence suggests that there is a long term secular trend towards the bourgeois democratisation of political life. Places like China and North Korea are holding out but in time they too will succumb to this political process. Several decades ago almost all of South America and Africa was subject to political cum military dictatorships but the situation is quite different today This is important because the SPGB has always rightly said workers need to struggle for basic democratic rights in the first instance. I fully endorse this position and would argue that in no way is it reformist. It lacks the specific configuration of FIELD and FOCUS that would make it reformist and therefore subject to a kind of capitalist clawback or readjustment process you speak of So to conclude – when the first socialist political delegates are elected to political office, it is important that it be clearly understood by everyone that they are elected for one purpose only: the establishment of a socialist society. That will happen once the requisite electoral majority is achieved and indeed saying this is in itself the guarantee against reformism since it flatly rules out the possibility of these delegates forming a “socialist government” to administer capitalism (since automatically once such a majority is achieved, socialism follows). In other words, it intrinsically rules out a reformist ticket. However it doesn’t rule the possibility of socialist delegates in parliament considering the reforms advocated by others on the basis of their merits as far as promoting the interests of the working class is concerned. In no way can this be construed as encouraging the idea that capitalism can be operated in the interests of the working class. All it will be doing is tipping the balance of forces a little more in favour of the workers in a larger struggle that the workers cannot win while they remain committed, by default or design, to the continuation of capitalism itself
What a socialist MP or local councillor did when elected I always thought was a settled question within the party. I cited the SPC attitude, in an earlier post. Perhaps these two quotes from the SS might also be helpful to clarify our position.
Quote:Regarding Parliament, the answer, in brief, is that a minority of Socialist M.P.s would vote for or against measures introduced by other parties, or refrain from voting, in accordance with the Socialist Party's view as to which course would be in the interest of the working class and Socialism. To use our correspondent's own words, they would vote for certain measures "as giving the workers some small benefit, whilst at the same time pointing out that Socialism was the only satisfactory solution to the problem."A minority of Socialist M.P.s would obviously not vote against a measure which simply raised old-age pensions, or raised wages, or helped trade union organisation, or made it easier to carry on Socialist propaganda or organisation.Quote:He asks : "What actions would a member of the S.P.G.B. adopt on the Board of Guardians, seeing that these institutions exist to issue out charity, thus tending to keep the workers quiet and helping the capitalists by administering capitalist law."…Does "Revolutionist" seriously hold that starvation makes Socialists, or that Socialists cease to be Socialist when they receive "charity" from the Boards of Guardians?http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1920s/1928/no-286-june-1928/socialists-and-local-governmentWhat is in the interest of fellow workers i touched upon the necessity of reviewing how our EC and branch operates oversight of our elected members when that time comes. I see no advantage in guessing the actions of a vibrant active branch or EC capable of getting members elected. I can imagine it is like comparing oranges and apples to make any comparison with todays EC/branch and those future ones.
ALB wrote:There are even some reforms that benefit workers that actually do help capital's ability to expand itself, e.g. education and health provisions.Really?It is precisely education and health provisions that currently threaten capital’s ability to expand itself.That’s why they are currently being screwed.The capitalist class would dearly rather it didn’t have to screw the provision of education and health, but it has no other choice because it perceives—rightly or wrongly—that they obstruct capital’s ability to expand itself.It perceives them as a financial burden—upon its long-suffering self—that must be minimised.Of course, it’s quite another matter if education and health provisions can be hijacked by capital to expand itself.In those circumstances, should a “socialist representative” support private provision of education and health because it, incidentally, “benefits the working class” while directly benefitting the capitalist class?I repeat, how on earth can anyone tell what will “benefit the working class” in a society based on robbing it?
That challenge is one of the greatest weapons a World Socialist can wield against all reformism and for Socialism.A World Socialist challenges our opponents, “whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist” (a perfect phrase taken from our Declaration of Principles, Clause
:“How on earth can anyone tell what reforms will benefit the working class in a society based on robbing it?”twc wrote:I repeat, how on earth can anyone tell what will “benefit the working class” in a society based on robbing it?TWC would you not say that reducing the rate of exploitation is of some benefit to the workers even if its predicated on the fact that workers are exploited in a society that , in the final analysis, cannot be run in the interests? Also, I wouldnt say its strictly true that "It is precisely education and health provisions that currently threaten capital’s ability to expand itself". According to this site:Education spending now represents around an eighth of overall spending. The share of spending devoted to education has risen over time; it almost doubled between 1953–54 and 1973–74, from 6.9% to 12.5% of total spending. It then remained fairly stable, dipping in the early to mid 1980s, before rising to around 13% throughout the 2000s. Figures 1a and 1b show the alternating periods of flat and rising real education spending over the second half of the twentieth century, as well as education spending rising as a share of national income over time. https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/fiscal_facts/public_spending_survey/education Yes there has been a slight dip in spendng in real terms from roughly 2010 onwards as you can see from the accompanying graph but, to be pedantic, it is not the provision of education that currently threatens capital’s ability to expand itself but rather the extent of that provision, Capitalism would barely function if at all if it made little or no provision – particularly now in the "information age" The same sort of conclusions generally apply also to healthcare provision. See here http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/healthcare_spending Of course , there is no such thing as a free lunch in capitalism and the financing of these elements of the social wage out of general taxation (the burden of which falls squarely on the capitalists alone), will express itself as a compensatory downward pressure on real wage levels (disguised as tax deductions on the workers pay slips). But again, this is affected by the ability of workers to organise and resist such pressure , It is not automatic in the way water finds its own level
twc wrote:That challenge is one of the greatest weapons a World Socialist can wield against all reformism and for Socialism.A World Socialist challenges our opponents, “whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist” (a perfect phrase taken from our Declaration of Principles, Clause:“How on earth can anyone tell what reforms will benefit the working class in a society based on robbing it?”Yes but we will be in a different postion then, having secured the support of a large number of workers surely, politically aware and self organised and still self organising outside parliament. As the socialist delegates will be instructed by the Party the Party in turn will be heeding the self organised workers..The capitalist class will be we hope, throwing reforms at workers and they will be accepting those with public disdain.
This discussion has been going on in the Party since at least 1911:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1911/no-83-july-1911/socialist-party-and-reforms
Quote:Mr. Bostock is, therefore, completely in error in assuming that in showing the unsatisfactory nature of reforms in themselves, and their utter futility as solutions of what is called the "Social Problem," the S.P.G.B. is necessarily hostile toward all reforms, and considers them as being in every case inevitably "detrimental to working-class interest."Other members took a different view:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Propaganda_League
Quote:In February 1910 a letter from "W.B. (Upton Park)" was sent to the Socialist Standard asking,“What would be the attitude of a member of the SPGB if elected to Parliament, and how would he maintain the principle of ‘No Compromise’?”The perspective of this small group of members was that no reform of capitalism could ever be supported by the party claiming to represent working-class interests as it was not the job of socialists to take part in the running of capitalism. Any attempt to do so would run counter to the famous ‘hostility clause’ of the Party's Declaration of Principles. The Standard’s reply on the matter, backed by the Party’s Executive Committee, stated thateach issue would have to be looked at on its merits and the course to be pursued decided democraticallyThis did not satisfy the members who had raised the question, who formed a ‘Provisional Committee’ aimed at overturning the position espoused in the Standard’s reply and who set their case out in an ‘Open Letter’ to Party members, arguing that socialists were required to oppose measures introduced by capitalist parties on each and every occasion. This was again rebutted firmly by the EC who contended that it would be ridiculous for socialists, by way of example, to oppose a measure designed to stop a war in which the working class was being butchered.robbo wrote:I think (twc) has an overly mechanistic ring about it.No. A scientific determinist ring, like all science—the science of necessary process, or else no science at all.In place of deterministic science you skirt perilously close to the fantasy fiction:Socialist representatives get magically elected to parliament, under a South-American old-style dictatorship,where they defiantly denounce the tyranny that elected them and advocate the universal right to parliamentary democracy?The Party case has always been that capitalism requires democracy to legitimate itself.So far, democracy has not lived up to its originally perceived threat to the capitalist system, and has so far failed to put a dent in capitalism itself, which continues to rule triumphant over whichever democratic team has the dubious privilege of “running” it.On the contrary, capitalism has knocked “capitalist sense” into its left opponents, democratic or anti-democratic as the case may be.Once Socialism is on the move, a parliamentary electoral system—no matter how gerrymandered or jury rigged—is powerless to stop it.You seem hung up on the meerest details of hypotheticals.
robbo wrote:The share of spending devoted to education has risen over time; it almost doubled between 1953–54 and 1973–74, from 6.9% to 12.5% of total spending. It then remained fairly stable, dipping in the early to mid 1980s, before rising to around 13% throughout the 2000s.Precisely. Like health, it’s threateningly expensive to support. It threatens return on investment.
twc wrote:robbo wrote:I think (twc) has an overly mechanistic ring about it.No. A scientific determinist ring, like all science—the science of necessary process, or else no science at all.In place of deterministic science you skirt perilously close to the fantasy fiction:Socialist representatives get magically elected to parliament, under a South-American old-style dictatorship,where they defiantly denounce the tyranny that elected them and advocate the universal right to parliamentary democracy?The Party case has always been that capitalism requires democracy to legitimate itself.So far, democracy has not lived up to its originally perceived threat to the capitalist system, and has so far failed to put a dent in capitalism itself, which continues to rule triumphant over whichever democratic team has the dubious privilege of “running” it.On the contrary, capitalism has knocked “capitalist sense” into its left opponents, democratic or anti-democratic as the case may be.Once Socialism is on the move, a parliamentary electoral system—no matter how gerrymandered or jury rigged—is powerless to stop it.You seem hung up on the meerest details of hypotheticals.
I dont recall having said anything of the sort, TWC… When did I suggest: Socialist representatives get magically elected to parliament, under a South-American old-style dictatorship,where they defiantly denounce the tyranny that elected them and advocate the universal right to parliamentary democracy? My point was totally different. I was making a distinction between political reforms and economic reforms. I was saying that it was quite right that the party should say workers should struggle for political reforms that would enable a socialist party to operate in a relatively democratic environment . You cannot effectively operate a socialist party in a dictatorship. I further argued that this struggle for basic democratic rights is in no sense reformist . In fact ironically I am rather supportive of your line of argument which suggests that reformism is essentially focussed on the economic dimension/realm of capitalism. I certainly do not envisage socialists representaives being somehow "magically elected" to parliament under dictatorial conditions. How on earth did you manage to draw this conclusion?
twc wrote:robbo wrote:The share of spending devoted to education has risen over time; it almost doubled between 1953–54 and 1973–74, from 6.9% to 12.5% of total spending. It then remained fairly stable, dipping in the early to mid 1980s, before rising to around 13% throughout the 2000s.Precisely. Like health, it’s threateningly expensive to support. It threatens return on investment.
Yes but the point is that it is not the provision of education per se that is threateningly expensive but the extent of that provision and only temporarily so . Hence the slight drop in real terms since approx 2010 . But this will surely change as economic conditions pick up. Capitalism needs a relatively educated workforce , more so now than ever before in this "Information Age". "Education education education" has become the mantra of capitalist states the world over. They understand its critical importance to the self expansion and accummulation of capital
Indeed, capitalism (to our cost) is a flexible system that can recover from blows in the class struggle and make the gains of the working class only a temporary respite. We understand that there are many palliatives that can be conceded by the capitalist class because they do not threaten their existence. YWhat they give with the right hand, they can take with the left..But does this mean we do not, as a class, strive for the occasional victory in the class war that circumstances might through up in our favour and as a political party of the working class shouldn't we applaud the organisation and resistance and sometimes success of our fellow-workers to instill confidence for the even bigger battle for socialism. Our founders, seemed to have a fairly nuanced attitudes to reforms otherwise why did they publish this article.https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1900s/1905/no-10-june-1905/revolutionary-reform
Quote:“Although the bettering of the conditions of existence by way of political reform is impossible, it is not the same as regards the conditions of fighting, and it appears to us to be possible to make easier the struggle of the proletariat against the capitalist middle-class.We do not here make a specious distinction. To distinguish between the conditions of fighting and the conditions of existence is not to split a hair. The difference is real… Some reforms would render the attacks of the proletariat more powerful, those of its adversary weaker, and would make the effort easier and more efficient.”As another article says:
Quote:“Mr. Bostock is, therefore, completely in error in assuming that in showing the unsatisfactory nature of reforms in themselves, and their utter futility as solutions of what is called the "Social Problem," the S.P.G.B. is necessarily hostile toward all reforms, and considers them as being in every case inevitably "detrimental to working-class interest." Even were the capitalists omniscient and of one opinion on. every point, it would still remain a fact that they are compelled by economic development to weaken their stronghold. Our enemies are forced, as it were, to dig their own graves, and it is by no means our policy to prevent them doing so. We should, indeed, be traitors to our cause did we not endeavour to make it profit by every mistake and every point of weakness of the enemy.”https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1911/no-83-july-1911/socialist-party-and-reformsPerhaps, someone can help me with the source…a working class that declines or refrains from engaging in the class struggle is not worth its salt in the struggle for socialism.
ALB, note carefully that I did not claim that reforms “were inevitably detrimental to working class interests”.Instead I issued the challenge: “how on earth can anyone tell what reforms are beneficial to the working class in a system based on robbing it?”Again, on the point about “stopping a war”. Wars are stopped every second week in the Middle East. People have won Nobel Peace prizes for stopping wars that continue to rage.I repeat, with variation, “how on earth do you stop wars when the system continually breeds warfare in the first place?”There are no permanent solutions for these conundrums.These conundrums are only meaningful under capitalism, where only liberal, or humanistic, solutions spring to mind. It is then easy to assume that they are socialist solutions. But are they?Such liberal humanist solutions will always emerge of their own accord so long as capitalist economic conditions permit them to.These are such questions, to which there are no permanent answers under a capitalist class-based system of Society. Otherwise, why Socialism?I am happy, perhaps, for members to decide such undecidable capitalist questions on liberal humanist grounds. But we should be aware about exactly what we are doing.This is my point.
Members can have different opinions on reforms but there are more positions than justSPGB representatives couldn't cast any votes because all reforms are detrimental to the class or 'workers should stew in their own juice' (Henry Martin, SPL etc.)SPGB representatives could vote for reforms but not propose themThere is alsoSPGB representatives could vote for reforms but not propose them or accept them as part of a package or trade-off
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.