Abstentionism vs electoralism

[twc]

Come on, ajj…The Socialist Party is not here to “benefit the working class”.It’s here to abolish the working class precisely because, so long as the working class—a capitalist category—exists, it can’t be benefitted.  Otherwise, why Socialism?Please consider carefully before you attempt to explain, in logical terms, any reform “to benefit the working class” that you would champion todaythat you can explain exactly how it will benefit the working class in a social system based on exploiting it.

[twc]

JohnD, the Socialist Party does not enter parliament to horse trade with anybody.  We are there to abolish capitalism.Our parliamentary position—for a political party—must be our greatest socialist strength.Consequently, we steadfastly hold politically that:Reform is always subject to running the system, which runs entirely subservient to capital.Abolish the conditions of private ownership in the means of production, which are the foundation of the capitalist mode of production, and you abolish the need for piecemeal indefinite reforms.So equipped, we face the howling mob.  It is they who need to learn and bend.  Not we.

[twc]

That is the position we need to hold in parliament.Not to fall for the liberal humanist placating of impossible dreams.  Instead explain why such liberal humanist dreams are impossible.  Impossibility is our sole case.  It is our greatest propaganda weapon.Reform shatters our greatest weapon, and annihilates our case.  Think carefully that you are not succumbing to liberal humanist fantasies in an illiberal non-human world.

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

Please consider carefully before you attempt to explain, in logical terms,any reform “to benefit the working class” that 1) you would champion today  2) that you can explain exactly how it will benefit the working class in a    social system based on exploiting it.

Perhaps I have not made it clear in some of my posts so I should repeat what i said.

Quote:

Another issue is that it would mean the EC/branches having to re-organise themselves dramatically so that it could over-see and instruct their councillors/MPs. Decisions made by our elected delegate will come fast and furious at times, not permitting full debate and discussion at branch level and i am sure some of our delegates actions will be mistaken misjudgements in conflict with the branch position, perhaps. Maybe each branch will be required to have a political sub-committee operating daily so how will those volunteers be recompensed for lost wages and their time and expenses and even so, how can the general membership of the branch participate fully.”“What 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.”

I thought I sort of implied that the future events will determine what our actions shall be.I'm not so keen on making hypothetical proposals for reforms, except to defend some that are proven benefits, the most basic being the right to vote, and if i was black in some states of the USA where there are right-wing campaigns to deny many the right to vote, i think i would be involved in defending and increasing that right of suffrage.  But right now and right here i am more interested in ensuring a party structure that can be as adaptable and flexible as capitalism can be.Without an educated and powerful working class as the motor for achieving socialism, we cannot have socialism. Or have I forgotten my Marx? Our Party's role is simply to be educators, agitators and organisers, catalysts not a substitute for our class.

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

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?”

By reducing the rate at which it is robbed, pehaps?  Isnt that of some benefit?  

twc wrote:

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.

Well, if war is prosecuted under capitalism because the population in general, being nationalistically minded, acquiesce and even enthusiastically support such a thing, then I put it to you that to the extent that a socialist movement grows, to that extent will it become more and more difficult for capitalist states to wage such wars in the so called national interests. They will increasingly lack the mandate to do such a thing..  There may even come a time in the twilight years of capitalism when wars will cease to exist. The machinery of capitalist propaganda will by then have become so effectively spiked that it can barely function at all This is an important point to emphasis – the qualitative and indeed cumulative impact of the growth of a robust socialist movement on the very dynamics of capitalism itself. We dont emphasise this point enough. The growth of the socialist  movement will in itself signiificantly alter and radicalise  the entire social environment in which it occurs.  That in turn will have a powerful selective influence on the nature of the oppositional forces  that  the movement will then face. For instamce, I cannot imagine the continuation of any kind of significant ultra authoritarian or fascist movement surviving under these circumstances.  Two such totally opposed worldviews cannot both flourish in the same soil We sort of recognise this argument when we say, come the time a socialist movement can be counted in the millions, the parties of capitalism will most likely be more generous in the refrorms they offer.  Indeed we shall probably see a signficant shift in the patten of state speinding away from such things as defence (or for that matter, splashing out 200 million quid plus on refurbishing the royal housejold such as has just been sanctioned) to spending on things like healthcare.  The social priorites will change as the social envirornment changes.  Thats Historical Materialism 101 and it has important implications for the role of socialist delegates in parliament at this stage But we dont emphasis this argument enough, frankly.   It is one of the most powerful arguments that you can possibly make against taking up a reformist position – that ironically the quickest route to achieving what the reformists want inside capitalism is to repudiate reformism itself!

[Bijou Drains]

The difficulty with this case is that if we abstain on a vote and that vote goes through, where we could have voted against it, we are effectively voting for it. Similarly, if we abstain against a vote and that vote is defeated, then effectively we have voted against it.To put that into practical terms. Say for instance (and I know this is all very hypothetical) a parliament has 101 seats. A minority government is formed with 50 members the opposiition has 49 and we have 2. the governing party puts forward a motion that will introduce strict curbs on trade union activity and supression of political expression. the opposition is against it. If we abstain the motion goes through, if we vote against the motion is defeated. Twc, are you seriously saying that we should abstain from such a vote, allow the supression of free speech, the shackling of trades unions? I think the working class would be very unforgiving of such a move.

[ALB]

In his SF book The Stone Canal, Ken Macleod imagines (p. 175)  just such a scenario:

Quote:

The next day the government lost a no-confidence motion (due to the abstention of only five MPs, the three Workers' Power and two World Socialists) and fell, to be replaced by a more radical coalition drawing in support from the smaller parties. Neutrality was affirmed.

I can't remember whether the fall of the government was a good thing or a bad thing. Macleod is familiar with us and may have included this because he was aware of the sort of discussion we are having now.

[twc]

 

Robbo wrote:

we shall probably see a signficant shift in the patten of state spending away from such things as defence (or for that matter, splashing out 200 million quid plus on refurbishing the royal household such as has just been sanctioned) to spending on things like healthcare. 

When capitalism comes to this sorry pass, it is already on the ropes.  Why then should Socialists palliate an agonised conscience-stricken death-fearing patient? Euthenase the poor demented creature.As to “a signficant shift in the patten of state spending away from such things as defence”…Here’s Marx on this very subject, in his 61st year, 35 years before World War I—the supreme instance of a war that “stopped all future wars”!https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/bio/media/marx/79_01_31.htm 

Quote:

Question:  But supposing that the rulers of Europe came to an understanding amongst themselves for a reduction of armaments which might greatly relieve the burden on the people what would become of the Revolution which you expect it one day to bring about?Marx:  Ah, they can't do that. All sorts of fears and jealousies will make that impossible. The burden will grow worse and worse as science advances, for the improvements in the Art of Destruction will keep pace with its advance, and every year more and more will have to be devoted to costly engines of war. It is a vicious circle—there is no escape from it.

 

[twc]

 

robbo wrote:

By reducing the rate at which it is robbed, pehaps?  Isnt that of some benefit? 

But that flies in the face of “return on investment”, which is the driving force of capitalism, and manifests itself as the driving motive of the capitalist.A capitalist parliament, with or without socialists, has to guarantee social reproduction.  But social reproduction is capitalist reproduction, and remains so, whatever the rate people are robbed at, for they are still robbed.Parliament is there to guarantee this driving force of social reproduction, i.e. to act on behalf of dear old capital expanding itself.The robbing I refer to is the essential mechanism of capital expansion, i.e. Marxian exploitation. Watch the capitalists panic when their precious market rate falls!  It is life or death to those whose motive drives the system—those bearers of the will of capital to expand itself.Reducing the mere rate of robbing is a fantasy solution of liberal humanism in an illiberal inhuman world. It forgets, or fails to comprehend, that we are dealing with a dynamical process that is necessarily insatiable.We dealing with something enormous—an entire social system, or mode of production.  Not fixing its minor unfixable problems.The socialist case is diametrically opposed to liberal humanism—a position that wallows in glorious defeatism.The socialist case abolishes the illiberal inhuman conditions that generate liberal humanism.  Ours is a consciously victorious case. 

[alanjjohnstone]

We may not be able to completely end war by having an SPGB member vote on the issue in Parliament, but there are occasions that he or she may stop Britons blooding their hands in a sorry mess and escalating ithttp://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-23892783Does he or she give the MCH explanation for wars and a particular one, then walks out of the chamber debating room when a vote in taking place on whether to directly engage in a war.and risk the pro-war supporters committing to war?In Australia, i believe there is a Parliamentary initiated investigation into forced emigration of children and their consequent abuse. Does the SPGB MP simply say, "that's capitalism for you but i'm not interested in revealing any of its dark secrets or exposing the individual suffering endured. "Very human situations that an SPGB MP simply cannot walk away from when they arise. Did Capital ignore child and women labour? Did Capital neglect the issue of working hours and working conditions? But you are raising the issue of where we should stand vis a vis the Party or our class. My belief was that our stand against reformism was that a workers party advocating socialism would have that task diverted if it permitted its energies and members to be diverted into campaigning for specific reforms or for a platform of them which would involve non-socialists joining to promote reforms rather than socialism.Is our case now to actually oppose individual reforms because the ruling class can later turn them all to their advantage or that they do not overturn capitalism. An SPGB MP would not have voted for repeal of discriminatory laws such as those against homosexuality and would permit the persecution to continue until capitalism itself chose to end it?Surely when capitalism offers a referendum, we study the question and determine it is a class issue or not. Sometimes it isn't so easy…hence some members in favour of a Remain vote in the EU referendumRather than have a party which says C'est la Vie, i seek a party which says C'est la GuerreI simply find this all rather abstract…a few members in an organisation of negligible numbers choosing to decide what billions must do. Isn't this similar to why we are reticent about devising blueprints of socialism…it is not our task to do so, but for the future generations who have that job. And when we have tens of thousands of members to make an impact and the backing of millions of voters, maybe they should (and will) agree a strategy and the tactics in how a socialist party engages in class struggle.

[twc]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Twc, are you seriously saying that we should abstain from such a vote, allow the supression of free speech, the shackling of trades unions? I think the working class would be very unforgiving of such a move.

Dear Tim, yes I suppose I am.Everyone else is defending reformism, i.e. voting—as a matter of socialist life and death—on purely capitalist issues, on the grounds of changed conditions.Why won’t steadfast advocacy of socialism, as now, receive its true platform in these changed conditions?Steadfast advocacy of socialism strikes me as being even more important then, when we are at last called on to demonstrate our worth. I think people, caught up in the fantasy of capitalist hypotheticals, are consciously suppressing socialist theory in place of their [quite cheap and untrammelled] imagination.Yes, this is my challenge to those who advocate reform under changed capitalist conditions.Capitalism, like a crocodile, is ever itself.  Its conditions are unchanging exploitation, actually so even under hypothetical changed conditions. Capitalism can’t be reformed. As that expert on hypothetical conditions, Sir Toby Belch (or perhaps, Falstaff), quite rightly objects “I’ll reform myself no better than I am!”

[twc]

 

ajj wrote:

I simply find this all rather abstract…a few members in an organisation of negligible numbers choosing to decide what billions must do. Isn't this similar to why we are reticent about devising blueprints of socialism…it is not our task to do so, but for the future generations who have that job

Don't come the snarky put down I simply find this all rather abstract, when you just feverishly proffered a grabbag of concrete cases for which, quite apparently, you do want “a few members in an organisation of negligible numbers choosing to decide what billions must do”.Sorry to inconvenience you.When I challenged you to think carefully about your hypothetical future, which up til then you had been deliriously hypotheticising over, you backed out, because you now daren’t.  So you come on all brave and dismissive.Tu l'as voulu, Georges Dandin! [You brought this upon yourself; as you have made your bed so you must lie on it—Molière]

[alanjjohnstone]

Is my snarky remark about our utter insignificance too far astray? I'm not so sure we should avoid hard truths.Did i back out of anything? You sought some sort of menu of palliatives to shoot down one by one. I refrained from satisfying you. But did i not give examples of real-life, present-day situations where our hypothetical MP would have a choice in whether to vote or not.And i mentioned that, agreeing with your early analysis, that capitalism is very resurgent and will re-coup temporary losses and many of the working class struggles is defending concessions previously bestowed such as the right to vote for african americans and not actually advocating new reforms but such resistance is not to be thrown out with the bath-water.You are dismissing such dilemmas as simply liberal humanism but i consider some decisions will be based on humanitarianism and compassion, as vague as these terms are but also tools and weapons in a very real class-war, and important in gaining our fellow-workers trust and confidence. I always just wonder how a mass socialist party will perform and relate to working class problems since even with the snowball or avalanche metaphor for socialist consciousness, there will be a period where we will have a minortiy of MPs.But i'm happy to have hope that when our membership grows and influence spreads, the Party will adapt and adjust and not resemble the educational study group it presently is. (i would have added propagandist, but we have a pitiful presence in the media to seriously boast of such a role).I have tried with some appropriate quotes to demonstrate that our party has never expected our elected socialist delegates to sit on their arses and whistle the red flag but will use their political position as effectively as they can to not just promote socialism with their oratory but to protect working class interests when situations arise and circumstances demand it, the best they can,  following the guidance of the party as a whole, even if it is only a temporary respite in the long term. 

[twc]

Tim, I don’t think the Socialist Party has to “solve” all the world’s problems in a capitalist parliament—no matter how dire the capitalist predicament.A capitalist parliament supposedly acts in the interests of its electors.If Socialists hold steadfast to their conviction that they can’t solve capitalism’s problems in capitalism, it’s downright dishonest—as well as political poison—for them to curry favour with an electorate in order to solve a problem that they advocate can’t be solved.That’s what will kill a Socialist Party stone cold motherless dead, just as it did every other party that allowed itself to succumb to reformist tactics on the urgent grounds of:just as an exception—a special case because of [pop in your exceptional circumstances here].just this time—even though we are about to establish a reformist precedent.A Socialist Party can survive the ignorant wrath of liberal humanist voters who see our stance as their betrayal.But a Socialist Party can’t hope to survive its tactical capitulation to liberal humanist fantasies. Remember, they are our, avowedly labour, political enemies.  We only defeat them by opposing them.As you rightly fear, we may be kicked out of parliament on such perceived urgent (exceptional) special issues.  So what?  We pick ourselves up, and dust ourselves off to fight another day. Like love, the path to socialism won’t run smoothly, but it must run true to its Socialist cause, or not at all.In parliamentary confrontation over Socialism, he who bends loses.  It is the electorate that must bend before Socialism.It’s no counter argument for anyone to fret that we may [shock!] be rebuffed by that humiliated product of capitalist exploitation, the electorate!  What, by the prescient electorate that gave us xxx, yyy, zzz, [who shall remain nameless]!The unconscious cowardice expressed by all advocates of exceptional future reformism—apparently on case-by-case merit—is timidity over being rebuffed by the electorate.For crying out loud, of course we may be rebuffed along the way. One has every reason to think that a century of constant rebuf might have steeled us somewhat.Steadfast holding to Socialism is the only reliable, theoretically justifiable, Socialist course.  And that implies:  No compromise to reformism — Socialism before reformism.

[twc]

Alan, anyone would have to be a moron not to accept the bleeding obvious about our insignificance. That was never the putdown, and you know it.Your put down was that it’s all a little too abstract.  Which one might be tempted to believe you meant, until you immediately proceed to indulge in lots of concrete instances of a situation you consider to be a little too abstract.If future reformism is really a little too abstract, then we should all rightly leave it alone.  Forget the future fantasies.. I entered the fray because people were hotly defending abstract hypotheticals about future reformism.I challenged the confident pro-reform view, implying that no convincing argument—despite past scuffles–had made the case for selectively putting future reformism ahead of Socialism.All of a sudden the substantive issue of reformism ahead of Socialism becomes a little too abstract.Well, let the issue of selective future reformism over Socialism, and its attendant concrete instances, remain vapid abstractions, where they currently belong.

[Author]

Posts