Community-Wealth

[SocialistPunk]

I seem to recall a thread going back a year or two that asked about the party approach and if anything could be done to improve on it. I got my head bit off for my troubles.I don't think it a good idea to drop the word Socialism, just because the WSM don't own the monopoly on the meaning. Communism I get it, the negative connotations are just too big an obstacle. But for most people in western Europe socialism is more associated with a half and half approach to state run capitalism, in the mold of old school Labour. It's a fuzzy association with the idea of distributing wealth in a fairer way while not challenging the fabric of capitalism. We know it as reformism, but most people don't even fully understand capitalism and therefore don't see it as we do.Alternative names or descriptions would simply lead to the same scenario eventually. Most left groups would probably agree with the idea of a, "World for the Workers". For my thinking what sets the WSM/SPGB apart from the rest is the consistent message over the years.Take advantage of it. Don't make the mistake of doing a Clegg.The YouTube stuff is a good idea, but if the party does produce more short vids for it, then members are gonna have to get stuck in when critics inevitably start rubbishing the ideas. If the ideas can't be defended the vids will be a waste of time. 

[SocialistPunk]

With regards to party branding, I have always thought it contradictory for a party advocating global socialism and international working class solidarity, to have opted to place the words Great Britain after the word that proclaims the party aim.I get it to a certain point when the SPGB first formed in 1904, there may have been some idea that the movement would soon blossom, Great Britain was the accepted term and from a socialist perspective was simply to identify the geographical location. But as the years moved on the party still clings on to an outdated "historical" name, so much so that it is emblazoned at the top of every page on this site.Even the BNP don't use the word great in their party name, how ironic is that?

[SocialistPunk]

Recently I've been wondering about the idea of socialism and what it means to differing groups or organisations. I don't know much about the history of the SPGB, but I'm sure some out there do.I'll get to the point.Has there ever been an agreed definition of socialism?

[ALB]

There's chapter 3 of this 1967 pamphlet of ours which argues that at one time there was more or less agreement amongst those calling themselves socialists as to what the aim was (even if only the "ultimate" aim for some and there was much disagreement over how to get there) but that later on, in the 20th century, there came to be disagreement not only over means but also over the aim:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/russia-1917-1967-socialist-analysis

[SocialistPunk]

Thanks for the link Adam.

Quote:

How much agreement there was about the nature of the transformation they hoped to bring about by their different policies, can be seen for example in the Manifesto of English Socialists issued jointly in 1893 by the Fabian Society, the Social Democratic Federation and the Hammersmith Socialist Society. The signatories including William Morris, George Bernard Shaw, H. M. Hyndman and Sidney Webb, were able to agree on the following declaration which appeared in the Manifesto:“On this point all Socialists agree. Our aim, one and all, is to obtain for the whole community complete ownership and control of the means of transport, the means of manufacture, the mines and the land. Thus we look to put an end for ever to the wage system, to sweep away all distinctions of class, and eventually to establish national and international communism on a sound basis.”Keir Hardie, later to be prominent in the formation of the British Labour Party, did not sign the manifesto but elsewhere declared as his objective “free Communism in which… the rule of life will be – ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’.” (‘Serfdom to Socialism’, 1907, page 89.)

It would seem the split in the aim, came about as a result of the disagreement about the best way to achieve socialism.

[SocialistPunk]

Interesting to note that when you search online for the definition of capitalism there is a concensus. Compare the definitions for socialism, some mention community ownership of production and distribution, usually throwing in exchange and capital. Some explicitly link common ownership with government control and some claim there are many variations of socialism.Two of my favourites.http://www.yourdictionary.com/socialism

Quote:

Socialism is defined as an economic theory, system or movement where the production and distribution of goods is done, owned and shared by the citizens of a society.Facts About SocialismIn theory, citizens have equal access to the products and resources and are compensated based on the amount of work performed.Under the ideals of socialism, there is no motivation for workers to excel at their jobs because there is no benefit to the worker.Friedrich Engels, a French social theorist, developed modern socialistic theory in the late 18th century when he advocated the elimination of production methods based on capitalism.Karl Marx described socialism as a lower form of communism and held the opinion that socialism was an intermediary step in moving from capitalism to communism.Many movements across Europe embraced the Marxist view of socialism and this led to the protests and uprisings of the working class, including the labor unions.The two largest "socialistic" systems are the former Soviet Union and Mainland China. Each of these began with the ideals of socialism, but ended in becoming totalitarian in nature. An example of socialism is the Mainland Chinese economic system.

And…….the best for last.http://usconservatives.about.com/od/glossaryterms/g/Socialism.htm

Quote:

Definition: Socialism is a political term applied to an economic system in which property is held in common and not individually, and relationships are governed by a political hierarchy. Common ownership doesn't mean decisions are made collectively, however. Instead, individuals in positions of authority make decisions in the name of the collective group. Regardless of the picture painted of socialism by its proponents, it ultimately removes group decision making in favor of the choices of one all-important individual. Socialism originally involved the replacement of private property with a market exchange, but history has proven this ineffective. socialism cannot prevent people from competing for what is scarce. Socialism as we know it today, most commonly refers to "market socialism," which involves individual market exchanges organized by collective planning. 

[SocialistPunk]

Up until the last couple of years, I've been off the socialist scene, so to speak, and recent events look to keep me away from any serious involvement. So my experience with the "left" is lacking.Given that it looks as though there was a concensus, at one time, as to the aim of socialism. My question is how have the "left-wing" socialists usually responded to the reality of the history of socialist thought. Are they in denial of the history of socialism, or is it as simple as an inability to distinguish aim from the method of getting there?I know there is a lot of scorn poured over the WSM method of advocating using existing democratic institutions (such as Parliament here in Britain) as a means to neutralise state powers.    

[Anonymous]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I know there is a lot of scorn poured over the WSM method of advocating using existing democratic institutions (such as Parliament here in Britain) as a means to neutralise state powers.    

Not so much 'neutralising' (though that will be one of the effects)  but actually using the state(s) in a socialist revolution to take the earth and its resources into common ownership.I think the Russian revolution and the Labour party are partly to blame for the confusion but I would also suggest that the worlds media, east and west, had an interest in perpetuating the myth  that the the Soviet Union was communist.Why the 'left' remain confused and continue to peddle the myth is baffling. Just plain ignorance.Then there is the fear of being ridiculed for advocating a wageless, moneyless society under the immense weight of years of capitalist propaganda.  

[alanjjohnstone]

In recent years we have had Trotskyist academics like Hillel Ticktin "improving" their own theory by re-emphasising the socialist ideal. I''d place a lot of caveats on that, however, but it does signal a change. Same with one of the platfoms of Left Unity, there was a large overlap in ideas with our own principles, something that we acknowledged. Its only with groups that possess practically identical vision of socialism with us that the parliament becomes an issue. Often it is from misconceptions of what they think we say and to be truthful different members of the party often give priority to different aspects of the case. Our pamphlet i think did a lot to reveal that we are much more open-minded than previously supposed. Our majority is not the 50% plus 1 but a politically effective majority …which need not be numerical majority. As pointed out …how could it be when the party began when women did not have the vote and about a third of men were also not eligible to vote. Sure the left  bring a lot of their own historical baggage along but so do we since their views are a reaction to Lenin and Stalin and ours is to the SDF (although our burden is a lot lighter).They have this gulf between political action now for "bread and butter" aims…and the movement to achieve the  ultimate goal  I think in my experience the big stopper is our and their approach to reforms and immediate demands and palliative campaigns.  I think we could improve our communication on it and make our message clearer.  We do not object to particular reform campaigns, we do not stop our members from engaging politically in them, but as a party we do not do so for some very important and valid reasons and it is not because they make capitalism stronger as some of our critics accuse us of saying (even if some actually do, but that's not the point we oppose them) The Left themselves are a bit confused themselves on what is a valid reform campaign and what is a transition and unachievable demand.Many will now agree with us that reforms are not the stepping stones towards socialism as the Labour Party types tried to argue in the past but suggest that they have replaced the trade unions as the "schools for socialism" where workers learn to organise themselves in struggle (as if we need taught that these days.) Then they are the left who are more in tune with the charity/NGO type of reform demand. At times we can see that Oxfam and Children in Need growing more and more political than churchy with  radical  measures that go beyond the left at times. I think it was the late Pieter Lawrence who suggested we did not relate enough to those invaluable organisations. We sometimes think our case for socialism is so easy to comprehend and so obvious, we forget that it needs explained over and over again , the i dotted and the t crossed  because for many who have been deluded into wrong paths and being told you are wrong is painful and sometimes like grief and bereavement it can be a  long experience to recover out of and as said earlier some people/groups have a nostalgic longing for the past too or should i say false memory syndrome for it.Sorry for the ramble but i think most socialists still genuinely try to understand the process of social change and sometimes we have a feeling that our answers are not always 100% correct…perhaps only 99.9% 

[SocialistPunk]

Hi VinFor me the word neutralise in this instance has several aspects. Coercive elements of the state can be democraticaly captured and dismantled, leaving the useful administrative elements (not Parliament or government). Also if the dwindling capitalist machinery sought to use force against a democratic revolution, to regain control, legitimacy of their version of democracy is exposed or neutralised by their desire to destroy a genuine democratic movement in order to protect their minority ownership privilege. In essence we both agree with using the existing democratic framework, would be an advantage.All real socialists know the damage the former Soviet Union and Labour party have done to the identity of socialism and I agree that the media have taken full advantage in order to discredit socialism. Thats why earlier I mentioned capitalism having one accepted meaning yet socialism has as many as people can invent.  Perhaps the direction of the "left" over the course of the last century reflects the generational divide that seeks to reinvent itself every few generations or so? Couple this trend with continual media misdierection and bias, it's no wonder most on the "left" cant see the wood for the trees.As usual with us humans things are never simple. 

[SocialistPunk]

Alan, "ramble" it isn't. I think you make some very good points. I've gotta get some stuff done now but I'll think about your points and maybe get back a bit later, as it's and interesting and important subject.

[ALB]

Here's another example I just remembered about which shows that at one time there was general agreement as to what socialism meant. It's from, of all people, Stalin in 1907:

Quote:

Future society will be socialist society. This means also that, with the abolition of exploitation commodity production and buying and selling will also be abolished and, therefore, there will be no room for buyers and sellers of labour power, for employers and employed— there will be only free workers.Future society will be socialist society. This means, lastly, that in that society the abolition of wage-labour will be accompanied by the complete abolition of the private ownership of the instruments and means of production; there will be neither poor proletarians nor rich capitalists—there will be only workers who collectively own all the land and minerals, all the forests, all the factories and mills, all the railways, etc.As you see, the main purpose of production in the future will be to satisfy the needs of society and not to produce goods for sale in order to increase the profits of the capitalists. Where there will be no room for commodity production, struggle for profits, etc.It is also clear that future production will be socialistically organised, highly developed production, which will take into account the needs of society and will produce as much as society needs. Here there will be no room whether for scattered production, competition, crises, or unemployment.Where there are no classes, where there are neither rich nor poor, there is no need for a state, there is no need either for political power, which oppresses the poor and protects the rich. Consequently, in socialist society there will be no need for the existence of political power.

From here: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm

[SocialistPunk]

Hi AdamI take it this side of Stalin's concept of socialism, being in agreement with ours, is little known and easily forgotten?

[alanjjohnstone]

The American Trotskyist, James Cannon

Quote:

Socialism and communism are more or less interchangeable terms in the Marxist movement. Some make a distinction between them in this respect; for example, Lenin used the expression socialism as the first stage of communism, but I haven’t found any other authority for that use. I think that is Lenin’s own particular idea. I, for example, consider the terms socialism and communism interchangeable, and they relate to the classless society based on planned production for use as distinct from a system of capitalism based on private property and production for profit.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1941/socialism/ch02.htmHis What Socialist America Will Look Like is also interesting speculation

Quote:

But after a certain period, where there is abundance and even superabundance, the absurdity of strict wage regulation will become apparent…The accounting arrangements automatically registered by money wages based on gold will at a certain stage be replaced by labour certificates or coupons, like tickets to the theatre. But even that, eventually, will pass away. Even that kind of accounting, which would take up useless labour and be absolutely purposeless, will be eliminated. There will be no money, and there will not even be any bookkeeping transactions or coupons to regulate how much one works and how much he gets. When labour has ceased to be a mere means of life and becomes life’s prime necessity, people will work without any compulsion and take what they need. So said Marx.

[Author]

Posts