Day meeting on building a mass communist party Saturday 8 February
- This topic has 20 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 4 days, 22 hours ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Prometheus invited us to submit our view on what a socialist party should be that they published here:
Mike Mcnair of the Weekly Worker comments on our contribution above to the discussion in Prometheus:
https://www.weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1524/going-beyond-strikism/
“Mike Mcnair of the Weekly Worker comments on our contribution”
It wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be though he deliberately seems to conflate leadership in the sense of having ideas first with leadership in the sense of being able to dictate and enforce decisions.
With regards to the comment about splits – seeing as the list encompasses about 125 years and some of the splits are just a handful of people breaking off to do their own thing, I don’t think you can really say the SPGB is doing particularly badly on that front.
Mike Mcnair ends his article on impossibilism and possibilism:
“To pose the question of a socialist alternative, it is necessary to step beyond support for strike struggles, and so on, to posing a policy alternative in the interests of the class as a whole (like limits on working hours) and an electoral alternative.”
This seems to be saying that a socialist/communist party should contest elections advocating, besides socialism (the common ownership and democratic control of the means of life), legal limits on working hours and other measures that could be considered to be in the interest of the working class as a whole as opposed to that of a section only.
But who is to implement these measures? Are they demands to be implemented under capitalism by a capitalist government or by a socialist administration should the party win an election?
If the former, are they feasible under capitalism or will they come up against the economic laws of the system that profit-making should take priority over other considerations? Would they work as intended? For instance, legal limits on working hours could lead (and historically have led) to employers increasing the intensity of work as well as to accelerating mechanisation leading to workers being made redundant.
If the latter, surely the main measures to be implemented would be the abolition of private and corporate property rights over the means of production and the democratisation of the public administration. But that presupposes that this is what the working class want and have voted for (and will have organised outside parliament for).
It is all very well imaging scenarios where there is a mass socialist/communist party, but that isn’t the present situation. Unfortunately, there is currently only minimal support for socialism as an immediate alternative (even amongst leftists). So the urgent need is for those workers who have become socialists to spread amongst other workers that the only framework within which their problems as a class can be solved is socialism.
What, then, is the point of a socialist party putting forward measures that many will see as desirable and possible even under capitalism? That will encourage reformist illusions, attract the support of non-socialists and set the party on the road towards evolving into a possibilist party relegating socialism to a remote goal and concentrating on trying to get reforms to capitalism, as happened to the old SPD in Germany.
“What, then, is the point of a socialist party putting forward measures that many will see as desirable and possible even under capitalism? That will encourage reformist illusions, attract the support of non-socialists and set the party on the road towards evolving into a possibilist party relegating socialism to a remote goal and concentrating on trying to get reforms to capitalism, as happened to the old SPD in Germany.”
Yes, not standing on a platform of reforms is a strategic consideration for the reasons mentioned above. But once there was a significant number of socialists within parliament they could also support reforms if they were beneficial to the working class. I don’t know how controversial this is – but at this stage they could even propose legislation that could aid the socialist movement (for example laws that limit oligarchic control of the press).
It’s not a simplistic position of “reforms=bad” but one about what is necessary to build a socialist movement.
Yes, we have always said that we are not opposed to reforms as such but that our position is that “we are against reformism not reforms”. Some reforms are and have been beneficial, for instance laws about health and safety at work.
We are even prepared to countenance Socialist MPs and councillors voting for reforms proposed by other MPs and councillors if the party judged them to be in the interest of the working class and or the socialist movement.
Robbo’s letter of reply can be found here on page 2:
https://www.weeklyworker.co.uk/assets/ww/pdf/WW1525-web01.pdf
Incidentally, the first letter is from an ex-member. Why someone would leave to join the Communist Party of Britain (the Morning Star) needs some explaining, but at least he treats us with some respect as, in fact, did Mcnair.
Robin. In you letter you say that “In other words, the field of reformist activity is essentially political, in contrast to trade unionism, which is an essentially economic and defensive struggle – a distinction also, incidentally, made by Marx.”
Can you provide a reference to Marx here?
I’m not sure such a clean split can be made – a lot of the reformist parties came out of the trade unions, and struggles between workers and their employers *are* political in the sense that they are about relations of power.
I would have thought it was better to say that the distinction is between struggles to defend and improve working conditions and the struggle to establish socialism. These are two qualitatively distinct things since they have two distinctive goals. No need to refer to one as being ‘economic’ and the other ‘political’.
Hey DJP
I spent a good hour or so trying to track down that reference to Marx. I knew it existed as I made a reference to it in stuff I had written ages ago.
Anyway, I think it is this – a letter from Marx to Bolte in 1871:
The political movement of the working class has as its ultimate object, of course, the conquest of political power for this class, and this naturally requires a previous organisation of the working class developed up to a certain point and arising from its economic struggles. The attempt in a particular factory or even in a particular trade to force a shorter working day out of individual capitalists by strikes, etc. is a purely economic movement. On the other hand, the movement to force through an eight-hour, etc., law, is a political movement.”
I am not sure I would agree with you on the question of reformism- Yes, in a sense trade union struggle is “political” in that it is a power struggle (which is “political”) but the question then arises how do you differentiate trade union struggle from reformism if both involve a “power struggle”? If you cannot make such a differentiation then you have a problem. If, as a revolutionary socialist you are obliged to reject reformism then it would seem to follow that you cannot support trade unionism (which would be a problem for obvious reasons)
I think the way round this is to distinguish between “politics” in the broad sense you have in mind – as a power struggle – and “politics” in the narrow or formal sense as legislative enactments undertaken by the state and designed to ameliorate the problems that capitalism throws up (reformism)
As a socialist party we obviously cannot go down that (latter) road as that would inevitably compromise our commitment to socialism . We would pretty soon find ourselves sinking into the quicksand and being overwhelmed by the sheer multitude of problems capitalism will throw at us. The revolutionary abolition of capitalism would be gradually forgotten as a goal. It will disappear like the proverbial Cheshire Cats grin
Consequently we do need to draw a line in the sand (and preferably not in the quicksand of capitalist politics if this can be avoided). I think this can achieved by distinguishing between the economic FIELD of action (trade union struggle) and the political FIELD of action in which we engage in as a purely political party that rejects reformism (not reforms as such) and stands instead for social revolution.
Certainly it is true as you say, that a “lot of the reformist parties came out of the trade unions” but that is precisely the reason why we need to insist on having a clean split -to ensure that we don´t go the same way as all those reformist parties that have been swallowed up by the quicksand of capitalism and have absolutely no interest in getting rid of the system now
“the question then arises how do you differentiate trade union struggle from reformism if both involve a “power struggle”?”
Strange question. Two different things can share one, or more, common features without being the same in all other ways. How do you differentiate between a car and a van if both involve wheels and engines?
By the way, I didn’t think the letter was bad, was just interested in seeing how Marx was using ‘political’. It’s one of those words in which the meaning is very much dependent on the context.
Thanks for looking up the quote.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/letters/71_11_23.htm
I still don’t think it gives you the neat split you want. It says that if the trade unions, or the employees of individual enterprises, exert pressure through withdrawing their labour then that is action purely on the economic front. But if they (the trade unions) get together and put pressure on the state to bring about reforms, then that is political action. Then and now trade unions *do* engage in campaigns to change the law, get certain MPs elected etc. Saying we can support trade unions because they operate only in the ‘economic’ sphere, and not the ‘political’ just doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t seem like the right way of putting it.
The letter you quote from is about those wanting the workers movement to abstain from political action, nothing about what does or does not signify ‘reformism’. In actual fact I’m not sure if Marx ever wrote about that, didn’t the distinction come after he died? He did think that the workers movement would come to socialist understanding through engaging in political work that included campaigning for reforms. If he had lived longer and not changed his views he would have failed the SPGB membership test!
Strange question. Two different things can share one, or more, common features without being the same in all other ways. How do you differentiate between a car and a van if both involve wheels and engines?
Yes, that’s sort of what I was saying. A car and van both involve wheels and engines but are, nevertheless, distinguishable. Similarly, trade unionism and reformism both involve a “power struggle” but they too are distinguishable. Not just “are distinguishable” but NEED to be distinguished from each other if we are to chart a clear and principled course of action towards a social revolution
Another distinction is who the “demand” is made on: in the case of trade union action over wages and working conditions it’s the employer(s). In the case of reforms, it is the government, whether through legislation or administrative decision.
Also, the fact that we think trade unionism is ok, doesn’t mean that we as a party campaign for higher wages all round as well as for socialism.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.