Dorking – No War But the Class War
- This topic has 24 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Saturday 26th January: Dorking – No War But the Class War meeting,
1pm-3pm
At the Lincoln Arms pub (function room), next to Dorking Main station and only 2 minutes from Dorking Deepdene station.Meeting hosted by Surrey Libertarian History Society with introductory talks from a member of the Anarchist Communist Group and a member of the Communist Workers’ Organisation.
Actually, it was quite an interesting even enjoyable meeting. Three of us went, making up 20% of those there. We had assumed that it was just a general discussion meeting, but it was a meeting between the ACF and the CWO to revive a “No War But the Class War” group, to counter those who argue that workers should take sides in wars, as in Syria and the coming one in Venezuela, rather than proclaim that workers had no interest justifying this and that nationalism was a poison and “anti-imperialism” an invalid standard to judge by; a position we have always taken of course. It was a bit embarrassing in fact when they asked us if the SPGB would join the group. All the same, there was also time to discuss wider issues such as the changing composition of the working class and what makes individuals revolutionary and why we are so few. There was a clash between the ACF and the CWO about the latter’s advocacy of a “semi-state”.
On war, the CWO has the position that another world war is inevitable in order to devalue capital by destroying it so that capital accumulation can continue, something they predicted in the 1970s and are still expecting. The ACF and us argued that, while capitalism was the cause of wars due to its built-in competition over markets, source of raw materials, investment outlets and trade routes, a world war was neither necessary nor inevitable (in fact not really likely); but rather that war would continue to take the form of scattered proxy wars, in which the “Great Powers” (and some lesser ones) use locals in disputed areas as cannon fodder to further their interests, and probably become more frequent. Despite this divergence, everyone agreed that workers should not take side in wars.
After the formal meeting, we exchanged anecdotes and jokes about the Trotskyists, and also the Bolsheviks (the CWO didn’t join in that part).
As you know, Keefs was not present.
“It was a bit embarrassing in fact when they asked us if the SPGB would join the group.”
While we could not formally join a group where we had not 100% control over what was said and written, couldn’t we have offered to contribute an analysis or two, clearly showing the authorship, to any future website or newsletter?
Or volunteered our printing facilities (if we still retain that ability) as a logistical helping-hand.
Even let HO premises be used as a discussion meeting place.
Perhaps a willingness to cooperate more on commonly shared positions might be a remedy to “why we are so few.”
Sounds like it was a worthwhile meeting – vaguely regret not having gone myself. What were the responses to the question ‘What makes individuals revolutionary’?..also,forgive my ignorance, but was is a ‘semi-state’?
The CWO said it was a term Lenin coined to make the point that the state the Russian Revolution would establish was supposed to be temporary and a transition to a stateless society. The anarchists asked it meant that there would be a semi-army, a semi-police force, semi-courts and semi-prisons.
Just done a search and Lenin used the term in chapter 1 of his The State and Revolution where he wrote:
What withers away after this revolution is the proletarian state or semi-state.
In the interest of intellectual honesty, I should point out that, though we didn’t intervene in the argument between the ACG and CWO over the “semi-state”, our position would have been closer to that of the CWO. After all, we argue that the working class should take over control of the state (via elections and parliament), lop off its undemocratic features, and use it to disposses the capitalist class and coordinate the introduction of socialism. You could even describe this residual state as a “semi-state” if you wanted (but we’re not going to as this is Lenin’s term). And of course, once socialism had been established, it would disappear, with any useful administrative parts being incorporated into the democratic administrative of socialist society.
The difference between us and the CWO would be (1) they argue that the working class should smash the existing state in an armed insurrection and then create a “semi-state”, and (2) that this is not what the Bolsheviks did, not even for a couple of weeks.
The bokshevik did not establish a semi state. It was a state in the full meaning of the concept described by Engels which was an apparatus of oppression and repression against the working class
“In the interest of intellectual honesty, I should point out that, though we didn’t intervene in the argument between the ACG and CWO over the “semi-state”, our position would have been closer to that of the CWO. After all, we argue that the working class should take over control of the state (via elections and parliament), lop off its undemocratic features, and use it to dispossess the capitalist class and coordinate the introduction of socialism. You could even describe this residual state as a “semi-state” if you wanted (but we’re not going to as this is Lenin’s term). And of course, once socialism had been established, it would disappear, with any useful administrative parts being incorporated into the democratic administrative of socialist society.”
Eee! Well. So SPGB semi-state disappears. Like ferret up trouserleg. What happens if them democratically controlled and communally owned cops and tanks prove administratively “useful” to the “working class” (or rather to the SPGB members substituting for them “via elections and parliament”)? Call me a sceptic but frankly I’m doubtful, very doubtful indeed.
Eee! Well. So SPGB semi-state disappears. Like ferret up trouserleg. What happens if them democratically controlled and communally owned cops and tanks prove administratively “useful” to the “working class” (or rather to the SPGB members substituting for them “via elections and parliament”)? Call me a sceptic but frankly I’m doubtful, very doubtful indeed.
By the time socialism is on the cards the entire social environment will have been radically transformed. Cops then will not be the same as cops now . Cops are just workers in uniform after all. Yes they tend to attract individuals less likely to be drawn to socialist ideas – although I personally know of one who was interested years ago – but even cops have been known to take industrial action. When the writing is on the wall for capitalism the cops will surely know which side their bread is buttered on
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_strike
As for the SPGB “substituting” for the working class – c’mon you should know better than to come out with this nonsense. Besides SPGBers are workers themselves (or, at least, I am not aware of any capitalist in our midst although I might be wrong – weren’t there one or two in the past who were borderline capitalists like Fred?)
Robbo
It’s not a matter of whether cops can be class conscious (or have socialist consciousness which is quite another thing altogether). Clearly they can. It’s what the role of the police is. This “radical transformation” of yours is a magicwand: “But in our not-semi-state, the police will be totally different.”
You clearly have not understood the idea of substitutionism. This has nothing to do with the class composition of the party, but concerns the existence of the party itself. Trotsky himself, naturally, never drew this conclusion. However, it is inherent in the ‘Party Idea’ – that the working class can be organised into a party.
KAZ
It’s not a matter of whether cops can be class conscious (or have socialist consciousness which is quite another thing altogether). Clearly they can. It’s what the role of the police is. This “radical transformation” of yours is a magicwand: “But in our not-semi-state, the police will be totally different.”
How, pray, is it a “magic wand” to suggest that, by the time the socialist movement consists of millions upon millions of workers, that the entire social environment will have been radically transformed – assuming that support for socialism takes off in that way. In fact , the suggestion that such a transformation would not have taken place in those circumstances strikes me as being nothing short of incredible.
There are plenty of precedents for thinking that when the writing is on the wall for capitalism there is precious little that the police would be able to do to stop the tide of events from culminating in socialism- not withstanding their current “role” which you speak of. You seem to agree that even coppers are capable of becoming class consciousness but at the same time seem to dogmatically think that they must be ahistorically hidebound by this role for all eternity. What’s to say they can’t change that role as they see it?
You clearly have not understood the idea of substitutionism. This has nothing to do with the class composition of the party, but concerns the existence of the party itself. Trotsky himself, naturally, never drew this conclusion. However, it is inherent in the ‘Party Idea’ – that the working class can be organised into a party.
Actually I think I do roughly understand the idea of “substitutionism” which was classically spelt out by Trotsky. It is a state of affairs in which “the organisation of the party substitutes itself for the party as a whole; then the Central Committee substitutes itself for the organisation; and finally the ‘dictator’ substitutes himself for the Central Committee”. (N. Trotsky, Nashi Politicheskye Zadachi Geneva, 1904, p.54.)
What you have overlooked is that the “Party” Trotsky was talking about was the Vanguard Party -the idea of a small disciplined party of revolutionaries taking power on behalf of a non socialist majority. You should by now know enough about the SPGB to realise that this concept of the Party is totally at variance with the way the SPGB sees its role. I think you are just taking the piss to be honest, Keith
Several years ago in the middle of an armed revolt, I saw many policemen, and military taking sides with the peoples, some were also poor like the peoples that were fighting against the state apparatus, and some belonged to the higher hierarchy. The taking of class consciousness by the armed forces and the police is not a magic wand,
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.