ICC public meeting, 22nd June, London
- This topic has 11 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Following the very successful meeting we had last year, the ICC invites you to a second day of discussion in London, on 22 June 2013.
The morning session will be a discussion around the theme:
Capitalism is in deep trouble – why is it so hard to fight against it?
In this session, we will consider questions such as: is it accurate to say that capitalism is in terminal decline? What is really at stake in the struggle of the working class to defend itself? What are the main obstacles to the development of the struggle?
We have published a great deal about the crisis in our press but we recommend the following one to give a general overview of the situation confronting capitalism:
http://en.internationalism.org/internationalreview/201203/ 4744/economic-crisis-not- never-ending-story Regarding the problem of responding to the crisis, we think the following article, and the discussion on our internet forum that it stimulated, provide a good starting point:
http://en.internationalism.org/worldrevolution/201211/5284/ why-it-so-difficult-struggle- and-how-can-we-overcome-these- difficulties http://en.internationalism.org /forum/1056/fred/5293/why-it- so-difficult-struggle-and-how- can-we-overcome-these-difficul ties In the afternoon we are planning to organise a discussion around the theme How do we get from capitalism to communism?
What does a revolution look like?
What is the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’?
How can capitalist relations of production be overturned?
How will the working class deal with the huge problems posed by capitalism’s destruction of the environment?As with last year’s meeting, we hope that the presentations will be given by comrades who are not ICC
members.
We think that these discussions will be of interest to comrades in or around revolutionary political organisations,
to people who have been actively involved in the class struggle, and to anyone asking questions about the nature and future of present-day society – and about the feasibility of getting rid of it.
If you are interested in attending, please let us know in advance, especially if you have any accommodation, transport or other problems that might make it difficult for you to come along.
The venue is upstairs at the Lucas Arms, 245a Grays Inn Road, London WC1X 8QZ. The first session will go from 11-2 and the afternoon session from 3-6. We will arrange for food at lunch time but we are also planning to go to a nearby restaurant after the meeting. Attendance is free but we will ask for contributions for food and the room.
Contact us at uk@internationalism.org
or at BM Box 869, London, WC1N 3XXHello, I'm Alf from the ICC. Thanks for posting this up DJP, and glad to hear that Ed is planning to come. We have decided to go with the topic 'how do we get from capitalism to communism' – the announcement on our website has been altered accordingly. http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201304/7460/come-day-discussionA topic of interest to SPGB members, no doubt….
Welcome to our forum Alf. We hope to hear from you again and possibly see you, not only at the ICC's day of discussion, but at some of our own events. Free feel to navigate our website in the meantime.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/calendarThe SPGB is holding its annual Summer School in Birmingham between July 12th and 14th which some of your members may be interested in.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/event/summer-school-2013-birminghamAnd later in July (21st) there will be talk at the party's premises in Clapham on the "Russian Revolution in Retreat 1920-1924" given by guest speaker Simon Pirani.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/event/russian-revolution-retreat-1920-1924-clapham
An audio recording of the morning session of this event has now been uploaded to the ICC website -(although it’s not yet downloadable as an MP3) http://en.internationalism.org/podcast/201312/9349/capitalism-deep-trouble-debate Also, their written summary of the afternoon session ends off with reference to an SPGB member’s contribution – http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201312/9351/summary-afternoon-session “There exists a difference of opinion between the SPGB and the ICC on the Period of Transition. The SPGB believe that the PoT will not be as prolonged or chaotic as others think, the context of Marx believing that there will be a prolonged PoT was that capitalism had not yet fully developed worldwide, thus some temporary measures were needed to produce a modern economy which could cater to everybody’s needs. The SPGB argue that because we now have the productive capabilities to cater to everybody’s needs and the democratic institutions to achieve power it will be possible to have a swift, peaceful transition to communist society.”
I once bought a couple of numbers of "World Revolution" when I was a student in London. I thought I looked kind of cool reading them on the Victoria line. That was about it. I wrote to Vic Vanni in Glasgow at the time asking his opinion of them. Like me he wasn't impressed. Vic soon exposed them in his written reply to me. Why do these people over-complicate things and get themselves tied up in stupid knots?
It is a great pity that Vic is not computer-literate enough to contribute to these (and other) discussion lists. We are missing the member's very insightful views and valuable input on many issues
pfbcarlisle wrote:An audio recording of the morning session of this event has now been uploaded to the ICC website -(although it's not yet downloadable as an MP3) http://en.internationalism.org/podcast/201312/9349/capitalism-deep-trouble-debate Also, their written summary of the afternoon session ends off with reference to an SPGB member's contribution – http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201312/9351/summary-afternoon-session "There exists a difference of opinion between the SPGB and the ICC on the Period of Transition. The SPGB believe that the PoT will not be as prolonged or chaotic as others think, the context of Marx believing that there will be a prolonged PoT was that capitalism had not yet fully developed worldwide, thus some temporary measures were needed to produce a modern economy which could cater to everybody’s needs. The SPGB argue that because we now have the productive capabilities to cater to everybody’s needs and the democratic institutions to achieve power it will be possible to have a swift, peaceful transition to communist society."I think this is one of the fundamental confusions that exists when members of the SPGBand Left Communists talk to each other. The SPGB of course doesn't believe that there will be a 'swift transition' to communism, because the SPGB insists that there will be a massively long process of the working class building its consciousness before such a 'swift transition' can take place. The Communist Left on the hand sees the process rather differently. We also believe that capitalism has created the productive capabilities to cater for everyone's needs, but think that capitalism will destroy a portion of this productive capacity in resisting the revolution. This will necessitate a slower transformation of capitalist to communist society; on the other hand, because we think that the working class learns to struggle in the process of struggle – rather than the SPGB's idea that the working class must first be taught correct theory by the enlightened – for Left Communists the process of revolution begins earlier.
Actually, not a bad summary of the difference except it's a pity you couldn't resist saying "the SPGB's idea that the working class must first be taught correct theory by the enlightened" instead of "the SPGB's idea that the working class become socialist through the interaction of their own experience and hearing the case for socialism put by fellow workers".Your position commits you to (a) a revolution started by a minority and (b) a longish period in which the working class would be running capitalism, with money, wages, production for sale, etc. Both of which we fundamentally reject.
Perhaps these two conflicting positions can be illustrated as:Small minority consciousness – revolutionary process which extends consciousness – revolutionary act by larger minority – majority consciousnessSmall minority consciousness – revolutionary process which extends consciousness – majority consciousness – revolutionary act by majorityI think we all accept that at some point class conscious communists are in a minority, and that eventually the whole class has to be conscious. But who carries out the 'revolutionary act': a party or the class?I think I favour the latter, class majority, not the former, party large minority.
Can we first define minority and majority? We all agree it is not numerical, 50% plus 1…the SPGB calls for an "effective" majority and that could just as easy mean a numerical minority. "the whole class has to be conscious." This is actually more extreme position of what a majority is. More so than the SPGB's …we only want just a "majority" Shouldn't we also define what is are the class organisations? the unions, factory committees, workers councils , neighbourhood general assemblies, workers/labour/socialist party (with small w, l, s and p)? If the class is the party and vice versa, are they politically distinguishable in the actual revolutionary act. One of the reasons i moved from the workers council/industrial unionist position is that a party one encompasses the members of our class more comprehensively. (There is even room in it for the odd capitalist or two who may join in a wish to avoid the environmental end of the world!!) We come together for class interests , not sectional ones, to abolish ourselves as a class, not to perpetuate classes. The party presents itself as society , in a way. NB like the SPGB i do not exclude the particiption for those other means of organising – we simply don't claim for them an exclusive role, nor the decisive one. A play may have a lead but it requires a supporting cast too. (even a one-person show requires technical support) …Didn't Marx talk about the conductor and the orchestra perhaps not in this context but i think it applies. Also any flaws in a political party can be just as easily laid at the door of any alternatives. Reflecting my views is a post on my blog and i think a more nuanced interpretation of the SPGB's http://mailstrom.blogspot.com/2011/05/vote-as-weapon.html(forget now the sources i plagiarised it from )
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.