Left Unity.org / People’s Assembly
- This topic has 583 replies, 34 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
If there's one thing to learn from history, it's that no one learns anything from history. Or at the least, no one can agree what the lessons are.
stuartw2112 wrote:If there's one thing to learn from history, it's that no one learns anything from history. Or at the least, no one can agree what the lessons are.That statement contradicts the materialist conception of history
stuartw2112 wrote:Thanks everyone for the discussion. Most interesting point I think was Adam's about reforms, but of course this applies to revolution too. I'm only using the language of "reformism" and so on because it's the language used here. Actually my position is that the words don't refer to anything much – revolutionaries and reformists, so called by a small number of far left geeks, actually do much the same thing. As I said before, we just do what we can. At the moment I am giving my limited energies to LU, for much the reasons Jools says, but the work I'm doing isn't all that much different from when I was in the SPGB (except having more success because what we're working towards seems more plausible to people, including to me. CheersIve been mulling over this comment of yours, Stuart. I can sort of understand the point you are making. It connects with another point that has been expressed on this thread – on the probablity of any of us ever seeing socialism in our lifetime. I agree , it seems highly improbable. Does that deter me in any way? Does it it dampen my enthusiasm and ardour? Not one bit. See, the way I look at it – and I have used this analogy before – society is like a soup, a blend of multiple flavours. We all do what we can but we do it in different ways. Even if socialism is never going to happen, the impact of socialists on existing society is not lost; it adds to the flavour of life as we experience it today. Socialists are those little spicy bits floating around in the soup that makes it all the more tasty. To be a revolutionary socialist is to be an individual who stands uncompromisingly against all the "isms" of capitalism – like nationalism, like racism and sexisim and so on. We are making an impact in the here and now – marginal of course – but still more than nothing and this is so even if socialism will never happen. By our very existence and by our very efforts, feeble though they be in the grand scheme of things, we are making it that much more difficult -even if that doesnt amount to much – for capitalism to get away with the crimes its commits. We are upping the ante. In our small way, we are eroding the legitmacy of the capitalist state to wage war on behalf of the so called nation, we are beefing up the militancy of workers in the industrial struggle, we are combatting the prejudices that separate workers from workers. You and I are only individuals. As individuals, joining the Labour Party, for instance, is not going to make any substantive difference to what the Labour Party is doing. Which kind of undermines the rationale for joining , or voting for, the Labour Party on the grounds that you feel you need to "do something practical in the here and now" and Labour is "at least marginally better than the Tories". Point is if you are not going to make any difference to the overall outcome why bother? As an individual you might just as well join a tiny insignificant but revolutionary socialist organisation and reconstitute yourself into one of those little spicy bits in the soup of life that adds to its overall flavour. Now I am not saying that that organisation is or should be the SPGB. I have my differences with the SPGB, as you know, even if I regard the SPGB as comrades in the same struggle. It is the principle that I am getting at and this principle connects very directly with your point that you are giving your limited energies to LU, because the work you are doing isn't all that much different from when you were in the SPGB "except having more success because what we're working towards seems more plausible to people". But if people in general endorse capitalism then, of course, if you are working to reform capitalism this will come across as "more plausible" than working to overthrow capitalism. That goes without saying.The problem is, and I think you must know this in your hear of hearts, that there is a certain cognitive dissonance at work here that is going to eat away at your convictions in the long run. I have no doubt, and I really dont want for this to sound patronising in the least – it is not intended as such – that Left Unity are a decent bunch of individuals with the best of intentions who want to make a difference in the here and now, who want to connect with the concerns of workers But lets us be quite frank here, Stuart. The limits of LU's horizions seem to extend no further than existing capitalist society, do they?. LU does not even envisage, let alone advocate, any kind of non market non statist future for humanklind. This is the problem, you see, and I have asked you this before but you have not really answered my question. – how is it possible to operate a capitalist society, even a state capitalist society, except in the interests of capital? How in promoting the interests of capital can you possibly avoid placing yourself in a position in which you are obliged to oppose the interests of wage labou? Left Unity has constituted itself as a political party. It therefore intends to seek political power, to capture the state and, in terms of its own mandate, administer capitalism . However much it might want to administer capitalism in the interests of the workers it will inevitably end up betraying those interests.This might not seem likely at this point in time but only because Left Unity appears very unlikely to make significant electoral progress in the near future. Things will change of course if Left Unity were to became a mass party; it will become much more openly pro-capitalist and "moderate" in its demands vis a vis the capitalist class. But consider the implications or consequences of the programme you are advancing right now. You are reinforcing the very claims that the major capitalist parties make – like Labour, like the Tories – that capitalist society can somehow be administered in the interests of everyone. You are tacitly endorsing the view that, in principle, this is entirely possible.So allow me to ask – how do you reconcile that with your own revolutionary socialist understanding of how capitalism actually ticks?
Nothing against the ILP, Left Unity or WIC in particular. I don't have the personal animosity some seem to have here.I agree with making a bigger impact, but watering down the socialist case just doesn't work. A lot of the case is interlocking so you can't admit religious members without compromising materialism. To some extent, supporting syndicalism compromises the political road. That's not to say there aren't things outside the party that the party supports or that revolutionary socialist consciousness cannot arise outside of the party. It's probably a myth that the party is one of no compromise, one pernicious myth among members that led to a split in 1911 and also that contributed to one in 1991.
Hi Robin,I agree with the first part of your post. We can only make a small difference anyway, but those small differences matter. We do what we can. Where we disagree is in what you claim I know really in my heart of hearts. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I know no such thing! Of course it is possible to operate a capitalist society in better or worse ways. America and Britain, for example, are run in ways that are far more harmful to working-class interests than Sweden or Norway. I prefer to live in Britain than North Korea. And so on. There are working-class interests at stake in how capitalism is run. Who wins elections matters. All these things seem to me pretty obvious.You say that the socialists in LU don't have a vision of society that exends beyond capitalism. But this is just silly. Tony Benn's vision of socialist society is still socialist, regardless of whether or not you share the details of that vision. You, like many SPGBers, talk about your own vision of socialism as if it's some kind of precious secret no one else knows about. But it is fairly common knowledge. William Morris's News from Nowhere is considered a classic inside socialist circles and outside of them. Ursula Le Guin's The Dispossessed is well known by every one who thinks about these kind of things. Everyone's read The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists and appreciates "The Money Trick". They just differ in the lessons they draw from these books.In short, I do not, not even in my heart of hearts!, share your analysis of what is or is not "inevitable". Nor do I share your estimation of what is or is not possible or probable. It is at least conceivable, for example, that non-market socialism is not actually possible, for the reasons Hayek and Mises give. Yes, I've read your replies to the arguments, and very good they are too, but the case remains a strong one. Either the arguments are strong ones, or former SPGB members such as David Ramsay Steel and Dan Greewood are dupes and fools and idiots. The former seems more likely to me. Like most people, I'm not quite convinced either way, and so am happy to keep an open mind while looking for ways forward, ways to make things a bit better in the here and now, experimenting as we can with ways of living and being.A common argument on this thread is that we shouldn't divert our energies into "reformism" when we could instead be preaching socialism. But why is it a choice we have to make? I'm perfectly capable of re-reading News from Nowhere and having an argument about it while also doing all we can to save the local hospital. And if it proves possible at some future date to elect a left government commited to renationalising the railways, for example, then I'm all in favour of that too. It would also be good for the SPGB – it would create a constituency of people it could have meaningful conversations with. At the moment, it is, like the rest of us, whistling in the wind.Hope that answers your questions, thanks for asking them!Stuart
PS I believe what we need are steppings stones to socialism, a politics of transition, something like this:http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2013/07/the-transition-to-socialism.html
I thought these two Libcom contributions effectively counter the stepping stone argument. http://libcom.org/library/workers-co-operatives-crashing-same-car http://libcom.org/library/self-management-misery-or-miseries-self-management-terra-cremada Specific to your link. "The transition from feudalism to capitalism did not generally happen because peasants protested in the streets, nor because they found a government with the "political will" to overthrow feudalism. It happened because a sequence of smallish individual actions – often without consciousness of their full effects – meant that, eventually, people found better things to do than obey feudal lords. Perhaps the transition from capitalism will occur in a similar way. " My reading of history has been that political revolutions did take place to displace feudalism. The socialisation of production under capitalism has been accomplished, and the democratisation of it will be necessary but the political required for that is the same required to achieve socialism…so why not go for the whole way, why stop short when socialism has become within your grasp. If credit unions and co-ops are the ultimate aim, capitalists will offer them when push comes to shove, just to stop themselves from being tossed over the edge. The ruling class will bide their tme and adjust, laughing up their sleeve when we had the ability to displace them, we shrank from that task.
Imagine someone reading Ursula Le Guin's Dispossessed, and saying, well, this anarchist society solved some of its problems, why didn't it just "go the whole way" and solve all of them? If only it were that simple Alan. If only it were possible!
I find it quite refreshing, that reformists are prepared to come forward and debate their ideas. There is, however, a caveat, we have have had just over 100 yrs of reformist policies put forward by Labour and others! What has been achieved? Reforms that, in the first instance, benefited the working class, have been gradually stripped away, over the last 25 or so years, as Capitalists retrench their positions and flex their control.As far as pushing for reforms, in conjunction with fighting for Socialism! Every time one makes any sort of headway in reforming a particular aspect of Capitalism, many many more, spring forth. To such an extent, that one will find oneself with no time whatsoever remaining to work towards a totally different way of organising society and so, by pursuing "meantime" politics, Capitalism continues on it's merry way, unabated.
Since I keep being told about the "lessons of history", I'd be interested where I could read some history that backs up your argument. Where and when did a petering out of efforts to achieve reform, or a downturn in the class struggle, lead to a massive increase in membership of revolutionary parties, or to actual revolutions?
i think the point i was trying to make was the stepping stone strategy is the one that tries to make it sound ever so simple…we'll get there in stages because its easier…and i tried to say that the political struggle even for those reforms requires the same class mobilisation , the same commitment and determination , the same organisation through both protest and parliament as it would to achieve socialism…anything less and those stepping stones would be subsumed by the capitalist class and made impotent, or even turned to their own interest and gain …so if it it takes the same degree of struggle for reaching those stepping stones, the same persuasion and propaganda to convince people to struggle for them…then it,s same as getting off the bus half-way to your destination.i'm actually accusing you (as representative of reformism on this thread) of thinking things are simple. I fully recognise the difficulties we have in achieving socialism. Your position adds to those complications and another hurdle to overcome. And without distracting from the thread Anarres was a more or less barren moon, without the material resources to go the full way…we posit the opposite, don't we, that Earth has gone beyond scarcity and is an abundant world . But it has been a while since i read it. Hogan's Voyage of Yesteryear depicts a post scarcity society. But been year since i read that too.
That's a good point well made Alan, except I'm not a representative of reformism (I just use that language because everyone here keeps insisting on it), nor do things work like that. It's not that I have in front of me a choice of struggling for reforms, or pursuing a stepping stone strategy, or alternatively pursuing a revolutionary one. What I actually have in front of me is far more boring than that, and I makes my choices, as you do. At the moment, I'm choosing to jibber-jabber on an SPGB forum, mainly for fun. I have spent the past year in groups doing their best to oppose the privatisation of the NHS and to build a new party of the left. The implication seems to be that I'd be far better employed politically if I gave all that up and instead… what? Handed out SPGB leaflets? I could be convinced, I would.As for Annares, yes, it was set on a barren world precisely so that the problems of socialism couldn't be waved away with a magic wand called "abundance", but rather explored. Rather brilliantly in my view, but maybe my reading of this novel is as different from yours as is my reading of history!
When The Socialist Party was formed in 1904, we had a mandate as a Revolutionary party, whose sole focus, was on helping to bring about a revolutionary change in the way society was organised. Some time later, the Labour party was formed. It's mandate, try and make Capitalism a little bit better for the working class. Given the choice between a revolutionary change, at some point in the future, or promises of something "nicer" now, most workers took the something nicer in the "meantime" approach.It has been that way ever since. Not exactly the "pie in the sky, when you die", more like, more crumbs from the bakery next week! The cul-de-sac of this approach has, in my opinion, done quite a lot of harm to workers interests, deflecting as it does, workers energies away from getting rid of the causes of all their problems, to merely patching up those self same problems. The problems persist and so the energy needed to keep on patching, goes on, ad infinitum.With the reformist outlook, Capitalism continues. If on the other hand, workers were to invest their combined efforts to despatch Capitalism to the annals of history, workers problems would be solved once and for all. It is no easy task! 110 years of the existence of The Socialist Party, proves this beyond possibility of refutation. If the energy spent fighting for crumbs from our "masters" bakery, which essentially leaves workers problems intact, had been and was today, channeled into a movement for revolutionary change, wonder how much further along towards a sane world, we would be? It is merely speculation but what is'nt, is that we could'nt be any farther away than we are at present!
I have spent the past year in groups doing their best to oppose the privatisation of the NHS and to build a new party of the left. The implication seems to be that I'd be far better employed politically if I gave all that up and instead… what? Handed out SPGB leaflets? I could be convinced, I would." Are you spending the time reinforcing their delusions, accepting their self-imposed constraints or are you asking them to go beyond and conceive of something more radical. When some oppose and protest the strengthening and tightening of the immigration laws, offering a worthy defence and improvement of our immediate conditions, they present a vision of a world without borders as an alternative. When your new comrades defend the NHS do they follow on with a vision of free access to all services…or stop short and jump off the bus before the destination, and begin the process of prevaricating….ahhh, the free NHS is different from saying everything should be free…that's for the future…the far-off never-never land future. I fully accept the basis of your involvment, trying to make socialism a relevance once again (correct me if i am wrong) but are you making the connection that the struggle begins in the here and now …Again, if a hospital is saved, a proposed fee stopped, do your comrades sit back and say, a job well done, and let the health rationing of the NHS carry on as before?In the immigration debate, there is no solution in demanding more relaxed quotas, a friendlier immigration official checking your passport and work visa. No reason to advocate new guest worker legislation to appeal to some employers rather than others. When we defend migrant workers, it is on the principle of workers of the world have no country. And our solution is fully in accord with socialism, the abolition of nations and states. Whats the reforms that are stepping stones to that…"He can come in but she still can't !!!"(i have to praise LU for their decision not to support national chauvinism on this issue and see the international implication)Our approach should be the one of being the conscience of the working class…and to sound moralistic in tone, like an Old Testament prophet reminding people of the socialist covenant …and saying we told you so when they stray and become lost…particularly when they get off the bus and realise they still have a long way to go and decide on a short-cut that is a dead-end road. Cue now to break into a chorus of "Its a long way to Tipperary"
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.