Left Unity.org / People’s Assembly

[robbo203]

stuartw2112 wrote:

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

 Hi Stuart, Thanks for your response.  There is a lot to take in all in one go. I need to look at what you are saying and separate out the different points you are making.  There are a number of non sequiturs and red herrings in what you are saying unfortunately Firstly , on the question of "what you must know in your hearts of hearts" I was referring to the cognitive dissonance that arises out of, on the one hand, wanting to mend capitalism (the reformist project) and, on the other, trying to end capitalism (the revolutionary project). I was not actually wanting to deny that it is "possible to operate a capitalist society in better or worse way" from a working class standpoint (which does not mean of course that capitalism can be run in the interests of workers, only that it can be run more harshly or less harshly against those interests.) What I was trying to say was that the opportunity cost of seeking to operate a capitalist society in a better way  – reformism – will necessarily be the abandonment of the revolutionary project. I dont think you can reasonably argue against this point, Stuart. The historical evidence is pretty much overwhelming and decisive.  The whole history of social democracy and of Social Democratic parties from the late 19th century onwards is clear proof of the veracity of this claim.  Without  exception, all of these parties abandoned the maximum programme in pursuit of their minimum programmes of state legislated reform. Left Unity would be no different even if it had a maximum programme which it doesnt appear to have.Of course, you might want to argue that ,for all that, it is in the interests to have a  form of capitalism that is less harsh, rather than more, in its dealings with the interests of workers.  This is the "lesser of two evils" argument  and frames the debate in a manner which precludes any third option.  I would contest that argument anyway (more anon) but I think you need to recognise what logically follows it  – that perforce it narrows your horizons to one or other form of capitalism and precludes any idea of transcending capitalism You say it is silly of  me to assert  that "socialists in LU don't have a vision of society that exends beyond capitalism".  But thats not actually what I said.  What I said  was that LU as an organisation does not seem to have a vision that extends beyond capitalism.  I have repeatedly asked you for evidence that it does but you dont seem to have provided such evidence.  Point being that an organisation is more than the sum of its constitutent parts, it has a dynamic of its own.  I knew a couple in the Labour Party  when I was a member of Guildford Branch of the SPGB .  They passionately embraced the socialist cause and regularly attended our meetings but still remained loyally and irrationally attached to Labour, probably out of habit or  family tradition.  I would not question their socialist convictions. I'm sure they were socialists.  I am sure LU contains socialists but as an organisation LU is clearly not socialist.  It is by all the available evidence, a left wing pro-capitalist reformist party.  But then you are not denying its reformist credentials. To the contrary you have been arguing that reformism is good and necessary  but you are seemingly  reluctant to accept what goes with that ie that it involves an attempt to operate a social system in the interests of the working class when by its very nature that system must exploit that working class and so operate against its interests.  A Left Unity government would be essentially no different from any other form of (necessarily anti working class) capitalist administration – however well meaning its current motives. Look what happened to the Greens in Brighton if you doubt that.Its not the details of the socialist vision that counts here; it is the fundamentals.  You say Benn embraced a socialist vision.  Well, I would be interested in seeing the evidence for that.  Saying that society "should be run in the interests of ordinary working people" – the sort of thing Benn would say – is not necessarily a socialist statement if the society you have in mind is fundamentally a capitalist society.  But Tony Benn apart, of course the idea of a non market, non statist society is not a precious secret to which only a select few are privy.  Neverthless,  there is a difference between knowing what such a society is about and wanting or working for it.  Some avowed opponents of socialism clearly know what it is aboutSecondly, you make the point that it is "at least conceivable, for example, that non-market socialism is not actually possible, for the reasons Hayek and Mises give".  I'll leave that up to you to explain yourself in that regard.  Personally I dont think the economic calculation argument has a leg to stand on  – it was fundamentally misconceived from the word go – and the more I look into it , the more convinced I am that this is the case.  The whole marginalist paradigm and the subjective theory of value is bunk and, in case you havent noticed , even within the discipline of economics itself it is being increasingly questioned and support for heterodox postions has lately been gaining ground. Of course DRS and Dan Greenwood are not idiots and dupes – to the contrary.  I dont quite know what Dan's position is. My impression, though I may be wrong,  is that his interest in the ECA is more academic than ideological – unlike David Steele.  There is something I read of his (Dan's) a while back which approving cites Otto Neurath in his debate with Mises which I think is quite telling given Neurath's advocacy of calculation in kind. I cant remember the details but can look it up if you like.Thirdly and finally you ask why do we have to choose between revolution and reformism: "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".  With respect, once again I detect in this statement of yours a lack of clarity about what is meant by reformism.  I go back to the point I made a while back that reformism means more than just simply "struggling to improve things".  Trade unionists struggle to improve things for their members but  trade unionism as an activity is not reformist.  Workers wanting to establish a co-op or an intentional community are not being "reformist".  You wanting to save your local hospital from closure are not  being reformist.  None of these things are reformist in my book becuase they do not comply with the strict definition of reformism – that is to say, measures advocated by political parties contending for state power  or enacted by the state in the political field  which have as their focus the economic domain, capitalism itself being fundamentally defined in economic terms.There is a fundamental difference, in my view,  between a social movement like Occupy or forms of direct action and establishing a political party that aims to administer and reform capitalism via measures enacted by the state. You unfortunately have decided to make the transition from one to the other.Personally, I dont have any problems with the SPGB's revolutionary  position that it stands for socialism "and nothing but".  It is not soliciting support on any other basis.  It has created for itself a kind of political space which safeguards its commitment to the revolutionary objective by renouncing any kind of reformist programme.  Where I think the SPGB's position is vulnerable to criticism is how the  Party relates to movements or forms of activity that occurs outside of the strictly political framework .Tacitly,  the assumption seems to be that any kind of activity that is not explicitly devoted to the political objective of capturing the state in order to establish socialism is a diversion or waste of time – or simply "reformist".  This may not be what is intended but it is how it often comes across and I can certainly testify to that, having crossed swords with many Left critics of the SPGB on forums such as Revleft.The problem I suggest is partly of the SPGB's own doing.  For several  years now  I have been arguing that it needs tighten up on its own definition of "reformism" and redefine or reconsider  its attitude towards those numerous other kinds of activities that fall outside of the scope of strict reformism.  The very vaguensss of its current working definition  casts a shadow or blight over how its sees itself in relation to those other kinds of (non reformist) activities I earlier referred to .  Perhaps the only exception to this is the  SPGBs attitude towards trade unions (and also the establishment of basic democratic rights) where it has expressed clear support for the principle of trade unionism.  But for the rest, it appears neutral at best and adopts a kind of insipid fence-sitting approach.  The fear seems to be that if you strongly endorse any kind of activity that is a) not political and b) does not have as its goal the establishment  of socialism,  you will some how be compromised and drawn into the ambit of reformist politicsI think this is fundamentally wrong.  What needs to be established is a clear and workable division of labour between the political field in which the SPGB contests – quite rightly on the basis of socialism "and nothing but"  – and the social and economic fields in which workers struggle.  It is not the businesss of the SPGB as a socialist political party to promote in a practical sense, the immediate interests of  workers in these other fields.  Trade union struggle for instance is best left to trade unions to conduct.   But just as the SPGB  supports in principle the idea of workers forming trade unions so it should come off the fence and come out strongly supporting in principle the efforts of workers in other activities as well.Ill give you an example.   In recent years Ive been increasingly drawn to forms of activity involving direct action – in particular the squatters movement.  Living in Spain I'm acutely aware of the obscenity of empty houses existing alongside homeless people.  Every day in Spain 184 people are evicted from their homes.  Yet acccording to a recent survey there are currently about 6 million empty housing units  in Spain – though of course some of these will be second or third homes not for sale on the market.  Others will simply have been abandoned due to rural urban migration.  There is a whole empty pueblo about 40 kms away if anyone fancies taking up the squatters cause.Now I am not suggesting the SPGB itself should take up the cause of squatting and become practically involved in the squatters movement  – it is for individual socialists to do that, not the socialist political party as such .  What i am  strongly suggesting, however, is that the Party  should redefine its attitude to squatting.  Instead of insipidly saying "we are not opposed to workers taking over empty homes" or, still worse, suggesting it would be ill advised for workers to do so , it should come out strongly endorsing such activities.  Christ, I cannot think of any example that more glaringly exposes the absurdities and contradictions of capitalism than housing yet the SPGB seems to perversely want to adopt a position of comparative neutrality on the question of working class direct action in respect of the housing situation.I stress again – what is wanted is not the practical support of the SPGB as an organisation as such but a clear and unequivocal endorsement of such activities as part of its vision of way forward  – of course pointing to the limitations of such activities but at the same time positively encouraging them.  All to often the attitide of the Party comes across as discouraging and this contributes to its political isolation from the working class in general.I think in your case Stuart with your previous involvement in Occupy you have instinctively and rightly  reacted against this tradtional negativism of the SPGB vis a vis social movements but have drawn the wrong conclusions.  The Party's position on commiting itself to socialism "and nothing but" as its objective is sound, in my view, but its conceptualisation of the day-to-day struggles of workers in the here and now is weak and equivocal.  It comes across as almost suggesting that we have to forsake our immediate interests in the here and now for the sake of some long term abstract goal.  That creates a credibility gap which the SPGB will always struggle  to fill as long as it maintains its existing posture.  In my view, this question of "what are we to do in the meantimne" constitutes probably the biggest stumbling block to workers joining the SPGB .  If it can rethink its attitude on the subject then quite possibly it will start to make some real progress for a changeBut, unfortunately what you have done, Stuart,  is to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater and that is a different and fundamentally more serious kind of mistake to make in my view 

[stuartw2112]

Hi RobinThanks for your reply. I have read it more carefully and given it more consideration than this short reply will make it seem – sorry about that, but pressure of other (reformist!) work calls, and I'll have to leave it here for now. Perhaps we can pick the discussion up again in a month or so. All I'll say as a concluding remark is that it makes absolutely no sense to me to rule in campaigns trying to save the local hospital but rule out action on the political field that would have that result. Also that we should stop appealing to the lessons of history, since what those are clearly depends on the teacher, or perhaps on the predilections of the student. My reading of (especially recent) history is that the sleep of reformism brings forth monsters. I've yet to read a single historian who has reached anything like your or the SPGB's conclusions. TTFN

[stuartw2112]

PS One final final point. I've just been discussing this with a historian, and she says that you're reading history backwards from a determined (and imagined) end point. From the point of view of Paradise, history shows that reformism is a complete failure – true. But from the point of view of people who have no faith in the End Times, it must be hard or next to impossible to show that reformism has been anything other than an incredible success story – a story of a long, slow and arduous march, with many setbacks, but basically one of progress. Anyway, really am going now, pick this up next time… Cheers

[ALB]

Rendez-vous, Stuart, on 23 May after the local election results are out ….

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

PS One final final point. I've just been discussing this with a historian, and she says that you're reading history backwards from a determined (and imagined) end point.

Well, since all history is 'read backwards from a determined end point', she's not telling us much!The only thing perhaps she is surreptitiously telling us is that her particular 'determined end point' is not 'imagined', but is the (supposed) 'real world' of today.Since both 'the future' and 'the present' as a starting point for historians when reading 'the past' contain interpretive elements, I think we can take it as read that her 'imagined' positions about 'past', 'present' and 'future' are simply unexamined (or, she has examined them, but is not telling you about having done this, all the better to denigrate our 'reading of history', so that you retain confidence in her political views and advice about 'history').That's why our history has the potential to be better history: because we're open about our biases, and don't pretend to be producing 'history' that is 'objective'. That doesn't mean our history has to be 'better', though: much 'Marxist' history is laughable. But we have a better starting point: openness about this society today, how it came about, and our hopes for the future.Beware the 'historians' of all stripes, stuart!

[robbo203]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Hi RobinThanks for your reply. I have read it more carefully and given it more consideration than this short reply will make it seem – sorry about that, but pressure of other (reformist!) work calls, and I'll have to leave it here for now. Perhaps we can pick the discussion up again in a month or so. All I'll say as a concluding remark is that it makes absolutely no sense to me to rule in campaigns trying to save the local hospital but rule out action on the political field that would have that result. Also that we should stop appealing to the lessons of history, since what those are clearly depends on the teacher, or perhaps on the predilections of the student. My reading of (especially recent) history is that the sleep of reformism brings forth monsters. I've yet to read a single historian who has reached anything like your or the SPGB's conclusions. TTFN

 Hi Stuart OK we'll talk again later.  Just on your point above though well, yes, sure it makes perfect sense to  "rule in campaigns trying to save the local hospital but rule out action on the political field that would have that result.".  The point is to create a secure and defensible space within the political doman itself in which the revolutionary objective can be safeguarded as a goal rather than compromised and undermined by the pursuit of  the reformist objective of trying to mend capitalism rather than end capitalism.  This is precisely what has happened as the historical evidence clearly demonstrates: Social Democracy abandoned the revolutionary objective when it embraced reformism.  You cannot mix the two things in practice. Its like trying to mix oil and water in a bucket (the bucket being a metaphor for the political domain itself)  The reformist objective will inevitably win out or come out on top and the revolutionary objective will be abandoned because the short term will always tend to trump the long run view of things.  To ensure that revolutionary socialism it is not abandoned requires ring fencing it by  renouncing reformism as a political practice.  In my opinion the SPGB has hit upon more or less the right formula as far as the reform/revolution dillema is concerned; where it falls down is in its response to acitivities that fall outside the strictly political domain 

stuartw2112 wrote:

 PS One final final point. I've just been discussing this with a historian, and she says that you're reading history backwards from a determined (and imagined) end point. From the point of view of Paradise, history shows that reformism is a complete failure – true. But from the point of view of people who have no faith in the End Times, it must be hard or next to impossible to show that reformism has been anything other than an incredible success story – a story of a long, slow and arduous march, with many setbacks, but basically one of progress. Anyway, really am going now, pick this up next time

 I think this is a serious case of misattribution .  It is not reformism as such that has been an incredible success story if by "success story" you mean the material advancement in living standards etc. over the long term.  Reformisn in my view was pretty peripheral to this progress which owes much more to things like technological development and trade union pressure.  Politicians love to flatter themselves and massage their own egos by implying that, thanks to the particular assortment of policies they have implemented, growth has been assured and the country has come out of recession bla bla bla. In reality it has precious little to do with the policies implemented by politicians; it has much more to do with, for instance, the cyclical boom bust  tendencies within capitalism  i.e the capitalist trade cycle which happens independently of the will of politicans.   Improvement or progress would have happened even if you had put a monkey in charge of running capitalism.  The converse of this is when a recession looms.  Do politicians accept the blame for that? Oh no, then its all the fault of "circumstances beyond their control" like the subprime mortgage crisis in the US! Point is that both the ups and the downs are very largely due to "circumstances beyond the control of politicians" and that consquently what you call the success of reformism is not what it seems at all.  Sorry, but you have been conned by the political salesperson's patter – your historian – into thinking otherwise.

[alanjjohnstone]

In regards to reformism/reforms i hope this is an accurate reflection and summary of our position. http://www.countercurrents.org/johnstone210414.htm

[ALB]

I've been drawling through the lists of persons nominated in the councils where Stuart said LU was having candidates (Wigan, Exeter, Norwich, Barnet) and have found that they are standing a grand total of 10 (6 in Wigan, 2 in Noewich, 1 in Exeter, 1 in Barnet).I'll be scutinising the results after 22 May to see if they do better (or worse) than our 4 local election candidates.Incidentally, I noticed quite a few "Labour and Cooperative Party" candidates and wonder how long the Cooperative Party will survive. Also, disappointingly, a Tory candidate in Wigan called Winstanley. Gerrard must be turning in his grave if he wasn't already about Georges Hill in Surrey becoming a gated community for the filthy and jumped-up rich.

[stuartw2112]

Hi Robin,I did start to write a lengthy reply to your points, but reading it back I saw that we were just going round in circles and I was restating things I've already said. So I spared everyone! Our disagreements all seem to hinge on what we mean when we use such words as "reformism" and "socialism", and on what exactly we are supposed to learn from "history", eg, the recent history of the social democratic parties. I can't fit my views or my estimation of "what is to be done" within your logical framework.PS Here are Left Unity's candidates:http://leftunity.org/meet-left-unitys-local-election-candidates/Stuart

[jondwhite]

Allow me to try and stop the going round in circles of the old favourite semantic song  'Do you know 'one true socialism'? No but if you hum it I can try and play the tune'.It looks like with the left in disarray, as I predicted on page 36 (post #357) some lefties are considering voting SPGB.http://www.theleftvote.org.uk/?page_id=473http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/left-candidates-in-the-may-elections.323112/

[ALB]

I liked this one.

[jpodcaster]

Bit of a liberal use of the word 'some' there Jon – 1 or 2 at most?  Anyone know why there are no SPGB candidates in the South-West constituency for the Euros?   

jondwhite wrote:

Allow me to try and stop the going round in circles of the old favourite semantic song  'Do you know 'one true socialism'? No but if you hum it I can try and play the tune'.It looks like with the left in disarray, as I predicted on page 36 (post #357) some lefties are considering voting SPGB.http://www.theleftvote.org.uk/?page_id=473http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/left-candidates-in-the-may-elections.323112/

[Anonymous]

jpodcaster wrote:

Anyone know why there are no SPGB candidates in the South-West constituency for the Euros? 

Yeah.  Contesting elections requires fairly large resources, both human and financial.  The SPGB's effort is being concentrated in those regions (South East England and Wales) for logistical reasons.  In the first because there are members ready, willing and able to stand as candidates and to do the necessary groundwork and in the second partly because it qualifies for a Party Election Broadcast.

[jpodcaster]

TV broadcast? When is it being shown? As a former Green Party member I found their election broadcast last night a bit cringeworthy to be honest …Out of interest what would you consider a success in terms of % vote for the SPGB in the SE and Wales? I know its more about contacts and raising awareness but genuinely interested in what you would consider a 'breakthrough'? 

gnome wrote:

jpodcaster wrote:

Anyone know why there are no SPGB candidates in the South-West constituency for the Euros? 

Yeah.  Contesting elections requires fairly large resources, both human and financial.  The SPGB's effort is being concentrated in those regions (South East England and Wales) for logistical reasons.  In the first because there are members ready, willing and able to stand as candidates and to do the necessary groundwork and in the second partly because it qualifies for a Party Election Broadcast.

[ALB]

If we'd contested the South West Region we could have known how many votes we would have got in Gibraltar:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009_%28Gibraltar%29But people in the region can still show they reject capitalism and want socialism by writing WORLD SOCIALISM across their ballot paper.

[Author]

Posts