Marx and peaceful revolution

[robbo203]

AHS wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

By the time you have 51 percent unambiguosly supporting socialism,  the bulk of the remaining 49 percent are not likely to be that far off from a socialist standpoint.  The growth of a socialist movement, if it happens, is likely to have a profoundly selective influence on the opposition to socialism itself, dragging it in the direction of socialism and altering the entire social climate in which socialist ideas are being put and in a way that would make people much more receptive to these ideas. 

But we won't get even get to those 51% if those socialists who are elected to an assembly aren't prepared to vote for or support anything other than socialism. Presumably they will have to be seen do something in the interest of the working class, even in the run up to socialists gaining a majority. This is of course where our party's programme is non-existent. We have nothing to offer but full blown socialism. 

 As BD suggests there is a big difference between advocating reforms (reformism)  and votng on reforms advocated by others.  You cannot simultaneously adopt a reformist and a revolutionary position.  It has to be one or the other.  You cannot seek to both mend and end capitalism.  It is likely though that the trickle of reforms originating from outside the socialist movement  will become a torrent as and when the movement itself becomes a significant force.  While not advocating reforms themselves, socialist delegates can certainly judge reforms on their merits and vote accordinglyAs I  suggested, the larger the movement the greater its impact on the entire social climate and by extension on the nature of the opposition socialists will still have to contend with.  That opposition is more and more likely to move towards a socialist outlook than away from it, in its various aspects. Quite apart from that, I think it is mistaken to focus solely on the impact a growing movement might have within parliament itself.  Some of the most interesting and profound impacts might very well take place outside of parliament – even if parliament itself is the fundamental institution of social legitimation which we would be wise not to ignore

[alanjjohnstone]

All i know is that with any organisation that grows, there will be different emphases placed on different aspects and sometimes they will come into conflict within the organisation. Just a look at our own Party, a very small affair and look at the diversity of opinion.The more we grow, the more capable we can be coping with the various political strategies and tactics, if we maintain the principles of our organisational structure.Back to thetheme of the other thread on the overlap with anarchists. ..Can the hostility clause survive dissent WITHIN the future mass socialist movement, particularly when circumstances and situations are going to vary around the world where the existing and latent political processes perhaps require another type of approach. I read an article once on Mexico, related to the local democracy practiced in parallel with the City/State/Federal system. I think i started a thread on the use of parish councils in the past, just to link to Robbo's observation that outside Parliament other things may well happen.Revolutions throw up new forms of decision-making and organisation, this we already know but cannot predict or anticipate. Just as we are not system builders operating a blueprint, we shouldn't lay own any rules on how we actually begin to implement socialism. Parliament may well be useful for us in the UK. But we need to impress on others that other ways are going to be applied…we just don't know just yet what, how or where. As a Party of the European Enlightenment – for want of a better description – we can only speak for those countries that have a history of bourgeois democracy.But i am a firm believer, as i said, in the flexibility of our own Party's democracy. Yes it requires regular tweaking and in the future may well need adaptation and adjusting but the basic principle is there as a foundation to build upon Something we can rightly be proud of, despite the handicaps some see in it.

[KAZ]

ALB wrote:

Were you ever in the SPGB?[/quote]Yes indeed. And what I am trying to do now is follow through on the aim and principles of the SPGB (not purely the D of P, but in general). Namely, is that aim, are those principles, in line with the adopted strategy – electoral politics? Having considered it thoroughly, I think not only are they incompatible but such a strategy is positively harmful to the cause. Of course, I'm also playing devil's advocate and doing you lot a favour by putting forward contrary opinions. No one else dare! 

[KAZ]

AHS wrote:

But we won't get even get to those 51% if those socialists who are elected to an assembly aren't prepared to vote for or support anything other than socialism. Presumably they will have to be seen do something in the interest of the working class, even in the run up to socialists gaining a majority. This is of course where our party's programme is non-existent. We have nothing to offer but full blown socialism. 

Isn't the logic of the above *exactly* the motivating power of common or garden reformism in the first place? Lordies! Why don't you drop the whole Upton Park thing? It's damn stupid – a hundred year old compromise that no one can be arsed to change. The defence of it ties the dozen or so members who actually understand it up in verbal knots not unlike Stalinists and their 'Dialectical Materialism'.  If an SPGBer was actually elected (not beyond the bounds of possibility) its implementation would be totally impractical. And holy shite! Imagine the furore if they were elected for the right reason. You voted for Socialism. You got…Reforms. Despite what Robbo says, at least to Joe Average, there is no difference between voting for reforms and reformism. Either the ticket for the Full Communism Express or the pass to Reformtown and back.  

[ALB]

Imposs1904 has just published a review from the Socialist Standard of 1942 of two anarchist pamphlets, one putting a rather pathetic case against voting and the other a rather unrealistic alternative way to try to abolish capitalism:http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/new-publications-1942.html

[Author]

Posts