SPGBers- Socialists – Non-Socialists and Anti- Socialists
- This topic has 54 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I therefore challenge you to point out just one of the 50 or 50,000 shades of capitalist criticism ―just one of them will do ― that actually advocates the same practical solution as we do.
I provided one individual and one political organisation which met your request. The means to achieve that solution may not be the SPGB's but they seek the same society as we do as a solution to all the social ills.
The Party has no claim to the means and methods of achieving socialism other than our own opinion and our evaluation of the evidence, that didn't appear from nowhere in an idealistic fashion but from direct experience of membership of the SDF, hence the language and context of Clause 7.
Others disagree and differ. Our task is to convince them of the correctness of our approach. You demand that a socialist must be an adherent of our D of P and that simply is not so. It is a conclusion reached from members of the SDF who were expelled from that organisation. Others reached different conclusions and sought other roads. We may have out-lived them but longevity is not proof of infallibility, although it does strengthen the case that we reflect a tradition within thelabour movement that has some worth and value to workers.
Whether we disagree with Bookchin’s hypothesis here or not, it is clear that he is on the same wavelength as us. This is not a discussion between supporters and opponents of socialism but a discussion amongst people who are agreed that the way forward for humanity lies in the establishment of a world of common ownership, democratic participation and production to meet needs.
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1990/no-1027…
In case you think that was a blip
Murray Bookchin is on the same wavelength as us in that he, too, stands for a classless, stateless society of common ownership in which money becomes redundant and the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" applies. But the agreement does not stop there. He recommends Marx's analysis of how the capitalist economic system works ("As a study of the capitalist economy as a whole, it [Capital] has no equal today. Marx's economic studies are central to any socialist analysis").
Murray Bookchin is one contemporary thinker and writer who comes close to us on a number of key points. He stands for a democratic society of common ownership where there'd be no production for profit, no working for wages and no money and where the principle “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs” would apply, even if he doesn't call this socialism (though he might if you got him into a corner).
There are anarchists and anarchists. Some share our aim of a classless, stateless society of common ownership and popular participation where the principle of "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" will apply and where money will be redundant This is the view put forward, in the past, by such anarchists as Kropotkin, Rudolf Rocker and Alexander Berkman and, today, by Murray Bookchin.
Can't you accept that others may well be right and we wrong? And in the long run, its not ourselves or our opponents who will decide who has the worthier case – that is the decision of the working class as they embark upon emancipating themselves…and whether we exist as a Party with a D or P is neither here or there. We could disappear into the mists of history and footnotes in obscure text-books and a new socialist party will arise without the baggage of the past and there need not be any D of P treated as the Ten Commandments although much of its essence will still be held and promulgated. At worse, it will merely slow down the acquisition by the working class of the pre-requisite consciousness.
I have hitched my colours to the flag-staff by being an active member of the SPGB but i still think i have things to learn from others and when we disagree, it is not because they are all anti-socialists and deserving of hostility. Do we have to return to the days that calling the SLP political "cousins" became a reason to throw about accusations of party disloyalty.
On a personal level i found it hard to be on a picket line with a co-worker, united to stop the bosses, and then to treat him and on occasions her as a political enemy because they had a different understanding upon how to reach socialism from my own. Argument and discussion took place but they were conducted on the basis of comradely disagreement, and not based on accusations of being an accomplice of the capitalist class because opinions differed.
If there is not a reversal of attitude and approach, the Partywill soon be preaching only to the converted and that is sadly a diminishing number because i am not convinced that the same old style of politics is any longer valid. And i hastily add, i have not seen alternatives proved as an improvement, hence and for the umpteenth time i keep suggesting a dedicated conference where no part of the party case is taboo or sacred cow…everything is up for dissection – even if it is only to re-affirm our positions.
The slightly facetious answer is those parties sharing the object of the SPGB are as follows;World Socialist Party of the United StatesSocialist Party of CanadaWorld Socialist Party of indiaWorld Socialist Party of New ZealandBut a better response might be something I have mentioned here before, a quote from George Walford's 1980 pamphlet on Socialism
Quote:Nearly everybody who hears or reads the party case refuses to accept it, and the party believes that if people do not accept the case that shows they have not understood it. I have had members tell me this directly. They have said, almost in these words: ‘We know these people have not understood the case because if they had understood it they would have accepted it.’As you can imagine, it takes a good deal to leave me speechless. But that did, the first time I heard it. The blind, unthinking conceit of that answer! If you disagree with the Socialist Party that shows you don’t understand them. They have nothing to learn from anybody. There is no possibility of anybody knowing more than they do and no possibility of them being wrong. They hold the Truth, the whole Truth and the perfect Truth. The only thing the rest of us can do is sit at their holy feet and hope some of their pearls of wisdom will drop into our hungry little mouths.George Walford: A Challenge to the Socialist Party of Great Britain
Walford thought that less people would understand his "systematic ideology" than would understand our case for socialism. He was full of contradictions. He argued that the workers would never understand socialism but also believed that workers had rejected socialism.
alanjjohnstone wrote:On a personal level i found it hard to be on a picket line with a co-worker, united to stop the bosses, and then to treat him and on occasions her as a political enemy because they had a different understanding upon how to reach socialism from my own.You have a way of hitting the nail on the head, AlanThe idea that workers joining the Labour Party are our enemies must be based on a misunderstanding of our case which is rooted in the working class and the class struggle. The workers are making historical decisions we think will lead to a dead end.Some members may be pleased and self satisfied when Corbyn fails, I am not one of them.Actually I would love to see a Labour cabinet under the instructions of delegates reaching out to workers accross the world and appealing for unity to end the market and to take the earth int common ownership.I don't care which party workers use. JPF, PFD DPF….. I don't care. At the moment I believe this party is the only option but something us holding it back..I think it is our empasis
Vin wrote:Walford thought that less people would understand his "systematic ideology" than would understand our case for socialism. He was full of contradictions. He argued that the workers would never understand socialism but also believed that workers had rejected socialism.Did he say workers would never understand socialism? I thought it was just workers will be disinclined towards socialism.
ajj wrote:On a personal level i found it hard to be on a picket line with a co-worker, united to stop the bosses, and then to treat him and on occasions her as a political enemy because they had a different understanding upon how to reach socialism from my own.Argument and discussion took place but they were conducted on the basis of comradely disagreement, and not based on accusations of being an accomplice of the capitalist class because opinions differed.This is the full two-sentence paragraph.No, Alan, they are political enemies. And here you are advocating that we treat them as what they are not—political friends.Normal decency naturally demands that we treat them respectfully, without fear or favour, for exactly what they are—a political enemy. That is not a moral statement like you want yours to be. It merely recognises that moral imperatives aren’t promulgated by decree.By the way, you recently violated your second sentence when you condoned the un-comradely abuse of your political friends by a political enemy you were comradely desirous of befriending.
"By the way, you recently violated your second sentence when you condoned the un-comradely abuse of your political friends by a political enemy you were comradely desirous of befriending."Please elaborate
i.e. where was your sentence two when fellow members were being abused and you kept on encouraging the blood sport?
You have completely lost me. Where did i condone the un-comradely abuse of political friends by a political enemy who i was comradely desirous of befriending….and just where was i encouraging the abuse as a blood sport. Please spell it out clearly to me, i am at a complete lost at what you are getting at.
jondwhite wrote:Did he say workers would never understand socialism? I thought it was just workers will be disinclined towards socialism.Yes. That was his 'systematic ideology'. Long time since I read his stuff but he argued that the majority of people will always hold a conservative ideology regardless of social conditions. And there will alway be an intellectual political class – socialists. Or am I thinking of Walsby. You probably know more about them tha I.
ajj wrote:I provided one individual and one political organisation which met your request. The means to achieve that solution may not be the SPGB's but they seek the same society as we do as a solution to all the social ills.Before you get carried away, you might reread my challenge to provide an instance of someone or some organisation outside the party that actually advocates the same practical solution as we do. I worded the challenge carefully.Just because people or organisations imagine the same future world doesn’t mean they have the the same practical solution as we do.Imaginary worlds are cheap. They all remain utopian dreams—in Marx’s and Engels’s sense—without the necessary means to achieve them, and then to convince their proponents that, once achieved, the system will maintain itself as socialism.And therein lies the crucial point of the challenge.Therein lies the necessity for the socialist party to ground its existence on its signature Declaration of Principles, which is the party’s practical solution to achieving socialism and, once achieved, of reproducing and maintaining it.The Declaration is based on the scientific socialism of Marx and Engels. It is the party’s rational means of convincing people of the necessity and viability of socialism.As a succinct rational document it also serves to actuate class consciousness; to convince people that socialism can be achieved practically and, once achieved, that socialism will reproduce itself practically. That is a powerful weapon.By comparison to scientific conviction, all else is socialist pipe dream. No matter how immediately compelling the non-scientific alternative, conviction remains utopian, and practical socialism remains stillborn.Of course none of this means anything to you. You flatly deny the predictive force of scientific socialism and you effectively repudiate its deterministic scientific status. From your angle, the party’s socialist platform and rationale are decidedly not scientific. They are fundamentally matters of pure opinion.To reduce socialism to mere opinion is to scuttle the party—to remove its rational scientific foundation. Without its scientific platform the party has no convincing reason to exist at all.And that’s why your purely opinionated socialist stance fences you into the invidious political position of putting unbounded faith in the following priceless specimen of lamentable opinion “Can’t you accept that others may well be right and we wrong?”
I do not hold all-knowing powers, TWC I am still learning and still exploring for what may help bring about socialism. I have to return to re-evaluating and re-assessing the ideas i hold because of one important factor – that big huge fucking elephant in the room – the fact that we have not achieved socialism and not just that, but, today, it is as if we have not advanced one single step forward to achieving it. Place whatever gloss you wish over it, we have not been victorious in our task as a party. My lack of knowledge about why that is means that i do question everything that we hold to be true, double-checking the veracity of our case, re-tracing our tracks to ensure we are on the right road. Searching for possible mistakes in how we apply our ideas. I, myself, have only a political strategy that is in my opinion the best suited for the present circumstances as i see them.It is to keep promoting socialism as a member of the SPGB.I have placed plenty on the public domain arguing for socialism based on what i assumed was the party case – No doubt close scrutiny of all those articles may result in exposing some errors and failings – but if you still persist that my political practice and those ideas and positions expressed in public reveals a non-socialist (or even an anti-socialist) at work, all to the detriment of the Party, i will review my membership in light of your wisdom on these matters. But while i hold disagreements and conflicting views with fellow members on why we are not the successful socialist party the founders thought it would be and use this forum to exchange propositions, if this leads to a denial for the need of debate or discussion then i wonder if our hostility clause is being applied to those within the party and not those outside that oppose it.
Quote:Without its scientific platform the party has no convincing reason to exist at all.With no members it doesn't exist. Period.Address yourself to this pressing issue before you continue questioning my credentials as a Socialist Party member because i dare express the heresy that we just might not have it quite right on everything. But that is just my own opinion as i see things.As it has been already stated it is also the view shared by 99.999999999999999% of humanity and you aren't even asking the reason why that should be.Instead substituting the mantra of the D of P being the crowning achievement of Marxian scientific thought and forgetting it was written and agreed by mere humble men and women in a particular time of history as a result of a series of unique political events. As a materialist, if the SPGB disappears and if the D of P is forgotten, the movement for socialism doesn't end. The SPGB is not the be all and end all of the working class need for emancipation and other organisations and other expressions of socialism will be born to replace us. Anyways, i beginning to think it is all rather a mute question since i increasingly expect the mutual ruination of the contending classes and that barbarism will prevail….My gloom and doom is only reinforced by what Einstein said was insanity "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."
Alan, like everyone here, I have unbounded respect for you. Others may have done as much for socialism, but none could have done more.So in that spirit I am simply challenging your specific proposal that we must be prepared to lose our souls in order to save ours skins―we should make a faustian pact with the devil.Back in 1904 or thereabouts the party already saw the contemporary SPD (where Bernstein was repudiating scientific socialism) as nothing more than the fruit of reformist seeds sewn in the 1876 Gotha merger of convenience. Today the SPD hails Bernstein as its spiritual founder. That is the crux of my concern.You know that I consider scientific socialism as the only rational scientific explanation of our position that carries conviction. And I appreciate that you remain unconvinced. I'm totally happy to live that.All I request is that you make a clear, direct and strong case for your proposal.
twc wrote:Of course none of this means anything to you. You flatly deny the predictive force of scientific socialism and you effectively repudiate its deterministic scientific status. From your angle, the party’s socialist platform and rationale are decidedly not scientific. They are fundamentally matters of pure opinion.So I take you think socialism is inevitable then. Perhaps as a..er… "scientific socialist" you might care to furnish scientific proof of this that goes a little further than what appears to be a matter of pure opinion on your part. Marx repudiated Hegelian teleological thinking as just speculation. You seem to have embraced it with a kind of religious fervour
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.