SPGBers- Socialists – Non-Socialists and Anti- Socialists

[twc]

Alan, you ask why world socialism is in this mess?  Two significant reasons spring to mind:the practical calamity caused by Leninism,the theoretical calamity caused by neoRicardianism (see below).The first is the obvious calamity.  What, at least to me, was less obvious is the resulting collateral damage to the conviction in genuine socialism as a realisable possibility that was wrought by the demise of Leninism.The second is the less obvious calamity, and its retelling is bound to be misunderstood.  Nevertheless here goes.The neoRicardian economists clearly proved Marx to be theoretically wrong, thereby undermining the entire Marxian enterprise.  Theoretically this was far more significant than the trivial demolishing of the casuistic communist rationalisations of sovietism.The neoRicardian demolition of Marx was made more shattering because it was the unforeseen outcome of a wonderful (in its now historic way) economic book by respected pro-Marx economist, Piero Sraffa, editor of the collected works of David Ricardo, etc.This surprising anti-marxian result universally weakened the resolve of a generation of academic marxists from the mid ’70s onwards.  Not a single economist of any stripe and from any nation, no matter how determined or ingenious, could pinpoint the flaws in the neoRicardian argument against the central marxian economic category of value.None could rescue marxian value from total incoherence—the neoRicardians openly demonstrated that marxian values could be positive, negative, or zero, or all over the place, independently of profits.It now seemed convincing enough that marxian value was a totally meaningless category of the capitalist economy.  At best Marx’s theoretical ‘essence’ value was redundant, and economics lived solely by what Marx called a ‘form of appearance’, namely prices.How could marxism survive?  It had never faced an assault on its integrity like this before.  The entire body of marxian theory was now considered, charitably at best, to be terminal.  In practice, an entire formerly sympathetic generation had confidently consigned marxism to its grave!It was not until the first decade of the millennium that economist Andrew Kliman, and colleagues, exposed the deep flaw in the neoRicardian argument, thereby showing that the perceived errors in marxian value were hidden within the apparently transparent and open neoRicardian system.  Everyone had fallen for the blindspot that Marx employed the economic category value to expose.Suddenly the boot was on the other foot.  Not only had Marx been vindicated, he was found to be far more prescient than his successors.  This man is our theoretical guide before which all else is socialist illusion.Kliman clearly demonstrated that the universally perceived economic incoherence lay within neoRicardianism itself.  Marxism is stronger than ever, and better understood.However, the resolve of a generation had been severely weakened and conviction in socialism almost completely spent.  It’ll take a while for them to recover.But we take hope.  The capitalist economy is doing its very best to inspire conviction in world socialism as the only practical solution, and that will reinvigorate resolve.  In some ways, it has been thus for marxian socialism since its inception in the 1840s.

[Darren redstar]

I think it is important to recognise that the Labour Party is our political enemy. And, in the context of the past 20 years of the actions of that party in power and official opposition, it is hard not to see anyone who happily remained a member of that party as a active opponent of any concept of socialism. Those who have been attracted to the Corbynn campaign are, however, attracted to a reformist and ultimately utopian, critique of both austerity capitalism and the new labour project.they may be our opponents politically, but they are opponents that we must hope to win to socialism.

[robbo203]

Darren redstar wrote:

I think it is important to recognise that the Labour Party is our political enemy. And, in the context of the past 20 years of the actions of that party in power and official opposition, it is hard not to see anyone who happily remained a member of that party as a active opponent of any concept of socialism..

 I can recall years ago when I was a member of Guildford Branch that there was a couple who fairly regularly attended our branch meetings.  They were members of the Guildford Labour Party but also enthusiastically endorsed the SPGB's concept of  socialism.  You might say they were misguided but it would not seem reasonable to call them anti-socialists, actively opposing any concept of socialism. To me it is absurd to suppose that the SPGB and its companion parties is the sole repository of socialist thought. There are far more socialists outside the WSM than in it – far more – and I would add to the list Alan has provided people like the Left Coms who have our conception of socialism too.  Actually, that is a reason for rejoicing.  If capitalism's development thus far  with all its crises and problems has only been able to deliver a total population of 350 odd socialists out of a global population of  7 billion then I would say socialism is completely dead in the water and we might as well all pack it in. Not only that, the SPGB is one third the size it was back in the 1940s so socialism would appear to be even less on the cards now than it was back then if this argument held any water. (So much for the predictive power of TWC's  "scientific socialism").  But that is a false way of looking at that matter because the categories themselves are fundamentally questionable: socialist consciousness is a matter of degree. This is to say nothing of people refused membership of the SPGB on the ridiculous technicality that they hold some religious belief (not even Marx advocated such a policy for the First International) – even though they demonstrably want and fully understand what is meant by socialism and how to achieve it.  That is the sole criterion of what should constitute a socialist yet for some perverse reason the SPGB seems intent on wanting to shoot itself in the foot, cripple itself and impede it own growth by this self  imposed and totally redundant/unnecessary  restriction on membership.  One wonders how many socialists it has turned away for this reason over the years , let alone those who did not  bother to apply when they learnt of this ridiculous anachronistic rule. Some comrades in the SPGB seem to be in state of complete denial about the appeal of real socialism outside  the hallowed circle of the  party membership

[alanjjohnstone]

TWC, I appreciate your conciliatory comments.You say we have been thwarted so far by two developments1) Leninism. i think we both agree that Lenin was pretty much you average run-of-the-mill Kautskyite 2nd Internationalist so i would say the problem was already there which again you indicate by referring to the SDP/Bernstein situation.Our own roots are within the SDF. Was the split from it by the SLP/SPGB inevitable in 1904? Or could a situation have continued as it did with Luxemburg/Pannekoek that they remained in the SDP for a decade or so longer, preserving a link with the labour movement in general. It is a cliche i keep hearing from the Left that we must protect the link between Labour Party and the unions. Jeremy Corbyn was recently repeating this. It is a truism that there has to be a connection between a socialist party and the workers organisations. We do argue for a separation of organisations but we don't endorse a divorce. 2) No idea what neo-Ricardianism is and certainly it wasn't and isn't the reason we have not been fruitful in acquiring new members. And you will be aware that in the long exchanges with LBird my response has been…if i was sat in the pub listening to all this theoretical analyses …i would move tables. And that is the response of any worker if he or she cannot understand or relate to the reasons to reject capitalism and accept socialism.Keep it simple – Say it oftenOur primary goal is to communicate our ideas. Can i suggest that you are perhaps the best  person to re-phrase and re-word the D of P, to put in in various different styles of easy-to-read language that people can more easily comprehend. Explain the D of P in different ways and perhaps it will be easier for some to take it in. The websites does have a commentary but more can be done.  Educate is one of the three legs that is the duty of the socialist movement. Turn the D of P into our ABC.   Organise and agitate being the other two and we have to question whether our organisation can be improved. I have suggest that it is now practical and feasible to go beyond the SPGB (a national party) and become a real world socialist party using the internet. I have also suggested that we have to agitate more and that means boots on the ground in the class war at events and protests. Obviously a lot more can be said. I have been led to re-read John Crumps criticism of the party. It is surprisingly contemporary. Change some names, substitute some events and it can all apply today. i recommend members should read it or re-read once again to refresh your memories and see where we agree and disagree on his observations.from that time.  http://libcom.org/library/introduction-27Basically Crump complained that the SPGB missed opportunities and openings and if this is still happening surely we must ask why. Crump questions our lack of action at the disillusionment with Wilson's Labour which led to a radicalisation ofmany  Labour supporters – not quite a direct parallel with today where Blair is the one being rejected and subsequent  a massive inflow of more idealistic Labour supporters and outside Labour the rise of various new left-wing parties but there is a close enough comparison to suggest that perhaps we might be repeating the same mistakes as Crump identified we made in the 60s. I don't say it has all the answers but it does have some questions for us to reflect upon. Some on this forum will have personal experience and more insight on what Crump was trying to do with his this statement and may well be able to read between the lines of it. I'd like to hear from them.  

[jondwhite]

twc wrote:

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.

World Socialist Party of the United StatesThe Socialist Party of CanadaWorld Socialist Party of IndiaWorld Socialist Party of New ZealandSocialist Studies (1991 to present)Socialist League (UK, 1885 until 1888)Proletarian Party?There's seven.

[Anonymous]

TWC  The MCH can not be interpreted to mean that the working class are enemies of socialism. We are part of and observing the historical development of the working class. If the socialist movement makes an enemy of them we will delay the revolution. If the working class are not our frieds then we'r doomed laddie, doomed!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7RIgs3eygo    

[twc]

jondwhite wrote:

World Socialist Party of the United StatesThe Socialist Party of CanadaWorld Socialist Party of IndiaWorld Socialist Party of New ZealandSocialist Studies (1991 to present)Socialist League (UK, 1885 until 1888)Proletarian Party?There's seven.

Amended your list to eightWorld Socialist Party of the United StatesThe Socialist Party of CanadaWorld Socialist Party of IndiaWorld Socialist Party of New ZealandSocialist Studies (1991 to present)Socialist League (UK, 1885 until 1888)Proletarian Party?[World] Socialist Party of Australia (1924 to 1990s)

[jondwhite]

twc wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

World Socialist Party of the United StatesThe Socialist Party of CanadaWorld Socialist Party of IndiaWorld Socialist Party of New ZealandSocialist Studies (1991 to present)Socialist League (UK, 1885 until 1888)Proletarian Party?There's seven.

Amended your list to eightWorld Socialist Party of the United StatesThe Socialist Party of CanadaWorld Socialist Party of IndiaWorld Socialist Party of New ZealandSocialist Studies (1991 to present)Socialist League (UK, 1885 until 1888)Proletarian Party?[World] Socialist Party of Australia (1924 to 1990s)

Disproving your point?

twc wrote:

Our Object and our Declaration of Principles remain to this day, after a century, the only practical scientific way of achieving just that.  The rest is anti-scientific day dreaming, i.e. utopian!

[twc]

Alan, as requested, I have made a minimal change to the D of P to modernise it without altering its untouchable content.Here is a summary of my changes:I have changed the archaic term “master class” to the modern term “capitalist class” in §1, §2 and §7.I have updated the social production categories in §1.I have deleted outdated social categories in §6.All changes are shown in italics. Declaration of Principles The Companion Parties of the World Socialist Movement holdThat society as at present constituted is based upon the ownership of the means of living (production, transportation, communications and power, both natural and social, together with their supporting infrastructure, etc.) by the capitalist class, and the consequent enslavement of the working class, by whose labor alone wealth is produced.That in society, therefore, there is an antagonism of interests, manifesting itself as a class struggle between those who possess but do not produce and those who produce but do not possess.That this antagonism can be abolished only by the emancipation of the working class from the domination of the capitalist class, by the conversion into the common property of society of the means of production and distribution, and their democratic control by the whole people.That as in the order of social evolution the working class is the last class to achieve its freedom, the emancipation of the working class will involve the emancipation of all mankind, without distinction of race or sex.That this emancipation must be the work of the working class itself.That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working class must organize consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of social privilege.That as all political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the interest of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all sections of the capitalist class, the party seeking working class emancipation must be hostile to every other party.The Companion Parties of the World Socialist Movement, therefore, enter the field of political action determined to wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labor or avowedly capitalist, and call upon the members of the working class of each country to muster under its banner to the end that a speedy termination may be wrought to the system which deprives them of the fruits of their labor, and that poverty may give place to comfort, privilege to equality, and slavery to freedom.This falls way short of your request, and is merely for comment.

[alanjjohnstone]

CheersI agree that is untouchable as our D of P and we have acknowledged that much in the way Marx and Engels declined to improve or amend the Communist Manifesto.When it is printed in the Standard we also add to the D od P"This declaration is the basis of our organisation and, because it is also an important historical document dating from the formation of the party in 1904, its original language has been retained."My point was that i agree with you that it expresses and sums up the position we hold and try to convey to fellow workers. But rather than keep presenting it as an archaic catechism we begin to use it as a basic theoretic tool for communicating and persuading. As you say (and keep saying) it is an essential part of our case hence the importance of interpreting it over and over again, not as a repetitive mantra but by other approaches for its meaning to be absorbed and appreciated. It may be a joke but did i read someone put its words to music one time? But i would like its content and the essence to be communicated in different ways and perhaps from different perspectives and angles. A tall order for sure but achievable for skilled writers. (I'm afraid i'm not). Each clause can (and as said has already had a commentary) added to it but a we so often do, we do it once and leave it at that. Just how many times do artists do and re-do flowers and  bowl of fruits to show their talents in colour and detail etc…Did Van Gogh say done the one sunflower now to forget them. I note you dropped the term "hostile" and replaced with "opposed". I think this was one that resulted in a big debate in the WSPUS , wasn't it? And "hostile" was placed in the D of P originally as a reference to what the Socialist League said about its relationship with the SDF  – that it would not be "hostile" to it. Something in the new party of the SPGB members did feel aggrieved about Hyndmans and others control within the SDF and many other experiences of the SDF can be directly related to the SDF…our whole organisational structure for one and possessing a party organ solely owned by the party. When i read old material about the means of production and distribution i find i often wonder if people really associate themselves with those. Does a shop-worker or office-cleaner feel an identity with the means of production. For sure they can share the experience of powerlessness but can they feel part of the class that produce the wealth? We know for years there was this interncene strife between white and blue collar which i think has now rapidly disappeared with the removal of relative privilege and power from lower/middle management and technicians. But still we have vast numbers unorganised and often isolated who don't appreciate their own power and influence because in the past it has been the industrial/manufacturers that always get cited eg "mines, mills, railways" in our literature. I find i like to supplement the term capitalist class with owning class, employing class, ruling class, or often than not employers. Same with working class – non-owning class, the dispossessed class…i dislike  the terms bourgeoisie (unless your French, of course ) and proletariat. Personal foible even if many say proletariat is a more accurate technical term for ourselves. I still think its pretentious to call the boss class, the  bourgeousie and i always mis-spell it which i am sure others do as well. Our language can seem hyperbole to readers…"enslavement of the working class" but that is the true reality and what we have to explain more clearly. We have to prove to fellow workers that they are indeed "wage-slaves" not as a free person entering a fair contract that the libertarians reach as their conclusion and our economic analyses must show how are being robbed of what we collectively  produce. And i already said that personally i am very cautious of economic articles…they can resemble the gibberish of algebric calculus and logarithms texts i read in school…the eyes go blurred despite the importance of them. All those early ABC on Marxian economics from Keracher and Plebs from the past should be rewritten in much the same way i suggest we start promoting the D of P in more imaginative essays and articles. We ourselves have a treasure trove of articles that can be again be re-published into a new Marxian economic primer. Rather than re-produce the D of P in clause form, perhaps re-write it as an election manifesto, i mean as a narrative explanatory article. Despite all the threads and their lengths we all hold no fundamental disagreements but we do differ on how it should be expressed and as i said about the impossibility of choosing a party logo, each member thinks his opinion should be the deciding one – the price we pay for our democracy.    

[twc]

No, I made only the minimal modernising changes I outlined.The two words "opposed" and "hostile" remain excatly as adopted in 1904 (see  italics).  §7.  That as all political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the interest of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all sections of the capitalist class, the party seeking working class emancipation must be hostile to every other party.  I have not forgotten your different request for a modern narrative.

[twc]

robbo wrote:

So I take it 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.

Apologies for the philosophical terminology, but I haven’t time to simplify and still do justice to the important issues you raise.No, Robbo, why should I?All explanatory science is deterministic.  If science lacks determinism it can’t explain anything.Determinism is how we grasp in our minds the necessity of processes in the external world—it’s our comprehension of how processes unfold in the external world.Now the world’s processes are themselves necessarily contingent—they are constrained by the circumstances they find themselves in.  This is the common condition of daily life.It is thus impossible for a purely theoretical grasping of a necessary process to reveal, in and of itself, the inevitability of the process.  In other words determinism is not inevitability.That’s why Marx, following Hegel, develops his science synthetically from abstraction increasingly towards concreteness, e.g., moving from abstract value to the concrete credit system and the world market; see e.g., Clause 9 of http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx's-scientific-method.Sorry, Robbo, but if science is only opinion we are talking past each other, with no meaningful contact.Perhaps read Plekhanov’s wonderful marxian account of the remarkable 18th century French materialists and their mantra “opinion governs the world”.True, but what an amazingly fertile teleology Hegel’s ideal subject, the unfolding Spirit (consciousness)—a blend Spinoza’s substance and Fiche’s ego—turned out to be for materialist Marx.Marx turned Hegel’s teleology on its feet, recognising Spirit’s apparent autonomy as the superstructural appearance of an unfolding social base.Idealist Hegel’s universal ideal subject (Spirit) cannot avoid being a teleological subject that dominates mankind because, for idealists, consciousness governs mankind.  On the other hand, Marx’s actual subject (mankind) is merely contingently determined like all actual subjects.However, Hegel’s teleology helped Marx clarify how mankind’s own social creations—within the divisive social system of capitalism—create autonomous ideal subjects value and capital that, like Hegel’s ideal Spirit, come to dominate him.So, the answer is both yes and no.  Deeper discussion of this central aspect is for another time.Ditto.  There’s no absolute teleology outside of idealist speculative philosophy.

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

All explanatory science is deterministic.  If science lacks determinism it can’t explain anything.Determinism is how we grasp in our minds the necessity of processes in the external world—it’s our comprehension of how processes unfold in the external world.Now the world’s processes are themselves necessarily contingent—they are constrained by the circumstances they find themselves in.  This is the common condition of daily life.It is thus impossible for a purely theoretical grasping of a necessary process to reveal, in and of itself, the inevitability of the process.  In other words determinism is not inevitability.

 Part of what you say here is true enough, TWC: "All explanatory science is deterministic" (although, is there such a thing as a non explanatory science – all science seeks to "explain").  What then is determinism? Determinism has to do with the relationship between events in terms of cause and effect.  If I put a pot of water on a gas fire then I can predict that sooner or later the water will boil.  The predictability of this outcome allows us to say that in a certain sense it is inevitable.  If it was not inevitable  – if it was also possible that the water might turn into ice if heated up on a gas hob – then how would science be able to explain in deterministic terms? There are certain regularities in the  world around us that permit us to predict and therefore to confidently assert that should one event occur then it is inevitable that another will be its outcome. Adding heat to a pot of water will inevitably cause the water to boil This is not fatalism. Fatalism is a teleological religious  concept – that the future is predetermined.  Teleological determinism is different from mechanical determinism and when we are talking about science we are alluding to the latter.   With the former, the future determines the present in the sense that it steers our actions towards what is already planned for us; with the latter that past determines the present in the sense that Hume meant when he declared in his "Treatise of Human Nature"  (1739), that the "The cause must be prior to the effect" The only way in which you can maintain determinism is not inevitability is if you accept the position the position that high order events are not "reducible" to lower order events even if they supervene or depend on them.  To put this more concretely it is not possible to explain,say,  our thought processes simply in terms of neurons firing in the brain. Yes we are enabled to think as a result of those neurons firing but that is not the same as saying our thoughts can be explained by the latter Mechanical determinism in its full sense seeks to explain every event in the universe in terms of some preceding and direct cause (s) where each of these causes is also an effect, having its own set of relevant  causes such that the totality of these causal connections constitutes  a “causal chain” or  a “causal tree”.  Ultimately, given Hume's diktat that the cause must be prior to the effect what this means is that in principle everything that we see or experience can be reduced to, or explained by,  the gyrations of atoms or probably not even that  but something like subatomic particles.  What prevents us from doing this is merely our partial comprehension of the "causal tree" but the more science advances, the more does it fill in the gaps so that in principle one day in the remote future we will have a complete understanding of everything.  At least thats what the theory states This is straying a bit from what this thread is about so I want to focus now on making the connections. You can perhaps  see from what I've written above why I have strong reservations about the term "scientific socialism". These reservations are grounded in my understanding  of what science is about  and the inherent limitations of scientific explanations and my rejection of reductionism.  Contrary to full on mechanical determinism, high order events cannot ultimately be reduced to lower order events and the whole idea that that there exists a complete " causal tree"  connecting every event in the universe within a vast nexus of causal interconnections that is in principle discoverable is based on a complete illusion. Just to make it clear – I am not repudiating science. Of course science is a necessary and vital part of our understanding of the world around. Of course there are demonstrably deterministic relations of cause and effect that can be explicated in scientific terms and it is quite right that science should seek to do this. But alongside the principle of determinism there is also the principle of indeterminism which needs to be acknowledged The problem with the term scientific socialism which some  in the SPGB seem to be embrace with a certain fervour is that it presumes too much.  Science is about causality, tracing out patterns of cause and effect.  How does this transfer over to the project of establishing socialism and the notion that workers should democratically and consciously choose to bring about socialism? This idea of choice sits uneasily with the idea of determinism. What does this determinism consist in which justifies the qualifying term "scientific" in "scientific socialism" – otherwise there would be no point in using the expression scientific socialism at all if it did not imply a deterministic point of view,  What is being determined? How does capitalism "cause" socialism to come about? The materialist conception of history requires scientific socialism, in order to  justify its claim to be scientific, to posit a causal relation relationship between the economic base and society's superstructure . So for instance in the German Ideology it is asserted that "Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking."(https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm) The problem with the whole line of argument is that there no such thing as a a process of material production that does not involves human beings thinking – ideology.  One can just as legitimately say that the development of their material production likewise no longer "retains the semblance of independence".  Material production is dependent upon humans thinking just as human beings thinking is dependent on material production.  So where then is the causal connection that would generate a predictable outcome? You mention contingencies.  We talk about socialism being established through class struggle but there are other factors that work against  that – from nationalism which seeks to suppress class identification within the pseudo community that is the "nation" or intra-competition with working class over things like jobs and promotion prospects.  One of my long standing gripes with the SPGB is that by asserting that socialism is purely a matter of  "material self interest"  and not also a question of , foir example, moral outrage at what capitalism does to us, is that this plays directly into the hands of capitalist ideology.  After all, it would be in my self interest to stab my fellow workers in the back as I climb up the greasy pole of career advancement would it not? Self interest could very well enjoin me to turn my back on my fellow workers and to adopt the posture of "I'm alright Jack and sod the rest of you". But there is this current of opinion within the SPGB that still peddles this "material self interest" of line argument  which repudiates any kind of role for altruism and morality in the struggle to achieve socialism.  It is a view which unconsciously echoes Adam Smith atomistic/mechanistic concept of the invisible hand of the market  whereby individuals in pursuing their own self interest inadvertently serve the interest of the general public. Smith's view of economics ties in with Newtonian science and the laws of gravity that act as an invisible force upon objects in the world – like the Marxian law of value.  In some  ways the SPGB is still tied down to this classical paradigm of science  and nothing better illustrates this than its attachment to "scientific socialism" 

[Anonymous]

I know plenty of socialists outside the SPGB, Socialist Punk? Socialist Studies? Robin? Steve Coleman? Steven ward?  

[rodmanlewis]

I made that comment to Walford, though it seems other members did similarly. I never suggested that we couldn't learn from others.What I was attempting to convey to him was that these particular workers, by their responses, hadn't understood, fully or in part, what we were trying to communicate to them. Of course, that may be because of our inability to communicate properly with other members of the working class.In other words, most workers reject what they think is our case.

[Author]

Posts