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
-
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.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?”
Hi TWC,Not so sure the DoP does offer a practical solution to achieving socialism.There's the common ownership and democratic control statement. Then you've got the capturing of the machinery of state etc. Not forgetting this only coming about by the concious effort of the majority of us workers.It's a start, a very good start, but it doesn't explain much else to people as to how to put it all into effect. It doesn't even touch upon the imensity of the task of how to actuallty go about restructuring society.This is part of the problem. It sounds nice, but it gives no clue other than to say we've got to do it for ourselves, democraticaly. That's probably a large part of why the people I've discussed it with over the years always come up with similar statements. "It's a nice idea, but it'll never work." and variations around that theme. People can't fit the pieces together. Increasingly, I find my mind boggles at the task facing humanity.If you look at the SPGB there's a lot of difficulty even organising communication and effective participatory democracy among about three hundred or so members. Such an example for the rest of our fellow workers doesn't say much for the DoP being a practical solution to anything.So to say the DoP is a practical solution doesn't really stack up against reality.
To return to this, can anyone elaborate on the SPGB differences with;critisticuffsaufhebenmarxist humanist orgmouvement communiste
While they all stand for a stateless, moneyless, wageless society based on common ownership of the means of living, the first two and the 4th (which I think might be a couple of individuals rather than a group) are against electoral action envisaging that the socialist revolution will involve a violent, armed confrontation with the capitalist state. I don't think the Marxist Humanists are necessarily against putting up candidates or voting but maybe to try to obtain reforms.I'm not sure about Critisticuffs but the other three will have illusions about the nature of the Russian Revolution (as some sort of socialist revolution that went wrong, one of the great illusions of the 20th century).Aufheben and Mouvement Communiste employ an over-philosophical and difficultly penetrable language but that's because they don't see any point in trying to explain socialism (or communism, as they prefer to call it) to workers on the assumption that they spontaneously are or will become socialist in the course of the final confrontation with the capitalist state. The language employed by the other two is more our cup of tea — and no doubt of workers generally.
The journals ‘Endnotes’ and ‘Sic’ are also related to Aufheben and Movement t Communiste but there are slight differences. They call it Communisation
ALB wrote:I'm not sure about Critisticuffs but the other three will have illusions about the nature of the Russian Revolution (as some sort of socialist revolution that went wrong, one of the great illusions of the 20th century).Part of the blurb for one of Critisticuffs workshops at the recent Anarchist Bookfair in London included this:
Quote:Regular elections are central institutions in democratic states. They are also often misunderstood as mere shams or are criticised on formal grounds such as being held not often enough to realise true democracy. In this workshop, we want to start differently and take elections seriously as a means of democratic rule. Our starting point is that democratic states want the consent of their citizens and that elections are means to reaffirm the unity of rule and its subjects.Recommended reading by them on the subject includes a reference to this article:http://antinational.org/en/you-mean-they-actually-vote-for-the-lizardsThis organisation is the publisher of the English speaking journal Kittens, and known over here as the Wine and Cheese Appreciation Society of Greater London. The article contains a footnote on the SPGB's position on elections:
Quote:The Socialist Party of Great Britian (sic) is a notable exception to this rule. The SPGB “claims that there can be no state in a socialist society” and “that socialism will, and must, be a wageless, moneyless, worldwide society of common (not state) ownership”. The SPGB “seeks election to facilitate the elimination of capitalism by the vast majority of socialists, not to govern capitalism.” (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/differences.html) Leaving aside for the moment of whether this is a good strategy or not, it is clear from their party programme that the SPGB does not affirm the basic principles of the capitalist economy.No surprises there then…
Can anyone tell us a bit more about the stance on elections of junge linke gegend kapital und nation? Their London affiliation was wine and cheese who produced the journal kittens. Didn't junge link come from electoral parties?
jondwhite wrote:Can anyone tell us a bit more about the stance on elections of junge linke gegend kapital und nation? Their London affiliation was wine and cheese who produced the journal kittens. Didn't junge link come from electoral parties?Perhaps you could try asking them yourself?
A passage from an upcoming future SOYMB blog
Quote:Our party is proud of the fact that it looks upon the free discussion of party problems, party principles and policies, not as an occasional luxury but as an integral part of its daily life, as an indispensable element in its development. The Socialist Party is a revolutionary organisation. It has perhaps come into being along a different road from yours. Also in many ways, it traditions and its methods differs from your own. We know that many of you have significant differences with ourselves, particularly on questions relating to history, more specifically on the question of Leninism or Trotskyism and of aspects of the Russian Revolution. Since 1917, we believe our original analysis has been the correct one and now argue that history has confirmed this fact. Take no one’s word, but find out for yourself; and after this has been done, we feel that our conclusions will also be yours.jondwhite wrote:To return to this, can anyone elaborate on the SPGB differences with;critisticuffsaufhebenmarxist humanist orgmouvement communisteI have been a member of several organization, and political tendencies, and I have not seen anything else similar to the WSM, or the Socialist Party. Let me know when you have found something better because I have not found it yetMost of those organizations they are controlled by a few intellectuals, or theoreticians, or they are based on an idol, but they are not based on solid principles, and they also depart from the experience of the Soviet Union, and are based on political reforms.Who ever depart from the experience of the Bolsheviks or the Soviets will always end up in wrong conclusion and wrong analysis, and the Socialist Party since the very beginning reject Leninism and Bolshevism, we did not have to wait until 1930 in order to know that the Russian revolution was a coup and that State capitalism was established since the very beginning in 1917 The Marxist-Humanists are still living in the old writing of Marx, especially the so called Philosophical economical manuscripts and in Hegel ideas, and their main idol is Dunayeskaya, and they have rejected the vanguard party concept,but they have kept most of Lenin and Trotsky conceptions. The Socialist Party have made some critical analysis of Marx and Engels, but they have not done that, they are dogmatic. I do not think that Marx was a Hegelian during all the time of his life, and we do know that Engels made too many philosophical mistakesThe Marxist-Humanist they have done the same thing that was done by CLR James, they rejected the vanguard party concept but they have kept many aspects of Trotsky and Lenin, with the exception that CLR James rejected Hegel
mcolome1 wrote:I have been a member of several organization, and political tendencies, and I have not seen anything else similar to the WSM, or the Socialist Party. Let me know when you have found something better because I have not found it yetNot better, but didn't you think Occupy or the Zeitgeist Movement were at least 'similar'?
jondwhite wrote:mcolome1 wrote:I have been a member of several organization, and political tendencies, and I have not seen anything else similar to the WSM, or the Socialist Party. Let me know when you have found something better because I have not found it yetNot better, but didn't you think Occupy or the Zeitgeist Movement were at least 'similar'?
I am not referring to one aspect of any particular organization. I am talking about the whole body of ideas of any organization that has proclaimed itself as socialisthttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2013/no-1302-february-2013/zeitgeist-and-‘marxism’
mcolome1 wrote:I am not referring to one aspect of any particular organization. I am talking about the whole body of ideas of any organization that has proclaimed itself as socialisthttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2013/no-1302-february-2013/zeitgeist-and-‘marxism’I agree. It's easy enough to find something to agree with in most political organisations, but to be valid they have to have a coherent theory of society.Incidentally, what's happened to yesteryear's heroes, Zeitgeist and Russell Brand?
Zeitgeist is still producing their videoes, satisfactory enough to recommend as introductions to socialism although with many caveats. such as thishttps://youtu.be/_EkMjTnWk14A spin-off produced this https://youtu.be/uaXhRlpusXEFree World Charter also existshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdGIyQ4LtNsWe all arrived at the idea of socialism and the SPGB via different journeys and on the way acquired different baggage we carry with us. Around the world others too have reached similar conclusions as we have in what sort of society is necessary for the betterment and the continuance of humanity.Some we will disagree with on the means to achieve it but we cannot de-legitimise them all if they stand for a revolution based on the will of the majority.Zeitgeist – we have already done this – by a party-poll including it within our hostility clause. A mistake in my opinion. We have now a group in Turkey, one i am not familiar with, nor many others, that seeks affiliation to the WSM. We demand that they accept our D. of P., which is unique to our roots and history alone.I wonder if they do not adopt the D of P it means that they place themselves outside the bounds of socialism. Maybe they have their own way of expressing socialist ideas …a "Where We Stand" statement which may very well be as valid as our own D. of P. in describing capitalism and socialism and what sort of political action is required for working class emancipation. I await with interest the outcome of their enquiry and if indeed they do share our ideas. I am for a much more inclusionary approach rather than an exclusionary. I don't strive for perfection, just compatibility and where there exists a difference of opinion it can be taken to our fellow-workers to decide upon which route they will choose.
DJP wrote:jondwhite wrote:Can anyone tell us a bit more about the stance on elections of junge linke gegend kapital und nation? Their London affiliation was wine and cheese who produced the journal kittens. Didn't junge link come from electoral parties?Perhaps you could try asking them yourself?
I emailed them on your suggestion in English but got no reply as of yet.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.