The Socialist Party v. The SPGB – what are the differences?

[ALB]

OK, let's begin at the beginning. As capitalism is already itself a world system, we don't think that socialism could exist in one country; in fact we don't think that the hypothetical situation you raise could happen either. Our reasoning for saying this is set out in our pamphlet Questions of the Day as follows:

Quote:

Socialists are sometimes asked about another aspect of uneven development. This relates to the possibility that the socialist movement could be larger in one country than in another and at the stage of being able to gain control of the machinery of government before the socialist movements elsewhere were as far advanced. Leaving aside for the moment the question as to whether such a situation is likely to arise, we can say that it presents no problems when viewed against the world-wide character of the socialist movement. Because capitalist governments are organised on a territorial basis each socialist organisation has the task of seeking democratically to gain political control in the country where it operates. This however is merely an organisational convenience; there is only one socialist movement, of which the separate socialist organisations are constituent parts. When the socialist movement grows larger its activities will be fully co-ordinated through its world-wide organisation. Given a situation in which the organised socialists of only a part of the world were in a position to gain control of the machinery of government, the decision about the action to be taken would be one for the whole of the socialist movement in the light of all the circumstances at the time. There remains the question whether in fact there will be material differences in the rate of growth of the sections of the world socialist movement. At present, throughout the advanced capitalist countries, the vast majority, because they are not yet socialist, share certain basic ideas about how society can and should be run. They accept that goods must be produced for sale with a view to profit; some men must work for wages while others must be employers; there must be armed forces and frontiers; and it is impossible to do without money and buying and selling. These ideas are held by people all over the world and it is this which accounts for the basic stability of capitalism at the present time. It was Engels who remarked that a revolutionary period exists when people begin to realise that what they once thought was impossible can in fact be done. When people realise that it is possible to have a world without frontiers, without wages and profits, without employers and armed forces, then the socialist revolution will not be far away. But this advance in political understanding will be achieved by the same people who now think that capitalism is the only possible system. Because workers all over the world live under basically similar conditions and because of modern systems of communication, when they begin to see through capitalism this will apply everywhere. There is no reason at all why workers in one country should see this while those in others do not. The very idea of Socialism, a new world society, is clearly and unequivocally a rejection of all nationalism. Those who become socialists will realise this and also the importance of uniting with workers in all countries. The socialist idea is not one that could spread unevenly. Thus the socialist parties will be in a position to gain political control in the industrially advanced countries within a short period of each other. It is conceivable that in some less developed countries, where the working class is weak in numbers, the privileged rulers may be able to retain their class position for a little longer. But as soon as the workers had won in the advanced countries they would give all the help needed to their brothers elsewhere.

 

[Hch]

On a related issue, why doesn't the SPGB join in the current Left Unity debate. 'Reformists!', 'Leninists!'  you may cry and in many respects you're right. It is a broad left organisation but many people have joined, seeking an alternative to the main stream parties and the 'ultra lefts.' But as this formation is developing there's a debate on what type of party it should be: reformist, revolutionary, Marxist, Leninist etc. Different Platforms are putting their views forward, like the Socialist Platform, which like you, rejects vanguardism. It is almost a copy of the debate at the turn of the 20th century in the SDF which the predecessors of the SPGB took part in, resulting in the SPGB. Shouldn't you engage and debate within Left Unity so your ideas are heard and considered? You did it before, why not now? http://leftunity.org/http://www.independentsocialistnetwork.org/

[ALB]

Actually, there's a separate thread here in which both the points and the proposition you make are being discussed:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/events-and-announcements/left-unityorg-peoples-assembly?page=13

[alanjjohnstone]

Welcome back HchIn regards to your question, Left Unity will only permit individual memberships therefore the SPGB as a party will be excluded from any formal debates within it. We will be addressing LU and its various platforms in leaflets and open letters, hopefully. If i remember correctly,  you were associated with SPEW and TUSC. Perhaps you can give us a scenario of the future relations between LU and those two organisations will be in your opinion. If not rivals then surely once LU is up and running SPEW and TUSC must either merge and dissolve or expect LU to do so. RESPECT and SLP must also consider their positions. Can electoral pacts work in practice?As been pointed out on the other threads it is strange that those so desirous of unity have declined to join the Green Party,  the most successful of the left parties, which incorporates many of the policies of those involved in LU. Again it will be interesting to hear your view on this.

[Author]

Posts