The spatial spread of socialist society

[Young Master Smeet]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Now, we can also envision a situation where the working class could take control of the state, but be unable to abolish capitalism (the vexed question of the local majority, or the technical majority).  Whilst it would ultimately have to govern within the limits of the interest of capital, such local/technial majorities could work to keep naked state power out of the direct hands of the agents of capital.

I should add, of course, that the situation could arise where the working class collectively and as a whole consciously deals with the capitalist class as a whiole, through some formal mechanism.  Not corporatism, but an open line of division say, between the democratic socialist majority's delegates and the CBI.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

At one time long ago i had this romantic idea that we form a International Brigade to liberate socialist minorities in 'medieval' backward countries. Having since visited some places i re-evaluated and just as medieval Calvinism existed in the Outer Hebrides (and Chapel in parts of Wales, i guess) long after it disappeared elsewhere and died its own death in its own time we will let that happen and meantime any who wish to exit such a region will receive a welcome and not be treated as a unwanted as a political refugee or asylum seeker currently is.

[my bold]Could you elaborate your thinking on this, please, ajj?To me, your analogy of 'medieval Calvinism' with 'remnants of capitalism' just doesn't seem apt. Surely the successful socialist majority across the world would openly and forcefully intervene, to destroy any remaining exploitative class relationships, anywhere on this planet? Small pockets of 'medieval Calvinism' didn't threaten wider capitalism, in either systemic or individual terms, and could be left to dissolve in time. But for us, even if it could be argued that small pockets of 'remnant capitalism' didn't threaten us systematically (and I'd be very wary of accepting this view), surely the presence of these exploitative socio-economic relations would harm those individuals left within those 'backward' structures?To focus the question, polemically, would we allow FGM to continue, just because some remnant cultures wanted it to continue?This issue of 'intervention' (whether "romantic International Brigade-like" or not), to destroy exploitative socio-economic structures (and their corresponding 'cultures'), needs much more further thought and discussion by Communists, I think.

ajj wrote:

i guess if a warlord (or a recalcitrant region) has in his clutches (as in Congo) highly sought after natural resource we will engage in barter. No lifestyle crisis for the rest of us in the rest of the world.

This almost seems like an 'I'm all right, Jack!' attitude, ajj!Surely we'd argue that , the earth being a common treasury, the 'warlord' would be expropriated by force, his exploited subjects liberated, educated and socialised into our Communist worldview, and the issue of 'natural resources' and their extraction would be decided democratically, taking into account our world ecology.The warlord would be the one facing a 'lifestyle crisis' (if not a 'life crisis'), not us, anyway! No 'barter' with thieves, no leaving 'the remnant exploited' to their fate, as long as it doesn't impact on our 'lifestyle'.No, intervention would be necessary, IMO.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Now, we can also envision a situation where the working class could take control of the state, but be unable to abolish capitalism (the vexed question of the local majority, or the technical majority).  Whilst it would ultimately have to govern within the limits of the interest of capital, such local/technial majorities could work to keep naked state power out of the direct hands of the agents of capital.

I should add, of course, that the situation could arise where the working class collectively and as a whole consciously deals with the capitalist class as a whiole, through some formal mechanism.  Not corporatism, but an open line of division say, between the democratic socialist majority's delegates and the CBI.

I don't recognise this scenario, YMS, as any sort of revolutionary situation.I've no intention of allowing the CBI to exist, never mind to negotiate with it! Or 'to govern within the limits of capitalism'!No money, no market. Production and distribution on the basis of need. What's the problem?

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

I don't recognise this scenario, YMS, as any sort of revolutionary situation.I've no intention of allowing the CBI to exist, never mind to negotiate with it! Or 'to govern within the limits of capitalism'!No money, no market. Production and distribution on the basis of need. What's the problem?

Yes, that's right, that's a non-revolutionary situation, where the revolutionary parts of the working class are in the minority, but still able to exercise decisive control of the levers of state machienry whether in localities or nationally by a technical quirk of the electoral system.

[alanjjohnstone]

I simply wanted to highlight that around the world the development of capitalism has not been even and still does not completely dominate. I chose religion because the examples of Muslim theocracies often arises. i could have chosen the rural peasant class – despite their increasing wage labour proletarisation they are contintually undergoing – i do recognise the cultural differences of them and a city factory dweller which effects their ideas. Shall we intervene with forced collectivisation of the billions who still live a peasant-proprietary way of life…or shall we simply let them get on with it but offer the carrots of co-operative shared free access of tractors and machinery and fertilisers and seeds and what not, in "exchange" for the surplus product, and let them retain their "title deeds" to their little plots of land and consider it more a personal possession than private property and let things evolve at its own pace, if it has no bearing on the majority of us well-being or condition. The old cliche about not waiting for every Hottentot to become socialist. Islands of capitalism or pre-capitalism are as much a threat to the world system of socialism as a coffee shop co-op is now to capitalism. No life style crisis i meant that we need not deprive ourselves of mobile phones and high-tech gadgets because a warlord controls the vital resources. Humanitarian intervention by force as we have seen has serious knock on effects and unintended consequences. I simply advise caution of making it a principle rather than a tactic dependent on circumstances. Let a fever run its course rather than impose a painful cure may somtimes be the best remedy. But to repeat, i am reluctant to lay down some political rule about this that is applicable to every and all situations. Congo is one example i gave but more interesting to discuss is the drug cartel-vigilante war in Mexico, another totally different ball game. FGM is just one example of customs that are harmful…shall we permit male circumcision…shall we permit bodyism and sexism…..alcohol…drugs…self-destructive behaviour…anti-social behaviour …This takes us into the realm of what i touched upon in an earlier post – the role of authority and law…which is a topic deserving its own thread and not for this one on the DOTP.   

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

I don't recognise this scenario, YMS, as any sort of revolutionary situation.I've no intention of allowing the CBI to exist, never mind to negotiate with it! Or 'to govern within the limits of capitalism'!No money, no market. Production and distribution on the basis of need. What's the problem?

Yes, that's right, that's a non-revolutionary situation, where the revolutionary parts of the working class are in the minority, but still able to exercise decisive control of the levers of state machienry whether in localities or nationally by a technical quirk of the electoral system.

This sounds awfully like confirmation of the accusations hurled at the SPGB by the ICC and on LibCom, YMS!That is, that the SPGB thinks that 'parliament' within a capitalist economy can be controlled by the proletariat.But, on the contrary, surely 'the revolutionary parts of the working class' will be embodied in Workers' Councils, not parliament? And that parliament will be merely a propaganda tool used during the non-revolutionary period, and will dissolve itself, because those worker-delegates (ie. Communist MPs) will be controlled by workers, who will now have their own proletarian political structures, once the workers' councils are in a position to supercede parliament?Your scenario leads me to believe that the concerns expressed by the ICC and on LibCom have some substance.I'm still unsure about this issue; perhaps I'm still missing some fundamental point, on either side. Do your views represent the SPGB? Will someone from the SPGB confirm or clarify these points?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Shall we intervene with forced collectivisation of the billions who still live a peasant-proprietary way of life…or shall we simply let them get on with it but offer the carrots of co-operative shared free access of tractors and machinery and fertilisers and seeds and what not, in "exchange" for the surplus product, and let them retain their "title deeds" to their little plots of land and consider it more a personal possession than private property and let things evolve at its own pace, if it has no bearing on the majority of us well-being or condition.

The whole tenor of your post, ajj, leads me to think you stand closer to the ICC's conception of 'revolution', than what I understood the SPGB's position to be. That is, for the ICC, that most of the 'revolution', in practice, will take place after the revolution.I'm of the opinion that most of the 'revolution' will take place prior to the revolution. That is, proletarian culture and ideas will have displaced most of the religious mumbo-jumbo about cutting bits of skin off kids' genitals, whether girl or boy, and that Communist class consciousness will be dominant, and that the peasantry will be a small minority, after capitalism has trampled across the remaining pre-capitalist modes.As for 'title deeds', I thought that the concept of 'the earth is a common treasury' would trump that ideology? How can someone retain 'title deeds' to our common property?

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

That is, that the SPGB thinks that 'parliament' within a capitalist economy can be controlled by the proletariat.

Of course the Parliament can be controlled by the proletariat, we only need to win the elections.  Whether that parliament could do anything other than govern, ultimately, in the interests of capital, is another thing (and let's recall that web are discussing a non-revolutionary situation in which the working class lacks the strength to overthrow capital).  That doesn't mean that we can't  open the books, put secret diplomacy to one side and dismantle the anti-democratic parts of the state and make life generally harder for the capitalist class to exert their influence except openly.I'm giving my own opinion, but one which I don't think is entirely without the scope of the party's agreed position.As to worker's councils, I think the revolutionary political party and workers councils are the same thing, but using different words and looked at with eyes asquint.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

That is, that the SPGB thinks that 'parliament' within a capitalist economy can be controlled by the proletariat.

Of course the Parliament can be controlled by the proletariat, we only need to win the elections.  Whether that parliament could do anything other than govern, ultimately, in the interests of capital, is another thing (and let's recall that web are discussing a non-revolutionary situation in which the working class lacks the strength to overthrow capital).  That doesn't mean that we can't  open the books, put secret diplomacy to one side and dismantle the anti-democratic parts of the state and make life generally harder for the capitalist class to exert their influence except openly.I'm giving my own opinion, but one which I don't think is entirely without the scope of the party's agreed position.

Thanks for being frank about your personal views, YMS.But I think that those views go against the grain of what's being argued by the party against the ICC and LibCom.Given what you've said, I'm inclined to think that there is some substance in the criticisms being made of the SPGB.

YMS wrote:

As to worker's councils, I think the revolutionary political party and workers councils are the same thing, but using different words and looked at with eyes asquint.

Well, since I think that there will be a multiplicity of 'workers' parties' organised around different theories and assumptions about various policies, I don't see them as 'the same thing' as workers' councils.If pushed (and this is a very tentative opinion, which I could easily revise), I'd say that workers' councils would be the 'parliament' within which workers' parties tried to gain influence. But the weapons would be under the control of the councils, which clearly would have a political power separate from any particular party, unlike the present 'parliament', which in many ways is a figleaf.As I've argued to the ICC, the class must have the power to disband any party that the class sees fit to.However, these political relationships between party (s) and class are still to me very opaque, which is why I try to stimulate discussion about the issue (and it is related to issues of 'consciousness' and 'revolution by minority/majority').

[Ed]

The party position on how socialists should behave in parliament is that they would abide by the democratic decisions of the party. So it is left open, an understandable position given that there may be unforseen exceptional circumstances. The question has been a very long standing bone of contention within the party being the issue of the 1911 split and being an issue raised in the 1991 expulsion. Probably the two most damaging internal events in the party's history.My personal views would be the polar opposite of YMS's. I believe socialists elected to parliament should either not take their seats or vote no or abstain to every piece of legislation. That is what I would argue and vote for in the event of the party ever winning an election.

[LBird]

Ed wrote:

The party position on how socialists should behave in parliament is that they would abide by the democratic decisions of the party. So it is left open, an understandable position given that there may be unforseen exceptional circumstances. The question has been a very long standing bone of contention within the party being the issue of the 1911 split and being an issue raised in the 1991 expulsion. Probably the two most damaging internal events in the party's history.

Well, I don't wish to be the source of any splits or expulsions……but… it does seem as if the issue being 'left open' is a bit of a fudge, given that it's such a central issue for a party that argues for parliamentary participation. The spelling out of the nature of that participation would seem to be fundamentally important; otherwise, why would anyone of either point of view join the party, if it might go on to embody a policy which they fundamentally disagree with?

Ed wrote:

My personal views would be the polar opposite of YMS's. I believe socialists elected to parliament should either not take their seats or vote no or abstain to every piece of legislation. That is what I would argue and vote for in the event of the party ever winning an election.

Yes, this view seems to me to be the one expressed by those members who are arguing with the ICC and on LibCom, for the case of 'parliament'. That is, the votes obtained can play a part in helping to determine levels of class consciousness, and that a majority vote would help legitimise those extra-parliamentary forces of workers' councils and parties, in the eyes of the state's personnel, and thus weaken the state's coercive structures.So, the 'parliamentary road', in this conception, is essentially a passive one, that provides a picture of political and ideological developments outside of parliament, and inflicts damage on the state's ability to function as a tool of the ruling class.This is the polar opposite, it seems to me, of Young Master Smeet's view of parliament as a much more active factor in workers' political organisation. I agree with the 'passive' road, which I think is also your view, Ed?I hope other party members and non-members (like me) participate in this discussion, because I'm still unclear about much of this issue, and can only learn from a proper debate.

[Ed]

LBird wrote:

Well, I don't wish to be the source of any splits or expulsions……but… it does seem as if the issue being 'left open' is a bit of a fudge, given that it's such a central issue for a party that argues for parliamentary participation. The spelling out of the nature of that participation would seem to be fundamentally important; otherwise, why would anyone of either point of view join the party, if it might go on to embody a policy which they fundamentally disagree with?

I wasn't attempting to styme discussion of the subject in any way, merely to inform of the background of the issue to those who may not be aware. I think you have a good point about the pertinence of this issue. But as a fairly recent member of the party I can speak from personal experience on the question you have posed. I was actually unaware of the active road before joining. I think I can say with some certainty that I would still have joined the party. However, I would immediately resign if the party took the decision to act within parliament. As I would see that as a fundamental betrayal of working class interests. To not join or to resign because of a potential future decision is, to me, illogical. Rather to stay and argue against such a course of action seems the most appropriate action. If however, the structure of this party were different, less democratic, with a centralised leadership the position would be reversed. The fact that we as a party are based on one member one vote allows not only for differences of opinion such as between YMS and I but for debate and an eventual majority decision based on the merits of the arguments presented.I agree that this is a pertinent issue for another reason, that is, a decision made at the time of the party winning an election could cause another large split right when the party was gaining it's first bit of traction.

LBird wrote:

This is the polar opposite, it seems to me, of Young Master Smeet's view of parliament as a much more active factor in workers' political organisation. I agree with the 'passive' road, which I think is also your view, Ed?I hope other party members and non-members (like me) participate in this discussion, because I'm still unclear about much of this issue, and can only learn from a proper debate.

Yes those are my views. There are possible exceptions. For instance if war were being declared we would want to vote against that. But really that is the only possible exception I can see.

[alanjjohnstone]

I thought an aspect of the theme of the thread was about uneven development and that some parts of the globe will still not be socialist, just as some hunter/gather communities remain outside the capitalist economy and, although it can be challenged, as i maintain , large parts of the peasant economy . So yes i do write that there is a revolutionary process still going on after the crucial core of the world has moved on into a socialist society but that it is taking places on the fringes of world society and can be safely ignored by many of us. Not in th sense of I'm alright , jack, but not as a threat tht can undermine our socialist social relations.  i think you highlighted that i do not talk of countries but of regions. My example of the Outer Hebrides sounds trivial in importance as you said in comparison with the Britsh economy. In regards to the world socialism so will be these areas who have not kept pace and lagged behind social progress. Just as in the early days of socialism, we can carry the burden of those whose psychological evolution has not adapted and may be slothful, lazy, greedy hangers-on and won't be forcing them into re-educational camps, and instead will simply apply common sense everyday approaches of peer pressure and example and if need be if their anti-social behaviour is too extreme, ostracisation. As i keep saying this relates to law and authority, simply widened from the individual to include groups.  In liberating the still oppressed non-socialist parts of the world i think we will devise non-invasive treatments to remedy it as i suggest will happen when we seek non-coercive means to be an inclusive society.  I deliberately placed 'title deeds' in apostrophes because there exists a question if they should be treated as common treasury, as you insist a small-holding will be,  or a personal possession such as a home with an extra big garden ! Shall we declare every peasant a kulak and expropriate his land? Or coax him or her with enticements to expand an already co-operative community culture they actually live live within.  

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I must be missing something here.1) The socialist party achieves political majority within the working class.2) The working class achieves political power.3) The organised working class, using political power, works to abolish capitalism.Now, if only for a few days, hours or nano-seconds, the political preponderance of the working class will exist within capitalism.Now, we can also envision a situation where the working class could take control of the state, but be unable to abolish capitalism (the vexed question of the local majority, or the technical majority).  Whilst it would ultimately have to govern within the limits of the interest of capital, such local/technial majorities could work to keep naked state power out of the direct hands of the agents of capital.For example, in the UK, I'd imagine any "socialist" administration that, say, won a parliamentary majority with 25% of th vote to do such things as (at least have referendums proposing to) abolish the Monarchy, House of Lordsa and Prime Minister and introduce annual Parliaments, elected office for important positions (Chief Exec of the NHS, BBC, etc.), etc.

 If anything, I would have thought it would be the other way round.  Even before the capture of political power by a socialist majority  capitalism would surely be struggling to maintain its own existence.  If the "expectation of profit " is  what motivates production under capitalism then what becomes of that when the expectation of capitalism's imminent demise becomes increasingly insistent and pervasive? How, for instance, do you persuade investors to invest when they are not going to receive a return should  socialism be just around the corner?I think this whole idea of a socialist majority  activily "using" the state in some positive sense -to become , as it were, a "socialist state"  albeit a very provisional and temporary one – in order to abolish capitalism  is throughly misleading. Better to think of  the capture of political power by a socialist majority as being tantamout to the immeidate abolition of the capitalism and ipso facto the immediate dissolution of  the state as an expression or institutional tool of class society. The state is not a " thing" and we should avoid thinking of it in such reified terms.  It is a  social institution and social institutions are "established  patterns of rule-governed behavior.".The whole point about the capture of political behaviour is surely its symbolic import.  It marks a change in the basic rules of the social game , expressing the wish of a significant majority.  With that wish having been expressed politically, to talk of capitalism continuing  to somehow linger on, dying a slow death,  seems to me a little nonsensical.  How could it possibly survive within a social climate governed by the expectation of such a socialist majority? Its like agreeing to change over to a game of chess while allowing  some aspects of the game of draughts  you had  just decided to finish to nevertheless remain. We breathe life into the state by acquiescing in it.   Take away that acquiescence  and it will simply evaporate. If a recalcitrant minority seeks to forcibly  resist the new social order , their resistance will be met, not by the state, but by the new society itself and by whatever methods it decides to use in its own defence

[Young Master Smeet]

Robin,the state, in the form of communication nodes; command and control points; files, records, archives, procedures and the like, is a very real Thing. Oh, and guns.  Lots of guns.   I for one am allergic to dying of typhoid on the morning after the revolution.Capitalism has a past record of continuing in the face of it's apparent imminent abolition: the historic response has been to fight.  Just as the Southern Slave owners, faced with their imminent doom chose one of the bloodiest wars in history as an option.

[Author]

Posts