Winning the world?

[dedelste]

I'm an American/Canadian living in Canada, but I'm posting here because I've gotten familiar with you guys, and your companion parties in those countries don't seem to have forums.  I became aware of you a year or so ago, and have visited your page and lurked in your forum periodically, at times intensely.  I'm a leftist, and have been active for years in reformist "socialist/social democratic" groups in both the U.S. and Canada.  I've become less confident lately that they will ever accomplish what I would like to see, but I truly don't know.

I hope not to be either condescending or presumptuous, but I've been very impressed by your reasonableness, clear analysis, and apparent basic decency.  I'd love to see your version of socialism triumph worldwide, and I agree with you that winning elections is the only likely way that could actually happen.  I have some disagreements with you, and I am not convinced the society you are aiming for could actually work, but neither am I convinced it couldn't.

My main question, though, which I'm sure you've heard before, but I haven't seen answered, is what makes you think that your approach will ever achieve a worldwide super-majority for socialism?  I may be wrong, but your party doesn't seem to have grown any in over one hundred years.  Do you feel like things are going reasonably, or is something wrong with your tactics?  In the end, do you ever doubt that you will ever succeed, even if you're right about everything else?  I actually admire working for something you will never live to see, but not for something that will never happen at all (virtually anything "can" happen, I think, but that's not an adequate standard to me).  People who take a rational, scientific approach have to consider empirical evidence, don't they?  Anyway, I'd like to know what evidence you see that you will ever win politically.

I'm genuinely sympathetic, and I would like to see you all winning seats in Parliament(s) and moving towards victory.  I think it would shake things up in a good way and promote good ideas, if nothing else.  I might even join if I was convinced that it was a better use of my time than drinking beer, browsing random political pages on the web, or working to elect social democrats or social liberals.

[DJP]

Hi,I don't think our level of success is something that can be measured by looking at membership figures. Currently we reject more membership applications than those that get accepted. I think that the fact that the socialist party has managed to exist for so long in a hostile environment is an indication that we are doing something right. But social evolution is a slow process, the transition from feudalism to capitalism took a couple hundred years and our party was formed before capitalism had fully spread across the globe. Many people are attracted to the 'next big thing' because these to offer the appearance of numbers but as has been shown time and time again these groups fade into nothing as they do not share the common theoretical basis that is the requirement of SPGB membership.It is not the socialist party that makes the revolution but the working class as a whole and many groups and individuals do formulate ideas similar to ours without coming into contact with us. I think the transition from minority to majority understanding will take the form of a 'tipping point', once acceptance of socialist ideas reaches a fairly low amount, say 5 or 10%, this will suddenly swing the majority over since everyone shares the same material conditions. It just will take a long time to reach that 5 or 10%.I joined the SPGB after independently forming a socialist type understanding of society and then finding them on the internet. I don't think there's anything that special about myself so there must be a lot of other people out there thinking similar things.. For example the website libcom.org has nearly 17 000 people that 'like' it on Facebook. The 'Zeitgeist' films advocated a nonmarket society and where well received. Other writers along similar lines to that such as Buckminster Fuller (don't know much about him) seem to be fairly widely read. Russel Brand who has recently made some rather vague comments about 'revolution' and 'socialism' has 171 000 people 'liking' his 'Russels Revolution' page, that's more than the conservative party. Now of course I don't think any of these mean that revolution is round the corner or that anything too concrete can be drawn from it but never the less it would seem that something is bubbling away.Of course there is no guarantee of success. But the choice between getting involved with the world socialist movement and drinking beer is not of a either / or nature. I have done plenty of drinking with comrades!My joining the socialist party came from trying to understand how and why things are the way they are (and if later observations imply that socialism is not possible or undesirable I would leave). The way I understand things as they are now (and I have no good reason for thinking them wrong) voting for social democrats or liberals or greens or whatever only helps contribute to the problem…

[Brian]

dedelste wrote:

 I have some disagreements with you, and I am not convinced the society you are aiming for could actually work, but neither am I convinced it couldn't.My main question, though, which I'm sure you've heard before, but I haven't seen answered, is what makes you think that your approach will ever achieve a worldwide super-majority for socialism?  I may be wrong, but your party doesn't seem to have grown any in over one hundred years.  Do you feel like things are going reasonably, or is something wrong with your tactics?  In the end, do you ever doubt that you will ever succeed, even if you're right about everything else?  I actually admire working for something you will never live to see, but not for something that will never happen at all (virtually anything "can" happen, I think, but that's not an adequate standard to me).  People who take a rational, scientific approach have to consider empirical evidence, don't they?  Anyway, I'd like to know what evidence you see that you will ever win politically.

Like socialism itself  our "approach" has never been tried.  Why you may ask?  Firstly, because it depends on class maturity when the working class transforms itself into a class for itself and becomes class conscious of its class position.  Secondly, unlike previous changes in the mode of production the socialist revolution is going to be a conscious revolution.  Thirdly, in order to change the social relationships of present society the working class have to change their mindset by withdrawing their support for capitalism.This means in effect that without a socialist minded working class majority you are not going to have socialism.  The major question is how do the working class register their support for socialism and likewise express the major change in mindset?The short answer is for them to get more involved with the class struggle economically and politically.  The long answer is: 1. They  understand the purpose, temporary nature and logic of reforms.  2. They set up their own organisations based on the principle of direct participatory democracy with transparency, accountability and delegation the prime drivers for the goverance of the organisation.  3.  They directly challenge the political system of capitalism through the ballot box.Being critical thinkers we are never 'reasonable' over our progress and as for 'tactics' we leave that to the left wing who are well versed in a frequent change of position.  Our approach is based on the strategy outlined above which does not require any tactical adjustment.There is no 'evidence' that we are ever going to win politically, and socialism is not inevitable. But there is evidence that the working class is becoming  more aware of its class position in capitalism.  For instance despite its failings the Occupy Movement and its voicing of how the 99% are treated in capitalism went viral.  Then there's the advent of TZM who also advocate production for use and free access.  They prefer to call it a resource based economy but its very similar to socialism. With the withdrawal of reforms the workering class are at last coming to recognise they are of a temporary nature.  The left wing are a spent force in regards influencing the workers. Last but not least discrimination of all types is on the defensive. 

[alanjjohnstone]

"I might even join if I was convinced that it was a better use of my time than drinking beer, browsing random political pages on the web"That would constitute ""positive socialist activity" – particularly the drinking beer part ""working to elect social democrats or social liberals." Thats the negative activity that is self destructive in the end.  You should only help genuine socialists get elected  and joining the Socialist Party of Canada or the World Socialist Party of the US would be helpful.  

[steve colborn]

dedelste, its not about getting elected to a parliament, its about the people who elect those "representatives", to a parliament, giving that vote, in a class conscious, fully aware way.Society has a base and superstructure, even the insanity that is Capitalism. Socialism/Communism, call it what you will, will have this. The base in this case however, will be the entire class consciousness of a "majority" class, fighting for its interest and doing that, by using its knowledge and common indentity and purpose, to bring about a society whereupon the things we need to live, will be produced, distributed and belong, to us all. Just imagining the superstructure this informed majority could produce, is exciting and tantalising.  Stevie C.

[jondwhite]

dedelste wrote:

"what makes you think that your approach will ever achieve a worldwide super-majority for socialism?"

Quote:

"People who take a rational, scientific approach have to consider empirical evidence, don't they?  Anyway, I'd like to know what evidence you see that you will ever win politically."

Reading between the lines, and correct me if I am wrong, I think there's two questions the original post relates1. Is the SPGB case invalidated by the current lack of support for the SPGB?To which I would say no. The more basic question that answers the above Brian answers is2. Is scientific socialism's theory of history amount to economic determinism about society as Karl Popper claimed?To both of the above questions, I would answer no.Camden branch wrote a reply in 1974 to a member called John Crump asserting the latter was the view of the early SPGB. The SPGB pamphlet from 1932 Why Capitalism will not collapse states“The lesson to be learned is that there is no simple way out of capitalism by leaving the system to collapse on its own accord. Until a sufficient number of workers are prepared to organise politically for the conscious purpose of ending capitalism, that system will stagger on indefinitely from one crisis to another”.

[dedelste]

Thank you all for taking the time to give thoughtful replies.  I would like to see the case for a free, collectively owned and managed society made more prominently.  I do wonder if perhaps you are too worried about appealing to people's emotions and thereby creating "false socialists."  All humans are motivated by a mix of reason and emotion.  I completely agree that people who don't understand and agree with a program don't truly support it and won't successfully enact it, but such understanding requires at first awareness at least, and sometimes an emotional hook before they will really pay attention (I certainly include myself in this group).  It's hard to see how you could make things worse by being (carefully) more aggressive.  But perhaps I'm off base, I hardly know much about what you are actually doing.  Anyway, all the best.  I hope to join you in freedom some day, and hope we all can contribute to bringing that day closer.

[steve colborn]

Thanks dedelste, for your contribution. The first thing to do, is ask questions. The second thing to do, is to take the responses and check them for yourself, independently. The vast majority of political parties only brequire your monicker on a form, no show of understanding or accptance of party positions required. Your vote not your understanding being their watchword. The Socialist Party on the other hand, require your understanding and acceptance of the case for an alternative society first and then and only then, your vote.I have found it highly amusing over the years, to say to someone when I have stood in an election, "unless you agree with and understand the case for Socialism" call it what you will, "don't vote for Socialism. Peoples faces are quite a picture! Fancy a candidate asking someone "not" to vote unless they understand and agree with ones aims! Quite, quite refreshing.Be well friend, all the best to you and yours. Stevie C.

[jondwhite]

You don't have to be insensitive and aggressive to make a case for scientific socialism rather than moral appeals. In fact I think moral appeals are more likely to be upsetting.

[steve colborn]

Yup, upsetting like the tin man looking for a heart. A moral appeal to Capitalists or Capitalism is, to put it politely, fucking pointless! Capitalism is predicated on a tiny minority, living a life of absolute luxury, whilst the vast majority live in various degrees of poverty. When you have brain dead fucking twats like Cameron, Osbourne, Clegg, Blair et al as their spokespeople, what does  that say about Capitalism? not a whole lot.PS if a supporter of Capitalism reads this, then any chance of a debate? IE Socialism or Capitalism, the best way forward for ALL the human race? Any sad supporters of Capitalism fancy fighting a losing battle? get in touch. If you do not, then you are either an intellectual coward, or dont have a scooby. Stevie C.

[admice]

Society has a base and superstructure, even the insanity that is Capitalism." Please clarify or provide links elaborating on this phrase.

[jondwhite]

When I said moral appeals are more likely to be upsetting, I meant moral appeals to the working-class are more likely to be upsetting.

[Author]

Posts