Hch
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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/
Hello Alan
no, I regularly look at the site and the views of SPGB. I also still think the SPGB’s abstract views of socialism and refusal to engage with other socialist groupings, such as TUSC, is misguided but I think we’ve been there before. I myself have been involved in defending the NHS, arguing it would be against our class interests to lose it and discussing with those drawn into that struggle that a ‘better world is possible’ only through socialism. Some agree, many don’t.. It’s a shame the SPGB will not engage but insists on staying on the outside.The best definition of rioting I’ve come across is that it’s simply ‘aggressive late night shopping’.
Thank you for your replies:
1. Hatton – just like SPGB members have left the movement, as I said, so did Hatton. Your point is? Like capitalist members of the SPGB, Hatton has joined that class (or trying to). The difference is he would not be welcome back, as he’s in the wrong class, whereas SPGB members who are capitalists ARE surprisingly welcome within your ‘proletarian’ party! Square that circle.
2. Falklands – even with your selective editing you can see opposition to the war. Many pages of the Militant newspaper had headlines against the war, as you know.The quote poses the question that if (and it’s a big one to being theoretical) the Labour Party adopted socialism and Britain changed to a socialist based economy and political system, then the Argentinian invasion would be of a different character – a captalist country invading a socialist one. In that theoretical case, armed defence would be justified. Just as if the SPGB’s ideas won over populations here and abroad, socialism introduced and then attacked by capitalist countries, you would support armed defence, especially as you claim not to be pacifists.Bit rich having a go because Hatton left the socialist movement to pursue a business career, whereas the SPGB allows capitalists to be members! Haven’t SPGB members left you for other pastures? You pick on Hatton and disregard those Liverpool Councillors who lost their personal wealth because of their principled stand against Thatcher. So easy to sit back in your socialist armchair and critise those who fight back, when as Marxists you should offer critical support.
And you are scraping the bottom of the barrel about Militant/Socialist Party supporting the Falklands war, which it didn’t. Never let the facts get in the way of an argument, eh? That is another reason the Labour Party expelled Militant because of their socialist views and actions. I must say that the level of debate has fallen within the SPGB, going by its simplistic views, untruths and regurgitation of capitalist propaganda. Militant/Socialist Party take exactly the same position on capitalist wars as you do, be it currently Libya, Iraq, Ireland etc etc: workers must take an independent position and oppose such slaughter. Again you look for division between yourselves and the Socialist Party when there is none. This is why the SPGB has never attracted workers support and is in its protracted death agony.1. Grammar – critising me for referring to the working class as ‘they’, ‘them’ really is quibbling over semantics. Scientific socialism is an objective philosophy, so such words are consistent with that approach, used by Marx, Engles, Lenin, Trotsky etc, the first two of which you embrace.
2. Goal – the goal of socialism must be expressed in concrete terms. Isn’t a house/hospital/school building program, living wage, food and water for the starving, full employment/work, sustainable environment etc all goals of socialism, which can only be achieved with workers running and taking over society in their interests? Transitional Demands pose this question about what can be only be achieved when workers take power into their hands and run society. Otherwise such demands are merely reformist proposals, which could not be achieved under capitalism.
3. Liverpool 1980s – was not ‘playing with peoples lives’ or ‘doomed to failure’. It was a start and a beacon for the working class to gain confidence to fight ruling class interests. And they did. Why it failed? Reformists, careerists and those like yourselves who fell for and repeat the lies peddled by the political class and the capitalist media. You mock, dismiss and even oppose the workers struggle, represented by the Liverpool socialist councilors. All of who were democratically selected and elected. Your attitude is arrogant and you should have been involved and supported these workers representatives. But you choose to stand aside and fall in with the condemnation of the capitalist media. By your friends……….
4. Workers in Uniform – you have a strange attitude, which is pacifist and unrealistic. And why draw the line at banning soldiers? There are many workers who have occupations that cause death or lead to outcomes against workers interests but they are allowed to be SPGB members e.g. armament workers, MOD civil servants, civil servants in Job Centres who disallow benefits, balifs and debt collectors etc. These workers are allowed to be SPGBers but their work harms their class, so by your logic they should not be allowed to join. I would say that ‘come the time’, workers in uniform with their knowledge and skills would be needed to help oppose the violent reaction by the ruling class and their hirelings. In fact they should be encouraged to be part of the socialist movement.
I would also say your ban on solders joining the socialist movement is very hypocritical when the SPGB has allowed capitalists to be ordinary members and even sit on your Executive Committee.Well I thought this thread was dead but it’s alive and kicking. In answer to your points:
1. Dumb ox – I don’t think the working class is a dumb ox. I think this class is productive, artistic, creative etc etc. Far more than other classes, such as the bourgoisie or peasantry. The working class is pragmatic and so you must speak to them is concrete, not abstract terms. That’s all I’m saying. The SPGB talks in curious ways, such as ‘abolish money’ or ‘abolish the wages system’ (which Cameron & Co seem to be succesfully doing without the SPGB!), which is certainly the long-term goal but to raise such slogans now, flies over heads of everyone. And you and I know that on day-1 of the revolution, the abolition of money will not happen. However, to have the demand of ‘a living wage, publicly owned and democratically controlled house building program or hospital building program, is far more understandable and of course must be communicated with the message that this can only be achieved when the means of production are taken over.
2. Yes I am working class, maybe a lumpen element, as I was made redundant at christmas after 20 years with the same company and unable to find a job.
3. ‘Smash the State’ does anyone on the left shout this claim? Anarchists maybe but I’m no anarchist. I don’t even think the likes of the ultra-left SWP use this term but I wouldn’t put it past them.
4. Liverpool Council of the 1980s never sacked it’s workforce. You’re falling for the propaganda put out by the likes of Murdoch on that one. They fought back against Thatcher demanding resources and had mass support within Merseyside. To lump Ken Livingstone with them is oh so wrong. It was the likes of Ken in London and Blunkett in Sheffield who ducked out of the fight that left Liverpool all on it’s own to be crushed with expulsion and personal sequestration of the socialist councillors personal property. They deserve your applause, not condemnation. Militant or now the Socialist Party still campaign against Council Taxes in favour of a more progressive method and opposes ALL cuts to services.
5. Militant/Socialist Party is a democratic party and insists it’s councellors and MPs only took/take only an average workers’ wage with legitimate, audited expences. This was carried out in practice by MPs Dave Nellist, Pat Wall and Terry Fields, who were all expelled from Labour for advocating socialism. I don’t think the SPGB has that as a policy but correct me if I’m wrong. The SPGB does not hold the monopoly on democracy. It is very arrogant of you to think it does and all other socialist groups are not democratic. Some are democratic but I agree some do not practice internal democracy. In fact I would say the Socialist Party is MORE democratic than the SPGB, insisting on the Right of Recall, allowing factions with access to party resources when there is a disagreement on policy. The SPGB would not allow that, would they? Disagreement on policy or joining the armed forces would result in expulsion. So workers in uniform are lepers in your book, which is quite ridiculous.
6. Use of exclamation marks is not confined to the Left – see SPGB replies above!1. Thanks for the invite to join the SPGB but warning me I may fail the entrance test. Is the maths question at Login part of the test as if it is I’m becoming optomistic? Your test does appear elitist and demostrates a proscriptive view which even the sects don’t have. What happens if a member detracts from the part line to the point that if they were new and applying to join they would not be permitted membership? Suspension until they renounce reformist leanings? Expulsion?
2. Invective? Yes – in response to the provocative responses I am getting from the official site of an organisation. I suggest a course in written communication and public relations skills for your officers. I will however explain my seemingly contradictory comment. The SPGB blue print of a socialist world is an exciting vision but you need to put far more flesh on the bones to sound realistic, otherwise it can appear utopian. This is not a new critism to you as it’s been levelled at the SPGB for decades.
3. Returning to TUSC. This is an alliance and comming together of organisations and independent people within a democratic, federalist organisation. These organisations and people share a vision of the need to replace capitalism with a socialist type society. There is not 100% agreement on everything, which is why it is an alliance, aiming to put a common front and stop socialists fighting eachother at elections. TUSC is new and stood over 140 candidates in the May local elections, reaching a far wider audience than the SPGB did or could. Results for TUSC were mixed but some candidates received over 30% of the vote cast, so that’s an encouraging start. TUSC AND the SPGB were at the mercy of the objective situation: being squeezed by Labour, as many voted against the Con-Dems and saw Labour as the best bet to give Cameron and Clegg a bloody nose.
4. I wouldn’t worry about Bob Crow, he does not run TUSC. But why so hostile to him? He is a great trade union fighter, who got the RMT to reject Labour, dabbled and rejected the SLP, no fan of the SWP and alike but sees that sectarianism and division plays into the hands of the Con-Dems, Labour and the ruling class. I and others would find fault with some of his views and the fact he draws a salary which is above the members he represents. TUSC members and especially the Socialist Party (CWI) stand canidates on the average wage of workers, with the rest given back to the movement and audited. They currently have two Irish MEPs who do precisely that. I’m unaware of the SPGB view on workers representative salaries, so maybe someone could advise, as it’s an important issue in preventing careerists getting on board.Thank you for you amusing reply AJ. Some points:
1. Don’t you think it a bit rich talking about ‘the 57 varieties’ of Trotskist groups when the same could be said about socialist/Marxist groups, one of which the SPGB claims to be? Didn’t the SPGB start by coming out of the SDF? Splitters!
2. Transitional Demands – they are just a way of putting the theory of socialism into concrete terms that can be understood by workers. The SPGB uses language that few understand and has a rather abstract view of socialism, which makes it sound like science fiction. If nationalising the means of production under democratic control ‘sounds silly’ then that is precisely an example of the childish, dogmatic SPGB approach I’ve been talking about.
3. You cannot separate workers immediate struggles from the need for a socialist world, be it against cuts, unemployment, education, war etc and expect to gain the ear of workers, let alone their support and participation. The history of the SPGB should have taught you that. You applaud workers resisting the onslaught of capitalism and this can lead to growing class consciousness but refuse to join them, prefering to sit on the sidelines saying ‘I told you so, now read Marx.’ The world doesn’t work like that. If it did, capitalism would be history a long time ago. It explains why the SPGB (founded in 1904) only has a few hundred members today, most of which I am told are politically inactive.
I must say, I have been disappointed with the level of debate coming from the SPGB over the issues I’ve raised. You resorted to the type of sloganising and cheap responses I would expect from some of the Marxist sects, such as the SWP, AWL etc.. You are no different.
For a Socialist World!DJP – your response is a flimsy cop out: ‘neither support or oppose workers in struggle’. This is also a change in position on the party line, which said earlier you support workers in wage struggles and participate in unions. My point to that issue was why don’t you support workers defending their Social Wage e.g. Fight the Cuts. You know you should but are now doing idelogical summer salts which would make Stalin proud.
Alanjjohnston – well what can I say? You are playing semantics. I’m no spokesman for the Socialist Party (CWI) but you really are clutching at wet, thin straws by trying to condem their socialist goal. You talk ‘common owbnership’ and so do they. They sometimes use the term ‘nationalisation’ but mean the same as you and fully adhere to the principle of ‘each according to his/her ability, each according to their needs.’
As for Militant adopting the ‘Socialist Party’ name, well at least they act like a party as opposed to an academic talking shop. Maybe you should re-name yourselves, such as the Socialist Education Group, because you are not a political party. Dropping the ‘Great Britain’ name would be to your advantage as well.
You go on (and on): ‘As revolutionaries, we do not advocate reforms…’ Please advise if the SPGB position of neutrality as explained by AJ is now the case. If ,as I suspect, not then why support workers in struggle for better wages and conditions but not support their struggle to defend their social wage? Such struggle which is strongly linked for the need of socialism, raises workers consciousness. I agree, you need to be careful to keep the socialist goal very clear and keep out opportunists, which is why TUSC refuses to accept or support or let join those who believe in ‘some cuts’ or act like Labour Councillors and just pass the cuts on, which is unacceptable. The Socialist Party (CWI) continually bang on about the need for socialism within TUSC. For example, they take the position that ‘tax avoidance’ by capitalists should be opposed but unless you take economic power out of their hands, the ruling class will find ways aound. You would agree with that.
Commonality! You look for any excuse to oppose others, like Socialist Party (CWI) when you have far more in common. By the way, Sheridan is not a member of Socialist Party Scotland or their counter parts in England & Wales and have been critical of his approach and personality cult. But someone who went to jail over the Poll Tax rebellion, fought the baliffs (literally) and been persecuted for his Marxist beliefs and agitation by News International, should get your support not condemnation. You need to know which side you are on.
Finally, if the SPGB supported TUSC and the Campaign for a New Workers Party, you would come into contact with workers who are supportive of socialist ideas. There is no principled reason why you could not participate AND keep your identity but that would mean getting your hands dirty which you fear. Such a shame.stuartw2112 – if you are puzzled why I query the SPGB position on say reformism, is that it has big holes in it whivh I’m trying to get an answer but have been unsuccessful so far:
You support workers defending and trying to defend their wages and conditions via unions. SPGB members do it themselves I am told above. But you oppose workers defending their social wage, such as NHS health care, benefits, education etc. You have drawn an artificial ditingtion between the two. Please advise.
StuartW – I don’t know where you are coming from. Are you implying or saying that workers organising against the cuts or participating in TUSC mean we are ‘dumb massess’ and being ‘tricked’ because we’ve got up off our knees? This is a typical SPGB approach: create a picture that is false and then apply behaviours to others that are not present? It’s quite insulting and I note you fail to deal with my points. Such arrogance is displayed in the belief that the SPGB is the only democratic, socialist group/party and all others are lesser socialists.
I can only conclude that the SPGBs dismissal of the Campaign for a New Workers Party shows a lack of confidence in your own ideas.The first thing I must note is that you have dodged my question concerning not supporting the defence of workers’ social wage but you will engage in the struggle to defend personal wage levels. You have drawn a arbitary distingtion between the two to fit in with your simplistic view of capitalism and socialism. Please answer my point. Isn’t participating in unions to defend wages reformist, just as it is reformist to defend the NHS.
I see ALB can’t resist being sectarian and reactionary by insulting TUSC, a response that would sit comfortably in the pages of the Daily Mail or even Der Sturmer. No wonder workers and especially activists turn their backs on you if that is your approach. Hundreds of candidates stood on No Cuts platforms, linking it with the need for socialism or victories gained will be temporary. But you even dismiss their goal of socialism as some form of capitalism, be it of the state variety. For example, the Socialist Party (the old Militant, CWI) which participated in TUSC has the same goals as you: common ownership with workers democratic control, production for need, international socialism, party democracy etc etc. They condem old the bureacratic and totalitarian Soviet types regimes but you choose to ignore and instead pour out the old vitriol which gets you no-where and again is far too simplistic or wrong in many areas. Instead of trying so hard to find your differences with such organisations, you should work on finding commonalities and go from there. You have much to offer the socialist movement, especially your vision of socialism but your childish condemnation of such groups as TUSC or the Socialist Party (CWI) and ‘it’s my ideological ball, so I’m going home’ attitude is a historical and principled failure.
Let’s try another approach. The Socialist Party (CWI) calls for a new mass, workers party to replace Labour which is now an avowedly capitalist party and in a similar, terminal position to that of the Liberals in the late nineteenth, early twentith cenury. It calls for a new democratic, federalist party of reformists, socialists, Marxists etc to replace Labour, with the goal of socialism. A broad church of people and groups against capitalism. A comradlely party where there would be a continual debate of ideas, especially over the Reform v Revolution issue. A party of differing tendencies but a democratic one, just like the old SDF or even the old Labour Party, with the aim of socialism. Why not participate to put your ideas forward within such a federalist, democratic workers party? You could keep your own identity but be part of the socialist movement?SPGBers will dirty their hands in the economic struggle to defend workers, such as participating in trade unions to defend and improve wages but refuse to do the same when it comes to workers trying to defend their social wage e.g. benefits, NHS, schools etc. You and I know that such struggles can be directly linked to the failure of capitalism with socialism as the only answer. But you choose to turn your backs on both the labour and socialist movements and not participate. Where was the SPGB on the recent TUC march which showed how strong the workibg class is? Why doesn’t the SPGB participate in TUSC (Trade Union and Socialist Coalition) which stood hundreds of candidates in the recent local elections? (If you are unaware, TUSC is a democratic federalist coalition where socialist groups keep their identity and propaganda but agree on anti-cuts agenda, when fighting elections). You wouldn’t touch either with a barge pole through fear of being contanimated with that most terrible disease: Reformism.
This leads me back to your position on leadership, which is bogus. We all know democracy when we see it but you try to create this myth that the SPGB is the only democratic socialist group and workers are stupid blind followers of leaders. Now this either demonstrates a subconcious low opinion of the class you hope to see liberated or a propanda tactic. I think you are playing at the latter. Unfortunately it means you will not participate in the struggle to defend workers gains and therefore the true solution of socialis m is ignored. .
