irwellian
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Here's the email I sent as a non-member to spgb@ address: Comrades, Sorry to hear about your conference motion to cease publication of the print issue of the Socialist Standard. I'm currently a subscriber, have been reading your publication since 1980 and feel this would be a big loss to the socialist cause. Yes, I realise the issue of costs, that fewer people read print publications these days and that there's an increase in people reading material online. Still, I believe ceasing print publication would be a bad move. Online publications tend to only get read by those actively searching out a specific publication (or specific type of publication), whereas print publications can be found more easily by the non initiated via street sales or shops. I appreciate the lack of radical bookshops these days but that just means other avenues need looking at more carefully. I've found that some newsagents and small independent booksellers will take radical publications as long as they get a cut of the cover price. This can be done on an individual basis by your members in various towns but I also understand that chain newsagents such as McColl's have an arrangement with that dreadful publication, the Morning Star, so there's probably no reason a similar arrangement couldn't be negotiated with the Socialist Standard. Another thing to consider is the recent development of the "print on demand" industry, so rather than having a large set print run, this can now be tailored to suit much smaller or more targeted runs to cover your subscribers and the reduced number of outlets but with the option to extend the run if need be. A quick google search will show a number of companies which can provide such a service. I'm not an SPGB member, I'm actually a long term member of the Anarchist Federation but have always seen the Socialist Party as a vital element of the "thin red line" of principled adherents of the revolutionary socialist/communist idea. Like I say, it would be a sad day for the Socialist Standard to fold, so I would really appreciate it if my comments could be included or read out during your conference discussions on the day.
Much of what you say is preaching to the choir as I'm certainly no bolshevik sympathiser and I'm fully aware of the crimes of Lenin and Trotskyist. Peace, land and freedom wasn't a specifically bolshevik slogan but, either way, I'm not sure how you'd equate it with jacobinism??? I think you misread my "defending the poor wee things" comment… Che Guevara indeed!
October (November) 1917 did have its coup-like qualities as far as the Bolsheviks were concerned but thinking of it as simply a coup by a minority of individuals is just plain wrong. As for the Kerensky government, surely mcolome1 isn’t defending the poor wee things?
I agree about the importance of the factory committees but when you say
alanjjohnstone wrote:not a single representative from factories were at the inaugral meeting of the St Peterburg soviet.have you got a source for that claim as I've never heard it before?
Thanks for your comments."It was obviously an important event that had repercussions throughout the last century, but from a geopolitical rather than proletarian point of view. In fact it sidetracked the "proletarian" movement and nostalgia for it still does." I wouldn't disagree about it sidetracking the proletarian movement in an ultimately catastrophic way.Disagreements on the importance of workers' councils…Isn't this basically the difference between the SPGB approach (using the system which exists – i.e. parliamentary elections) and the view of many anarcho-, council- and left-communists?Me: "the apparent death of class consciousness, the general lack of collective working class awareness and the dwindling of revolutionary groups and ideas is a probable repercussion of the failure of 1917 and after"You: "I would have thought that this would only be a minor reason, if one at all, for this. It will have had more to do with, for instance, the decline in work in heavy industry and the mistake of considering industrial workers only as "working class".Yes, there are many reasons, however, I stand by the importance of the failure of 1917 and the subsequent toxic effect of leninism, stalinism, trotskyism, maoism and assorted advocates of variations of state capitalism on the wider workers' movement.Me: "the dire state of the world we see today is ultimately evidence of the failure of 1917"You: "Well over the top too." Possibly. As with the above point, the reasons are many and looking at "what if?" scenarios is ultimately futile. But given the effect of bolshevism on people's everyday understanding of what "socialism" is (one-party dictatorship, secret police, workers' barracks, gulags, bread queues, etc), and given that if 1917 had actually led to world revolution (and clearly, world revolution did not take place and we do not live in a socialist world), then its influence on today is collossal.
Report back on the meetingThough attendance was a little smaller than last month due to an unfortunate clash with a Leicester Social Forum event at the same time, the meeting nevertheless went well. The discussion was led off by a left communist friend of the local AF, who gave a solid background to the 1917 events in Russia. Key points in the ensuing discussion were:1917 was a seminal moment in world revolutionary proletarian historyit is perhaps mistaken to think of it as the "Russian revolution" as it was a catalyst for uprisings, mutinies and revolutions in many other places (e.g. Germany, Hungary, Italian factory councils, etc.)its failure, and the subsequent failure of revolutionary movements elsewhere were ultimately a failure of "socialism in one country" (or more accurately, state capitalism in one geographical location)the workers councils (soviets) were a major contribution to revolutionary movements (although to be fair, the councils go back to 1905)the taming of the soviets by the bolsheviks, the repression of Kronstadt and the makhnovschina were all mentionedThe massive influence of the Russian revolution on the years between 1917 and now are unquestionable. It led to:the bolshevisation or leninisation of the more revolutionary wing of the international workers' movementthis bolshevisation/leninisation included revolutionary groups and movements of various tendencies (including anarchists)the dominance of the Comintern and Stalinist tyranny, etc, led to the deformation of revolutionary politics and has left concepts such as socialism or communism as tainted, damagedpro-revolutionary ideas, groups and movements are still recovering from thisthe apparent death of class consciousness, the general lack of collective working class awareness and the dwindling of revolutionary groups and ideas is a probable repercussion of the failure of 1917 and afterthe dire state of the world we see today is ultimately evidence of the failure of 1917
I look forward to a possible future with one or two capitalist restorationists standing on a street corner handing out copies of Capitalist Standard to the disinterested socialist masses.
My earlier comment got buried in the html gibberish: "Sadly, I don't have a record of the many interesting contributions that followed. I suspect Socialist Party members will agree with a fair bit of it, but maybe other parts not so much. It'd be nice to see an SPGB presence at the February discussion on the Rusian revolution. Cheers!" I also take a broad definition of what is working class. I also take note of the pitfalls of "defensive" actions. It was an interesting discussion from a range of people who would define themselves as socialists, communists, anarchists. As I say, much of what was said I suspect would chime with the views of Socialist Party members.
Here are my fleshed-out notes on the January meeting in Leicester. Sadly, I don't have a record of the many interesting contributions that followed. I suspect Socialist Party members will agree with a fair bit of it, but maybe other parts not so much. It'd be nice to see an SPGB presence at the February discussion on the Rusian revolution. Cheers! Is the working class movement dead? What is the role of pro-revolutionaries in the current social, political and economic climate? Pre-discussion comments by an AF member to a libertarian socialist discussion meeting in Leicester, 25 January 2017. NB: this is not verbatim but more the speaker’s somewhat sketchy notes re-assembled into a more readable format. Just to say that this discussion lead-in mainly deals with the situation here in the UK, reflecting my own knowledge and experience. I accept that there will be similar elements which apply to the situation in other countries, as well as differences. So, is the workers’ movement dead? In short: no. But it is on life support. Since the early 1980s there has been a marked decline in class consciousness, class cohesion, solidarity and such like. Now we have a working class that is de-educated, de-politicised, atomised and individualised. In terms of class struggle politics, it is as if we are starting from scratch. The 1970s was the post-war high point in class struggle and the organised working class which featured significant struggles with miners and other industries, events such as the battle of Saltley Gate, the fall of the Heath government and culminating in the “winter of discontent”. On the continent, such mass wildcat strikes were known as “the British disease” which seems hard to believe when we look at how things are now. Prior to this meeting, I received a document from the CWO (Communist Workers Organisation) which quoted statistics from the UK Office of National Statistics which noted that in 1979, 2.95 million working days were lost to strike action. I’ll repeat that figure so we can all just take it in: that’s 2.95 – almost 3 million days – lost because of strike action. Forward closer to the present and the same Office of National Statistics gives the figures for 2015 as 170,000 strike days – a tiny fraction. What that figure doesn’t tell you either is the quality of the action taken. I am assuming that the majority of those days would be official actions, one day strikes, often token and with limited effectiveness. What stands for a working class movement has retreated into reformism and identity politics – world where Corbynism and the Labour left even seems comparatively radical. Meanwhile, sites of genuine class resistance are now like virtual oases in the vast capitalist desert. That said, it’s possible I’m offering a somewhat rose-tinted view of the past. After all, while the 1970s saw inspiring acts of working class activity, it was also a period of chronic racism at all levels of society, where sexist attitudes were endemic and violent homophobia more or less the norm. Over the years, such reactionary views became increasingly unacceptable – although, more recently, it looks as if there’s something of a backlash with racist, xenophobic and conservative attitudes apparently on the increase. As for the mass industrial action and wider class consciousness of the 70s, yes it was often militant and often wildcat in nature, but it was also solidly tied to labourism or the CP, reformism and orthodox trade unionism. It was also followed by Thatcherism. And let’s not forget the open collusion of the trade unions themselves in the collapse of the organised workers’ movement over the last 30-odd years – yet another failure of social democracy. So if it’s all so dire, is it worth reviving? Yes, because class struggle is fundamental, the ONLY way to ever abolish capitalism. This is because, ultimately, capitalism can only be abolished by the workers of the world seizing the means of production – however unlikely it may seem in the here and now. So what should be the role of pro-revolutionaries? All those years ago, the First International declared that the emancipation of the working class was the task of the workers themselves, and this holds true today – however far away the notion of the working class emancipating itself may currently seem. Nevertheless, there are no short cuts to this – well no short cuts that won’t end in disaster in one way or another. That means no substitutionism – in other words, substituting your particular group, party or political movement for the working class. Likewise, no Jacobinism, Marxist-Leninism, or so-called insurrectionism (whether anarchist, Maoist or some other Marxist-Leninist variant) either. All of these, in their own particular way, aim to act for (or in the name of) the working class rather than the working class acting for itself. They are all every bit as much a dead end as the reformism of those who have opted to throw in their lot with Corbynism and Momentum. The alternatives to all that may not be very exciting but they are essential. Those of us who advocate a revolution to establish a society based on the principle from each according to ability to each according to need, whether we call ourselves anarchists, communists, socialists or whatever, need to maintain a revolutionary intransigence, serving as a class memory – the “thin red line” so to speak. But also, we need to be practically engaged in struggles as and when they arise – involved, whether active within or supportive externally to those “oases” of class struggle I mentioned earlier. This also means being proactive in things such as residents’ groups, claimants’ organisations, autonomous workplace activity… or by establishing or re-establishing such organisations but without repeating past mistakes. I’m also aware that these days, such types of organisation are few and far between. Nevertheless, where we are active, whether actively participating within or offering solidarity from outside, we need to engage with action that is meaningful. I’m minded of the quote from the old group, Solidarity: Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self-activity of the masses and whatever assists in their demystification. Sterile and harmful action is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses, their apathy, their cynicism, their differentiation through hierarchy, their alienation, their reliance on others to do things for them and the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others – even by those allegedly acting on their behalf.
