lanz the joiner
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I agree with Socialist Punk, though I'm not a member here. As I've pointed out numerous times, the arguments used by the SPGB to try to debunk redistributive capitalist policies appear to rest on the same economic framework as right-wing, or conservative style economics. I know that many people here believe they understand capitalist economics just as well (or better) than everyone else – there's no need to explain to me why left-wing capitalism can't work – that's not why I'm posting here.I don't know how successful you guys are in using these arguments with people in real time, but I imagine you would have as much success as if you were persuading Labour-left voters to support UKIP… if UKIP didn't have a charismatic leader. For me and my friends, it's a bit like water off a duck's back. Your mileage may vary of course.What I would find much more compelling and interesting would be opinions and viewpoints that aren't shared with the Conservative Party and the right-wing press. For example, how the process to transform our society from capitalism to socialism would work… what it would look like… what would the attempts by capitalists to resist it look like… what kind of 'critical mass' would be the tipping point at which the transformation would begin… how would the society work… why a moneyless wageless economy is necessary…… and so on. Many of these topics are discussed in articles on this website, I'm sure. You guys have your own strategy, and maybe you are having more success with it than I imagine. I'm just voicing my take on it. A front cover article about one of the issues I mentioned would make me feel much more intrigued to buy/read the article – that is, if the article was saying something about socialism. As it stands, my reaction is "Oh look, people who claim to be socialists are saying 'back to the 70's' just like the right-wing press. Weird."
I see those who have responded to this thread as belonging to either one of two groups: firstly, those who unequivocally oppose Corbyn and everything he stands for as being inherently malevolent and detrimental to socialism, and secondly, those who have some degree of sympathy for him personally, or his policies, or his appeal to working class people.Those in the first group seem to be of the opinion that one of the ways Corbyn and other reformists harm the working class is by luring them towards supporting policy decisions that look like they will benefit the workers, but are destined to fail, which will inevitably lead to more austerity and dissillusionment.Obviously, if you could convince people how to think, you would convince them to abandon the idea of capitalism, and to join the fight for socialism instead. But, let's just say you could only persuade them to vote for another of the Labour candidates instead of Corbyn. How do you think that would play out, compared to the story I described above?Would a vocally pro-austerity Labour leader such as Cooper or Kendall show workers that reformism cannot succeed, more clearly than Corbyn's failures would? Would it prevent workers from experiencing the dissillusionment that Corbyn's nonsense-economics would create, or would it accelerate the process, more quickly leading workers to conclude that revolutionary socialism is the only real alternative?
gnome wrote:Among all the political parties in Great Britain, only the Socialist Party is dedicated to socialism as an immediate goal. It is this objective that makes the Socialist Party revolutionary – our dedication to peaceful, democratic and immediate change.Sorry if I'm bringing up an old tired issue here… but why isn't the Socialist Equality Party thought of by the SPGB as having socialism as an immediate goal? Is it because their definition of socialism differs from that of the SPGB?
alanjjohnstone wrote:Lanz, you persist in stating that the SPGB believes in the necessity and inevitablity of austerity as if we advocate such policies. […]Other contributors to the thread have responded to your accusation but i don't think you have taken on board their replies and explanations of our position.I'm sorry if it looks as though I haven't thouroughly read or understood the other responses. I did not mean to imply that the SPGB advocates said policies. I did not state this, and both of the times I have mentioned the overlap in political opinion between the SPGB and the Conservative Party (which you describe as an accusation), I made a point of noting that it is in the context of a capitalist system. I do not believe, and I have not stated or implied, that the SPGB believes in the legitimacy of austerity policies *outside of* a capitalist economy.One of the responses I got, from robbo203, said:
Quote:It would be more accurate to say the SPGB opposes capitalism which, at times of economic slump, necessitates such policies.This states that austerity policies are necessary at times of an economic slump, in a capitalist system. This is exactly what I have pointed out (which you have described as an accusation).
Alternative question:Is it better to believe in the necessity and inevitability of "austerity" policies in a capitalist society (like the SPGB and Conservative Party) while rejecting the idea of socialism as a utopian daydream……or…Is it better to believe reformist politics are worth supporting while ALSO believing that real socialism could one day be achieved and is an idea worth advocating and fighting for…
gnome wrote:In one respect of course these people who you say "already reject conservative thinking", in fact haven't, otherwise they wouldn't be thinking that capitalism can be made to work in their interests, if only they're successful in electing the 'right' leader; they would have already rejected that conservative mindset and be looking for a genuine revolutionary alternative.Corbyn and his supporters do reject some aspects of Conservative thinking, while accepting others. That is, they both believe prosperity in a just society can be achieved through a capitalist economy.Likewise, the SPGB rejects some aspects of Conservative thinking, but agrees with others. And here I'm referring to their shared belief in the necessity and importance of "austerity" policies in a capitalist economy, as the best/only way to deal with an economic slump.And I think the "back to the 1970s" jibes are actually a good example of this convergence of opinion.
On August 16th The Socialist Party (@OfficialSPGB) tweeted along with a picture of Jeremy Corbyn's face superimposed onto a Marmite jar:"We oppose reformism for diverting people away from real socialism, and prolonging the profits-before-people system."On the WorldSocialism.org How the SPGB Is Different From Others page, it is written that:"The SPGB and our companion parties in the WSM neither promotes, nor opposes, reforms to capitalism."Is this an inconsistency, or is it the case that opposing "reformISM" is not the same thing as opposing "reformS".
