link
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ajjI am listening to the argument that when the working class moves then the state institutions cannot fight back. As is argued, these institutions are relationships not solid objects. Break those relationships and they don’t work. In the background I am pondering the relevance and value of these arguments.However if I may respond first to some of the point you make in the last contribution because when I raise the issue of what workers councils can do in a revolutionary situation you respond by point out problems in trade union, the NUM, the RNLI and charities in general, local government institutions and parliament within capitalismThese are state capitalist institutions (apart from the charities which are capitalist institutions) run with capitalist norms and goals. I think that is significant. They are not ‘natural’ institutions that appear in all societies and can be adapted at will. These institutions are all products of capitalist society Feudal society had kings and queens and layers of aristocracy all of which were supported by workers (serfs as they were called then). Lets go back further to slave society. It was a society in which workers achieved massive amazing feats of construction.. Maybe they get adapted somewhat to work in other class societies but the features of these institutions are specific to their mode of production and can only be used as suchPerhaps I am exaggerating again but I don’t know how to argue this. You say don’t reinvent the wheel, but I think socialism requires very different organisations to capitalist one. Yes let’s use the buildings and the desks and chairs, lets use computers and the internet but don’t expect workers to keep the same relationships between people. I don’t believe TUs and local councils and parliament with all their paid officers, managers, chairman, boards, executtive committees, permanent ctte members and so on and so on, will play any part in genuinely socialist society.I absolutely agree with you that : “One thing (the workers) don't require (being) told is our capability and capacity to organise society…the working class problem is that they do it for our ruling class rather than for ourselves. “So why say keep using the same institutions that keep them held down. When workers become conscious and radical then they build new organisations not ones that politicos like us tell them to use or that capitalist have oppressed them with. Perhaps you believe me but when I say that workers councils are products of struggle not me – I don’t expect or need to tell workers to use them. Workers councils are simple structures based in amongst the workers themselves not capitalist institutions which tell them what to do. I do not therefore accept that TUs, charities, local government, parliament are based in the working class simply because they have workers in them. You could say the same about Ford or IBM too – why not just use them as they are. Let me pick on poor old parliament again. Parliament is an assembly but it is an organization with the key features of periodic voting of representatives for large numbers of people, it is comprised on political parties that represent specific policies/groups/vested interests and from it a government is selected and sits above it. This structure will not, sorry, I hope not exist in socialism. We don’t know how socialism will be organised in detail really, but I would suggest that assemblies will be needed but that they will use ‘delegates recallable at any time’. This would mean there would have to be a long chain (network, structure) of assemblies with different responsibilities – you cant call that structure a parliament nor a local government either.Socialism is a revolution not a reform of capitalist institutions.
ALB I do think you should have read the link to Rosa Luxemburg which you suggest refutes my argument – Hardly. One paragraph says: ‘In order to do this, is a majority in the National Assembly necessary? Only those who subscribe to parliamentary cretinism, who would decide the revolution and socialism with parliamentary majorities, believe this. Not the parliamentary majority in the National Assembly, but the proletarian mass outside, in the factories and on the streets, will decide the fate of the National Assembly.”Do you agree with this then?Yes I agree the approach to the use of parliament was different in the 19th century certainly to what I would argue now. The problem of the use of parliament is after all one reason why the SPGB left social democracy if you remember.I do agree that there needs to be a balance between the discussion of history and current events. I don’t think you have not found that yet though. First you criticize me for too much history about the workers councils in Russia in 1905 and 1917 and Germany 1918 (which I did mention briefly) as well. Then you come up with other historical references to criticize me for using too much history and NOW you demand that I go back over ‘when and where has this happened’ which is precisely what I discussed in the first place.Are you now agreeing that you should have read/listened to my presentation?
It seems to me a bit sad that you resort to all these strange distortions of arguments put before you and chase the old Aunt Sallyies that you prefer to dismiss and mock.. Proletarian makes valid points about how workers councils in a revolutionary situation yet you mock the idea that workers councils can run an enterprise within capitalism. He makes valid points about the emergence of learning from economic struggles but you prefer not to reason with that or provide alternate sources of learning.On my contribution earlier you ignore the history I suggest is relevant and complain about it, then you raise all sorts of historical points against, some relevant some irrelevant. The quote from Luxemburg is certainly a problem for me but reading the chapter, I do think she is here arguing against the anarchists that their vision of revolutionary activity was shown to be wrong by events in 1905? It was written at the end of a period when all of social democracy was in favour or using parliament as a strategy for propaganda – it was the reformists that were starting to seek power through elections! Thank you anyway for the reminder about the Mass Strike booklet that Luxemburg wrote – do please read the rest of it because I would argue that it entirely supports the arguments I am putting forward. For example she goes on to say: “But in order to be able to overthrow it, the proletariat requires a high degree of political education, of class-consciousness and organisation. All these conditions cannot be fulfilled by pamphlets and leaflets, but only by the living political school, by the fight and in the fight, in the continuous course of the revolution.”Let me add here that I think Workers Councils are a product of the period of mass strike – genuine workers councils (now that’s another topic to take up) appear in revolution situations and there is real evidence that they happened, were run by workers not by the party, were capable of taking over society and still representing workers in a way that parliament never can. They don’t run capitalist enterprise and they don’t take over and run the capitalist state. When run by class conscious workers, they showed the capacity to enable workers themselves to run society according to socialist principles ie ignoring money, costs, profits and focusing instead on need, on equality and recallable delegates. This is Socialism in embryo appearing in practice, surely you can appreciate the importance of that?
I am actually still learning about the SPGB’s view of the world and do find that ALB is diminishing the agreements or the good things in the discussion in BirminghamI felt there did end up establishing a good deal of agreement on the role of militants/political party for example despite the bit you focus on when there were some sharp accusations about Leninism. I note also that you keep ignoring the emphasis we all put on direct democrary and on the use of delegates recallable at any time. Surely this is a lesson from workers councils themselves – you certainly didn’t learn that from parliament!Im disappointed that you dismiss the value of history – something I wasn’t expecting from socialists. The discussion itself only spent maybe 45 minutes talking such things and nobody who took part in that would suggest that that is all that needs discussing. Its pretty sad if you cant cope with that in a discussion. It was a after all a meeting on the role of the workers councils (a title that was the SPGB's suggestion) and it would be absurd to do that without looking at actual examples. Your attitude however does perhaps explain how the SPGB can suggest that parliament can be used to overpower the capitalist class – you don’t care about history and you don’t need historical examples to believe something to be possible!! Ah – the role of faith in history!! Yes conditions now are very different to the end of the first world war, so, at least ask what lessons can be learnt and how they apply now. Don’t just mock the idea.I keep being surprised the SPGB feels hard done by the suggestion that you dismiss economic struggles. Its clear from the SPGBs (ALB?) presentation that you see workers councils ‘merely’ as tools of economic management and to quote AJ earlier in this thread: “workers’ movement that fights for economic gains, yes! A socialist party that fight for the emancipation of the working class, even better!”Don’t think there is any doubt is there? Now clearly I know that you are on the side of the workers in economic and limited struggles, nobody is suggesting otherwise. Such struggles are not struggles for socialism ok but at certain times in history, workers learn from then and as they learn, the struggles become political and become confrontations with the capitalist state. I want therefore to emphasise the link between economic and political struggles within capitalism. Whilst I think we can all say, that limited economic struggles are not enough and that only political struggles of class conscious workers can lead to socialism. The question here is how what is the relationship of one to the other and I would like to hear how the SPGB explains this.The value of looking at the history of workers councils is in the way they manage to combine the economic and political and as an organisational form allow workers as a class to manage those struggles. With such organisations emerging in periods of heightened class struggles, the workers don’t need parliament and political parties to take control – hopefully wont let them – they can do it themselves. If they don’t emerge from struggles, then I am wrong but at some point if workers don’t vote for the SPGB (there aren’t any other genuine socialists in parliament after all) then you will have to admit that you are wrong too.
