Mike Foster
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
jondwhite wrote:IS Cliffites (the Socialist Workers Party) and Alliance for Workers Liberty have said to me the SPGB is 'sectarian' and 'abstract propagandist and removed from the class struggle'. Is this a genuine misunderstanding of our case? I often wonder if they aren't just following Lenin in delivering ad hominem insults.
I'd say that the 'sectarian' remark is how our 'hostility clause' could be seen by others, or just a lazy slur because we're not part of the Leninist/Trotskyite/etc scene. The 'removed from the class struggle' bit might refer to our lack of a presence on demos, pickets etc. Of course, we're engaged with the class struggle just by being in capitalism, but demos and pickets are perceived as the 'front line' of the class struggle. I'd advocate attending more events like this as an opportunity to state our case. By 'abstract propagandist' I'd say they think our theory either doesn't relate to the real world (which is easily disproved by picking up the Socialist Standard) or doesn't advocate supposedly non-abstract reforms (which isn't what we're about). If we put ourselves out there a bit more, and perhaps invite other organisations to debates, then we could be seen as less aloof. The Campaigns Department should sort something out…
We're not 'far left' so maybe (to be charitable) they were sticking closely to the title… Or (to be less charitable) they didn't want to mention a movement which challenges the left/right spectrum?
Lacking empathy is one of the hallmarks of being a psychopath. And a study found that 1 in 5 senior managers could be psychopathic, compared with 1 in 100 of the general population. So, to 'get to the top' in capitalism it helps if you can't empathise with how your decisions will affect others…
KAZ wrote:I was kind of hoping that someone might comment about the hostility clause. Clearly it works both ways.The 'hostility clause' certainly doesn't prevent the SPGB arranging debates with other organisations, nor does it mean those debates would have to be 'hostile' in tone! Personally, I'd like more dialogue with anarchist groups, in the spirit of learning about different approaches and perspectives.
alanjjohnstone wrote:When was the party's analysis last cited by an academic or intellectual (i use the word loosely)?One of the Proper Gander articles from the Standard was quoted in an A Level Sociology textbook, if that counts!
I'm assuming that bar codes already regulate supply and demand (among those who can afford to buy the goods) within corporations. So, when someone buys some cornflakes from a supermarket, the bar code not only registers the price, but also logs that one box has gone so that it can be checked if enough are still in stock. Something similar on a wider scale in socialism could also map supply and demand so that production can keep up. The technology's already there for this way of 'socially determining' production. Have the Zeitgeist Movement worked on models of how production could be managed post-capitalism?By the way, there's a short story by Frederick Pohl called 'The Midas Plague' (1954), adapted for TV in the mid-60s, set in a future where automation has led to over-production of commodities. In this world of over-abundance, someone is considered poor if they have a lot of commodities, and people aim for jobs and status which mean they can consume less. The idea is presented in quite a jokey way, and I'm not sure if the satire quite hits the mark, but it's worth a look.
In reply to LBird's point that 'social estimation' will provide an incentive for production in socialism, I think that this will play a part, but perhaps a better way of framing the argument is that higher 'social estimation' will apply to job roles as much as to individuals. For example, 'dirty jobs' won't be seen in the same way in socialism as they are in capitalism. For example, providing personal care to frail people is one of the most important jobs there is, but in capitalism this attracts very low wages and people in these roles are right at the bottom of the corporate ladder. In socialism, such roles would be recognised for their true value in providing comfort and reassurance, so they wouldn't have the poor standing they currently have. This will mean that people will be more motivated to work in those roles. Also, on Robbo203's point about 'human nature' arguments, the positive aspect of this is that it's easy to prove that our 'human nature' is inherently co-operative. Without a drive to work together, there wouldn't be any kind of society at all. So, we could argue more that capitalism frustrates our drive to be co-operative by introducing scarcity, competition, divisions etc.
Some of our tweets about Trump Jr were picked up by the Independent Journal Review, and a piece about them can be found here: https://ijr.com/the-declaration/2018/02/1065569-donald-trump-jr-tweeted-that-his-wife-and-family-are-safe-and-the-socialist-party-wasnt-having-it/This was on the Donald Trump 'News Now' feed, which collects news stories about him.
Yes, this is the kind of question which keeps coming up (along with 'who will clean the sewers in socialism?') and which we need to have replies to. To some extent, we can get away with saying that automation will make production easier in socialism, especially as by that time technology will have advanced so that we get, for example, robot sewer cleaners (if we haven't already got them). But this answer is a bit of a cop-out as it can't take into account all work and doesn't really address the issue of motivation.In capitalism, a lot of 'incentive' to produce comes through coercion, of course – i.e. needing to work to get money to pay for commodities. Our approach tends to be that there won't and can't be any coercion in socialism, as there wouldn't be institutions which could or would coerce people into labour. When we say this, and therefore that all work in socialism would be voluntary, this leads on to 'human nature' arguments in reply – i.e. "people are inherently lazy" or "who would want to do the dirty jobs?". In reply, we can point to the fact that even in capitalism there are plenty of people who do voluntary work, often involving menial or 'dirty' jobs.I don't think we can say that motivation would come just from wanting to help out the community, as motivation is always more personal (selfish?) than that.A more awkward argument against our view is the one that goes "why should someone bother training to be a brain surgeon when this wouldn't give them access to anything more than someone who does a few hours in an office?". Can our reply here be anything different to saying that being a brain surgeon is its own reward? Isn't this a bit glib?
