[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo, go back and read some of the numerous threads in which I've discussed these things with you and others, and provided copious evidence.To be truthful, I've been caught out before by the Religious Materialists, and spent hours, days and weeks 'providing evidence', explanation and discussion, but the RM-ers will not engage.If you hold the belief that Marx was a 'materialist', nothing I write here for you will shake your faith. Sorry, but you're going to have to do the work, this time.

 LBird, there are numerous threads and  tons of posts to plough through to get the precise informationm I asked for – whether Engels was a crude reductionist as you claim he was.  I frankly do not have the time to go through all of that.  I cannot see why, if you claim to be so familiar with the subject that you cannot reproduce here one or two quotes that you have at your fingertips  from Engels to substantiate your view of him You already know my views on "materialism".  I was arguing long before you appeared on this forum that the "fact-value" distinction was a bogus one and made clear that I favoured an emergence paradigm over a reductionist model.  I have also made a sharp distinction between historical materialism and metaphysical materialism and a particular quarrel I have with the Party is that it – totally unecessarily – makes membership of the organisation effectively conditional upon acceptance of the latter as though it served as some kind of sheet anchor for the former. Hence its bar on religious socialists.  I dont think it does and I agree with Alison Assister , an ex SPGBer, that " Marx’s materialism should not be seen as philosophical materialism’ (Alison Assiter "Philosophical Materialism or the Materialist Conception of History", Radical Philosophy, 23 (Winter 1979). In Marx's materialism, theory and practice are indeed unified.  In the so called base-superstructure model, there is no such thing as a base which is somehow  idea-free and then, functionalist-fashion,   "gives rise" – like mushrooms in a compost  – to a set of ideas that are conducive to the perpetuation of that base .  "Ideas" are there right from the get-go .  Property relations presuppose a certain set of social expectations and values and the productive forces are themselves the product of the application of ideas interacting with cicumstances

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

[I know that you're not convinced, robbo, and you won't accept the evidence that I've provided time and again, that show two things:1. Engels can be quoted to support either position;2. Some of Engels' formulations were not shared by Marx.

 I haven't seen this evidence you say you have produced to support the view that Engels was a crude reductionist.  Could you please resubmit this evidence or point  me in the direction where it can be found

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Yes, robbo, Engels did write that, amongst other things that contradicted it. He was confused.But, even given what you've quoted, the Religious Materialists still insist that 'consciousness' can be reduced to 'matter'.'Matter' was a hobbyhorse of Engels, not of Marx.

 I'm not convinced that Engels is quite the reductionist you make him out to be.  Where is your evidence?  His later writings, like the quote I provided seem, if anything, to provide good evidence of an anti reductionist  position.  To wit, his famous letter to Joseph Bloch  (September 21, 1890) in which he said.  According to the materialist conception of history the determining element in history is ultimately the production and reproduction in real life. More than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted.If therefore somebody twists this into the statement that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms it into a meaningless, abstract and absurd phrase.The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure – political forms of the class struggle and its consequences, constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc. – forms of law – and then even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the combatants: political, legal, philosophical theories, religious ideas and their further development into systems of dogma – also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form.There is an interaction of all these elements in which, amid all the endless host of accidents (i.e., of things and events, whose inner connection is so remote or impossible to prove that we regard it as absent so and can neglect it) the economic movement finally asserts itself as necessary. Otherwise the application of the theory to any period of history one chose would be easier than the solution of a simple equation of the first degree.(my emphasis) If anything this seems closer to an emergence perspective than a reductionist perspective

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Any 'materialism' which separates nature into two essences (the 'material' and the 'ideal', of which only the former is regarded as 'real') is forced to bring in 'ideas' and 'consciousness' by the back door. Engels was the thinker who brought this 'old-style mechanical materialism' back into socialist thought, after Marx had attempted to unite the two in a philosophy of 'theory and practice', which by its nature requires both the 'ideal' (consciousness, spirit, geist) and 'material' (a 'material substratum' to quote Marx) to be worked upon by human labour (mental and physical).

 And yet Engels is the guy who wrote this…"And, in fact, with every day that passes we are acquiring a better understanding of these laws and getting to perceive both the more immediate and the more remote consequences of our interference with the traditional course of nature. In particular, after the mighty advances made by the natural sciences in the present century, we are more than ever in a position to realise, and hence to control, also the more remote natural consequences of at least our day-to-day production activities. But the more this progresses the more will humanity not only feel but also know their oneness with nature, and the more impossible will become the senseless and unnatural idea of a contrast between mind and matter, humanity and nature, soul and body, such as arose after the decline of classical antiquity in Europe and obtained its highest elaboration in Christianity." (my emphasis) https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1876/part-played-labour/

[robbo203]

John Oswald wrote:

 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, for all their revolutionary ideas, also toed the old nature-conquest line. …

 Hmm. Not too sure about that, John, sympathetic though I am to your line of argument.  Here for example is something that Engels wrote that would rather contradict the above…. “Let us not, however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human victories over nature. For each such victory nature takes its revenge on us. Each victory, it is true, in the first place brings about the results we expected, but in the second and third places it has quite different, unforeseen effects which only too often cancel the first.“The people who, in Mesopotamia, Greece, Asia Minor and elsewhere, destroyed the forests to obtain cultivable land, never dreamed that by removing along with the forests the collecting centres and reservoirs of moisture they were laying the basis for the present forlorn state of those countries.“When the Italians of the Alps used up the pine forests on the southern slopes, so carefully cherished on the northern slopes, they had no inkling that by doing so they were cutting at the roots of the dairy industry in their region; they had still less inkling that they were thereby depriving their mountain springs of water for the greater part of the year, and making it possible for them to pour still more furious torrents on the plains during the rainy seasons.“Those who spread the potato in Europe were not aware that with these farinaceous tubers they were at the same time spreading scrofula.“Thus at every step we are reminded that we by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing outside nature — but that we, with flesh, blood and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst, and that all our mastery of it consists in the fact that we have the advantage over all other creatures of being able to learn its laws and apply them correctly.”— Friedrich Engels, The Part Played by Labor in the Transition from Ape to Man

[robbo203]

DJP wrote:

Unless you've got a specific question I think there's far too much bredth here for a discussion topic..

 Well, how about narrowing it down to the point made by Alison Assiter concerning  "Reasons why Marx’s materialism should not be seen as philosophical materialism’ (Alison Assiter "Philosophical Materialism or the Materialist Conception of History", Radical Philosophy, 23 (Winter 1979) – and to the wider argument that shackling historical materialism to a materialist metaphysic is not particularly healthy for the socialist movement itself?

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Just read the same article in this weekend's i paper. I read it as saying that within capitalism such schemes will never be mainstream, but isn't this was what we say?  It could have some relevance to the idea Robbo has revived on the SPGB Communications thread about encouraging such schemes as bits of pre-socialism within capitalism. Having said that, that doesn't mean we should reject or denounce them (after all, they are one way of trying to survive under capitalism), just criticise extravagant claims made about them.

 I think the point is that these kinds of developments – like the sharing economy – that, in a way, transcend  or go beyond the market relationship, provide a means by which we can begin to address that most daunting of problems – what are we to do in the meantime.  If we are honest with ourselves the reaction of 99% people to the idea of a socialist society – even if they like the idea  – is to consign it to some distant future, if at all.  It is because they think of it as a very long term future that they dont feel motivated to bring it about.  There is in other words a gap – or hiatus – between people's short term perspective and their view of socialism as a long term goal. Unless you have some kind of feasible transitional strategy  you will never will bridge this gap and socialism will remain forever stranded on the other side , a tantalising will o' the wisp never to be realised and for that reason never likely to motivate workers in sufficient numbers to do something about bringing socialism a little closer.  Its a vicious circle.With all due respect to Adam I dont think its enough to say we shouldn't reject or denounce such developments.  I would rather say that these are developments to be welcomed and encouraged.  Yes they are one way of trying to survive under capitalism.  So too is workers joining trade unions,  And does not the Party encourage  workers to join trade unions? Specifically in relation to the sharing economy I would say it provides a kind of organic or homologous connection between the present and a potential socialist future.  That is important because it is through praxis not just abstract propaganda – important though the latter is – that workers are likely to gain the necessary confidence and self  belief to change society

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

SPGB COMMUNICATION STRATEGYAccepted wisdom [again?] is that you communicate mostly to the undecided.  You need not talk to those already on your side [they have already heard the message], and it is a waste of time [well, mostly] to talk to your intractable enemies, so you are best advised to concentrate your fire on those who are possible but not yet in your fold. The great masses…and also coincidentally those already on the left but not true socialists. Here I suppose I break with tradition: rather than emphasising the extent to which we denounce these misguided fools in their mistaken political activism, we should send them out a more welcoming message – the concerns that attracted you to a left wing party are valid and we are likely to share them. I believe we are more likely to gain new recruits from those already on the left than elsewhere: hopefully the other parties have in some sense warmed them up for us.  If our message is so much better than theirs [well, it is, isn’t it?], then it shouldn’t be too difficult to get them over. And if that is the case, then it isn’t very clever acting all hostile to them…sensible? 

I think this is a key point in Howard's paper – the need for more precisely targeted propaganda. Say what you like about the Lefties – including the Greens –  but they are the people most likely to become socialists in our sense of the word.  That means reaching out to them in particular without ignoring the wider electorate. It also means developing a more welcoming and conducive attitude towards them. Its difficult, I know, and I don't have any quick answers. Also, I have been a guilty as the next person  in ignoring this  suggestion, giving into temptation and laying into the Left in heavy handed fashion.  To err is to be human.  Nevertheless one should not forget the long term objective which is not about scoring points but gaining supporting for genuine socialism.  I have not been active on the Revleft forum lately but I have noticed a shift in thinking towards a more explicit understanding, and embrace of, what genuine socialism is about. One slight problem I have with Howard's line of reasoning has to do with his implied recommendation that we abandon the language of, and perhaps any reference to, certain dead Germans.  All very well but the language of Marxism has a strong resonance among the Left – we speak this language when we talk to the Left – and yet it is the Left who we are urged to target.  I'm not quite sure how to get round this one either but its worth thinking about 

Vin wrote:

So, talking to the rest of the electorate…those who might see the world in terms of tory and labour or LibDem, etc.  Those who worry about taxes and the price of petrol and employment security…Going straight at them and talking about scrapping money is a big jump for most of them, and it consigns us as extra-terrestrials as far as many are concerned, no matter how great the idea is. As things stand we have got to make the case that there is an alternative because most of them do not believe it: they think this is all there is. At least when the USSR was in existence, there was a tangible alternative -admittedly not much of one but one that was present within everyone’s consciousness. At the moment received wisdom is that this system is the only possibility.  Our giving them both barrels as an opening gambit is counter-productive: it simply deters them from listening. Moreover the language in which much of our case is made is, to many, far too opaque. At a recent election meeting, I found myself paraphrasing some of the answers to questions given by those speaking on our behalf: the questioners being visibly confused….. My point is about key messages at election time and similar: I think a money-less society and leaderless world was a bit of a big step for most of our intended audience [much as it felt right in a self-congratulatory way].  I think my suggestions of seeding as above is far more palatable to many.  It will not bear immediate fruit, but I suspect there is not much that will.  At least it gets people thinking – which is foremost what we want [surely?].

 Yes I think this is an important point that Howard is making.  Socialism comes across as a remote and  disembodied abstraction something that, if is ever going to come about  at all, will probably only come about in the very long term.  But in the long term, as Keynes said, we are dead.  Therefore people are not inclined for the most part to take socialism seriously.  The case for socialism may be highly rational but if socialism is not on the cards for the foreseeable future what is the point? People will simply rationalise to themselves that we live in a sub-optimal world and we might as well just go about making the best of what we have in the meanwhile. In other words there is a huge credibility gap that socialism suffers from.  This idea of Howard's of starting from where people are today and using a step by step approach to win them over  is a sound one.  My gloss on this  would be that it means identifying and encouraging those developments with capitalism that run counter to the logic of the market – the various  ways in which workers strive to cope  under capitalism by adopting forms of organisation that transcend the market and which unmistakably point point to the possibility of another alternative to capitalism while not necessarily representing that alternative themselves. This was, as some might recall, the central argument of the old Guildford Branch circular produced back in late 80s (Gawd how time flies!) – The Road to Socialism – which caused a bit of stir. I think what the circular was actually saying was largely misunderstood within the Party  and the discussion got bogged down in fruitless and defensive debate about the merits or otherwise of workers co-ops and the like.  The bigger picture was sadly missed in the heat of the argument – namely that  "socialistic" or non-market developments – like the growth of intentional communities, for example – while they do not necessarily lead to socialism or generate a socialist outlook, provide a fertile ground in which socialist ideas can be seeded. The point is that these things address the short term concerns of workers which mere abstract propagandism by its very nature cannot  and so  therefore tends to present socialism as a mere abstract long term goal.  Highly rational though the case for socialism may be it demonstrably lacks the potency to motivate.  Thus, goes the argument, it is only by linking up with these "socialistic developments in a more positive way that the movement for socialism will be able to gain traction, will be able to overcome that massively daunting  hiatus between the short and long term perspectives. Or, if you like, by bringing closer together the utopian and scientific traditions of socialism I think it is worth revisiting this argument and seeing what in practical terms that might mean as far as an organisation like the SPGB is concerned. I do not imagine that ever means changing its function as a political party and a source of socialist propaganda.  But it might very well mean a significant change in emphasis and tone and possibly also what individual members of the Party might do as distinct from the Party as a collective entity….

[robbo203]

SocialistPunk wrote:

For me at least, this raises a question as to what parts of the state get converted into "the agent of emancipation"? Or to put it another way. What use is the state to socialism, when workers have already organised outside it to ensure the transition from capitalism to socialism?

 If I  might just paste here what i wrote in the other thread  to provide context… 

robbo203 wrote:

In the first place. it is nonsense to claim that  the " immediate abolition of the state is an anarchist position". The anarchist position is rather to bypass or circumvent the state altogether. – because of its toxic association with hierarchy  The "abolition of the state" necessarily implies the capture of the state which is definitely not what anarchists advocate.  You cannot "abolish" something unless you have control of it to begin with. Secondly,  if you do not abolish the state immediately then be aware of what this means and what it is in fact that you are calling for. The state is an instrument of class rule.  The existence of the state implies the existence of class society.  In rejecting the idea that the state should be immediately abolished, you are asserting the need for the existence of the state to be prolonged and perpetuated and by that very same token  therefore you are asserting the need for the existence of class society to be prolonged and perpetuated.  This, after a democratic socialist majority has just captured political power with the clear mandate to eliminate class society.  I have had this argument before with Left Communists and others who apparently, like you, call for a period of transition commonly know as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" during which the the proletariat consisting mainly of revolutionary socialists will continue to administer a class – based society.  I put it to you as I have put it to them that whole idea is absolutely baloney.,  I don't care if Marx , Karl or Groucho, advocated it.  It is still complete nonsense How is it logically conceivable that this interim, a (so called) "socialist" administration in the face of the democratic socialist capture of power going to administer class society in the interests of the proletariat. Its like trying to run the abattoir in the interests of the cattle. It cannot be done. A class society exists by virtue of the exploitation of one class by another. Accordingly anyone who takes on the administration of such a class society must necessary administer it in the interests of exploiting class and against the interests of the exploited.

 So to respond to your point SP,  its not the "state" that gets converted once it is democratically captured.  It is the "machinery of government"  and, even then, only some of this – the rest will be scrapped as dysfunctional or pointless to needs of a socialist society e.g.. tax collection The moment the state is captured by a socialist majority  will coincide with its demise.  Anything other than than is is to buy into that preposterous notion that a slave society can be administered in the interests of the slaves – the so called "dictatorship of the proletariat". If the state continues in any way shape or form after the capture of it by the worker then that implies the perpetuation of class society since the state is essentially a tool of class oppression and you cannot have class oppression without there being classes.There may be disgruntled ex capitalists – but not capitalists – around who might seek to violently overthrow the new system but the force applied against such individuals will not be tantamount to the actions of a state but rather those  of a stateless society  (and as the anthropological literature attests, stateless society are also capable of wielding coercive force; this is a function not limited to state-based/class based societies)  Perhaps an analogy might help.  If an individual dies some of his her organs might be used – transplanted into the body of another individual.  The heart or liver of the deceased person is, however,  not the person as such. The person is more than the sum of his or her individual parts and it is that which has ceased to exist when that person dies. In the same way, when the state dies some of the functions carried out by the state and in the name of the state will to operate but they will no more imply the existence of a state than a transplanted organ implies the continued existence of the original donor

[robbo203]

Just seen on the news that Russia has just recently introduced restrictions on foreign NGOs  operating within the country – like Amnesty International  – which has predictably  elicited a response from the British government via its embassy along the lines that this amounts to a  curtailment of free speech. Oh the hypocrisy of it all!   But I guess inter-capitalist rivalries is something else that needs to be factored into the equation.  In much the same way as economic competition is supposed to be good because it brings down the price of commodities, so political competition between capitalist states over their claims to represent the interests of their subject might not be a bad thing either. In a way bourgeois democracy is the Achilles heel of capitalism though the Left as usual can't seem to see this

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Denounce it? Why not? As it's aimed at "non-violent extremists" it is an infringement of the principle of free speech which we have always upheld.Join with some of our opponents to try to stop the proposal becoming law? I don't think so, especially as the most vocal of them will be supporters of Islamist extremists like the SWP crying "Islamophobia". And remember of course that the Islamist extremists if they got power wouldn't simply ban us; they'd behead us.(Even so we defend their right to say we should be beheaded, but drawing the line at them actually doing it.)  Best leave this sort of thing to Liberty. That's what they're for.

 I agree with Adam that the proposed legislation is very unlikely to be used against socialists. It would backfire spectacularly on the Tories if they tried to do so. Question is – what are socialists to do or say about it?  While I don't think  we should in some formal sense  "join with some of our opponents to try to stop the proposal becoming law", merely "denouncing" it hardly seems adequate either.  There is surely some middle position to be adopted here.  For instance, joining in a mass demo or march against the proposal. It is not relevant to the question that some opponents of the proposal – like the SWP – adopt a position that is ultimately hypocritical.  That is their problem, not the problem of revolutionary socialists. The question is how do we bring about or safeguard a political environment in which the right to free speech is entrenched.  We cannot just passively sit on the fence; we have to actively participate in the shaping of that political environment even if we are not alone in wanting to do this. You can't really have an effective socialist movement without the minimal trappings of bourgeois democracy so it would be foolish not to agitate for these.  And, no, that is not "reformism" either….

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

With the socialist revolution, the state goes  – immediately  –

I believe the SPGB's position is that the state is converted from an instrument of oppression into an agent of emancipation. the immediate abolition of the state is an anarchist position and as you know a position opposed by both Marx and the SPGB. A conference resolution in the 80s  or 90s went against our D of P and was later corrected – I think. But I agree that gaining control of the state is essential. 

 Sorry, but I cannot go along with your reasoning here, Vin.  To me it makes no sense at allIn the first place. it is nonsense to claim that  the " immediate abolition of the state is an anarchist position". The anarchist position is rather to bypass or circumvent the state altogether. – because of its toxic association with hierarchy  The "abolition of the state" necessarily implies the capture of the state which is definitely not what anarchists advocate.  You cannot "abolish" something unless you have control of it to begin with. Secondly,  if you do not abolish the state immediately then be aware of what this means and what it is in fact that you are calling for. The state is an instrument of class rule.  The existence of the state implies the existence of class society.  In rejecting the idea that the state should be immediately abolished, you are asserting the need for the existence of the state to be prolonged and perpetuated and by that very same token  therefore you are asserting the need for the existence of class society to be prolonged and perpetuated.  This, after a democratic socialist majority has just captured political power with the clear mandate to eliminate class society.  I have had this argument before with Left Communists and others who apparently, like you, call for a period of transition commonly know as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" during which the the proletariat consisting mainly of revolutionary socialists will continue to administer a class – based society.  I put it to you as I have put it to them that whole idea is absolutely baloney.,  I don't care if Marx , Karl or Groucho, advocated it.  It is still complete nonsense How is it logically conceivable that this interim, a (so called) "socialist" administration in the face of the democratic socialist capture of power going to administer class society in the interests of the proletariat. Its like trying to run the abattoir in the interests of the cattle. It cannot be done. A class society exists by virtue of the exploitation of one class by another. Accordingly anyone who takes on the adminstration of such a class society must necessary administer it in the interests of exploiting class and against the interests of the exploited. There is no way round this, Vin, except to called for the immediate abolition of the state  along with class society following the capture of political power. In my view, some members of the SPGB are rather confused on this point.  It is notable that the two branches that were expelled in the 1980s for the their undemocratic behaviour also took the same position as you seem to do – that the state will "wither away" rather than be immediately abolished.  Their position is closer to a Leninist position than that of revolutionary socialists.  Lenin merely took up Marx's incoherent comments on the concept of the DOTP and took then to their logical conclusions – state capitalism!  Far from the state withering away it was enormously strengthened and reinforced One final observation – on this idea of converting the state from an instrument of oppression into an agent of emancipation..  The only acceptable interpretation of this in my book is that once the state has been captured much of the machinery  of asministration inherited from the capitalist era will continue to exist and be adapted in a socialist society but in no sense could one impute to this the existence of a state as such ( and therefore class society).  The administrative machinery built up by the state will continue to exist in some form but not the state as such. I think it is absolutely crucial to recognise this distinction…..

[robbo203]

I suppose what can be said about the parliamentary method of establishing socialism is that it ticks all the boxes as far as the revolution is concerned and it is for that reason, I would endorse it .  It is difficult to see quite how the democratic nature of that revolution can be demonstrated and put into effect without some form of head counting. And it is difficult to see how, in turn, that could be done outside the electoral or parliamentary process.  True, dual power scenarios in which alternative structures – e.g.. workers councils – exist alongside the parliamentary institution seem to do this but the great weakness with them is that they don't really address the question of the state and who controls that. They are thus constantly at risk of being attacked or taken over by the state which regards them as a rival source of social legitimacy Nevertheless that does not necessarily mean we have to reject the idea of workers councils.  It would be more helpful to see their role as supplementary – or complementary.  The same would be true of other sorts of other developments – including the growth of  the non market sector which is almost certainly bound to happen in the wake of the growth of  the revolutionary socialist movement itself.  The repercussions of such growth are also likely to transform incrementally the entire social climate in which political debate takes place, making it more and more difficult for governments to get away with implementing the kind of measures that the present Tory government is contemplating.  One thing I would caution against is any suggestion of the socialist movement taking  over and reorganising the state. In my view the capture of the state is synonymous with its complete and immediate disappearance.  It cannot be anything other than this. Call me pedantic but, for me, the state signifies the existence of classes- it is a class institution. Holding on to the state in any way shape or form means holding on to some form of class society.  I am vehemently opposed to the Marxian concept of the so called "dictatorship of the proletariat" which is fundamentally flawed and illogical.  You cannot run a slave society in the interests of the slaves and the longer you pretend to do so the more likely are you to morph into a slave owner yourself. So a distinction needs to be clearly made between the state qua state and its administrative machinery.  It is acceptable to talk in terms of taking over and adapting that machinery for the benefit of a socialist society but it is totally unacceptable to talk in terms of taking over  and adapting the state itself. With the socialist revolution, the state goes  – immediately  – because the institution of class ownership likewise goes immediately.  If organised coercion or force is required to thwart the intentions of any undemocratic minority to overturn the decision of the great majority then this coercive force will be of a non statist nature because it will issue from a  non class society. It is not as if you cannot have organised force without a state and there are numerous examples of  non statist – or pre-statist -acephalous societies that actively deploy force and engage in violent methods to achieve their ends. I am thinking in particular of mainly pastoralist societies such as the Nuer in southern Sudan which is a fiercely egalitarian non statist tribal society but also one noted its warlike activities…. Not that I am suggesting a socialist society would be organised along lines similar to the Nuer but the basic point  remains – organised coercion does not have to be statist in nature

[robbo203]

This will be of interest to you, Meel -"Nature vs Nurture results in a draw, according to twins meta study http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-05-nature-nurture-results-twins-meta-study.html Coming from a family with two sets of twins – identical and fraternal – I can sort of relate to this…

[robbo203]

I would go along with all that , Alan, but one thing is missing – you don't actually define what you mean by "reformism". In my view, this is a serious problem that has long dogged the Party.  It is the very vagueness of its working definition of reformism that has had a paralysing effect on the development of more imaginative – and productive – approaches to activity such as you envisage.  I agree with the argument that you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere that differentiates a revolutionary socialist political party from a reformist political party – otherwise you will simply be swallowed by the capitalist machine and co-opted by capitalism.  Contrary to Stuart's claim that the distinction is meaningless, all the historical evidence shows absolutely compellingly that if you don't make such a distinction sooner or later your whole perspective will be drained of all revolutionary intent and you will find yourself completely trapped on a reformist treadmill going nowhere.  You might just as well join the Labour Party or the Liberals and good luck  with wanting to change the world. But where to draw the line – this is the problem.  There was a circular produced by the old Islington Branch back in the early 90s, I recall, entitled  "What is Reformism?"  Is a copy available?  It might help shed some light on this important subject…. 

[Author]

Posts