[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

If they planned to introduce something like the Anti-Socialist Law of 1878 in Germany that would be something to get worried about. It starts off:

Quote:

Societies [Vereine] which aim at the overthrow of the existing political or social order through social-democratic, socialistic, or communistic endeavors are to be prohibited. This applies also to societies in which social-democratic, socialistic, or communistic endeavors aiming at the overthrow of the existing political or social order are manifested in a manner dangerous to the public peace, and, particularly to the harmony among the classes of the population.

That would cover us explicitly.Actually, while it caused great inconvenience to the German Social Democratic movement it didn't work to suppress it and was eventually repealed in 1890, largely because they couldn't stop more and more people voting for the SPD.  That's what would (hopefully) happen if they tried it on the socialist movement here at a later stage.

 Would that not be because the SPD soft pedalled their maximum programme at the time as a way of protecting themselves from the authorities – that is to say, by putting greater emphasis on their minimum programme which then had the effect of drawing more workers to the SPD which, in turn, resulted in the maximum programme fading into the background and eventual disappeaing  altogether as the Party converted into a fully fledged capitalist reformist organisation. Bismarck seemed to have cottoned on to the  idea and began introducing his own "socialistic" programme of reforms when he realised their electoral appeal However, the SPGB would be in a quite different position if something similar happened in the UK and Cameron and his ilk decided to go the whole hog and ban all revolutionary socialist organisations.  In that event, the SPGB would not be able to camouflage itself  behind a minimum programme and I guess under those circumstances the Party would have to go underground or something. Not that I imagine for one moment that things will come to that.  Cameron may be an idiot but he is not  that stupid.

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

J Surman wrote:

"Reference to a 'parasitic minority' could be used as 'hate speech'"Surely 'reference to a parasitic minority' would be simply a statement of fact?

 I agree, and I use it often, but in relation to the legislation it may be interpreted as 'hate language'We are trying to turn one class against another. 

 Yes I would endorse that too. Though I very much doubt that such legislation will be brought to bear against organisations like the SPGB – the SPGB lawyers would probably have a field day in court getting any muzzling or banning order overturned and the publicity the case would generate would be unprecedented ("Government fails in its bid to ban Britain's oldest socialist party") –  we should not overlook the ideological function of such legislation which is to intimidate and to bully and promote what it calls core "British values".  The very vagueness of the key terms it uses goes to assist that purpose. Cameron foolishly let the cat out of the bag in his speech to the NSC when he said:“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance.“This government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach. As the party of one nation, we will govern as one nation and bring our country together. That means actively promoting certain values."On the face of it , this is a recipe for creeping totalitarianism, a kind of quasi Stalinist form of social engineering and a significant departure from the tradition of so called liberal bourgeois democracy which asserted that, providing you stayed within the law, you were free to espouse whatever ideas or values you wanted to.  Of course that is a lie because the state has never stood neutral between different values; it has always promoted certain values such as patriotism.  In any event, the idea that  revolutionary socialists share such "British values" with Mr Cameron – there is nothing "British" about , democracy for example and it it is not confined to "Britain" – is preposterous  so on paper we too would fall victim to such legislation but as I say this is most unlikely to happen. Appearance and reality are two different things….On paper, such legislation is supposed to be directed against "terrorism" – not just the practicioners of violence against the state but the against the ideologists who preach hate or advocate violence but do not themselves commit acts of violence.  That would certainly seem to mean that any organisation advocating the violent overthrow of capitalism would be muzzled or banned and that includes quite a few far left organisations. The hypocrisy of it all is, of course, stunning beyond belief.  So its OK for a state or members of the government to preach hate against another state (Iraq, Syria etc etc) and even to inflict violence on the latter,  but the citizens of the country who elected that government to power are not permitted to do the same.  Thus, we have a government  that is sending out that message, on the one hand, that violence is justified and moreover works and on the other , condemning those citizens that take this message to heart and start to practise what this government itself actually preaches As I say, unbelievable…

[robbo203]

 " I still think that we rely too much on "proving" that either HGs – or bonobos – were/are peaceful, therefore we must be (innately?) peaceful, therefore socialism is possible.I am not at all sure about that line of reasoning.  Chimps/bonobos aren't all that close to us anyway, according to some recent reading I have done."   Hi Meel,Just to connect up with some of your comments from the other thread….I agree with your last point above although I note that both the blank slaters and the genetic determinists have a tendency to fall back on claims about chimps/bonobos  anyway…. Regarding your first point , the way I look at it is this – that it is the thesis that human beings are inherently warlike, advanced by people like E O Wilson, that is questionable and what makes it questionable is the track records of HG societies themselves.  Given that  for 95% of our existence on this planet as a species we lived as hunter gatherers if anything can throw light on what might constitute our "human nature", it would be a hunter gatherer way of life.  And the evidence purporting to demonstrate HG violence is weak and often misleading (so for example , pastoralist or horticulturalist tribal societies are quite often presented as proof of this thesis even though such societies are not immediate-return HG societies at all and unlike the later have a developed sense of territoriality) I wouldn't say the fact that HG societies were relatively peaceful proves that we are innately peaceful or that socialism is possible (although it might support the claim that socialism is not impossible?)  It is interesting that Pinker advances the view that, relatively speaking, society is becoming more peaceful for the several reasons you mentioned earlier, which seem to be fundamentally social in origin and would pit Pinker against a strict determinist position. I would re-orientate the whole discussion away from this simple blank slate/genetic determinism dichotomy.  Have a look at this link on the work of the anthropologist Sarah Mathew http://phys.org/news/2015-04-anthropologist-explores-warfare-cooperation.html Mathew's  work focuses on the relationship between "moral boundaries" and "cultural  boundaries".  In other words, who do we morally identify, or cooperate, with and how is this constrained by our sense of cultural belonging? The paradox of war , she argues, is that it is both  a highly co-operative project as well being incredibly socially divisive – although on this case she is looking at the Turkana people who are pastoralists and not HGs. Her proposed research will focus on two areas. First, what are the social boundaries of people's moral and cooperative dispositions? This issue is paramount because some theories of the evolution of human cooperation predict that the social boundary will be defined by the cultural or ethnic boundary.Second, Mathew will attempt to determine whether there are consistent cross-cultural patterns in the psychological costs of killing in warfare.Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-04-anthropologist-explores-warfare-cooperation.html#jCpThis  whole argument  that "in-group amity necessitates out-group enmity" goes back a long way – to Social Darwinists like W G Sumner  (Folkways, 1906) and beyond him to Darwin and Huxley themselves.  The ramifications of this argument for socialists are important and need to be confronted.  We talk about the development of a global cosmopolitan  capitalist monoculture  (the Communist Manifesto itself predicted this development!) but what are the implications of an alternative path of development towards greater cultural diversification which some of us endorse?  How do we achieve (global) unity in, or through, diversity? Its a fascinating subject….. " I can see that HGs living in harsh circumstances would have a harsher life style whereas others in more lush surroundings would not need to kill their grandmothers!  "Actually, I would see it, if anything , the other way round. Harsh circumstances tend to make for more, not less, cooperation.  The examples I gave you in an earlier post of the !Kung and the Australian Aborigines in which there are widespread and far flung cooperative networks between HG groups, happen to coincide with particularly harsh arid environments .  Amongst the Bedouin of North Africa there is a strong tradition of hospitality towards strangers.  I've had personal experience of this when my family and I were travelling in the Sahara quite a few years ago and somewhere in Southern Algeria we encountered a Bedouin who invited us to a sumptuous meal of lamb , rice and dates (although as I recall the dish was topped with the eyeball of a lamb which was quite alarming and I couldn't quite bring myself to eat it!).  Point is that this is part of a cultural tradition in which people are typically hospitable to strangers and which  makes sense: you never know when yourself might be in need of support in your travels through the desertIronically it is in particularly lush and productive environments – such as in north American western coastal region where there are extensive salmon runs, that you find complex HG societies emerging which differ from simple HG societies in displaying more hierarchical tendencies and are perhaps, in a way, precursors of tribal societies proper" I no longer believe that capitalism "conditions" us into various personality types.  At the extremes, yes, conditions of life can impact on us – think children that grew up in the awful Romanian orphanages, child soldiers being brutalised in Africa, American marines going through their training.  I am convinced we are not born as "blank slates".  I don't think this needs to be a barrier to changing society – as long as we don't look for perfection, a utopia!"I agree. I would say that capitalism conditions us  in a generalised background sort of way  but it is far from being the only factor involved.  The impact of capitalism is mediated by all sorts of other factors including also genetic ones and historically contingent ones.  That influence is still there though.  The brutalisation of child soldiers in Africa happens in the context of vicious "resource wars" over things like diamonds and oil which cannot really be divorced from capitalism.  And stress, particularly over financial matters , is a major cause of family break ups and divorce and again cannot really be divorced from capitalism. But even so we are not blank slates.  We have different tolerance levels and react to different situations differently .  That is actually not a bad thing.  Because if capitalism was such a totalising system of conditioning as is sometimes made out, we would be well and truly stuffed!  How could we ever overcome this systemic conditioning to overthrow capitalism in that case?

[robbo203]

Meel wrote:

I doubt that life in a hunter-gatherer society was always what it is sometimes cracked up to be, see my #257 on the Hunter Gatherer thread.  Granted, the Tierra del Fuego tribes mentioned were living at the extremes.    I think HG tribes often considered people in the next valley as non-human and therefore part of the wild life, to be hunted down if they got the chance.  Our "visceral insulation" may make it difficult for us to envisage this.  But I have a reading list to get through on HG's…………

   (my bold) Hmmm. Don't know if I would go along with that, Meel….Ethnographic research in HG's societies like the '!Kung and the Australian Aborigines suggest otherwise – an elaborate support network consisting of  blood relatives and friends extending over literally hundreds of miles  ( Peter J. Richerson, Monique Borgerhoff  Mulder, and Bryan J. Vila, 1996. Principles of Human Ecology. Pearson      Custom Publishing, Part II, ch 3).  This was – is – not just a function of the normal process of fissioning, the break up of the hunter gatherer band into smaller units for environmental and social reasons, but also of course because of the operation of the incest taboo. Quote from the above: The !Kung, according to Polly Wiessner, used a gift exchange system to cultivate friendships with people in distant bands.Women exchanged fancy beadwork and men arrows. The Central Australians had elaborate “section” systems of extended kinship that classified marriage with allbut a few women as incestuous. Men might have travel hundreds of kilometers to find an eligible mate. According to Aram Yengoyan and Wiessner the effect of these institutions was to ensure that every family had friends and inlaws scattered everywhere.When subsistence or political problems occurred, people could seek aid from any of a number of kin or friends in a number of different environments Also , there is that recent notable study of violence in HG societies carried out by researchers from  the Abo Academy University in Finland which showed that such violence as there was,  was "driven by personal conflicts rather than large-scale battles" and  that "war is not an innate part of human nature, but rather a behaviour that we have adopted more recently" .  Using contemporary evidence  the research team looked at 148 documented cases of violent deaths.  Patrik Soderberg, one of the authors of the study, reported that:"Most of these incidents of lethal aggression were what we call homicides, a few were feuds and only the minority could be labelled as war..  Over half the events were perpetrated by lone individuals and in 85% of the cases, the victims were members of the same society."   ("Primitive human society 'not driven by war' ", BBC News: Science and Environment,  18 July 2013) The nomadic nature of HGs means that there was little reason to regard people in the next valley with animosity let  alone to "to be hunted down if they got the chance" since there was no real sense of territoriality among such groups.  On the contrary , there was probably far more reason for them to cooperate with their neighbours .in the next valley, some of whom would likely be individuals that once belonged to their own group…

[robbo203]

stuartw2112 wrote:

If the party took the same attitude to reformist campaigns and social activism of all kinds as it does to the trade unions (and why not, since the unions are often leading them anyway), then I would no longer have any problem with its position or attitude or politics. Speed the day!Funny you should mention Pieter. I always think of him when talking about reformism. Once he was telling me about the (reformist?) campaign he had been involved in to save the local bus service. You'd really have to be mad to oppose or not get involved in supporting such things, which Pieter might well have said, though I can't quite remember!

 This illustrates once again what is a real problem for socialists – what exactly do we mean by "reformism"? I don't know what Brand's position is on the subject but I don't think what is vaguely called "social activism", such as he is involved in, can strictly be called "reformist" – not in my book at any rate.  For the same reason, I don't think Pieter's involvement in a campaign to save a local bus service is a "reformist" either.  These kinds of activities , though different in form to trade unionism, are in a sense analogous to trade union activity and should therefore be regarded in much the same light as the latter "Reformism" to me necessarily entails two key aspects 1) It involves the introduction of legislative enactments or policies by the state operating within the political field which are designed to  address and ameliorate the various problem thrown up by capitalism.  So, for example, Pieters' campaign to save his local bus service was not about trying to change a particular piece of legislation but rather to challenge an executive decision made by his bus service provider to cut a particular bus service. It was therefore not reformist.  The same would be true of groups of workers fighting cuts in spending on the NHS which is part of the social wage that workers receive 2) Its focus is essentially economic. This follows from the fact that capitalism itself is defined in essentially socioeconomic terms and what reformists are attempt to "reform" is precisely the way capitalism operates as a socio economic system in respect of the particular problems it seeks to address. So for example, a measure that increases the scope of democracy in the political field would not strictly speaking amount to a reformist measure Yes I know all the usual objections will be thrown up in response to this  argument – such as that you cannot exactly disentangle the political and the economic fields (even though that is effectively what the Party does by approving of trade union activity but disapproving of reformist activity).  I would say in response that you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere and if you are going to draw such a line it would be far better to do so  from the standpoint of a rigorous and tightened-up definition of reformism. The political field is about what kind of society  we would like to have .  Its about social aspirations and choice. It is completely correct that a revolutionary socialist party should have as its sole objective the socialist transformation of society. You cannot both strive to end capitalism and mend capitalism.  These objectives are fundamentally incompatible. However we also live in the here and now  – or, as Marx would have put it,  the "realm of necessity" as  upon which the "realm of freedom" is predicated – and so while the goal of a socialist political party is necessarily oriented to a socialist future, it has also to take on board the needs of workers in the present – not in the sense of advancing a reformist programme to meet these needs but  rather of acknowledging these needs and endorsing the action by workers to meet them rather than  dismissing such action as futile or pointless.  It, as a Party, quite rightly cannot get directly involved in such actions , but that is no reason not to give such actions it enthusiastic endorsement It is lack of clarity over what the Party means by reformism that gives rise to the kind of objections that Stuart raises  which are understandable in a way but which. I think, can be shown to be ultimately groundless if only the  party were to more rigorously tighten up its definition of reformism.  Conveying the impression that any kind of activity to improve the lot of workers in the here and now  is futile does the Party no favours and reinforces the impression of it being "utopian"

[robbo203]

Hi Stuart, I'm in a rush to get off to work but I will come back with a more detailed critique of your position later.  I don't think the relative unpopularity of an idea is any measure of its validity and the question posed by Rosa Luxemburg all those years ago – reform or revolution? – still stands and its relevance to anyone seeking to bring about social change of any kind, remains undiminished. Unless you draw a line in the sand somewhere or somehow, what is stop any movement simply being coopted by capitalism?  The tragic history of the parties of Second International that all without fail having adopted a reformist strategy, transformed themselves into thoroughly capitalist organisations bears witness to the folly of denying this simple truth.  You cant just brush this under the carpet, Stuart There are others ways of  supplementing or complementing revolutionary political activity but reformism in my view is not, and cannot be, one of them… Cheers

[robbo203]

An inspiring example.   Socialistic type relationships growing within the womb of capitalism, perhaps?

[robbo203]

stuartw2112 wrote:

I didn't have your comment in mind Alan and the direction of march your reevaluation points in is one I wholly support! I'm sure I've made similar comments before. If it's right to support trade unions (and it is), surely it's right to support the groups doing similar things in other areas. As for reformism, as a concept I can't see it's helpful. Just ditch it.

 How do you define "reformism" Stuart and why do you suggest ditching the concept?

[robbo203]

John Oswald wrote:

Re: surplus value. It is clear-cut in the case of direct production of goods, but could you please elaborate on surplus value with regard to non-productive wage-labour, i.e. medicine, the so-called professions, clerical work, service/entertainment, etc? Thanks.

 It is quite a complex subject, John, but essentially,  unproductive labour though  necessary to the functional efficiency of capitalism,  is paid out of surplus value.  There is a very good but longish article article on the subject by Ian Gough entitled "Marx's Theory of Productive and Unproductive Labour" which appeared in the New Left Review in 1972. Its a bit of classic http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/51144/1/__Libfile_repository_Content_Gough,%20I_Gough_%20Marx%27s_%20theory_productive_1972_Gough_%20Marx%27s_%20theory_productive_1972.pdf Also worth reading on the subject is Mick Brooks and Fred Moseley.  Moseley, if I recall correctly, partly attributes the downturn in economic growth from the 1970s onwards to the growth of the unproductive sector, eating into surplus value and this depressing the rate of  capital accumulation…

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

nicktap wrote:

ALB, i do know Ray Carr but have been unable to contact him for some time, and got the impression he might be avoiding me?

If the MFP and Ray Carr only disagree with us on language or on some issue of approach rather than principle, the solution is obvious: join us ! Come to think of it, so should Robbo.

 Well , there is the little matter of the SPGB's blanket ban on religious belief.  I'm not religious myself but I cannot in all honesty go along with the idea that holding religious beliefs is incompatible with being a  socialist. Some form of (organised) religions clearly are but that is on account of their social policies. There is nothing about a belief in a god or an afterlife per se  or some vague pantheistic notion of  a "spiritual energy" that rules out one being a socialist and actively working for socialism which is all that matters in my book.  And the Party's entry requirements are tight enough to ensure only socialists can join even without the anti-religious clause…. This is why I was quite impressed with Paddy's recent comments on the other forum.  If and when the SPGB at least  softens its approach on this matter or adopts a more discriminating approach towards religions, I will happily join as will, I think, quite a few others. Until then the SPGB retains my political support but as a non member. Incidentally so as not to stray too far off from the topic under discussion, I think that is  the position of the MFP too if I'm not mistaken. 

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

The Money Free Party and Zeitgeist are both  Utopian. You cannot abolishes  money as if it is  a 'thing' capable of being abolished.The end of money will only happen through class struggle and revolution. The Utopian groups do not accept this. We need to root our 'key message' in class struggle and revolution and not the abolition of money..,,,,A revolution by the working class and the transformation of the means of production into the common property of all removes the need for money.

 Vin, I think you are being a bit harsh in your judgement. It has already been pointed out to you that the MFP explicitly states in its Website:The Money Free Party believes that to achieve sustainable peace and prosperity for all, we must all claim earth and its resources as the common heritage of all. In other words it too is talking in terms of  common property of the means of production which, in turn, implies a class perspective  – that current society is divided along the lines of those who have and those who do not have and that this is what the MFP wants to eliminate by calling for the common ownership of the world's resources  Give them a little time and space to develop this side of their argument…. Nick has said the MFP differs from the WSM in its focus in that it concentrates more on the vision of a future society than on the analysis of existing society.  Ultimately I think these things go hand and hand.  and focussing exclusively on one at the expense of  the other produces a lopsided argument..  But that also applies to the emphasis put on class struggle and revolution. If you bang on about  that without explicitly acknowledging that the goal of such a revolution is the creation of a moneyless wageless stateless commonwealth (I'm not saying you do),  then this runs the risk of being perceived as being nothing than mere Leftism.  A sterile political posture if ever there was one.   I cannot count how many Leftists I've run into over the years who have argued that it is just "utopian" to argue for such society and that we have to be "realistic" and adapt  our objectives to the current (non revolutiuonary) ideological outlook of the working class so as to gain their  "trust" which say more about them and their cravenly conservative  and vanguardist outlook  than it does about anything else.  Revolutionaries should not conceal from the working class the fact that what we want is to help bring about a society in which  money will indeed cease to exist. I agree with Alan – rather than looking askance at what the MFP is saying, it is better to think of their approach as somewhat complementary to that of the WSM.  I seriously doubt if push comes to shove that they would disagree with  your point about class struggle between the "haves" and the "have nots" even if they might not couch this in quite the same language as you or I might use…

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

Actually I checked their Website against our declaration of principles, not related.  

 Its a matter of degree, Vin. For sure they don't have a carefully elaborated and worked out Declaration of Principles such as the SPGB and their position on  a lot of things has to be read between the lines.  The MFP is not organised to anything like the same extent  but there is definitely stuff amongst what they have written that echoes the SPGB outlook For example, check out this election leaflet of theirs: https://word.office.live.com/wv/WordView.aspx?FBsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fattachments%2Ffile_preview.php%3Fid%3D941650279202346%26time%3D1431280880%26metadata&access_token=1307731132%3AAVLOBFZGxgsbJXPmPiv-GOcYaoBQgXbznghSaqzrr4jlAA&title=Our+access+to+goods+and+services+is+neither+based+on+superior+morality.docx Its Website defines its aims thusThe Money Free Party believes that to achieve sustainable peace and prosperity for all, we must all claim earth and its resources as the common heritage of all.Here the property relationship is acknowledged as being key and so, by implication., a class perspective One thing I would say is that its Website seems to be the more official or formal expression of what the MFP stands for – albeit thin on the ground – by comparison with the  Facebook page .  Being a member of  the FB group does not make you a member of the MFP.  Some people on the FB page are quite a long way off from holding a socialist  position and I 'm guessing are probably not members of the MFP anyway and in some cases don't even strictly want to see the elimination of money per se  rather its transformation into a more effective means of exchange as far as I can tell.  Others such as Nick himself however are not of that opinion and are in effect rather close to the SPGB outlook. I agree though that a more detailed "where we stand" type of statement is needed from the MFP before any kind of collaboration can be countenanced.  All I am saying is don't back away from something that could work out to be quite promising and mutually beneficial.  Give the thing time to develop…. 

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Just seen this from a past Minutes of Kent & Sussex Branch:

Quote:

iii) Money Free PartyA member had asked for clarification about this organisation and if there were any similarities between its aims and the party's. A brief discussion ensued in which it was explained that the party's position was based on class analysis and materialism and not on idealism. Money would only become redundant with the ending of exchange relationships once the minority ownership of the means of production had been converted into the common property of the whole of society.

They are a registered political party with the Electoral Commission.

 This explanation might possibly be quite misleading, in that case, because Ive definitely seen something on the MFP site which argues that what we really need to get rid of is private property which underlies the use of money. If so, this would call for a reassessment of what this organisation actually stands for and that it is much closer to the SPGB than might be imagined

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

As to the difference, one no doubt is the one Robbo raises (but he would, wouldn't he!), but the more important one is that he does what Vin says we should avoid (and which we do avoid) of painting a "money-free society" as a nice, ideal society that can be established without class struggle and revolution.

 Just by way of confirmation , here is Nick (Tapping's) response to a question I raised on their FB sitei definetly think there is loads of room for collaboration Robin.The difference really is small but subtle…. language being the best part of it, and religious and spiritual tolerance being another part.How does the SPGB feel about collaborating with an organisation that has essentially the same aim and is apparently critical of TZM for much  the same reason that the SPGB is?   And what form might this collaboration take which could turn out to be mutually beneficial? Perhaps that's something else this Special Conference could also address….

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 . Like TZM we have to transform them into proper political parties…ie as it says on D of P 

Quote:

That as all political parties are but the expression of class interests

Perhaps we should lead by example 

 Whoa.  Hold yer horses here, Alan! What could you possibly mean by that ??? It would surely be up to them to doing any transforming themselves if they were not a "proper political party"and if they were,  how would the SPGB relate to them – as allies or opponents?  If the former, is it conceivable that some form of electoral pact or closer collaboration could be thrashed out and, if not , why not? The notion that there might be more than one poltical party expressing the class interest of workers might seem anathema but is entirely feasible.  For what its worth what is the position of the SPGB regarding  the Ashbourne Court/Socialist Studies group.  Im not overly fond of their rigid and doctrinaire posture on many things but I dont doubt that they are socialist and as such the expression of working class interests. Who knows? – one day the differences might be sunk and they might rejoin although admittedly it seems highly unlikely.  How many of them are left anyway – just out of curiosity?

[Author]

Posts