[robbo203]

As a non member, I have to say I do like the text of the election leaflet.  Simple straightforward and direct.  It will be interesting to see what sort of response it elicits.  I dont think the graphics is too much of an issue even if it could be improved upon, I guess.  The main thing is what the leftlet says

[robbo203]

I think you are being a bit melodramatic and over the top, twc.   "Hysteria" is precisely not the word that is applicable here and I am certainly not proposing to "play the voluntarist demagogue" egging on the masses to the point of such hysteria (if you knew me well enough i think you would find the prospect faintly amusing, as do I).  Ive made my position pretty clear , I think.  Im for a union of head and heart.  One without the other is pretty useless from the standpoint  of working towards attaining a socialist society. I seriously question your claim: "Marx’s science survives precisely because it is objective and is not indignation.  Indignation emerges naturally enough from it as a consequence.I think youve got it precisely the wrong way round.  Most people dont become  socialists through an academic contemplation of the nuances of labour theory of value and then become indignant  when they learn from the theory that they have been exploited by their capitalist employer all along.  On the contrary, it is their own experience of exploitation expressed in a myriad of ways that gives rise to a feeling, however inchoate, that they are being exploited.  That becomes the spur to acquiring greater understanding.  In short , indignation generally precedes knowlege rather than follows knowlege though of coure it can be reinforced by the latter. I dont agree either with your observations about "Marx's science".  You earlier made the comment that "Marx gave his life to get beyond relying upon emotion". True, some of his writings – particularly Capital – comes across in part, as you say, as dry as dust.  But the suggestion that he somehow dispensed with indignation and expressions of  emotion is absurd.  Marx displayed a profusion of moral judgements interspersed  throughout – even in Das Kapital.  Capitalism is condemned in no uncertain terms.   Stephen Lukes identifies some of these judgements  and argues that they only make sense against Marx's own moral ideal of the good life:Hence all the passages in Capital about ‘naked self-interest and callous cash payment’, ‘oppression’, ‘degradation of personal dignity’, ‘accumulation of misery’, ‘physical and mental degradation’, ‘shameless, direct and brutal exploitation’, the ‘modern slavery of capital’, ‘subjugation’, the ‘horrors’… and ‘torture’ and ‘brutality’ of overwork, the ‘murderous’ search for economy in the production process, capital ‘laying waste and squandering’ of labour power and ‘altogether too prodigal with its human material’ and exacting ‘ceaseless human sacrifices.’ (Lukes S Marxism and Morality, 1985 Oxford Clarendon Press p1). And I know this is opening up another can of worms but I dont agree with your fetishisation of "objectivism".  I fully concur with L Bird in his criticism of your position and your insistence on asserting some kind of  fact -value distinction which, ironically,  Marx himself opposed, regarding it as yet another form of "estrangement".  Your position does seem to be to akin to a kind of 19th century positivism (cue for comrade Bird to enter the fray, guns blazing). The problem with "scientific socialism" – I would personally banish that expression forthwith from the lexicon of revolutionary socialism if I had my way  –  with its pretensions to "objectivity" is precisely the problem of "reflexivity" in the social sciences. – particularly, in the social sciences though not exclusively in them as L Bird has pointed out.  I am referring to the literal  impossibility of stepping outside of one's own subjectivity, or consciousness, when making observations about society and the interrelationships that make up society.  We are part of the very things we are supposed to be observing. That includes our moral values, our emotions, our irrationalities and everything else that goes to make us as flesh-and-blood mortals rather than intelligent robots

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

Robbo.  While I await LBird to substantiate his accusations that #48 and #51 are 19th century materialist…Just reread what you wrote, stripping away the verbiage — the working class’s view is pro-capitalist because it supports capitalism. As explanation that is priceless!

Didn't quite see how you figured that out.  What I actually said wasThe moral outlook of the working class today  is indeed virtually indistinguishable from that of the capitalist class and for the good reason that the former fundamentally at present supports a social system that operates in the interests of the latter.That is saying something rather different from what you say I said, when you think about it a little more carefully….

twc wrote:

You fully agree with Engels’s view, which is ultimately a direct implication of the materialist conception of history, though you dressed it up in Hegelian jargon.

 You've lost me there. What Hegelian jargon?The view expressed by Engels that I agree with is the one I quoted earlier (there are other views expressed by Engels that i dont necessarily agree with but thats another matter) . NamelyAnd as society has hitherto moved in class antagonisms, morality has always been class morality; it has either justified the domination and the interests of the ruling class, or, ever since the oppressed class became powerful enough, it has represented its indignation against this domination, and the future interests of the oppressed

twc wrote:

As to moral indignation.  There are more morally indignant know-alls out there than you can poke a stick at, and none of them is socialist.  Marx gave his life to get beyond relying upon emotion.  Socialism is not going to be achieved through hysteria, but chaos can.

This is a bit silly isnt it? Who said anything about  hysteria?  Whats hysteria got to do with moral indignation? Engels curiously uses the self same word – "indignation". Indignation of the oppresed class against the domination of the ruling class.  Certainly, a lot of people get morally indignent about all sorts of things that have little or nothing to do with socialism but that doesnt mean socialists cannot also be morally indignant .  They are just morally indignant about something different to what a non socialist may get morally indignant aboutOh and talking about "priceless" – how priceless is this  "Marx gave his life to get beyond relying upon emotion".  Anyone who has read his Marx will readily appreciate just how much of what he wrote was positively seething with emotion,  just how often he  vented his spleen against this or that outrage commited by capitalism.  And good on him for that , I say! I would far sooner have that then some lifeless bloodless dry -as-dust academnic treatise

twc wrote:

Socialism doesn’t rely on indignation.  Indignation, like all emotion is impermanent.  It must be feigned to be kept alive, and then it becomes a mere self-serving pose.  Our opponents are expert poseurs at this.  We despise their subterfuge.

 If you had said socialism doesnt rely entirely on indignation I might have understood and agreed.  But no, it seems you want to strip socialism of all indignation , all emotion.  This is the socialism of robots, not flesh and bloodhuman beings.  Actually if anything becomes a self serving pose it is the claim that we can somehow dispense with emotion. Indignation does not have to be feigned to be kept alive,  Thats an outrageous thing to say.  It is capitalism that keeps our indigination alive by perpetuating whjat gave rise to that indignation in the first place It is gut feeling ( of course combined with clear thinking) that motivates individuals to become socialist.  Why criticise capitalism for being an exploitiative society. otherwise?  The very concept of exploitation is value laden.  Sure it has a precise technical meaning but we are mean to be revolutionary socialists nor academics in this context.  Philosophers have have only interpreted the world in various ways , the point is to change it.  Now, who was it who said that?

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

Nobody, in their highest flight of imagination, could equate the everyday common-or-garden variety of personal or in-group indignation with socialist morality.Just examine by the “cold hard logic”, proposed in this thread, the familiar instances of such working-class “morality” as it manifests itself today.  Large sections of the working class indignantly hold xenophobic, individualistic and loutish conceptions that are the very opposite of socialist morality.It is not Engels’s theory that is at fault, but our blind application of it to current contingent conditions.General working-class “morality” is almost indistinguishable from capitalist-class “morality” because it arises on the same foundation — the necessity of capitalist society to daily reproduce itself, and with it to daily reproduce capitalist social relations.In the 1890s that is precisely what Engels said.  The working class thinks just like the capitalist class.Sickening state of affairs then, and the sickening reality of the present.Our socialist morality transcends most of what anyone could claim to be specifically working-class indignation today.  That’s the fertile breeding ground of Reformism.Working-class morality, in Engels’s sense, is still socially rudimentary, just as we are currently a socially minuscule force.It's always been thus for us since 1904.  That’s always been the spur!

 Yes, thats a fair point.  The moral outlook of the working class today  is indeed virtually indistinguishable from that of the capitalist class and for the good reason that the former fundamentally at present supports a social system that operates in the interests of the latter.  But we are talking about a working class that has become, in Marxian terms, a class " for itself" not simply a class "in itself", a class that is fully conscious of its identity and determined to overthow the system that exploits it.  Point being that you cannot talk about "exploitation" without this denoting a sense of moral outrage. Yes, exploitation is against our interests but it is also morally unacceptable The socialist case is one that seeks to persuade workers to become a class for itself.  Necessarily it seeks to sharpen  or re-focus the moral indignation that individual workers feel in the light of a socialist understanding of capitalism.  Moral indigination is not some dispensable aspect of the struggle for socialism. It is part of what makes us human beings and not robots,  Nothing can be achieved without it.

[robbo203]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Robin,   The case for capitalism is based on 'morality' and most capitalist parties want to 'save the planet'. 

 Vin. The case for capitalism  is supported by capitalist morality. The case for socialism is supported by socialist – or proleterian – morality.  I'm  inclined to go along with Engels on the subjectWe therefore reject every attempt to impose on us any moral dogma whatsoever as an eternal, ultimate and for ever immutable ethical law on the pretext that the moral world has its permanent principles which stand above history and the differences between nations. We maintain on the contrary that all moral theories have been hitherto the product, in the last analysis, of the economic conditions of society obtaining at the time. And as society has hitherto moved in class antagonisms, morality has always been class morality; it has either justified the domination and the interests of the ruling class, or, ever since the oppressed class became powerful enough, it has represented its indignation against this domination, and the future interests of the oppressedWe have not yet passed beyond class morality. A really human morality which stands above class antagonisms and above any recollection of them becomes possible only at a stage of society which has not only overcome class antagonisms but has even forgotten them in practical life(Anti-Dühring). With respect, you are misreading what I say when I talk of morality and its indispensability.  Im not talking about some abstract transhistorical timeless notion of morality. Im talking precisely about the "class morality of the oppressed class".  If you are concerned with the wellbeing and interests of members of the working class apart from yourself then necessarily you are taking a moral perspective on the matter.  That is what morality is about, after all. It is intrisically "other-oriented".  It means regarding others as having value in themselves and not simply serving as a means to your own selfish ends  i.e instrumentalism. Granted, you are being selective in your moral concern just as the nationalist is selective in his/her moral identification with fellow citizens of his/her nation state over those of other nation states.  But it is still fundamentally a moral concern that you are expressing.  There can be no class unity or anything like a sense of class consciousness without an underlying class morality that binds workers to one another. In short socialism would be inconceivable or unattainable  without such a morality

[robbo203]

Vin Maratty wrote:

I have to say that I am somewhat bemused that the SPGB has avoideded answering such an important question. We have heard mainly from non members but what is the SPGB's position?What is the WSM's case based upon? Morality? The class struggle? Save the planet? 

 Why cannot it be all 3 , Vin? Why this monodimensional  obsession for one single explanation that accounts for everything? Morality does not preclude the class struggle anymore than class struggle precludes morality…

[robbo203]

It sounds an interesting programme.  Its a pity, though, that a talk could not have been fitted in dealing directly with the kind of ridiculous claims made by people like  Stephen Pinker, author of The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (2002) and The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined  (2011). According to Pinker,  violent deaths have declined dramatically from about 15% in pre-state societies and that "today we may be living in the most peaceable era in the existence of our species" ("Violence Vanquished " , The Wall Street Journal, September 24, 2011). The hidden agenda behind such thinking would seem to be to impress upon us the need for an authoritarian Hobbesian state to suppress our latent tendency to inflict violence on each other at the slightest pretext.  Very pertinent as fare as the socialist case is concerned in that it direct challenges that casePerhaps some reference to Pinker et al could be made in one of the talks or the workshop? 

[robbo203]

Vin Maratty wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Finally  I dont claim the case for socialism is based solely on a concern for others (i.e. fellow workers), it is also based on our perceived self interests as individuals. In other words there are 2 complementary grounds on which the case for socialism is based- namely, moral grounds and prudential grounds.  To suggest that it just one of these but not the other on which socialism is based is absurd ,in my view

 As I have said, morality has been around for centuries. It may seem absurd to you but it is my opinion that the material conditions of capitalism and the class struggle  forms the basic  argument for the socialist case. 'Morality'  – since the beginning of mankind. Material conditions for socialism  – 100? 200 years?

No one is disputing that the "material conditions for socialism" have only been around for a short while and that morality has been around since the dawn of humanity.  But how does this affect the proposition under discussion which is Is the case for socialism, one of morality, cold logic or long term survival of our species?It seems to me that you are confusing two different things, Vin.  The conditions for socialism may be recent  but that does not mean that the case of socialism cannot be partly a moral one.  In fact I would argue it cannot but be partly a moral one  because if you were not concerned with the wellbeing of individuals other than yourself  – the basis of all morality  – you would be driven, not towards socialism, but some  kind of extreme amoral individualism in which only your interests mattered in your view – the so called "ethical egoist" position a la Ayn Rand and co  (which I think is fundamentally contradictory and absurd).   If you seriously were to reject a moral perspective then logically that would commit you to a kind of extreme free market capitalism captured by Adam Smith's "invisible hand of the market" in which each narrowly pursued their own private interests without reference to the interests of others.  Even Smith did not believe in this knd of society as a practical proposition (as well as being an economist he had a background in moral philosophy).  What he was intent upon doing was sketching out in abstract  idealised terms the economic mechanism summarised by the expression "the invisible hand of the market".  He was not seriously proposing  the abdication of moral thinking in human affairs Moral thinking has always been around, as you say  but that does not mean it has no relevance to the establishment of socialism just becuase the "material conditions for socialism" are of recent origin.  The conditions for socialism are not the same thing as the motives for socialism. If they were then why are 99% plus of the working class not yet socialists – even the great majority of those who encounter the case for socialism?  Partly I would suggest it is because they have had instilled in them the values of capitalism.  They consider the system to be morally acceptable by and large.  It is through the growing counterweight of socialist values that the grip of capitalist ideology will be loosened on the minds of fellow workers and that is a very strong reason for emphasising the moral aspect of the case for socialism. If moral thinking has always been around then that actually is quite a telling argument for NOT  abandoning moral thinking in establishing socialism.  The point is that what is moral at one point  may not be at another.  The FORM of morality , the specifics of a moral code may change from time to time but not the fact that people think in moral terms.  What changes is not the fact of moral thinking but the object of their moral concern For us as revolutionary socialists the object of our moral concern is first and foremost our fellow members of the working class. This is what the material conditions of socialism have resulted in; it has enabled us, or spurred us on,  to redefine the object of our moral concern as our fellow workers   If we were not concerned with the wellbeing of our fellow workers as well as our own then we would never have become revolutionary socialists in the first place!

[robbo203]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Hi RobinThanks for your reply. I have read it more carefully and given it more consideration than this short reply will make it seem – sorry about that, but pressure of other (reformist!) work calls, and I'll have to leave it here for now. Perhaps we can pick the discussion up again in a month or so. All I'll say as a concluding remark is that it makes absolutely no sense to me to rule in campaigns trying to save the local hospital but rule out action on the political field that would have that result. Also that we should stop appealing to the lessons of history, since what those are clearly depends on the teacher, or perhaps on the predilections of the student. My reading of (especially recent) history is that the sleep of reformism brings forth monsters. I've yet to read a single historian who has reached anything like your or the SPGB's conclusions. TTFN

 Hi Stuart OK we'll talk again later.  Just on your point above though well, yes, sure it makes perfect sense to  "rule in campaigns trying to save the local hospital but rule out action on the political field that would have that result.".  The point is to create a secure and defensible space within the political doman itself in which the revolutionary objective can be safeguarded as a goal rather than compromised and undermined by the pursuit of  the reformist objective of trying to mend capitalism rather than end capitalism.  This is precisely what has happened as the historical evidence clearly demonstrates: Social Democracy abandoned the revolutionary objective when it embraced reformism.  You cannot mix the two things in practice. Its like trying to mix oil and water in a bucket (the bucket being a metaphor for the political domain itself)  The reformist objective will inevitably win out or come out on top and the revolutionary objective will be abandoned because the short term will always tend to trump the long run view of things.  To ensure that revolutionary socialism it is not abandoned requires ring fencing it by  renouncing reformism as a political practice.  In my opinion the SPGB has hit upon more or less the right formula as far as the reform/revolution dillema is concerned; where it falls down is in its response to acitivities that fall outside the strictly political domain 

stuartw2112 wrote:

 PS One final final point. I've just been discussing this with a historian, and she says that you're reading history backwards from a determined (and imagined) end point. From the point of view of Paradise, history shows that reformism is a complete failure – true. But from the point of view of people who have no faith in the End Times, it must be hard or next to impossible to show that reformism has been anything other than an incredible success story – a story of a long, slow and arduous march, with many setbacks, but basically one of progress. Anyway, really am going now, pick this up next time

 I think this is a serious case of misattribution .  It is not reformism as such that has been an incredible success story if by "success story" you mean the material advancement in living standards etc. over the long term.  Reformisn in my view was pretty peripheral to this progress which owes much more to things like technological development and trade union pressure.  Politicians love to flatter themselves and massage their own egos by implying that, thanks to the particular assortment of policies they have implemented, growth has been assured and the country has come out of recession bla bla bla. In reality it has precious little to do with the policies implemented by politicians; it has much more to do with, for instance, the cyclical boom bust  tendencies within capitalism  i.e the capitalist trade cycle which happens independently of the will of politicans.   Improvement or progress would have happened even if you had put a monkey in charge of running capitalism.  The converse of this is when a recession looms.  Do politicians accept the blame for that? Oh no, then its all the fault of "circumstances beyond their control" like the subprime mortgage crisis in the US! Point is that both the ups and the downs are very largely due to "circumstances beyond the control of politicians" and that consquently what you call the success of reformism is not what it seems at all.  Sorry, but you have been conned by the political salesperson's patter – your historian – into thinking otherwise.

[robbo203]

Vin Maratty wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

 Broadly speaking, what is called a "moral perspective" implies a concern for the welfare and wellbeing of others.  Morality has to do with our attitude towards others; it is "other-oriented". It means treating others not as a means to your own private ends – instrumentalism –   but as having value in themselves 

 Therin lies the problem I would have defined 'morality' as a selfish concern for one's own ethical position, a left over from religion. Self-righteousness etc.Concern and welfare of othere exist in the animal kingdom; not just in humans.The subject of the thread askes if the case for socialism is based upon morality  not if there is a moral element within it.Are you suggesting that the case for socialism is based upon concern for others? If so, then a "you will be waiting a very long" 

Hi Vin,No, I dont think morality is a selfish concern for anything at all. In fact it precludes by definition the very idea of selfishness; it is, as I  said, something that is inherently other-oriented rather than self oriented.  I don t  know where you get your definition of morality  from but that is not how I would define it, nor  how moral philosophers in general would define it with the exception perhaps  of that rare breed called "ethical egoists" and followers of that wacky sect of objectivism cum Ayn Rand Morality is closely related to the notion of altruism although it is not the same as altruism.  As you point out, concern for the welfare of others exists also in the animal kingdom.  That is altruistic concern but not moral concern.  Morality is more than just altruisn but entails altruism.  There is some evidence to suggest that empathy or the capacity for empathy which is the basis of a moral outlook may be hardwired into us in the form of "mirror neurons" which were discovered by Rizzi in the 1990s. Also, I dont accept your argument that  morality is some kind of  leftover of religion. Morality is essentially “autonomous” with respect to religion; it does not depend upon the latter though some religious people would argue otherwise .  They would  claim that morality  is either “heteronomous”  – where moral rules presuppose, or arise directly from, a given set of religious beliefs and values – or, alternatively, “theonomous” – where both morality and religion are said to derive from a common source of knowledge and inspiration in the form of God.  I think any kind human society presupposes a moral code and society is, as Durkheim said, fundamentally a moral order .  Because we are social animals we are moral animals and vice versa. Socialists, above all, should appreciate this.Finally  I dont claim the case for socialism is based solely on a concern for others (i.e. fellow workers), it is also based on our perceived self interests as individuals. In other words there are 2 complementary grounds on which the case for socialism is based- namely, moral grounds and prudential grounds.  To suggest that it just one of these but not the other on which socialism is based is absurd ,in my view

[robbo203]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Hi Robin,I agree with the first part of your post. We can only make a small difference anyway, but those small differences matter. We do what we can. Where we disagree is in what you claim I know really in my heart of hearts. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I know no such thing! Of course it is possible to operate a capitalist society in better or worse ways. America and Britain, for example, are run in ways that are far more harmful to working-class interests than Sweden or Norway. I prefer to live in Britain than North Korea. And so on. There are working-class interests at stake in how capitalism is run. Who wins elections matters. All these things seem to me pretty obvious.You say that the socialists in LU don't have a vision of society that exends beyond capitalism. But this is just silly. Tony Benn's vision of socialist society is still socialist, regardless of whether or not you share the details of that vision. You, like many SPGBers, talk about your own vision of socialism as if it's some kind of precious secret no one else knows about. But it is fairly common knowledge. William Morris's News from Nowhere is considered a classic inside socialist circles and outside of them. Ursula Le Guin's The Dispossessed is well known by every one who thinks about these kind of things. Everyone's read The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists and appreciates "The Money Trick". They just differ in the lessons they draw from these books.In short, I do not, not even in my heart of hearts!, share your analysis of what is or is not "inevitable". Nor do I share your estimation of what is or is not possible or probable. It is at least conceivable, for example, that non-market socialism is not actually possible, for the reasons Hayek and Mises give. Yes, I've read your replies to the arguments, and very good they are too, but the case remains a strong one. Either the arguments are strong ones, or former SPGB members such as David Ramsay Steel and Dan Greewood are dupes and fools and idiots. The former seems more likely to me. Like most people, I'm not quite convinced either way, and so am happy to keep an open mind while looking for ways forward, ways to make things a bit better in the here and now, experimenting as we can with ways of living and being.A common argument on this thread is that we shouldn't divert our energies into "reformism" when we could instead be preaching socialism. But why is it a choice we have to make? I'm perfectly capable of re-reading News from Nowhere and having an argument about it while also doing all we can to save the local hospital. And if it proves possible at some future date to elect a left government commited to renationalising the railways, for example, then I'm all in favour of that too. It would also be good for the SPGB – it would create a constituency of people it could have meaningful conversations with. At the moment, it is, like the rest of us, whistling in the wind.Hope that answers your questions, thanks for asking them!Stuart

 Hi Stuart, Thanks for your response.  There is a lot to take in all in one go. I need to look at what you are saying and separate out the different points you are making.  There are a number of non sequiturs and red herrings in what you are saying unfortunately Firstly , on the question of "what you must know in your hearts of hearts" I was referring to the cognitive dissonance that arises out of, on the one hand, wanting to mend capitalism (the reformist project) and, on the other, trying to end capitalism (the revolutionary project). I was not actually wanting to deny that it is "possible to operate a capitalist society in better or worse way" from a working class standpoint (which does not mean of course that capitalism can be run in the interests of workers, only that it can be run more harshly or less harshly against those interests.) What I was trying to say was that the opportunity cost of seeking to operate a capitalist society in a better way  – reformism – will necessarily be the abandonment of the revolutionary project. I dont think you can reasonably argue against this point, Stuart. The historical evidence is pretty much overwhelming and decisive.  The whole history of social democracy and of Social Democratic parties from the late 19th century onwards is clear proof of the veracity of this claim.  Without  exception, all of these parties abandoned the maximum programme in pursuit of their minimum programmes of state legislated reform. Left Unity would be no different even if it had a maximum programme which it doesnt appear to have.Of course, you might want to argue that ,for all that, it is in the interests to have a  form of capitalism that is less harsh, rather than more, in its dealings with the interests of workers.  This is the "lesser of two evils" argument  and frames the debate in a manner which precludes any third option.  I would contest that argument anyway (more anon) but I think you need to recognise what logically follows it  – that perforce it narrows your horizons to one or other form of capitalism and precludes any idea of transcending capitalism You say it is silly of  me to assert  that "socialists in LU don't have a vision of society that exends beyond capitalism".  But thats not actually what I said.  What I said  was that LU as an organisation does not seem to have a vision that extends beyond capitalism.  I have repeatedly asked you for evidence that it does but you dont seem to have provided such evidence.  Point being that an organisation is more than the sum of its constitutent parts, it has a dynamic of its own.  I knew a couple in the Labour Party  when I was a member of Guildford Branch of the SPGB .  They passionately embraced the socialist cause and regularly attended our meetings but still remained loyally and irrationally attached to Labour, probably out of habit or  family tradition.  I would not question their socialist convictions. I'm sure they were socialists.  I am sure LU contains socialists but as an organisation LU is clearly not socialist.  It is by all the available evidence, a left wing pro-capitalist reformist party.  But then you are not denying its reformist credentials. To the contrary you have been arguing that reformism is good and necessary  but you are seemingly  reluctant to accept what goes with that ie that it involves an attempt to operate a social system in the interests of the working class when by its very nature that system must exploit that working class and so operate against its interests.  A Left Unity government would be essentially no different from any other form of (necessarily anti working class) capitalist administration – however well meaning its current motives. Look what happened to the Greens in Brighton if you doubt that.Its not the details of the socialist vision that counts here; it is the fundamentals.  You say Benn embraced a socialist vision.  Well, I would be interested in seeing the evidence for that.  Saying that society "should be run in the interests of ordinary working people" – the sort of thing Benn would say – is not necessarily a socialist statement if the society you have in mind is fundamentally a capitalist society.  But Tony Benn apart, of course the idea of a non market, non statist society is not a precious secret to which only a select few are privy.  Neverthless,  there is a difference between knowing what such a society is about and wanting or working for it.  Some avowed opponents of socialism clearly know what it is aboutSecondly, you make the point that it is "at least conceivable, for example, that non-market socialism is not actually possible, for the reasons Hayek and Mises give".  I'll leave that up to you to explain yourself in that regard.  Personally I dont think the economic calculation argument has a leg to stand on  – it was fundamentally misconceived from the word go – and the more I look into it , the more convinced I am that this is the case.  The whole marginalist paradigm and the subjective theory of value is bunk and, in case you havent noticed , even within the discipline of economics itself it is being increasingly questioned and support for heterodox postions has lately been gaining ground. Of course DRS and Dan Greenwood are not idiots and dupes – to the contrary.  I dont quite know what Dan's position is. My impression, though I may be wrong,  is that his interest in the ECA is more academic than ideological – unlike David Steele.  There is something I read of his (Dan's) a while back which approving cites Otto Neurath in his debate with Mises which I think is quite telling given Neurath's advocacy of calculation in kind. I cant remember the details but can look it up if you like.Thirdly and finally you ask why do we have to choose between revolution and reformism: "I'm perfectly capable of re-reading News from Nowhere and having an argument about it while also doing all we can to save the local hospital".  With respect, once again I detect in this statement of yours a lack of clarity about what is meant by reformism.  I go back to the point I made a while back that reformism means more than just simply "struggling to improve things".  Trade unionists struggle to improve things for their members but  trade unionism as an activity is not reformist.  Workers wanting to establish a co-op or an intentional community are not being "reformist".  You wanting to save your local hospital from closure are not  being reformist.  None of these things are reformist in my book becuase they do not comply with the strict definition of reformism – that is to say, measures advocated by political parties contending for state power  or enacted by the state in the political field  which have as their focus the economic domain, capitalism itself being fundamentally defined in economic terms.There is a fundamental difference, in my view,  between a social movement like Occupy or forms of direct action and establishing a political party that aims to administer and reform capitalism via measures enacted by the state. You unfortunately have decided to make the transition from one to the other.Personally, I dont have any problems with the SPGB's revolutionary  position that it stands for socialism "and nothing but".  It is not soliciting support on any other basis.  It has created for itself a kind of political space which safeguards its commitment to the revolutionary objective by renouncing any kind of reformist programme.  Where I think the SPGB's position is vulnerable to criticism is how the  Party relates to movements or forms of activity that occurs outside of the strictly political framework .Tacitly,  the assumption seems to be that any kind of activity that is not explicitly devoted to the political objective of capturing the state in order to establish socialism is a diversion or waste of time – or simply "reformist".  This may not be what is intended but it is how it often comes across and I can certainly testify to that, having crossed swords with many Left critics of the SPGB on forums such as Revleft.The problem I suggest is partly of the SPGB's own doing.  For several  years now  I have been arguing that it needs tighten up on its own definition of "reformism" and redefine or reconsider  its attitude towards those numerous other kinds of activities that fall outside of the scope of strict reformism.  The very vaguensss of its current working definition  casts a shadow or blight over how its sees itself in relation to those other kinds of (non reformist) activities I earlier referred to .  Perhaps the only exception to this is the  SPGBs attitude towards trade unions (and also the establishment of basic democratic rights) where it has expressed clear support for the principle of trade unionism.  But for the rest, it appears neutral at best and adopts a kind of insipid fence-sitting approach.  The fear seems to be that if you strongly endorse any kind of activity that is a) not political and b) does not have as its goal the establishment  of socialism,  you will some how be compromised and drawn into the ambit of reformist politicsI think this is fundamentally wrong.  What needs to be established is a clear and workable division of labour between the political field in which the SPGB contests – quite rightly on the basis of socialism "and nothing but"  – and the social and economic fields in which workers struggle.  It is not the businesss of the SPGB as a socialist political party to promote in a practical sense, the immediate interests of  workers in these other fields.  Trade union struggle for instance is best left to trade unions to conduct.   But just as the SPGB  supports in principle the idea of workers forming trade unions so it should come off the fence and come out strongly supporting in principle the efforts of workers in other activities as well.Ill give you an example.   In recent years Ive been increasingly drawn to forms of activity involving direct action – in particular the squatters movement.  Living in Spain I'm acutely aware of the obscenity of empty houses existing alongside homeless people.  Every day in Spain 184 people are evicted from their homes.  Yet acccording to a recent survey there are currently about 6 million empty housing units  in Spain – though of course some of these will be second or third homes not for sale on the market.  Others will simply have been abandoned due to rural urban migration.  There is a whole empty pueblo about 40 kms away if anyone fancies taking up the squatters cause.Now I am not suggesting the SPGB itself should take up the cause of squatting and become practically involved in the squatters movement  – it is for individual socialists to do that, not the socialist political party as such .  What i am  strongly suggesting, however, is that the Party  should redefine its attitude to squatting.  Instead of insipidly saying "we are not opposed to workers taking over empty homes" or, still worse, suggesting it would be ill advised for workers to do so , it should come out strongly endorsing such activities.  Christ, I cannot think of any example that more glaringly exposes the absurdities and contradictions of capitalism than housing yet the SPGB seems to perversely want to adopt a position of comparative neutrality on the question of working class direct action in respect of the housing situation.I stress again – what is wanted is not the practical support of the SPGB as an organisation as such but a clear and unequivocal endorsement of such activities as part of its vision of way forward  – of course pointing to the limitations of such activities but at the same time positively encouraging them.  All to often the attitide of the Party comes across as discouraging and this contributes to its political isolation from the working class in general.I think in your case Stuart with your previous involvement in Occupy you have instinctively and rightly  reacted against this tradtional negativism of the SPGB vis a vis social movements but have drawn the wrong conclusions.  The Party's position on commiting itself to socialism "and nothing but" as its objective is sound, in my view, but its conceptualisation of the day-to-day struggles of workers in the here and now is weak and equivocal.  It comes across as almost suggesting that we have to forsake our immediate interests in the here and now for the sake of some long term abstract goal.  That creates a credibility gap which the SPGB will always struggle  to fill as long as it maintains its existing posture.  In my view, this question of "what are we to do in the meantimne" constitutes probably the biggest stumbling block to workers joining the SPGB .  If it can rethink its attitude on the subject then quite possibly it will start to make some real progress for a changeBut, unfortunately what you have done, Stuart,  is to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater and that is a different and fundamentally more serious kind of mistake to make in my view 

[robbo203]

northern light wrote:

The case for socialism is based upon the economic interests of the working class Vin, would you say that case for Socialism as presented by the S.P.G.B. is based on selfishness, as in:  What is in it for me, my genes, my family.This is not a trick question, Vin.

 Broadly speaking, what is called a "moral perspective" implies a concern for the welfare and wellbeing of others.  Morality has to do with our attitude towards others; it is "other-oriented". It means treating others not as a means to your own private ends – instrumentalism –   but as having value in themselves. I have never understood this absurd idea held by some members of the SPGB  that the case for socialism has nothing to do with morality.  That betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what morality, or a moral perspective, is about If the case for socialism is based on the economic interests of the working class then by definition it is, at least in part, a moral case and not simply a prudential case.   We are identifying with the interests of others who we call "fellow workers" whose welfare and wellbeing has become our concern, and not just our own welfare and welbeing.  The later is called "selfishnesss", the sole preoccupation with our own private interests as individuals.  If we claim not to be motivated by purely selfish ends then ipso facto that makes our position a moral one.. Paradoxically, to argue against the moral aspect of the case for socialism is to reject the class struggle. Or. at any rate, it makes it well nigh impossible to think in terms of class struggle if we regard our fellow workers in purely instrumentalist terms – in terms of what benefits us as individuals alone.  You might just as well strive to become a capitalist as unite with your fellow workers in that case. Finally, it is not particularly relevant to the argument that what people regard as "moral" is historically variable.  Sure, slavery was regarded as morally acceptable in past ages.  But it is illogical to infer from this that rejecting slavery today entails a rejection  of morality.  What has happened is simply that the object of our moral concern  has changed.  Society, as Durkheim rightly pointed out , is fundamentally a moral order.  A basic concern for the welfare and wellbeing of others at some level  is what knits people together in this thing we call "society" – even if this concern takes a form that we, as revolutionary socialists, might regard as repugnant – like nationalism and the moral identification of others of the same purported "nation" as against outsiders or "foreigners". If society is essentially a moral order then it follows that any social movement that seeks to modify the nature of society must similarly evince a moral outlook.  That applies to the revolutionary socialist movement as well, needless to say…. 

[robbo203]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Thanks everyone for the discussion. Most interesting point I think was Adam's about reforms, but of course this applies to revolution too. I'm only using the language of "reformism" and so on because it's the language used here. Actually my position is that the words don't refer to anything much – revolutionaries and reformists, so called by a small number of far left geeks, actually do much the same thing. As I said before, we just do what we can. At the moment I am giving my limited energies to LU, for much the reasons Jools says, but the work I'm doing isn't all that much different from when I was in the SPGB (except having more success because what we're working towards seems more plausible to people, including to me. Cheers

 Ive been mulling over this comment of yours, Stuart.  I can sort of understand the point you are making.  It connects with another point that has been expressed on this thread – on the probablity of any of us ever seeing socialism in our lifetime.  I agree , it seems highly improbable.  Does that deter me in any way? Does it it dampen my enthusiasm and ardour?  Not one bit. See, the way I look at it – and I have used this analogy before –  society is like a soup, a blend of multiple flavours.  We all do what we can  but we do it in different ways.  Even if socialism is never going to happen, the impact of socialists on existing society is not  lost; it adds to the flavour of life as we experience it today.  Socialists are those little spicy bits floating around in the soup that makes it all the more tasty.  To be a revolutionary socialist is to be an individual who stands uncompromisingly against all the "isms" of  capitalism – like nationalism, like racism and sexisim and so on. We are making an impact in the here and now – marginal of course – but still more than nothing and this is so even if socialism will never happen.  By our very existence and by our very efforts, feeble though they be in the grand scheme of things,  we are making it that much  more difficult -even if that doesnt amount to much – for capitalism to get away with the crimes its commits.  We are upping the ante.  In our small way, we are eroding the legitmacy of the capitalist state to wage war on behalf of the so called nation,  we are beefing up the militancy of workers in the industrial struggle,  we are combatting the prejudices that separate workers from workers. You and I are only individuals.  As individuals,  joining the Labour Party, for instance, is not going to make any substantive difference to what the Labour Party is doing.  Which kind of undermines the rationale for joining , or voting for, the Labour Party on the grounds that you feel you need to "do something practical in the here and now" and Labour is "at least marginally better than the Tories". Point is if you are not going to make any difference to the overall outcome why bother?  As an individual you might just as well join a tiny insignificant but revolutionary socialist organisation and reconstitute yourself into one of those little spicy bits in the soup of life that adds to its overall flavour. Now I am not saying that that organisation is or should be the SPGB.  I have my differences with the SPGB, as you know, even if I regard the SPGB as comrades in the same struggle.  It is the principle that  I am getting at and this principle connects very directly with your point that you are  giving your limited energies to LU, because the work you are doing isn't all that much different from when you were in the SPGB  "except having more success because what we're working towards seems more plausible to people".  But if people in general endorse capitalism then, of course, if you are working to reform capitalism this will come across as "more plausible" than working to overthrow capitalism.  That goes without saying.The problem is, and I think you must know this in your hear of hearts, that there is a certain cognitive dissonance at work here  that is going to eat away at your convictions in the long run.  I have no doubt, and I  really dont want for this to sound patronising in the least – it is not intended as such – that Left Unity are a decent bunch of individuals with the best of intentions who want to make a difference in the here and now, who want to connect with the concerns  of workers  But  lets us be quite frank here, Stuart.  The limits of LU's horizions seem to extend no further than existing capitalist society, do they?.  LU does not even envisage, let alone advocate, any kind of  non market non statist future for humanklind.  This is the problem, you see, and I have asked you this before but you have not really answered my question.  – how is it possible to operate a capitalist society, even a state capitalist society, except in the interests of capital?  How in promoting the interests of capital can you possibly avoid placing yourself in a position in which you are obliged to oppose the interests of wage labou?  Left Unity has constituted itself as a political party.  It therefore intends to seek political power, to capture the state and, in terms of its own mandate, administer capitalism . However much it might want to administer capitalism in the interests of the workers it will inevitably end up betraying those interests.This might not seem likely at this point in time but only because Left Unity appears very unlikely to make significant electoral progress in the near future.  Things will change of course if Left Unity were to became a mass party;  it will become much more openly pro-capitalist and "moderate" in its demands vis a vis the capitalist class.  But consider the implications or consequences of the programme you are advancing right now.  You are reinforcing the very claims that the major capitalist parties make – like Labour, like the Tories – that capitalist society can somehow be administered in the interests of everyone. You are tacitly endorsing the view that, in principle, this is entirely possible.So allow me to ask – how do you reconcile that with your own revolutionary socialist understanding of how capitalism actually ticks?

[robbo203]

jpodcaster wrote:

Sadly there's only one person re-writing history here Lew and that's you. But then of course it has always benefited you and other SPGB'ers to see WiC as Robin's creation. 

Yes exactly, Jools. But the thing that really gets up my nose personally about all this nonsense about WIC being set up as some kind of hostile  rival to the SPGB – and here I am only  obviously speaking for  myself and not as a member of WIC – is that, as an ex member of the SPGB, I have quite possibly done more work than most members ever do to support the SPGB, or aspects of its case, in its arguments against its left wing (and indeed also right wing) opponents.  I have contributed literally hundreds of posts on various forums to that end. Most recently, I have been fiercely supportive on Revleft  of  the SPGB's opposition to the anti democratic , vanguardist (in my opinion) "no platform" policy of  some on the Left towards far right groups.  Gnome, the Idler, Reddeathy  and others will bear me out on this. And this is the thanks I get  This is not a dig  at the SPGB, only certain members within it.  I remain outside the SPGB for reasons that I have made abundantly clear in the past but despite our differences I continue to regard the SPGB as comrades in the same struggle.  It would be nice to think that that sentiment could finally come to be reciprocated in  the case of some members in the SPGB itself… 

[robbo203]

jondwhite wrote:

I don't think Left Unity, the ILP or WIC stand for what the SPGB stands for, but also don't believe in one true party and I do believe ideas can overlap in some respects.

 In what way does what the SPGB stands for differ from this description of what  WIC stands for We are a network of people committed to inspiring a vision of an alternative way of living where all the world's resources are owned in common and democratically controlled by communities on an ecologically sustainable and socially harmonious basis. We believe such a society will no longer require money, markets, or states, and can only be established democratically from the bottom up without the intervention of politicians or leaders. We call on anyone broadly sympathetic with our aims to join with us to help build a strong, inclusive, and principled, movement for radical change in a spirit of cooperation, friendship and solidarity.

[Author]

Posts