[robbo203]

Lew wrote:

Robin wrote:"WIC is not a political party, more an umbrella set-up or meeting point where different tendencies within the non-market anti-statist political sector can come together. It seeks to emphasise the commonalities that exist between these tendencies rather than what divides them. WIC has no collective opinion on SPGB policy and what Jools says about the SPGB is Jool's opinion, not WICs. Its the same with me. I am not writing in my capacity as a member of WiC; I write simply in my own personal capacity. WIC is strictly neutral in its relationship to any entity belonging to the above mentioned sector and rightly so."This isn't the first time Robin has attempted to re-write history, nor is it the first time I have had to clarify what happened.Robin resigned from the SPGB and created WIC late in 2002. WIC was to be communist but "not the SPGB" on the subjects of religion and the "big bang" notion of revolution (see posts on the WSM Forum at this time). Thus WIC was conceived as being communist but against the SPGB/WSM on those issues. The next year Robin began to post suggestions on the WIC forum as to what they were specifically *for*. He argued that WIC should seek "common ground" with like-minded individuals and organisations, and eventually this became the informally accepted rationale for WIC. However, the WIC forum group description makes the false assertion that they were "specifically set up" to "strengthen ties within this sector". The Wikipedia article on WIC alleges that they were established to "overcome the sectarian divisions" – by creating yet another sect.Robin again claims above that WIC seeks "commonalities" "rather than what divides". That may be their attitude now but it wasn't always the case. Aside from re-writing history, the basic charge still stands. There is someting rather hypocritcal in people claiming to seek commonalities, being opposed to what divides, and spectacularly failing to do so by creating yet another grouping.– Lew

 Sorry but this is nonsense, Lew. Either you are  misunderstanding or misconstruing what I am saying but in any event it is you who is rewriting history here First off – "I" did not "create WIC". WIC was the joint creation of,  if I recall correctly, about 18 individuals who signed up to a "core statement"  which was thrashed out mainly via email corresondence in late 2002.  Some of these individuals had no connection with the SPGB or WSM.  You are trying to suggest that WIC was set up as some kind of rival to the SPGB/WSM and out of some sort of animus towards the later.  Thats simply not true. How could it be true when there were active members of the SPGB/WSM who were involved in  WIC at the time?   Think about it..  You also dont  seem to understand that WIC has never asked individuals to forsake or leave the groups in which they are currently active so  so your charge of "hypocrisy" is absolutely absurd and illogical. There is nothing remotely divisive in the stance WIC has adopted. I dont deny that at the time  feelings were running high in my case as regards the SPGB/WSM but I am not WIC . I am just another member of WIC, no more and no less, but you completely misread my motives if you think I helped to found WIC out of some burning dislike for the SPGB. As for your assertion "Robin again claims above that WIC seeks "commonalities" "rather than what divides". That may be their attitude now but it wasn't always the case" , this is rubbish.  Here is a copy of  a statement that was put out in January 2003 just after WIC was formed.  Readers can judge for themselves who is telling the truth in this case  January 2003Why Support World in Common? The World in Common group was formed in November 2002. It is firmly rooted in what we call the "non-market anti-statist sector", a small but highly diverse sector within the spectrum of political opinion. Indeed, the membership of this group reflects this diversity which is likely to grow as we grow. The purpose of the group is to help inspire 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". Of course, other groups and political parties in our sector have much the same objective which raises the question as to why it should be considered necessary to form yet another such organisation. The answer to that has to do with the role that we envisage for ourselves in this sector. One of the most important reasons why the non-market anti-statist sector remains relatively small and ineffectual, in our opinion, has to do with the extent to which groups remain isolated from each other and regard each other with mutual suspicion and even sectarian hostility. This is regrettable. We are certainly not suggesting that everyone in our sector sink their differences and join together in one big organisation – which would be quite unrealistic – but there is clearly an intermediate position that one can adopt between that extreme and what we have now .This is one of the reasons why "World in Common" was set up: to provide a meeting ground for different groups and individuals within our sector as well as a means of facilitating practical collaboration between them at some level. We recognise that there are sharp differences of opinion on many different subjects within our sector but what we do not feel has been sufficiently recognised – and celebrated – is just how much we have in common with each other. It is these commonalities which are, in fact, rather more significant than the issues that divide us which the World in Common wishes to bring to the fore and highlight.  Oh and just to ram home the point once and for all here is an excerpt from my contribution to the email correspondence  referred to above leading up to the drafting of the core statement. The email is dated  27 Oct 2002 – before WIC was even officially launched!  I would be happy to provide further evidence on request though I dont wish to bore this forum with the nitty gritty details…STAGE THREE:  Defining the project itself.  Once wehave a definite group of supporters and a Corestatement over which we can agree, the next big thingwe need to do is decide what the project is about.The feeling I get already is that we dont want toconstitute ourselves as some kind of political party;we are not in competition with the WSM!  That beingthe case what do we want to be? I have suggestedsomething along the lines of Discussion Bulletin butwith greater emphasis being given to what we have incommon  – rather than our disagreements- within thenon market, non statist sector. LEW , you  haven't got a leg to stand on.  Give up on this ridiculous obsession of yours of knocking WIC for crimes it simply has not committed. Please.

[robbo203]

mcolome1 wrote:

The WIC is only a group of anti-SPGB. One time I was told not to use the expression proletarian or bourgeois because they are outdated. I do not understand how some so called communists or socialists can say that both expressions are outdated. They are  just a bunch of intellectuals thinking that they know everything

 What on earth are you talking about? Do you even know who WIC are? I dont recognise anything you say in relation to WIC of which I have been a member since its inception.  You forget that WIC consists of individuals from a variety of different traditions within the non market anti statist sector and whatever view a particular individual may express this does not necessarily reflect the view of the organisation as a whole.  We are not clones, you know

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Jools, one thing that can always be said about the SPGB members, despite the allegations, and that is we are not clones of one another and do disagree. But am i right that Glasgow branch comrade Gardner was involved as a moderator for a time in WIC and was it not that many members argued that WIC was not a political party and co-operation and collaboration was permissible. Whether they did or not is a completely different issue, and a question not just for the SPGB to answer.

 That is correct, Alan. And there are several other members of the SPGB or WSM that have been involved in WIC  as well. WIC is not a political party, more an umbrella set-up or meeting point where different tendencies within the non-market anti-statist political sector can come together.  It seeks to emphasise the commonalities that exist between these tendencies rather than what divides them.  WIC has no collective opinion on SPGB policy and what Jools says about the SPGB is Jool's opinion, not WICs. Its the same  with me. I am not writing in my capacity as a member of WiC; I write simply in my own personal capacity.  WIC is strictly neutral in its relationship to any entity belonging to the above mentioned sector and rightly so. There is no reason whatsoever for any member of the SPGB not to join WIC as well –  not from the SPGB's point of view, nor from WIC's – and I would encourage folk here to do so. My problem with Left Unity is that I dont really believe it belongs to the non market anti-statist political sector at all. I dont believe it is a socialist organisation that seeks to get rid of capitalism as its founding statement claims.  On closer inspection, it appears to want to simply replace one version of capitalism with another – "Old Labour" style, paternalistic state capitalism complete with its own revamped Clause Four. Like I said.  I might be quite mistaken in this belief but I have yet to be persuaded.  I am still waiting to hear the evidence from Stuart to the contrary.  If I am correct in my intitial assessment of LU  – that it is fundamentally a pro-capitalist outfit  albeit decked out in the rhetoric of socialist emancipation then, Im afraid to say, it is all going to end in tears.  You can't operate capitalism in  the interests of the working class no matter how much "in tune" Left Unity may appear to be with working class interests in the here and now, no matter how congenial the membership of LU is and openminded in its acknowlegement that LU does not have all the answers and is seeking to be "inclusive" and "non sectarian". Yes, those are all admirable and attractive qualities and one can kind of understand the attraction that LU might exert on some.  Here we have a fresh-faced spanking new political party,  refreshing free of the sectarian back-biting that plagues other political parties.  But we are still in the honeymoon period and, if LU were ever to take off politically, the familiar old pattern will inevitably reassert itself.  Except that Im not convinced the LU will take off.  The political niche that it belongs to is already occupied by other more powerful rivals that will disproportionately benefit from any shifts of the pattern of working class ideology.  But thats just my opinion

[robbo203]

I forgot – there was one other point I wanted to make, Julian, in response to your earlier post .  I refer to your comment  thusDefine a set of ossified truths around a concept of a post-capitalist society then label everyone who doesn't share the one true path 'reformists' and 'leftists.' There is some truth in this but it can also be very misleading. The bottom line  is that you have to have some basic definition of a post capitalist society in order to even begin talking about establishing such a  society. This is why Stuart's colourful analogy of the "map reader" with the map, fails. Yes we can dispense with the map reader (along with the "flying spittle") but  the presumption is that we all want to go somewhere.  That is to say, we have some definite destination in mind.  To that extent , I would say a degree of "ossification" -or as I prefer to call it , clarification – must be involved in any serious  attempt to move forward. A body without a supporting internal skeleton would just be a lump of flesh. Even Stuart's "woolly minded folk cutting a path through the wood" must have some concrete concept of where they want to be heading .  This debate is about whether Left Unity's concept  of where they ultimately want to head is compatible with ours. But I will get to the point.  Your use of the term " reformist" above is, of course, a pejorative one. It is the sense in which organisations like the SPGB use the term.  Stuart on the other hand does not see things this way at all.  He is quite open and refreshingly frank about it: 

stuartw2112 wrote:

Robin/Alan: Yes of course LU is a left reformist party. I am a reformist and proud of it. I think it is morally shameful not to be a reformist, especially in the current climate, but probably in all conceivable ones. My view is that if socialism is ever to be a real possibility, it will be on the basis of developments in this direction – perhaps partly on the basis of the activity of groups like LU, perhaps partly on the basis of electing a more left Labour government, almost certainly involving all kinds of other things (Occupy, pop-up unions, Russell Brand's "spiritual revolution" and related things being the most interesting developments in my view). My view is Chomsky's: we just do whatever we can, and mostly, and certainly for the foreseeable future, that is going to look more like reform than revolution.

 My criticism of Stuart (and this is also a criticism I have levelled at the SPGB in the past) is that there is a lack of clarity here about what precisely is meant "by reformism".  He is lumping together all sorts of things under the rubric of reformism  which are strictly not refromist at all.  Many of these things are indeed good and even vital from the standpoint of working class emancipation  and by collaring them under the catch-all category of reformism he is able to wield this particular big stick in his argument  with the SPGB.  And here, I agree, the SPGB is on weak grounds in not being able to effectively respond to such a challenge except to say that its members are active in things like PTAs or whatever which is a bit of an anaemic response in my view I can vaguely remember quite a few years ago, when I was member of Islington Branch, writing up a circular for the branch on the subject of "What is Reformism?" I think it might have been an item for discussion at conference or ADM. At any rate, it was an attempt to provide a sort of useful taxonomy of the range of activities which workers engage in,  which woulkd separate out the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.  Reformism as I recall, was tightly defined as meaning measures enacted by the state operating within the political  field and having as its focus the economic basis of capitalism.  These concepts of "field" and " focus" provide the kind of operational tools upon which a more realistic taxanomy can be constructed.  On this basis, trade union struggles, for instance, or the struggle to obtain elementary democratic rights would not be considered reformist at all.  Nor would efforts at "consciousness raising" or attempts by workers to meet their own needs in the here and now.  Further, not only are all of these things NOT reformist but they can definitely help also  to supplement the revolutionary political objective of establishing socialism. The problem with Stuart's whole approach is that, with the formation of Left Unity as a political party operating in the political filed, we have clearly moved towards a situation where the epithet "reformist" does indeed become applicable.  This is something that Alan hinted at in one of his posts but I dont think Stuart has picked up on this at all. In his transition from supporting a social movement  like Occupy to a distinct political party like LU, Stuart has ventured onto the trecherous terrain of reformism in my viewHe stated earlierI know that for some people reformism is a term of abuse. But it is not so. All our great successes have been the product of reform. The revolutionary socialist groups confuse real reform with revolution. Their talk of revolution implies, and nobody believes it, that there is a short cut to the transfer of power in this country. What the socialist groups really do is to analyse, to support struggle, to criticise the Labour Party, to expand consciousness, to preach a better morality. These are all very desirable things to do. But they have very little to do with revolution.  Yes all these things are indeed very desirable things to do  but why he imagines they have very little to do with revolution I do not know. I would argue, to the contrary, that they  help to supplement and support revolutionary activity.  Paradoxically , Stuart is here being more SPGBish than even the SPGB in this admitted caricature of the SPGB I have presented. His casual use of the term "reform" allows him to make some pretty  sweeping claims  that seem to me to be not quite warranted.  How have all our great sucesses been the product of reform – at least in the strict reformist sense of reform I outlined above.  Our great successes, such as they are, have not been the product of reformist struggles but of struggles outside the ambit of strictly reformist activity  – trade unionism, democratic rights etc.  The one outstanding exception seems to be the establishment of the welfare state but this was a struggle in which the capitalists class itself was a leading protagonist (see the Beveridge Report on that.  The welfare state would not have materialised had the capitalists not seen it was in their interest to set it up.  Those same interests under the altered circumstances of contemporary capitalism, demand retrenchment, austerity and a whittling away to some degree  of the so called welfare state. Above all, and this really is the point  that Stuart completely misses – how does reformism in the strict sense aid the transformation of society in any fundamental way? How does it promote the movement towards a post capitalist world?  Quite simply, it doesnt.  What it does is the very opposite -it serves to entrench and solidify capitalism. We have the absolutely decisive example of the entire history of social democratic parties to go by here.  Social Democratic Parties like the German SDP which had the support of literally millions of  woirkers, not a few thousand perhaps in the case of LU, also had clearly articulated maximum and minimum programmes. Revolutionary intentions existing alongside reformist intewntions.  Inevitably the formier won out against the latter and the whole argument for backing two horses failed miserably.  You cannot seek to both mend capitalism and end capitalism,  it has to be one or  the other.  At least that is a mistake the SPGB has avoided even if it has made other mistakes in the process. And like I said Left Unity does not even appear to have what might be called a half=decent maximum programme in the revolutionary sense. Its long term objective does appear to me to be nothing more ambitious than a kind of benign paternalistic Old Labour version of state run capitalism . I admit I could be quite mistaken about this but I wait to hear contrary evidence  from Stuart that LU does indeed pay lip service to a genuinely post capitalist non-market and  non-statist communist commnonwealth

[robbo203]

jpodcaster wrote:

Enjoying the debate on here and good to see Robin on here contributing, have always enjoyed your posts Robin and usually agree with most things you say. But I couldn't help chuckling to myself after reading your defence of the SPGB – an organisation that poured nothing but vitriol on your attempts to argue for some degree of unity for the non-leninist revolutionary left back in the day.

 Hi Jools Well, my post  was not so much about the SPGB as about Left Unity.  While I am in agreement with most of what the SPGB says I have my differences with the SPGB as well, as you know. But that would be for another thread, this thread is about Left Unity. Im open to persuasion, as I indicated to Stuart but, up to now, Im not convinced that one can usefully draw any  parallels between Left Unity and World in Common.. World in Common has a clearly articulated vision of a genuinely post-capitalist society.  Here is what we say in our description: 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. Does Left Unity  share that vision? I dont think it does – not on the evidence Ive encountered thus far. Im quite willing, as I say, to acknowlege I have erred in my judgement if it can be shown that I have erred.  The statement passed at Left Unity's founding conference declares that "We are socialist because our aim is to end capitalism." But that frankly is just not good enough. Leninists too declare that they are socialists who seek to end capitalism and World in Common is unequivocally hostile to Leninism and Leninist ideology as you hint.  No doubt, Left Unity and Left Unity members have admirable features that set them apart from the Leninists but does that necessarily make them any closer to our point of view as far as the fundamantals are concerned? Like I say,  I just can't see it.  Their postion seems to be more akin to a kind of reevamped Old Labour with its nonsensical Clause 4 taking centre stage.  In other words, they are fundamentally a party of state capitalism laced with good intentions and user friendly soundbytes. Im all for unity but there has to be some fundamental commonalities around which to unite and, on the face of it, there are insufficient grounds for wanting to unite with Left Unity. – at least as far as I see it Maybe Ive misread them completely – I certainly cannot claim  to have read much of their literature – but if you can point me to evidence to the contrary that would be much appreciated 

[robbo203]

stuartw2112 wrote:

 Robin, following standard SPGB logic, pours scorn on the idea that you can democratise the state, and says that common ownership of the means of exchange is a contradiction in terms and can only be proposed by muddle-headed wallies. But this is not a Marxist position, nor is it really the SPGB's as far as I can make out. The classical Marxist position is that the communist party, or the working class organised politically, should first of all settle matters with its own national bourgeoisie, by seizing state power and establishing a "dictatorship of the proletariat", ie, rule by the majority class, democratically organised. Marx and Engels, at least, were clear that a necessary step in this process would be the immediate nationalisation and centralisation of the means of credit, the banks, and the establishment of currency and capital controls. In other words, the SPGB position must logically be, even if it won't admit it, the democratisation of the state and the nationalisation of the banks – and that this would constited a first step in establishing "common ownership of the means of exchange".

I think you are mixing up two quite separate things here, Stuart.  I certainly agree that Marx and Engels did call for the nationalisation of banks etc in the Communist Manifesto -even if they later poured cold water on the various state capitalist reforms (including that one) advocated in the Manifesto (see the later prefaces to the Manifesto). I certainly dont agree, however, that they would have equated this with socialism/communism, still less accept the nonsensical expression "common ownership oif the means of exchange".  The idea is ridiculous and I cannot for the life of me understand how you cannot see this.  An exchange economy  involves the existence of transactions between separate owners – obviously; an "exchange" amounts to a transfer of title in respect of the goods being exchanged.  That in turn presupposes that the means of producing them are not commonly owned – again, obviously.  In other words the absence of socialism/communism Contrary to what you claim, Marx was quite clear about this  (and so too is the SPGB as I recall). In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, he states quite firmly: Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products What is the Marxist critique of commodity production, money. wage labour, exchange value etc etc if not a systematic assault on the whole notion of an exchange economy (of which these things are an organic expression) as a fundamental negation of common  ownership and the social nature of production.  Marx,  I suspect,  would have savagely ridiculed the argument put forward by Lenin (which you seem to have have some sympathy for). i.e.The big banks are the state apparatus which we need to bring about socialism, and which we take-ready made from capitalism; our task here is merely to lop off what capitalistically mutilates this excellent apparatus, to make it even bigger, even more democratic, even more comprehensive…A single State Bank the biggest of the big, with branches in every rural district, in every factory, will constitute as much as nine-tenths of the socialist apparatus. This will be country-wide book-keeping, country-wide accounting of the production and distribution of goods, this will be, so to speak, something in the nature of the skeleton of socialist society.” (Lenin, Collected Woirks, Vol.26) What you are doing is confusing the concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" with socialism/communism or, rather, reading into the latter something that pertains to the former. The DOTP is emphatically  not the negation of capitalist relations of production but rather  a particular expression of these (where the proletariat has – supposedly – captured political power).  Afterall the proletariat, at least in a generalised sense, is the primary class category (along with the capitalist class) pertaining to the sociogical make-up of capitalism.  As Charlie pointed out elsewhere , wage labour presupposes capital and vice versa – they "condition each other". I have serious reservations about the whole concept of the DOTP (and if that puts me at odds with Marxian thinking then fine!) but I dont think you can legitimately extrapolate from what Marx said about the DOTP to what would be the case in socialism/communism The same applies to your talk of "democratising the state".  My anarcho communist tendencies baulk at the very thought of it.  It seems absurd to suppose that the state  which as all Marxists understand is fundamentally a tool of  class oppression,  can be somehow made "democratic". The very existence of classes is a negation of democracy in its most fundamental  sense.  The point is not to hold on to the state but to get rid of it  ASAP along with class society that gives rise to the very need for the state.  Left Unity doesn't appear to me to be interested in getting rid of  either That said I agree that the institutionalisation of certain basic democratic rights are an essential preconditon for the growth of  a socialist movement and I have no quarrrel with the SPGB on the need to secure such rights.  But I dont think  we should be in the business of encouraging the illusion that the state can can be somehow "democratised" in any real substantive  sense . That is tantamount to suggesting that a class-based society can be run on democratic lines.  Frankly, it can't  

[robbo203]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Or to make my own argument, Robin's words have nothing of substance behind them. What LU is doing and what the SPGB is doing are basically and to all intents and purposes indistinguishable. We're trying to get the working class interested in its own interests and in socialism. And largely failing.

 Hi Stuart, Bear in mind that I'm rather cut off from political  developments in the UK, living in sunny Spain,  so it is quite possible that I may not be completely au fait with the  finer nuances of  what Left Unity stands for.  However, if what you are saying above is that the LU does indeed stand for a moneyless wageless stateless alternative to capitalism then I would be interested in any link you can provide that can substantiate that claim.  It would certainly prompt me to reconsider.  My initial impression of LU was that it was just another well-meaning but woolly minded left reformist political outfit.  That was why I could not see any point in setting up LU; you might just as well join, say,  the Greens which after all is much bigger and better organised.  So in what sense is the LU fundamentally different from the Greens? I ask this not as a rhetorical question but out of genuine curiosity To be honest,  Stuart, what links you have provided thus far don't give me much reason to change my initial opinion of LU.  The first statement passed at  LU's founding conference which you provided a link for, states:We are socialist because our aim is to end capitalism. We will pursue a society where the meeting of human needs is paramount, not one which is driven by the quest for private profit and the enrichment of a few. The natural wealth, and the means of production, distribution and exchange will be owned in common and democratically run by and for the people as a whole, rather than being owned and controlled by a small minority to enrich themselves. The reversal of the gains made in this direction after 1945 has been catastrophic and underlines the urgency of halting and reversing the neo-liberal onslaught. This stands out like a sore thumb for being absolutely muddleheaded and confused.  I am frankly surprised that you did not seem to have picked up on this.  This is clearly not a statement of intent to "end capitalism"or, if it is,  it shows no sign of understanding what is meant by "capitalism".  At best, it expresses a desire to end the privatised  version of capitalism but not  state capitalism (LU does not even want to get rid of the state and  only seeks its "full democratisation"  – as if) . The problems faced by the working class in recent years are attributed to the "neo liberal onslaught".  Nothing to do with the fact that the preceding era of Keynesian regulated capitalism proved a dismal failure , then?  Or  that that failure is what directly paved the way to neo-liberalism as a structural necessity for managing a crisis prone late 20th century capitalismThe statement  also  talks of the means of prpduction distribution and exchange being owned in common which as you know – or should know given your acquaintance with the SPGB – is hopelessly contradictory since the very existence of production for exchange is incompatible with common ownership. Thats basic Marxism or the ABC of Marxism.  What LU seems to be advocating is no  more than  the old nonsensical Clause Four of the Labour Party.  Old Labour instead of  Nu labour.Am I wrong to be thoroughly sceptical as a revolutionary socialist? You tell meCheersRobin

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I had  more understanding and sympathy of your support for Occupy, even if we differed on whether it should be uncritical or critical support because of this aspect of creating a much needed urgency and when LU began it seemed as if many in Occupy had learned the lesson of the necessity of political organisation but the crossing over has been disappointing overall, despite some positives. LU is not a new model political party but simply a revamped and rebranded old one. Same as the SSP turned out to be. 

 I would agree with that. There is a distinction to be made between a social movement and a political party.  With the establishment of LU as an actual political party with an openly reformist platfrom, the rubicon has been crossed.  There is no prospect now whatsoever that LU could ever apply itself to pursuing the revolutionary overthrow of existing captalist society.  The dynamics of a reformist strategy it has adopted will inevitably ensure that socialism as an objective, even if it something that is genuinely paid lip service to,  will play second fiddle to the more immediate imperative of pressing for reforms.  Socialism as a goal will disappear in time like the Cheshire Cats grin  – as if the whole tragic history of Social Democracy in the 20th century is not evidence enough of the truth of that claim. In fact, I dont really see the rationale for the formation of LU at all.  It occupies more or less the same basic ideological space as the Greens does it not?  So why not simply join the Greens? On the other hand, we've had a taste of what green capitalism would be like in the case of Brighton and, plainly,  it sucks. At least one thing can be said of the SPGB – that it is constitutionally prevented from crossing  the rubicon and sliding into the mire of unending reform.  As the expression goes, you can't both mend the system and end the system – it has to be one or the other.  That is the bottom line.  The problem with the SPGB is of quite a different order and Alan provides a faint hint of what this might be.  If and when that is addressed, better times beckon but, in the meanwhile, the renunciation of  reformism is the only way to go as far as revolutionary socialists are concerned.  That is what LU has not done and that is what fately condemns it to fill, at best, a marginal niche in the spectrum of capitalist reform competing against  other larger and better known entities occupying  that same niche . That is, of course, if the inevitable disappointment and disillusionment does not drive it towards extinction once the novelty has worn off..

[robbo203]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Is the case for socialism, one of morality, cold logic or long term survival of our species?

 All of the above and for a simple reason: humans beings are multifaceted animals, not robots. 'Nuff said

[robbo203]

It looks like you are gonna have some people from the Kurdish PKK turning up at the debate!http://www.revleft.com/vb/spgb-vs-ukip-t187406/index.html?p=2730732#post2730732

[robbo203]

This debate has stirred up a shit storm over on Revleft http://www.revleft.com/vb/spgb-vs-ukip-t187406/index.html?t=187406 Ive taken the  "no platform" brigade to task  but where are members of the SPGB in this debate? The silence seems a  little odd when such an important principle is involved

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Merci. It says he comes from Switzerland where he was a member of a Trotskyist group and that in France he is a member of the Nouveau Parti anticapitaliste which is the current embodiment of the Ernst Mandel Trotskyists (whose equivalent in Britain would be, I suppose, "Socialist Resistance", the old IMG).Robbo, I don't think he is advocating either "militarisation" or "financialization" but merely saying that these are ways capitalism can get out of a crisis. This analysis may well be wrong but to accuse him of advocating these would be like accusing us of advocating lower real wages, devaluation of capital, etc for making the point that these are the ways that capitalism gets out of a slump.What I got out of his article was that capitalism will not collapse from some ecological crisis any more than it will from some economic crisis. As he says (using an analogy we have often used ourselves) capitalism will not commit suicide but has to be murdered. It won't die of its own accord, but has to be done to death.

 Well, I didnt want to suggest he was actually "advocating" millitarisation or financialisation and if that was the impression you got from reading what I said then, obviously, I did not express myself clearly enough.  What I was attempting to question was his suggestion, as I read it, that these things are ways in which capitalism can moderate if not exactly eliminate crises, whether of an economic or ecological nature.(Incidentally, I question your comment that "This analysis may well be wrong but to accuse him of advocating these would be like accusing us of advocating lower real wages, devaluation of capital, etc for making the point that these are the ways that capitalism gets out of a slump".  Does militarisation and financialisation play a role analogous to the lowering of real wages etc in the dynamics of specific crises? If so , how?)So, for example, Keucheyan says:Capitalism might well be capable not only of adapting to climate change but of profiting from it. One hears that the capitalist system is confronted with a double crisis: an economic one that started in 2008, and an ecological one, rendering the situation doubly perilous. But one crisis can sometimes serve to solve another.andThe financialisation of catastrophe insurance is supposed to keep budgets balanced. It remains to be seen if this is a sustainable response to the threat. But, from the point of view of the system, it may well be.andLike financialisation, militarisation is about reducing risk and creating a physical and social environment favourable to capitalist accumulation. They are a kind of "antibody" that the system secretes when a menace looms. This doesn't necessarily take the form of shocks of the sort described by Naomi Klein in her book The Shock Doctrine: it is a more gradual process that slowly takes hold of every aspect of social life(my empohasis)Keucheyan seems to be saying, unless I have seriously misread him,  that capitalism can avoid collapse because it is always capable of coming up with effective solutions on its own terms. That is what Im questioning – not his central premiss that capitalism will not collapse. I agree that capitalism will not collapse and has to be got rid of but I dont agree that capitalism is enabled to continue indefinitely and entrench itself indefinitely by the system effectively dealing with the problems that confront it.  Rather, capitalism will continue despite those problems which it will not be able to  solve by sucg means as financialisation and militarisation Which is why I commended his closing remark which seems to be at odds with the whole thrust of his argument – namelyBecause, if the system can survive, it doesn't mean that lives worth living willWhich seems to  imply  that the problems have not been solved even if the system continues

[robbo203]

It is a good article, for sure, but I wouldn't rush to the conclusion that it merits wholesale endorsement.  There are bits of it which to me sound somewhat iffy.   In particular this:"Capitalism might well be capable not only of adapting to climate change but of profiting from it. One hears that the capitalist system is confronted with a double crisis: an economic one that started in 2008, and an ecological one, rendering the situation doubly perilous. But one crisis can sometimes serve to solve another." (my bold)Keucheyan talks of capitalism responding to the challenge of the ecological crisis with two of its favourite weapons: financialisation and militarisation.As far as the latter is concerned, when I heard that I was reminded of the underconsumptionist type argument put forward by people like Tony Cliff  years ago , that capitalism in the post war era was able to stave off economic crisis by, amongst other things, increased spending on weapons.  This notwithstanding the fact that military expenditures by the state comes at a cost, the burden of which is  born by the capitalist class in the form of taxation through which the state acquires its revenue.  Tax the profit making sector of the economy too heavily and you will kill the goose that lays your golden revenue eggs. That is the basis of the argument behinbd the so called Laffer Curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve). Of course, increased military spending in the post war era fueled by the cold war did not prevent the return of economic recessions. Similarly with the ecological crisis.  The fact that "environmental parameters" greatly matter to the military does not translate into an  argument for saying that the military has a vested interest in joining with Friends of the  Earth to save the earth.  One only has to mention that the military itself has been directly instrumental in the wanton destruction of much of the ecosphere to see the absurdity of this claimThen  there's that other weapon that Keucheyan refers to:  financialisation.  There has been a lot written lately about the increasing "financialisation of capitalism" – see for example John Bellamy's article in Monthly Review on the subject  – http://monthlyreview.org/2007/04/01/the-financialization-of-capitalism – and perhaps the Socialist Standard  might one day get round to devoting a special issue to the subject. But again I fail to see the force of the argument that Keucheyan is making.  Financialisation does not avert the prospect of crises that is built into the very fabric of capitalism.  If anything it increases the vulnerabluty of the system to crises through the mechanism  of speculative bubbles . Indeed, he himself admits that financialisation is no solution to the problem of financial crisises: In times of crisis, for instance, markets will require simultaneously that wages be cut and that people keep consuming. Opening the flow of credit allows the reconciliation of these two contradictory injunctions – at least until the next financial crisis. (my bold)What Keucheyan seems to be doing is , quite correctly , making the case that capitalism will not collapse of its accord – by toying with, if not exactly embracing the argument that the system can indeed come up with solutions to the problems it faces that at least mitigate if not altogether eliminate those problems – the reformist position,  So he argues Like financialisation, militarisation is about reducing risk and creating a physical and social environment favourable to capitalist accumulation. They are a kind of "antibody" that the system secretes when a menace looms This sounds plausible in theory but what it overlooks is that, in capitalism, competing actors are locked into a kind of logic in which each by pursuing their own separate interests bring about their collective ruin.  The "tragedy of the commons" is the inevitable outcome of a system of market competition.  It is the system itself that creates the very menace against which it purportedly secretes its "antibodies"and this is the point that does not really come through in the article itself. I do agree with his closing remark, though:Because, if the system can survive, it doesn't mean that lives worth living will.

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

Carolyn Merchant, in your quote, describes a concrete social phenomenon.  If proffered as its own ineffable meaning, it is open to any interpretation you please, which possibly suits her purpose.

Hardly.  It places human agency and choice at the centre of a process in which certain ideas spread and gain ground and others die out.  Point being that ideas are "selected for" – not simply "produced".  This denotes an active creative role of human beings in history as opposed to seeing individuals as the merely the product of circumstances. It is in line with Marx's insight that men make their own history albeit out of materials not of their own choosing

twc wrote:

 Peter Stillman, in your quote, advances the brave politics of committed voluntarism through the insipid philosophy of non-committal syncretism.  No actual scientist abandons causality so quickly.  No actual human thinks that determinism really implies no free will.

Really? And there I was thinking there was  indeed a whole bunch of philosophers of  the "incompatibilist" school of thought who do indeed hold  that the one thing negates the other. Look up "incompatibilism" in moral philosophy.  My own position is a middle ground one of compatibilism or soft deteminism as opposed to the hard determinism of people like Ted Honderich.  Actually, Honderich himself believes that even the very idea of free will is meaningless and so he is not strictly an incompatilibilist.  But there are certainly others who are.  You seem here to be supporting the idea of free will in some form (as do I)  yet seem critical of voluntarism.  Which is confusing.  Do you not see a role for a kind of qualified voluntarism?

twc wrote:

Your own “there is no such thing as social being without consciousness”, though equally vapid, has the virtue of bordering on its own disproof.

Thats only because you dont understand what is at stake.  If you eased off on the macho posturing and the tiresome ad hominen line of attack of yours and engaged  more sympathetically with the arguments offered, you might learn something….My experience of debating with people on the Left has led me to conclude that a good many of them do indeed take up a perspective that I would call "mechanical materialism" – the argument that ideas are no more  than the product or "reflection"of "material reality".  So, for instance,  the spread of socialist consciousness upon which the establishment of socialism is absolutely dependent is said to arise out of class struggle rather than the dissemination of socialist ideas.  Whereas i would see it as emphatically the result of BOTH these things.  Clearly, socialist consciousness  does develop out of class struggle – after all, pivotal to the idea of socialism is the overthrow of class relations of production which presupposes our apprehension of "class" in the first place –  but equally  the development and spread of socialist consciousness is a process that rebounds or reacts back on class struggle helping to refine and strengthen it and invest it with a sense of direction and purpose.  There is no certainty whatsoever that the mere existence of an objective conflict of interest between classes will even lead to a sense of class identificaction, let alone a socialist outlook on life.  The influence of nationalist ideology , for instance, could smother such a possibility completely by encouraging individuals to see themselves as part of an entity called the "nation" rather than one called a class.  All of which attests to the importance of spreading ideas.  The seeds of a future socialist movement germinate in the soil of class struggle but they also depend on  the rain of socialist ideas to bring them to lifeI would have thought,as an SPGBer, .you would have been rather sympathetic to this line of thought. I have my criticism of the SPGB but I have never denied that the "abstact propagandism",  which is its trademark,  has an important role to play in the socialist revolution.  Something that sections of the so called revolutionary Left sneeringly  dismiss in vanguardist fashion.  Point is that that ridiculous posture of theirs is precisely the  logical outcome of their own crass mechanically  materialist view of the world

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

Crass Misreading

robbo203 wrote:

the idea that material conditions (or, if you like, the “base” in the base/superstructure model of society) “produce” or give rise to, ideas … derives from a crass misreading of the statement that it is “not consciousness that determines social being but social being that determines consciousness”.

Marx was quite familiar with your preferred non-crass reading, but you delude yourself if you think Marx could ever subscribe to it.  His materialism forbids explanation by pure immediate experience, and commits him to explanation that is mediated by abstraction from experience.

 Get your facts straight first of all.  I did not say Marx himself suggested anything other than what you say above about his "materialism".  I was not referring to Marx  but to others including self styled Marxists who see things differently. Which is precisely why I referred to the latters'  reading of the above statement as a "crass misreading" – that is, a crass misreading of what Marx himself was trying to say.  There is no such thing as social being without consciousness.  Yes, indeed, explanation is always mediated by abstraction from experience , to use your expression.  You seem to have completely missed the point I was making, havent you? I referred you earlier to Peter Stilman's peice on Marx.  Note what the relevant extract says about social being and consciousnessThe second argument for determinism, which builds on Marx’s statement about life determining consciousness, overlooks that statement’s peculiar twist. Marx engages frequently in a kind of contrapuntal statement, where he denies a left-wing Hegelian slogan and then presents his view as the reverse. But Marx’s aphorism — “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness” — presents its assertion asymmetrically. Having denied the left-wing Hegelian stance that consciousness determines being, Marx reverses the terms but adds “social” — and “social being” is not defined but seems to be more extensive than merely forces (or forces and relations) of production and indeed as “social” likely includes consciousnessMarx’s starker statement in The German Ideology — “life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life” (MER, 155) — does not add “social” but does present its own asymmetry. The left-wing Hegelians, pace Marx, think that consciousness determines life, as though consciousness were something independent of life, standing apart from it (like an individualized Geist-like spirit) and shaping it. But Marx in this section rejects the view of consciousness as independent of life (so that he goes on to reject that philosophy can be “an independent branch of knowledge”). Rather, he is trying to make consciousness a part of human life. So, when “life determines consciousness,” Marx is tautologically asserting, as part of his on-going argument, that life (a totality including consciousness) determines consciousness (because it is a part of life). As he himself writes, when we see that “life determines consciousness,” “the starting point … is real living individuals themselves, and consciousness is considered solely as their consciousness” (MER, 155). So these statements do not deny free will so much as they put human consciousness into an intimate relation with other aspects of human life.(http://marxmyths.org/peter-stillman/article.htm)

[Author]

Posts