[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.

[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..

[Author]

Posts