stuartw2112
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
If there's one thing to learn from history, it's that no one learns anything from history. Or at the least, no one can agree what the lessons are.
There's been a certain amount of schadenfreude on this forum at the prospect of silly sectarian rowing within Left Unity. I hope the people who were rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect have appreciated the irony of this discussion.
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
Maybe not, but you might get, say, a Labour Party… Or somekind of trade union and socialist coalition…
PS I can't see that Robin's comments on reformism are anything other than a tortuous exercise in logic to define the things he disapproves of as "reformism" and the things he approves of not. Why should trade unions be allowed to push for higher wages on the economic field, but be barred from standing political candidates pledging structural economic reforms in the working class interest? Makes no sense whatever.
Thanks everyone for the discussion, which I have enjoyed very much, but I can't help but note that no one has answered the question I wanted answering, despite Robin's attempt. (Thanks Adam for pointing out the reading group, I will check it out next week). I can't help but think it hasn't been answered because I'm on to something, so I'll try asking it again. (I'm genuinely interested in this question, I'm not trying to get one over on anyone.)1. Doesn't the SPGB (classical Marxist) position hold that the working class should organise politically to seize control of the state? If it did this, wouldn't this mean that the state had been democratised? If not, why not?2. Doesn't it follow as a matter of common Marxist sense that, once having seized control of the state, one of the things that the controlling party would have to do would be to impose capital controls and nationalise the banks? Given that this is almost certainly what would have to happen, isn't it reasonable to call this the "common ownership" or "democratic control" of the means of exchange? If not, why not?
There's nothing to choose between the right and the left. I used to say things like that myself. But you do know, don't you, that it's terrible tripe? Go on an anti- fascist demo, then on an EDL one, and report back. Or ask someone who relies on disabled benefits whether they don't prefer the Tories over Blair.
I agree with you Jon, and with Marx and Morris. I don’t know of any answer to your question. We just keep trying.
My mistake: I've just checked and at our last conference we did indeed decide as a matter of policy to "avoid electoral clashes" with other left candidats. My assumption would be that "other left candidates" would include SPGB candidates, even if that generosity of spirit has no chance of being reciprocated.
Hi Jon,I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Left Unity is now an independent political party, based on individual membership, and one member, one vote. It is not an umbrella group or unity project aiming to bring together other left parties, like TUSC is, say. LU has just elected a "national council", which some people refer to as our "leadership", but it has no decision-making powers beyond what we have delegated it at Conference (it doesn't make policy, for example).LU has, at the moment, no policy on standing in elections beyond the one I've already stated: that we're in favour in principle, that we don't plan to do it till we have a reasonable chance of staging a good campaign. My impression, from talking to members, is that we would not stand candidates where other left candidates were standing (left Labour MPs, for example, TUSC candidates, and perhaps left Greens and SPGB too, though I've not heard that discussed). That said, my guess about what will be the majority opinion has been proved wrong at Conference (which is a good thing – genuine democratic deliberation and decisions are made, it's not just some farcical stitch-up). Hope that answers your questions.CheersStuart
OK, that's the polemical stuff, I guess we'll never convince each other either way, but here's a genuine question I would really like to hear the answer to.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 say all this partly because I'm interested in the answer, but also to back up what I've said before about nothing of substance being behind all the thousands of words of polemic exchanged on these subjects. Look at the words of what we in LU stand for, and the words of what the SPGB stands for, and no doubt pedants could argue all night over who had got the dogma right. But in reality, in practice, aren't we all aiming for more or less the same thing (admitting that, really, none of us has the slightest idea how it will all pan out, if it ever does pan out?). In modern terms, doesn't a "reformist" party saying it would nationalise the Bank of England, and a "revolutionary" party sticking to its Marxist guns, be saying more or less the same thing?
Adam: Of course the intention is exactly to stand candidates and split the Labour vote (or rather present a left alternative where there isn't one) when or if we are powerful enough to do so. In the meantime, we (and others) have already started a bonfire on their left, which makes them look nervously in that direction. I'm sure you're right that they're not all that worried yet, but they would be complacent if they weren't at least aware. And, as I said, I have experience locally that this is true. They want to know what we're up to, and what they do and say is influenced by what we're up to. Our local Labour candidate nicked all our bedroom tax campaigning material, for example, and pretended she gives a shit and come up with it herself.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.All socialists are standing on the same terrain, and the "revolutionary" groups are like the guy with the map. The map's all very well, it may be useful, but still we do actually have to find a way forward, and actually do the walk. Except it's not really like that at all because there is no map, and there is no certainty that the destination even exists. In this context, the guy with the map is really more like a mad religious preacher. Stop and listen by all means – there's bound to be at least some sense and vision and inspiration in what they say. But when the spittle has stopped flying, the journey remains. The ones with the clear vision and the answers are unlikely to prove more helpful in the journey than the muddle-headed, wooly minded folk cutting a path through the forest.PS Why not join the Greens? Well, for something like these reasons I guess:http://williammorrisunbound.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/caroline-lucas-in-coach-house.html
Your commitment to the party is touching mcolome, I hope you won't be driven to such extreme measures! For your information, however, I did not leave the SPGB to join a pro-capitalist party, but a socialist one. You can see that we are a socialist party standing for socialist measures by reading our founding policy statements:http://leftunity.org/founding-conference-decisions-1/http://leftunity.org/a-raft-of-solid-left-wing-policy-conference-report/I realise that this won't impress you as being nearly socialist enough, but you can hardly fly in the face of history and logic and say that it's not firmly in the tradition that most everyone on the planet calls "socialist".
