twc
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
That is the position we need to hold in parliament.Not to fall for the liberal humanist placating of impossible dreams. Instead explain why such liberal humanist dreams are impossible. Impossibility is our sole case. It is our greatest propaganda weapon.Reform shatters our greatest weapon, and annihilates our case. Think carefully that you are not succumbing to liberal humanist fantasies in an illiberal non-human world.
JohnD, the Socialist Party does not enter parliament to horse trade with anybody. We are there to abolish capitalism.Our parliamentary position—for a political party—must be our greatest socialist strength.Consequently, we steadfastly hold politically that:Reform is always subject to running the system, which runs entirely subservient to capital.Abolish the conditions of private ownership in the means of production, which are the foundation of the capitalist mode of production, and you abolish the need for piecemeal indefinite reforms.So equipped, we face the howling mob. It is they who need to learn and bend. Not we.
Come on, ajj…The Socialist Party is not here to “benefit the working class”.It’s here to abolish the working class precisely because, so long as the working class—a capitalist category—exists, it can’t be benefitted. Otherwise, why Socialism?Please consider carefully before you attempt to explain, in logical terms, any reform “to benefit the working class” that you would champion todaythat you can explain exactly how it will benefit the working class in a social system based on exploiting it.
ALB, note carefully that I did not claim that reforms “were inevitably detrimental to working class interests”.Instead I issued the challenge: “how on earth can anyone tell what reforms are beneficial to the working class in a system based on robbing it?”Again, on the point about “stopping a war”. Wars are stopped every second week in the Middle East. People have won Nobel Peace prizes for stopping wars that continue to rage.I repeat, with variation, “how on earth do you stop wars when the system continually breeds warfare in the first place?”There are no permanent solutions for these conundrums.These conundrums are only meaningful under capitalism, where only liberal, or humanistic, solutions spring to mind. It is then easy to assume that they are socialist solutions. But are they?Such liberal humanist solutions will always emerge of their own accord so long as capitalist economic conditions permit them to.These are such questions, to which there are no permanent answers under a capitalist class-based system of Society. Otherwise, why Socialism?I am happy, perhaps, for members to decide such undecidable capitalist questions on liberal humanist grounds. But we should be aware about exactly what we are doing.This is my point.
robbo wrote:The share of spending devoted to education has risen over time; it almost doubled between 1953–54 and 1973–74, from 6.9% to 12.5% of total spending. It then remained fairly stable, dipping in the early to mid 1980s, before rising to around 13% throughout the 2000s.Precisely. Like health, it’s threateningly expensive to support. It threatens return on investment.
robbo wrote:I think (twc) has an overly mechanistic ring about it.No. A scientific determinist ring, like all science—the science of necessary process, or else no science at all.In place of deterministic science you skirt perilously close to the fantasy fiction:Socialist representatives get magically elected to parliament, under a South-American old-style dictatorship,where they defiantly denounce the tyranny that elected them and advocate the universal right to parliamentary democracy?The Party case has always been that capitalism requires democracy to legitimate itself.So far, democracy has not lived up to its originally perceived threat to the capitalist system, and has so far failed to put a dent in capitalism itself, which continues to rule triumphant over whichever democratic team has the dubious privilege of “running” it.On the contrary, capitalism has knocked “capitalist sense” into its left opponents, democratic or anti-democratic as the case may be.Once Socialism is on the move, a parliamentary electoral system—no matter how gerrymandered or jury rigged—is powerless to stop it.You seem hung up on the meerest details of hypotheticals.
That challenge is one of the greatest weapons a World Socialist can wield against all reformism and for Socialism.A World Socialist challenges our opponents, “whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist” (a perfect phrase taken from our Declaration of Principles, Clause
:“How on earth can anyone tell what reforms will benefit the working class in a society based on robbing it?”ALB wrote:There are even some reforms that benefit workers that actually do help capital's ability to expand itself, e.g. education and health provisions.Really?It is precisely education and health provisions that currently threaten capital’s ability to expand itself.That’s why they are currently being screwed.The capitalist class would dearly rather it didn’t have to screw the provision of education and health, but it has no other choice because it perceives—rightly or wrongly—that they obstruct capital’s ability to expand itself.It perceives them as a financial burden—upon its long-suffering self—that must be minimised.Of course, it’s quite another matter if education and health provisions can be hijacked by capital to expand itself.In those circumstances, should a “socialist representative” support private provision of education and health because it, incidentally, “benefits the working class” while directly benefitting the capitalist class?I repeat, how on earth can anyone tell what will “benefit the working class” in a society based on robbing it?
robbo203 wrote:Socialists…, in office and whilst still a minority, should consider voting in favour of certain reforms on the basis of their merits in benefitting the workers, however temporarily.Capitalism can’t be reformed to benefit workers without threatening its very own conditions of existence—capital acting as capital, i.e. private capitalist-class return on investment dominating all social practice, i.e. dominating the working class.By what criterion can anyone judge that a “reform” will bring “benefit”, to the working class, when the entire social system reproduces itself by exploiting the working-class?Capital necessarily reproduces itself to the detriment, not to the benefit of the working class!The process of capitalist reproduction ensures that its conditions of continued repetitive existence are necessarily self-correcting, self adjusting, self adapting.In short, if you temporarily weaken capital, it systemically reacts and survives, because society must function and, under capital’s domination, society must function on its terms of existence, or not at all.And because capital adapts to its very own nature, any temporary “benefit” to its class enemy necessarily succumbs to capital’s own necessity.The class struggle, fought out under capitalist conditions, of capital simply acting out its very own inflating self—expanding itself through employing the working class—cannot permanently be won against it on a field it already controls.If working-class benefits, that threaten capital’s ability to expand itself, could be won under capitalist dominant conditions, why Socialism?
ajj wrote:Italy makes a spoiled paper a crime.Surely not in the act? I thought, in the act, it was a secret ballot.
Unless registered, the name “Socialist Party” gets hijacked by the big boys of the capitalist left. That happened in Australia.All companion parties (adding New Zealand to the list) do assert belonging to the “World Socialist Movement”.Hence, don’t abstain, but write “World Socialism”—or, as you imply, “World Socialist Movement”—across the ballot paper. That’s our sole political stance, to which all else in politics, like imagined “capitalist concessions” such as bike lanes, are essentially inconsequential, no matter how passionately desired.Should bike lanes ever become a political object of desire above World Socialism—or misconceived as a concessionary political precursor to World Socialism—the universal rule of “return on investment”, i.e. of capital, smiles condescendingly in political triumph over World Socialism.
ALB wrote:There are a number of benefits that can be obtained for workers even under capitalism (not just by trade union action), e.g. health & safety laws. repeal of anti-union laws, less restrictions on meetings and publications, voting against a war.Not permanently obtained “benefits for workers”. At best, temporarily lessened “detriments to workers”.So long as private return on investment, i.e. capital, remains the pre-condition of all social life, permanent “benefits for workers” remain an impossible fantasy. Otherwise, why Socialism?The pre-condition for permanent “benefits to workers” is abolition of private ownership of the World’s means of production—the foundation upon which private return on investment, i.e. capital, rests.That pre-condition is common ownership and democratic control of the World’s means of production—the foundation upon which rests World Socialism.
ALB wrote:bringing about some benefit for workers when in a position to do so.This is universally impossible under capitalism, where all “benefit for workers” is deterministically subservient to capitalist return on investment, i.e. to capital, which is necessarily of “benefit to capitalists”.The only lasting escape from our inexorable grinding by capitalist return on investment, i.e. by capital, is World Socialism.
If “public office” means “member of parliament”—since that’s what candidates stand for—then refusal to accept “public office” upon winning it is tantamount to denying the platform the candidate for “public office” stood on.To refuse “public office” won solely for World Socialism is the most overt and effective way of denying World Socialism. [By comparison, mere salaries and benefits are inconsequential.]More importantly…Refusal to take “public office” abnegates our Declaration of Principles, Clause 8:
Declaration of Principles wrote:8. The Socialist Party of Great Britain, therefore,enters the field of political actiondetermined to wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist,and calls upon the members of the working class of this country to muster under its banner to the end that a speedy termination may be wrought to the system …Refusal to take “public office” is the surest way ofvacating the World Socialist “field of political action”repudiating the World Socialist “war against all other political parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist”silencing the World Socialist “call to the members of the working class to muster under its banner to the end that a speedy termination may be wrought to the system”…consigning the will of World Socialist voters to impotence,converting trust to disillusion,turning political power into a political death wish.The proposed motion is tantamount to a World Socialist political suicide note!***By contrast…A World Socialist Party candidate, clearly and unequivocally,stands solely for World Socialism.advocates voting solely for World Socialism.repudiates voting for the candidate.A World Socialist Party candidate then achieves “public office”, only, as part of a growing popular movement towards World Socialism.A World Socialist Party candidate, so voted into “public office”, is—clearly and unequivocally—a representative solely of World Socialism.***A World Socialist Party representative of World Socialism therefore accepts “public office” in order to promulgate World Socialist Declaration of Principles, Clause 8:to enter the “field of political action”to “wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist”to “call on the members of the working class to muster under its banner to the end that a speedy termination may be wrought to the system”…Unlike the death-wish of the proposed motion, Clause 8 is an affirmation of World Socialism.
The distinction should be clear to socialists.For example, the WSP of Australia always took the occasion to register a vote for World Socialism, to which all capitalist issues are subservient, and find their resolution.In the absence of (1) a world socialist candidate or (2) a referendum/plebicite on world socialism, write WORLD SOCIALISM across your ballot paper. “If you ain’t going to vote for it, You ain’t going to fight for it, It ain’t going to happen.”
