Engels and "socialist government"
- This topic has 50 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
You are right. Most anarchists are all over the place. The ones that are nearest to us refuse to call themselves anarchists and prefer the term “libertarian communist”. They don’t claim Bakunin let alone Proudhon and take their economics from Marx. And they didn’t emerge from the anarchist movement but rather from “vanguardist” groups. In fact what makes them nearest to us is their explicit rejection of vanguardism and of course their view that abolishing capitalism involves abolishing commodity production, wage labour and “value” (in its meaning in Marxian economics). What separates them from us, and what they share with classical anarchists, is their opposition to using elections and parliament in the course of establishing socialism (or communism as they prefer to call it).
Classical anarchists do not repudiate minority action and do not accept that a post-capitalist society has to be moneyless. Only those who invoke Kropotkin, who was a communist in the proper sense, do. The rest are quite confused on this issue, basically “market anarchists”, and all of them are more concerned with getting “something now” by so-called direct rather than electoral action and they share the mistaken belief with vanguardists that an anti-capitalist consciousness will somehow spontaneously emerge from the “day-to-day” struggle for all sorts of things. Not on our wavelength at all.
“Not on our wavelength at all.” Lumme lawks! In fact, the trouble the femmos have recently caused in the SPGB is exactly on the wavelength of the radical liberals masquerading as anarchists. Except about 20 years postdated. They’re the conservative wing of identity politics now. These days it’s all about transgender rights (no transgenders allowed to actually speak though just in case they say the wrong thing) and pretending prostitutes are the Grand Army of Sexual Liberation.
I note that you have carefully placated your feminist wing with a committee. An excellent strategy involving long grass and a foot moving forward (to use the current vernacular). Safe spaces are a good policy too. Once the ladies are out of the room, the blokes can swear and fart. Trouble with you goys is that some of your women will want to come into the men’s area just to be difficult.
something something patriarchy something
Which is a long way from the question of socialist government. Some of you blokes are in such denial. You use the system, you have to follow its rules. This inevitably involves forming a socialist government, with a socialist prime minister and a socialist cabinet. You like? No. Too damn bad. Freddy knew a fing or two.
Kaz – you don’t seem to have any conception of the change in mass consciousness that could put us in a political position you envisage above. No one will be interested in playing the bourgeois Westminster games let alone worrying about a ‘socialist prime minister’. The paradigm shift will make all that nonsense anachronistic.
He should have spent some time inside the SPGB reading up and trying to understand our position.
In Against Parliament. For Anarchism, (p. 53) The Anarchist Federation pamphlet concedes that
“Through all the problems involved in carrying through the revolution, any temptations towards authoritarian or exploitative behaviour would face an alert, energised populace working through a very different social framework”
We agree, but also think that this same “alert, energised populace” would also be able to deal with any such behaviour in those it chose to send to parliament as its mandated delegates. Furthermore, some anarchists have the view that recallable delegates should be used as a way of carrying out functions in their own organizations and in a future society, so what’s wrong with applying this principle to sending socialist delegates to parliament?
https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlet/whats-wrong-with-using-parliament/
PDF Version What’s Wrong With Using Parliament
Like I say, you really haven’t thought this all through. Yes, I’ve read all the wretched pamphlets and come up with a more in depth analysis than you have. Delegation, for instance, is not how parliament works. If you are not interested in playing bourgeois games, do not start playing them.
Give a sample of your in depth analysis then. It just looks like a schoolboy going Yah! boo! to me. In particular address the comments Rod made,
” you don’t seem to have any conception of the change in mass consciousness that could put us in a political position you envisage above”.
While we are campaigning for a worldwide society of common ownership, democratic control, production directly for use, and free access according to need, this is what KAZ’s organisation is up to:
“The discussion document “Potential Activities Of A New Organisation” was discussed and adopted. Initial emphasis would be on agitational literature and activity around Land Justice, housing and the NHS. In addition, there was a commitment to street agitation-stickers and posters. It was decided that the ACG should focus on the campaign against Universal Credit using the Disabled People Against Cuts slogan “Stop It and Scrap It”. Leicester ACG agreed to make and circulate leaflets and stickers in regards to Universal Credit, capable of being locally adapted.”
They are nice blokes (as most of them are, as might be guessed from KAZ’s “jokes”) but are into quite different things from us.
Land Justice, what the fuck’s that? Scrap Universal Credit? But replace it with what? Universal Basic Income perhaps? Or is this just a trotskyoid “transitional demand” to “teach workers by experience”?
Kaz states:
Some of you blokes are in such denial. You use the system, you have to follow its rules. This inevitably involves forming a socialist government, with a socialist prime minister and a socialist cabinet.
Can you now explain why it is that you have to follow the rules if you use a system?
There are dozens of historical examples of people using the system and then not following the rules.
It is absolutely not inevitable that a socialist majority must form a Socialist Government, with Prime Minister, et al.
The current electoral system demands that the SPGB has a leader, which we nominally do, but what impact has that had on the party? Has that led to a cult of personality developing around the new leader?
Well, I’ve certainly stirred something up here haven’t I? Hardly surprising, you genuinely don’t like the idea of socialist government but that’s what the method entails. Denials are always the worst.
“In depth analysis”: No. Sorry. You have to do this yourself. I’m not doing it for you. Take the Party case and apply it.
“Your group does this.” Well, yes it does doesn’t it? As a “put up with it” it beats by miles the dreadful stuff I had to put up with in the SPGB.
“Rules. Schmules. They don’t apply to us.” This is very much the Party ethos in a nutshell. It is unique. Why? Because it says it is. Nope.
” Hardly surprising, you genuinely don’t like the idea of socialist government but that’s what the method entails.“
Just repeating something, ad finitum doesn’t actually back up your argument. Why does the method entail this?
I would have thought it was pretty obvious why the concept of a “socialist government” aka state makes no sense. A state is an instrument of class rule. Socialism is a classless society. Ergo, socialism is a stateless/government-less society…
As for the idea of a “socialist prime minister and a socialist cabinet” John McEnroe said it best: “You cannot be serious!” What are these personages supposed to do in a society without money, wage labour , profit, taxes etc etc etc.
Perhaps Kaz should enlighten us. What would be their job description?
Hate to say it but Kaz has raised a valid point about Parliamentary rules.
During a “transition period” where the SPGB has made strong progress and have elected several MPs but still remain a minority – a growing minority but not a majority nevertheless there will be many difficult dilemmas for the party to face such as support for specific reforms, particularly some where there might not be a consensus on the benefits to the working class and votes in the House of Commons do not coincide with our EC meeting timetables. We also have experience of local branches being in disagreement with the Party nationally and again our means of resolving such disputes is rather convoluted and cannot rein in MPs or local councillors
I recall one controversary is taking the oath of allegiance to the monarch – well the SSP did so in Scotland and had their fingers crossed behind them as they took the oath. A minor issue but we do face human frailty – rogue individuals.
An MP is not a delegate and is under no obligation to follow our Rule 27. “Candidates elected to a Political office shall be pledged to act on the instructions of their Branches locally, and by the Executive Committee nationally.”
There are ample examples of MPs ignoring Party Whips, and switching Parties and remaining MPs.
The best answer I so far heard is that once elected, an SPGB MP signs an undated application for the Chiltern Hundreds but that is no guarantee…he or she simply can “unsign” it.
As always we are left with the ultimate answer…workers outside parliament will take action to express the illegitimacy of their MP. But once more anarchists will say the SPGB endorsed the ballot in the election which invested the MP with the authority to “act” for himself. And to rely on extra-parliamentary actions shows the superfluous nature of the necessity of going through Parliament.
There is a parliamentary process that we can recall an MP with a petition of I think 10% of the constituency to have a new election but it is limited to MPs who commit criminal acts, not breaches of Party rules.
BTW, I’ve just been plagiarising Eugene Debs for our Scottish blog and surprised at how his views overlap with our own “it is the case, not the face”
“The Socialist Party is the only party that does not want a vote that is not intelligently cast. The popularity of a candidate is against him rather than for him in the Socialist Party. No vote is wanted on account of the personality of a candidate. It is the value of the socialist principle that is taught and emphasized, and if this is not understood and approved the vote is not wanted. Mere disgust with other parties is not accepted by socialists as sufficient reason to encourage the voting for the Socialist Party. Such votes are unreliable, deceptive and misleading. The men who cast them are apt to desert at the very time they are most needed. Any vote that is subject to the influence of personal considerations is so vacillating that it is of no use in the constructive work of a revolutionary political movement. Better a few united on the solid basis of principle, than ten times that number thrown together on the shifting sands of personality. In conventional political party circles, principle is subordinated to personality. “Who are the candidates?” is the all-absorbing question. The people, like helpless children, are forever looking for some “great man” to watch over and protect them. In the Socialist Party principles are paramount; the candidates are the last and least consideration. The supreme question is, “What are the principles?”
The Socialist Party is not on the look-out for some charismatic leader to follow to the fabled promised land, nor does it expect any so-called “great man” to sacrifice himself upon the altar of the country for their salvation. They have made up their minds to be their own leaders and to save themselves. They know that persons have deceived them and will again, so they put their trust in principles, knowing that these will not betray them.
The Socialist Party addresses itself to the working class, seeking to develop the knowledge of that class, while it appeals to the ballot for the realisation of its cooperative commonwealth.”
(a few tweaks here and there from the original)
But you are missing the point that Matt made that any alternative structure that the anarchists might set up would also have rules that its delegates might break and so be faced with the same problem of how to stop or deal with this — and would have to rely in the end on the same as we say, ie the consciousness of those who do the delegating.
Also, the constitutional rules are different in different countries. On paper some are more difficult for a socialist majority than in Britain. Others are less difficult. In some States of the USA the right of recall not only exists on paper but is routinely invoked as is the right to call a referendum; and legislative assemblies like the House of Representatives are elected every two years making deselection quicker.
Anyway we are not talking about the end — the participatory democracy that will apply in socialism — but only about a means to achieve the power to implement this. These means don’t need to be perfect democratically, and certainly aren’t, but only sufficiently democratic to be useable to win political control. There is a certain irony in anarchists becoming constitutional lawyers to criticise us.
Finally, there’s the point you yourself frequently make that when there’s a socialist majority nobody will be able to stop the workers using the ballot box, even if “the rules” are not perfectly democratic. That will be one of the things they will do.
I was not making a defence of anarchism but merely highlighting an anomaly in our own rule-book. Rule 27 is not enforceable, nor would I say practicable.
Can we really micro-manage our MPs and councillors?
In fact, expulsion from the Party may well be grounds for contempt of parliament as could targeting a campaign against a particular “rogue socialist” MP
I accept what happens outside of Parliament is as important as inside.
Howard Zinn expressed it well:
“What matters most is not who is sitting in the White House, but “who is sitting in” — and who is marching outside the White House, pushing for change.”
In the USA, we presently face a great many obstacles to constitutional change. Even the Democratic Party suffer from widespread voter exclusion and gerry-mandering by the Republicans so we can expect similar a hundred-fold, nay a thousand-fold.
But as you say, there ways and means around it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiatives_and_referendums_in_the_United_States
An example of legitimacy is how the Hong Kong protesters used local elections to express their political will. But they lacked political power to exercise.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.