I.C.C. review of ‘The Alternative to Capitalism’
- This topic has 5 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The latest issue of the ICC’s ‘World Revolution’ paper is online, and it contains a comradely critical review of ‘The Alternative to Capitalism’ – the recent reprint of a couple of articles by Adam Buick and John Crump.
It can be found on page 6 when clicking the link at http://en.internationalism.org/worldrevolution/2013/9127/september/world-revolution-no362-septemberoctober-2013
It brings out some of the issues raised on here in the recent thread http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/icc-way-and-our-way
Hi Alf a couple of comments.The 1991 socialist studies "split" is not really a split but an expulsion of 4(?) branches,I think you're probably right that the 5 currents named are probably a little narrow. However, I'd disagree that syndicalism should be included. Most syndicalists I've spoken to or literature I've read of that kind. Seem to suggest that their ends are to create localized autonomous communes where the laws of capitalism would still apply. As I said in the other thread Bordiga does a superb job of demolishing syndicalism, aside from his anti-democratic arguments of course.On the issue of the petit bourgeois being integrated. The party's position for a long long time is that there are only two classes, we were championing the 99% vs 1% thing long before occupy came to the same conclusion. Personally I think this is an oversimplification since there are obviously small capitalists who are at odds with the bourgeoisie proper and have conflicting interests with the proletariat. There's also a problem of the catalyst for class consciousness being absent. Although the main point is that due to their inability to compete with the bourgeois proper their interests have been brought in line with those of the proletariat. In that socialism is now in their best interests as opposed to the maintenance of capitalism and their own meager property relations. It is most likely that the petit-bourgeois class will split it's allegiance the majority of which will consciously decide to side with the workers thus willingly relinquishing their property rights. After that what else does a small shop keeper need to do to be integrated into the working class?Good review and an enjoyable read thanks Alf. Might have more later when I give it a second read.
I agree that syndicalism contains a strong element advocating a self-managed commodity economy, which is in turn a key element in anarchism historically (Proudhon and all that), but there are are still numerous anarcho-syndicalists today who are (a) internationalists and (b) do envisage a genuinely communist society. It may well be that they have to struggle to be consistent about their actual adherence to traditional syndlicalism (see the discussions in the Solidarity Federation for example). And even in the past there were debates among them about how to get rid of commodity production (Vadim's book History of anarcho-syndicalism in the 20th century has an interesting chapter about these discussions in the 30s).Regarding the petty bourgeoisie and similar non-exploiting classes, the problem becomes much more significant when we move away from the old capitalist centres and look at the situation in the peripheries of the system. We are talking about a world transformation here after all.
From the ICC article
Quote:John Crump left the SPGB in the 1970s, criticising the party’s parliamentary conception of revolution and arguing – as we shall see – that the SPGB was by no means the only authentically socialist organisation in the world, in opposition to the ‘hostility clause’ contained in its 1904 state- ment of principles1. Despite these criticisms, rela- tions between Crump and the SPGB seem to have remained fraternal until his death in 2005, and it would also seem that one of the reasons why the Socialist Studies group split from the party (or as it sees it ‘reconstituted the SPGB’) in 1991 was the influence of Crump’s efforts to push the SPGB in certain untraditional directions.From the Socialist Studies website
Quote:Under Defence of the Realm Acts in World War One (and similar legislation in World War Two) the following drastic curtailments were made, quite legally.(a) General Elections were suspended, and none took place between 1910 and 1918 and between 1935 and 1945.(b) All the restrictions referred to in paragraph three were applied legally.(c) All or most strikers were liable to prosecution(d) Numerous new offences were created, including such vague offences as "spreading alarm and despondency".(e) Particular examples of actions by various organisations held to be offences were: -circulating the Sermon on the Mount as a leaflet, and urging workers to engage in strikes.Under the 1918 Representation of the People Act thousands of conscientious objectors, including Party members, were disenfranchised for five years.It is just as easy for the authorities to declare a state of emergency in peace-time as in war-time, with power to impose similar restrictions, as during the General Strikes.The reason the Party suspended all outdoor meetings in World War One was not only the near impossibility of escaping prosecution under the legal offence of "spreading alarm and despondency" but also the actions of the Courts in backing up illegal prosecutions. When mobs broke up legal meetings (often incited by newspapers) the police would ignore the action of the mob and charge the speakers with "breach of the peace" and the Courts upheld the police.It should be noted that the trade unions, because of their backing, were in a somewhat different position.While the socialist movement has little backing among the workers there is little to do but accept or seek to evade restrictions imposed by the authorities. As the numbers increase the situation will be correspondingly altered, either because (like the trade unions) we shall be better able to resist, and at some stage socialists will be elected to Parliament.Our propaganda should always stress that Socialism and democracy are inseparable; that there is no way to Socialism except through the democratic action of a Socialist majority; and that it must proceed through democratically gaining control of the machinery of government, including the armed forces.In countries where the "parliamentary system" does not yet exist, or where it is curtailed or suspended, socialists can only use whatever restricted opportunities there are to propagate Socialism and its inseparable link with democratic methods. They should do this independently and in no circumstances confuse the issue by associating with non-socialists.This paper was originally published as a "STATEMENT ON DEMOCRACY" by Camden Branch on 15th December 1977 for the 1978 annual conference with a supplementary reply to its critics in July, 1978. A few changes in presentation have been made for publication in SOCIALIST STUDIES and on our web site).Ed wrote:Hi Alf a couple of comments.The 1991 socialist studies "split" is not really a split but an expulsion of 4(?) branches,Just two branches; Camden and North-West London.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.