Status of World Socialist Party (US)
- This topic has 216 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Neil, I can understand how opposing other similarly minded groups may seem hyper-critical to someone, but I also feel like we have no other choice if we hope to stick to our principles. We can’t forget that the SPGB was founded due to the SDF abandoning it’s revolutionary aims in favor of reformism. The British Labour Party and the German SDP did the same exact thing. None of our principles are unreasonable to me, so to compromise on a single one would most likely be a slippery slope down the same exact path. Seeing those parties as examples, I feel like it’d be foolish to compromise on any of our principles in hopes of our goal becoming easier, because we’ll just end up losing sight of the goal in the process. We’ve already seen where compromise leads, so if not compromising makes things more difficult, then we’re just gonna have to deal with that. I’ve never been one to let adversity stop me anyway.
You asked if socialism is properly described as moneyless. There were socialists before Marx, but they didn’t have it fully fleshed out. Marx was the first to make a consistent ideology out of socialism. Everyone after him either continued that ideology or deformed it. Since Marx was the first person to properly define socialism, and he defined one of it’s characteristics as it being moneyless, then my answer is: yes it is, and any “socialism” that isn’t moneyless isn’t socialism at all.
You also asked if we’ll go from capitalism to socialism over night. My answer is: sort of. Marx said that “lower stage” communism would be preceded by the “dictatorship of the proletariat”. This would be when socialists gain majority control of the state in each of the major developed countries and use it to take control of private property, etc. and use it to the advantage of the majority to implement socialism. There would of course have to be a few years of planning and building of infrastructure to support a socialist economy of free access for our entire population, but these few years couldn’t properly be called the beginning of socialism or even really a transition, it’d moreso be a pre-socialist capitalism if anything. Socialism and capitalism are separate and incompatible, they literally can’t coexist, so there couldn’t be a transition between the two, it would definitely be a sharp break from one day to the next. I feel like Marx meant there couldn’t be a transition like they couldn’t exist together for any amount of time, but of course there’d have to be a planning stage for socialism to work. If anybody thinks I’m wrong about this and can point me to anywhere in Marx’s literature that he said he didn’t even believe in a planning stage, please let me know.
We should definitely explain how that could happen. I feel like this idea that “we can’t tell the future, we should only focus on the goal” is kind of half-baked. How can we reach a goal without a plan in mind that we can measure our progress against? We can’t suddenly gain majority control and then start planning this kinda stuff, I think it’s the plan itself that would engage people, otherwise we can become the majority without having our next step fully in mind. I’m not saying that we need to make a plan that would fit 100% perfect with any time period, cuz we don’t know how long it might take to reach majority numbers, but we should at least make a plan that’s appropriate to now and adjust it as needed. I’m open to hear anyone out on how that might be a wrong way to think of it tho.
And no, socialism isn’t a transitionary state to communism. Marx never said that, he actually used the terms interchangeably since they meant the same thing, but he preferred the term communism since socialism was more associated with utopian socialists at that time and socialism was also more of a middle class movement, vs communism being the term preferred by the working class at that time. Marx differentiated between “lower” and “higher” stages of communism in ‘The Communist Manifesto’, but he never called these socialism and communism respectively. It was actually Vladimir Lenin who first did that.
Reformism won’t bring us any closer to socialism, that’s been proven repeatedly, so we shouldn’t want any part of that at all.
1975 The Myth of the Transitional Society [Buick]
The Myth of the Transitional society. In this article, Adam Buick from the SPGB refused totally the ideas of Ernest Mandel on the transitional society advocated by Lenin,
Until now it is the best explanation given about Marx concept of the transition period, and the concept of socialism-communism, both expressions were used interchangeably by Marx and by Engels, and this is the one closer to the original writing of Marx and Engels
In the same article, we have said that we are going to inherit certain aspect carried over from the capitalist society, and there are going to be certain restrictions in regard to the implementation of free access.
The concept of a transitional society does not appear in any of Marx works, and I have not found that expression in any of their writing, but I have found it in the works of Vladimir Lenin
https://www.marxists.org/subject/marxmyths/hal-draper/article2.htm
The dictatorship of the proletariat in Marx and Engels In this particular writing we can see that since the very beginning the Russians leaders of the Menshevik and the Bolshevik party have a distorted view on Marx real conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat, up to the point that Lenin said that the main objective or the marrow of the Marx’s body of idea is the dictatorship of the proletariat, and it is totally wrong, for Marx it was only a temporary measure probably only applicable to the XIX century
http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2010/02/dictatorship-of-proletariat-what-did.html
The dictatorship of the Proletariat. SOYMB
There is an article named the myth of the transitional society which clearly explains this problematic
Thanks. I’ll find it and have a read.
Hey Jordan. I agree completely that we cannot lose sight of our goals. We should offer up a plan for how we believe socialism could be implemented. You can and you can’t plan for the next five years, but to not do so is planning to fail, which is even dumber than the regular type of planning. We should understand our goals and how to achieve them in detail.
We can have a first phase of ‘dismantling of capitalism’ into lower communism and then another of implementing socialism. But we really should hold regular ‘project’ meetings on how this should be done because I like what you said about “the plan itself that would engage people”.
If we change our perspective to see all these ‘reformist’ ideas (e.g. unions and coops) as the means of dismantling capitalism and then we publish that message loud and clear, I don’t see how people won’t understand what we’re talking about. Imagine your average folks working in democratic worker-owned environments, coming home from work and saying “thank goodness for the SPGB for showing us the way, they certainly get my vote in the next election”.
Neil, what our role is explaining why after two hundred years of experience we have not learned the lesson of a Chartist.
Ernest Jones, wrote:
“I contend that co-operation as now developed, must result in failure to the majority of those concerned, and that it is merely perpetuating the evils which it professes to remove… That the co-operative-system, as at present practised, carries within it the germs of dissolution, would inflict a renewed evil on the masses of the people, and is essentially destructive of the real principles of co-operation. Instead of abrogating profitmongering, it re-creates it. Instead of counteracting competition, it re-establishes it. Instead of preventing centralisation, it renews it—merely transferring the role from one set of actors to another… your co-operative ranks are thinned, your firms find, one by one, they can no longer in make the returns equal the expenses, they cannot sell as cheap as the capitalist, they can therefore no more command the market, their co-operative fires die out in quick succession, stores and mills close over their deluded votaries—and the great ruin will stand bald, naked, and despairing in the streets.”
We should not repeat mistakes merely because they sound popular. We are not basing an analysis on theory or any abstract hypothesis but empirical evidence, Neil. We will not receive thanks when people are disillusioned and disappointed but instead socialists will be accused again of not fulfilling the promises they make.
So what else do we do then? If we don’t have any suggestions, then I say again, lets get the hep from people who do know how to do such things. Or do we just continue to do what we have been until it works or we run completely out of resources.
And if we’re such a principled organisation, how is it that we justify investing in the stock market?
“So what else do we do then? If we don’t have any suggestions, then I say again, lets get the hep from people who do know how to do such things. Or do we just continue to do what we have been until it works or we run completely out of resources.”
In a word, yes, but with increased resolve and vigour. And the only resources we’re likely to run out of in the forseeable future is the loss of good comrades who become disillusioned and throw in the towel.
“And if we’re such a principled organisation, how is it that we justify investing in the stock market?”
The argument was won decades ago against those in the party who opposed opening a deposit account. While I and others consider there is an ethical element to the socialist case the party’s main plank is along class lines. Clawing back a little of the surplus value taken from our class is adequate justification.
Neil, part of our task is one of education.
For sure, many of us would like to be our own boss and not be under the thumb of a martinet manager and to have a say in the running of our workplace. Some coops offer such an alternative but are they a means for system change or able to take advantage of a niche market?
What changes is that the coops lose their credibility and drop many of their ethical values as they strive to compete against rivals who have no qualms about being ruthless and cut-throat. As I say, we have practical knowledge of this. Mondragon is the prize example. Orthodox businesses outsourced casual temporary staff and went offshore to cheaper waged countries to safeguard their profitability. When profits were threatened, they lay off staff. These trading decisions were exactly what Mondragon also did. A successful coop is a successful capitalist enterprise or they simply disappear.
As for trade unions, we have not stepped back but exhorted their militancy, to be more demanding if they can get away with it, as put by what Dave in another context explained – clawing back a bit more surplus value that are stolen from us by the employing class.
We have urged them to practice more democracy. We have voiced our support when they engage in strikes.
What we do not do is feed the left-wing fantasy that the unions, even the radical IWW-types, are able to make the leap from defensive industrial economic actions to revolutionary change through general strikes. Once again this conclusion is not some conjecture but from the study of actual class struggle events.
Telling people some home-truths does hurt them emotionally, but in the long-term a lot less painful than coming to realise they have been misled and lied to just for the sake of party recruitment. Understanding how coops and unions operate under capitalist conditions and what are their limitations offer the best chance of using them as a shield against the capitalist predators.
As for the suggestion that we hire a PR company to undertake an image rebrand for ourselves and conduct an advertising campaign for us. I am sure there maybe an agency out there that might share our outlook and approach and have the techniques to spread our message. But our task is not to bring socialism to the working class as the Internationale says, like saviours, but to assist our fellow-workers in their own emancipation.
“I’m not a charismatic speaker, and if I had the capacity to be one I wouldn’t. I’m really not interested in persuading people. What I like to do is help people persuade themselves. ” – Noam Chomsky
I was able to see the Coops when they were fully implemented by workers unions, and when communists used to work inside workers unions as part of the program of penetrating those workers organizations, all of them failed completely and became business enterprises, and part of the banking system.
There are no shortcuts to socialism-communism, and that is what many peoples have tried to do for several years, and all have failed
At the Socialist Party, our minimum and a maximum program is one only, and the same one: Socialism-communism, and we do not establish any difference,, or separate them
We don’t support any transitional period, or any transitional society, one is obsolete, and the other one is completely wrong, as well we do not support the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat, it is obsolete too.
I have always said that Lenin and the Leninists did not move further than the Communist Manifesto, they are still stuck in the year 1844, and Marx and Engels moved beyond their own Communist Manifesto, and the Socialist Party is in the XXI Century
The only way to understand all this is by doing the proper research, and reading the materials written by the Socialist Party, there is not any shortcut either, personally, I believe that the Socialist Party is a University of Socialism
So what else do we do then? If we don’t have any suggestions, then I say again, let’s get the hep from people who do know how to do such things. Or do we just continue to do what we have been until it works or we run completely out of resources?
I think that at the Socialist Party we have peoples who are doing many things in the proper way, and we have peoples able to do many things, and peoples who know what they are doing, and we have peoples with enough theoretical knowledge to run this political organization, but we can not do more of what we are doing. We are not an organization of leaders, we are not an enterprise, we do not need any consultant or any troubleshooter, we are a workes organizations, and we can not grab the workers by the hair in order to join our organization
So, it sounds like as a Party we should continue to publish and print propaganda, not much else, with the aim of educating the working class, but not persuading them of anything.
And is this working? How do we measure our success? Member numbers? Voters?
I still don’t feel like anything the Party is doing is actually making any difference. Who speaks of the SPGB or WSM? This thread is about how in the US it’s almost non-existent. I don’t feel like the SPGB is any kind of force in the UK.
But we seem OK with that, because we don’t want to actively persuade people of socialism, they must come to that conclusion themselves. How? By reading our magazine and pamphlets, I assume. So can we measure their readership to know if more or less people are engaging with us?
I just don’t want to be a passive participant in the fight for socialism. Perhaps that means the SPGB isn’t the place for me then… I don’t know.
I do believe however that if we don’t actively try and increase membership/support, not a great deal of people will voluntarily join. And I fear that unless we try something new, our membership average will continue to increase and our currently good financial status will also deteriorate.
Two of the many things that the Party has learnt in its 100 years of existence are that:
a) It is not our fault that the working class cannot hear us and
b) There is no magic formula that can transform someone into a socialist.
No political party has had a membership that has fought so tirelessly and consistently for socialism and any accusation of being complacent or sectarian etc. is an insult to those who have given their lives to the struggle. Every conceivable tactic has been tried but in the end it is history that will decide if and when we will be heard by the millions who will make the revolution. Our job is to be here for them when such a revolutionary epoch arises.
Neil, in your post #183691 on another thread you say: “I agree with the process of ‘insights’ but in this case it assumes that it was the SPGB that made me a socialist, which for me, it didn’t. As a socialist, I joined the SPGB.” If that’s the case, and it’s true for quite a few other members as well what do you suppose prevents other workers from becoming socialists? After all, isn’t capitalism supposed to produce its own gravediggers?
You also say: “I just don’t want to be a passive participant in the fight for socialism. Perhaps that means the SPGB isn’t the place for me then… I don’t know.” Is there another organisation with an identical aim to ours doing a far better job of persuading the working class than the SPGB? If so, which is it?
Dave Chesham wrote
You also say: “I just don’t want to be a passive participant in the fight for socialism. Perhaps that means the SPGB isn’t the place for me then… I don’t know.” Is there another organisation with an identical aim to ours doing a far better job of persuading the working class than the SPGB? If so, which is it?
That is a very good question. Just let me know when you find a better one. I have been looking for many years, and until now I have not found a better one, probably, it must look in another planet
So, it sounds like as a Party we should continue to publish and print propaganda, not much else, with the aim of educating the working class, but not persuading them of anything.
And is this working? How do we measure our success? Member numbers? Voters?Neil, I think it is a mistake to think that the future of the socialist movement is entirely in our hands. It is not. There are external factors beyond our control that have a profound influence on that. Why for example did the SPGB grow to a membership of over 1000 shortly after the war? It was because of the wider cultural shift in society at the time that made workers more amenable to socialist ideas.
More than anything else – and I keep on and on and on about this – what keep us small is, above all, the MERE FACT that we are small. Its what I call the “small party syndrome”. This can only be overcome if and when we reach a tipping point and a tipping point is certainly reachable.
There are certain things we need to do to put out own house in order to reach that tipping point sooner rather than later but, as I say, it is NOT entirely down to us. The future is not written in stone. It is entirely possible that developments taking shape in the world today could come together and give this movement a leg-up the likes of which we have never seen before in our entire history.
Never give up hope. Its not the awesome task of turning millions of workers into socialists that we should concern ourselves with from our standpoint as a small organisation; that will of its own accord as a matter of momentum. What should concern us now is clawing our way up to that tipping point when the “small party syndrome” that has impeded our growth for so long will start to vanish and the very growth of our movement will invite more growth. Its called a positive feedback loop and that’s what we should be aiming for in the short term
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.