‘The Libertarian-Communist’ newsletter
- This topic has 24 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The Libertarian Communist No. 29 Spring 2015 – now available at https://www.scribd.com/doc/262440271/The-Libertarian-Communist-No-29-Spring-2015Contents“Let the dead bury the dead”Marx After Marxism: An Interview with Moishe Postone: Platypus 2008Working for Capital in the 21st Century: Ricardo MondeCharlie Hebdo Interview: Jihadist and Muslim on the CouchClimate Change (Global Heating) NotesNatural Limits, Sustainability and Socialism: Gabriel LevyA Critique of Yanis Varoufakis: an Economist turned Minister of FinanceNever Work Conference at Cardiff UniversityAnti State, Non Market Group Directory
I read the first issue that criticized the spgb for its hostility toward other parties which have the same goal and aim. Why does the spgb prevent you from associating with other parties and why is the spgb so hostile toward them? If we were to unite with like minded parties we could make a bigger difference and socialist ideas would spread faster.
Capitalist Pig wrote:I read the first issue that criticized the spgb for its hostility toward other parties which have the same goal and aim. Why does the spgb prevent you from associating with other parties and why is the spgb so hostile toward them? If we were to unite with like minded parties we could make a bigger difference and socialist ideas would spread faster.Which other parties with the sam goal and aim? There aren't any…
Our Declaration of Principle has what is commonly know as the "hostility" clause.
Quote:7.That as all political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the interest of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all sections of the master class, the party seeking working class emancipation must be hostile to every other party.Our rule book is also explicitly clear on the issue.
Quote:6. A member shall not belong to any other political organisation or write or speak for any other political party except in opposition, or otherwise assist any other political party.Clause 7 of our principles does commit the SPGB to "there can only be one socialist party" in any country in the sense of only one party aiming at the winning of control of political power by the working class to establish socialism. How could there be more than one socialist party in any country trying to win political power for socialism? It just doesn't make sense. If this situation were to arise then unity and fusion would be the order of the day. The hostility clause only commits the SPGB to opposing all other political parties, defined as organisations that contest elections and/or make demands on governments to enact reforms, there needs to be only one working-class class party and that this must be opposed to all other parties which can only represent sections of the owning class and if there were two groups of organised socialists, with more or less the same principles, then it would be their duty to try to unite to further the coming into being of the single "ideal" socialist party, opposed to all others, mentioned in Clause 7. They would both want socialism; they would both favour democratic revolution to get it; they would both be democratically organised internally; they would both repudiate advocating or campaigning for reforms of capitalism. There would no doubt be differences over tactical questions (which presumably would be why there were two separate organisatiions), such as over the trade union question, the attitude a minority of socialists should adopt in parliament, even over whether religion was a social question or a private matter. But it would be the duty of the two groups to find a solution to this and form a single organisation.Concerning the hostility clause specifically, it is one issue that can justifiably put down to the 19th century social democrat roots of the SPGB since it stems from the early members experience of the SDF and the Socialist League. William Morris together with Aveling, Eleanor Marx, Belfort Bax and other members of the SDF, resigned and issued a statement giving their reasons, for "a body independent of the Social Democratic Federation". Yet they added: "We have therefore set on foot an independent organisation, the Socialist League, with no intention of acting in hostility to the Social Democratic Federation”. The main weakness, as some saw it, of the Socialist League was that it "had no intention of acting in hostility" to the SDF. When the Socialist Party was formed, its members made certain that their Declaration of Principles would include a hostility clause against all other parties (such as the SDF) who advocated palliatives, not socialism. Given the context when it was drawn up that the early members of the SPGB envisaged the party developing fairly rapidly into a mass party, not remaining the small educational group that it has done up to the present), what it says is that when the working class form a socialist party this party is not going to do any election or parliamentary deals with any other political party, either to get elected or to get reforms. Basically, the hostility clause applies to political parties, organisations aiming at winning control of political power. In fact, in the eyes of those who drew it up, it was about the attitude that a mass socialist party (such as along the lines of the German Social Democratic Party was then seen to be albeit with its warts and all) should take towards other political parties.In 1904 the SPGB raised the banner for such a single, mass socialist party and offered itself (proclaimed itself, actually) as the basis or embryo of such a party (Clause
. Not only did the working class in general, or in any great numbers, not "muster under its banner" but neither did all socialists. So we were left as a small propagandist group, but still committed to the principles set out in our declaration of principles. But we have never been so arrogant as to claim that we're the only socialists and that anybody not in the SPGB is not a socialist. There are socialists outside the SPGB, and some of them are organised in different groups.That doesn't mean that we are not opposed to the organisations they have formed, but we are not opposed to them because we think they represent some section of the capitalist class. We are opposed to them because we disagree with what they are proposing the working class should do to get socialism — and of course the opposite is the case too: they're opposed to what we propose. Apart from the SLP and its offshoots, nearly all the others who stand for a classless, stateless, moneyless, wageless society ("the non-market, anti-statist sector") are anti-parliamentary.For the SPGB, using the existing historically-evolved mechanism of political democracy (the ballot box, parliament) is the best and safest way for a socialist-minded working class majority to get to socialism. For them, it's anathema. For the SPGB, some of the alternatives they suggest (armed insurrection, a general strike) are anathema. We all present our respective proposals for working-class action to get socialism and, while criticising each other's proposals, not challenging each other's socialist credentials (engaging in comradely criticism). In the end, the working class itself will decide what to do."The thin red line " is condemned to remain thin it seems.At a later stage, when more and more people are coming to want socialism, a mass socialist movement will emerge to dwarf all the small groups and grouplets that exist today. In the meantime, the best thing we in the SPGB can do is to carry on campaigning for a world community based on the common ownership and democratic control of the Earth's natural and industrial resources in the interests of all Humanity. We in the WSM/SPGB will continue to propose that this be established by democratic, majority political action; the other groups will no doubt continue to propose their way to get there. And we'll see which proposal the majority working class takes up. It's not us handful of socialist/anarchists today who're going to establish socialism, but the mass of people out there. Until they move, we're stymied. Until then we agree to disagree. Those who want to argue that such a society should be established through democratic majority political action based on socialist understanding, and who want to concentrate on arousing this, will join the SPGB. Those argue that it will come about some other way, or want to do other things as well, will join some other group. And while at the same time addressing ourselves to non-socialists we should also keep on discussing with each otherImportantly, the hostility clause doesn't mean that we are hostile to everything. There are a whole range of non-socialist organisations out there, ranging from trade unions to claimants unions to community and tenants associations to which we are not opposed. Clause 7 does not mean that "if you are not with the SPGB, somehow you are automatically anti-socialist". Of course, there are, and always, have been socialists outside the party in the sense of people who want to see established, like us, a classless, stateless, wageless, moneyless society based on common ownership and democratic control with production solely for use not profit. The party has in fact always recognised this, right from the start, seeing some other groups as socialists with a mistaken view of how to get there. Clearly, such people and such groups are not in the same category as openly pro-capitalist groups.What about some of the anarchists, the original SLP? Of course there are socialists outside the SPGB, and some of them are organised in different groups, some (like us) even calling themselves a "party". That doesn't mean that we are not opposed to the organisations they have formed, but we are not opposed to them because we think they represent some section of the capitalist class. We are opposed to them because we disagree with their proposed method of getting rid of capitalism rather than because of the hostility clause. That opposition doesn't have to go as far as hostility. Our attitude to them is to try to convince them that the tactic they propose to get socialism is mistaken and to join with us in building up a strong socialist party. Of course, if we think that the tactic they advocate (such as minority action or armed uprising or a general strike by non-socialists) is dangerous to the working-class interest then we say so and oppose them. We are opposed to them because we disagree with what they are proposing the working class should do to get socialism — and, of course, the opposite is the case too, they are opposed to what we propose. We agree to disagree. Comradely disagreements.We cannot see any alternative to the present situation of each of us going our own way, putting forward our respective proposals for working-class action to get socialism and, while criticising each other's proposals, not challenging each other's socialist credentials. In the end, anyway, it's the working class itself who will decide what to do. For the moment, "our sector", the thin red line as some have called it, is condemned to remain an amorphous current. At a later stage, when more and more people are coming to want socialism, a mass united socialist movement will emerge to dwarf all the small groups and grouplets that exist today.In the meantime, the best thing we in the SPGB can do, is to carry on campaigning for a world community based on the common ownership and democratic control of the Earth's natural and industrial resources in the interests of all humanity. We in the SPGB will continue to propose that this be established by democratic, majority political action. Other groups will no doubt continue to propose your own way to get there. And, in the end, we'll see which proposal the majority working class takes up. When the socialist idea catches on we'll then have our united movement.To paraphrase the sci-fi Ken McLeod in the Stone Canal, an SPGBer answering the charge of sectarianism from a Trotskyite exclaims: “how can a member of a split from a split from a split from a split from a split from the Fourth International call US sectarian?” Such a similar reposte can be so easily directed at those on the anarcho/council communist milieu . In the main, it remains true that no other organisation or group comes anywhere near the comprehensive case which the SPGB set out. If there was one, myself and many others would be joining. Good intentions do not change the nature of organisations, and membership carries the responsibility for the actions of those organisations. The SPGB expects any working class organisation to possess democratic self-organisation, involving formal rules and structures, to prevent the emergence of unaccountable elites and endorses Jo Freeman's, Tyranny of Structurelessness.Our Parliament pamphlet puts it thus:- Quote:"The socialist political party (of which we are just a potential embryo) will not be something separate from the socialist majority. It will be the socialist majority self-organised politically, an instrument they have formed to use to achieve a socialist society. The structure of the future mass socialist party will have to reflect – to prefigure – the democratic nature of the society it is seeking to establish. It must be democratic, without leaders, with major decisions made by conferences of mandated and recallable delegates or by referendum, and other decisions made by accountable individuals and committees. It won’t have a leadership with the power to make decisions and tell the general membership what to do. In other words, it will be quite different both from the parties of professional politicians that stand for election today and from the vanguard parties of the Leninists….With the spread of socialist ideas all organisations will change and take on a participatory democratic and socialist character, so that the majority’s organisation for socialism will not be just political and economic, but will also embrace schools and universities, television, film-making, plays and the like as well as inter-personal relationships. We’re talking about a radical social revolution involving all aspects of social life."I hope that lengthy repetitive answer helps. I will further confess that different members of the party, present and past, do sometime verge on the importance and emphasis of the hostility clause…it has always been a healthy discussion feature within the SPGB and always will be as we encounter organisations such as The Zeitgeist Movement in the future.
DJP wrote:Capitalist Pig wrote:I read the first issue that criticized the spgb for its hostility toward other parties which have the same goal and aim. Why does the spgb prevent you from associating with other parties and why is the spgb so hostile toward them? If we were to unite with like minded parties we could make a bigger difference and socialist ideas would spread faster.Which other parties with the sam goal and aim? There aren't any…
Socialist Studies for one, there was also Keracher's Proletarian Party if I'm not mistaken.
jondwhite wrote:DJP wrote:Which other parties with the same goal and aim? There aren't any…Socialist Studies for one, there was also Keracher's Proletarian Party if I'm not mistaken.
That's rather academic considering they are now both defunct organisations. Even if that wasn't the case as far as the first one is concerned it wouldn't have wanted to 'unite' with us and we wouldn't have surely wanted to have anything to do with what was a thoroughly undemocratic, disaffected clique of mostly former members of the SPGB.
gnome wrote:jondwhite wrote:DJP wrote:Which other parties with the same goal and aim? There aren't any…Socialist Studies for one, there was also Keracher's Proletarian Party if I'm not mistaken.
That's rather academic considering they are now both defunct organisations. Even if that wasn't the case as far as the first one is concerned it wouldn't have wanted to 'unite' with us and we wouldn't have surely wanted to have anything to do with what was a thoroughly undemocratic, disaffected clique of mostly former members of the SPGB.
As far as I know Socialist Studies still meet and publish their journal.
jondwhite wrote:gnome wrote:That's rather academic considering they are now both defunct organisations. Even if that wasn't the case as far as the first one is concerned it wouldn't have wanted to 'unite' with us and we wouldn't have surely wanted to have anything to do with what was a thoroughly undemocratic, disaffected clique of mostly former members of the SPGB.As far as I know Socialist Studies still meet and publish their journal.
So are you saying that four known surviving members constitute a viable political party? Wowee, that's some force to be reckoned with!
Quote:that four known surviving members constitute a viable political party?I hate to point out that we also suffer similar situations concerning viable branches.But on the broader level…we have non-functioning companion parties….and those that do exist are infinitely insignificant…WSPNZ operating from a converted garage..WSPUS with a bust website that i'm told has be in this disrepair for months..WSP(India) a handful in a population of billions…SPC members try hard but no comparison with the SPC of old. We've seen the WSPI (Ireland) and the WSP of Australia disappear, entirelyWe ourselves as a viable political party survive only because of dead men's legacies…eventually we will not have the replacement members for the deceased and i have previously mentioned this age demographic situation before and the legacies will also gradually dwindle as we pay the expensive upkeep of HO and the monthly print-run of the Socialist Standard.But my point in my post was that there are other organisations with the same objective as us…Anarchist Federation, for one, and Zeitgeist another, both as different from eachother as they are from us in our respective strategies to achieve our common aim. The question is…are we having any more success in comunicating our ideas to fellow workers to compete with them…and particularly to the new generation of workers…i am pessimistic that we are and i base that on the optimism that we were a growing active party in the 60s and 70s, tapping into a general upswell of political consciousness.Now, each time there is a shift in political awareness, the Party (for whatever reason) is slow to react and take advantage. John Crump in his critique talked for his earlier generation …Others today like Stuart Watkins was disillusioned by the lack of interaction with Occupy…( it gives me no sense of satisfaction that we were proved right, in the end)We are sl….ow …maybe it is the steady approach of our democratic process that is the cause…but equally that decision-making is also our main safe-guard to recklessness…But until we begin to talk to people on their wave-length, which is social media it seems, we are not going to be viable.Until we are also seen to be present (even if not actually involved) in social protests nobody is going to notice us or take any notice of us. You all know my attitude by now…keep flogging away at dead horse regardless of how few heed…and strange as it seems…every mention by me of the need of a dedicated post-election discussion is never ever answered…Until we agree on the means to how to get to our goal, we'll still go around in circles.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.