[alanjjohnstone]

So, as in your case that the Tories even passed specific laws against the existence of socialist parties, perhaps under the pretext of hate speech and advocacy of class war that doesn't preclude violence if necessary, we would be unable to share a platform, be co-signatures to any statement or co-operate in anyway with rival parties groups to campaign against restrictions on democracy.Are we so insecure in our identity and the strength of our case that we have to always be separate and isolated, even to the point of sacrificing our actual existence as a party,  for the very obvious reason that our own feeble voice of resistance and insignificant opposition certainly won't be suffice to succeed on its own. But i suppose our extinction would be for the greater good in the end…or so it might be argued by some. 

Quote:

"Socialism is concerned with justice. Capitalism is concerned with law and order…when the power or privilege of capitalism is threatened, when its property is endangered, when the 'peace' or 'order' it needs to carry out its extraction of profits from the labour of the working class, then . . .capitalism becomes our armed thug ! In such circumstances the whole power of the capitalist state can be used against the working class without compunction. The friendly "bobby" can become a club-wielding fiend; the children's party-giving soldiers can become cold machine murderers."

By working with others to expose and protect our class and our party from this "Iron Heel" scenario , is it really the same as getting elected on a policy of reforms and being held prisoner of the non-socialists who supported only the reforms and not the goal? Again are we saying that we have a working class so ignorant that they are unable to understand the nuances of our position and tactics in day-to-day class struggle, one separate from an election campaign. 

[alanjjohnstone]

If we want further reading I suggest from our own archives we re-acquaint ourselves with this article “Revolutionary Reformism” [http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1900s/1905/no-10-june-1905/revolutionary-reform ] which may well have something to offer in the difference between reformism and reforms.

Quote:

“To dream of bettering the conditions of existence by political means is Utopia. Although the bettering of the conditions of existence by way of political reform is impossible, it is not the same as regards the conditions of fighting, and it appears to us to be possible to make easier the struggle of the proletariat against the capitalist middle-class. We do not here make a specious distinction. To distinguish between the conditions of fighting and the conditions of existence is not to split a hair. The difference is real… Rebels are not made of the starved and wretched: rebellion is a luxury….”

This has to be counterposed to this later explanation of the Party position to reforms

Quote:

“the Party must, therefore, make use of, ignore, or resist, any reform as determined by the particular circumstances. Consequently it cannot seek support for or advocate any policy of reform or anti-reform, for such must always be sacrificed upon occasion for its object, while such policies might—as seen in other organisations- attract those who do not accept the object of the Party, thus weakening its definite aim. All such matters are considered by it as worthy of attention only in so far as they bear distinctly on the question of working-class emancipation.This subordination of all means to one end, and of all issues to the supreme one of the conquest of the State for Socialism, is the only logical policy for the Socialist Party. Without it, indeed, the party could not be Socialist…the S.P.G.B. is necessarily hostile toward all reforms, and considers them as being in every case inevitably "detrimental to working-class interest."

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1911/no-83-july-1911/socialist-party-and-reformsYet I would advise reading this observation offered by this article [ http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1911/no-87-november-1911/socialist-and-trade-unionism ]

Quote:

If, when a worker attains to class-consciousness, he ceases to require food, clothing and shelter, ceases to be a vendor of labour-power, ceases to be under the necessity which all commodity owners are under—of fighting for the realisation of the value of his commodity, in this case labour-power; if, in short, he ceases to be anything but a pure abstraction in whom even the charitable raven could find no want to minister to, no lodgement for a beakful of material sustenance, then it might be logical to say that no Socialist can belong to a trade union.But if the class-conscious worker still must live by the sweat of his brow, or rather by the sale of his potential energy, then he must resort to the instrument which make the conditions of a sale, as distinct from the conditions which environ the chattel slave’s dole.Among these instruments, for a certain number, are, under present conditions, trade unions on a non-revolutionary base. And as far as the Socialist thinks them necessary to his personal economic welfare, as far, that is, as economic pressure forces him to, he is right and justified in using them.And when I speak of economic pressure I do not mean merely the degree of it which marks the border-line of semi-starvation. Economic pressure, it is too often forgotten, commences with the first atomic offering of economic advantage, and the degree where the individual is sensible of it and consciously influenced by it, is here or there as circumstances decide.The critic who would “determinedly and consciously” fight the trade unions “out of existence” provides no alternative instrument for carrying on the struggle against capitalist encroachment now.”

Surely as we also stated [http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1930s/1938/no-407-july-1938/editorial-socialist-minority-parliament ]

Quote:

“Socialist M.P.s would vote for or against measures introduced by other parties, or refrain from voting, in accordance with the Socialist Party's view as to which course would be in the interest of the working class and Socialism…they would vote for certain measures "as giving the workers some small benefit, whilst at the same time pointing out that Socialism was the only satisfactory solution to the problem. Socialist M.P.s would obviously not vote against a measure which simply raised old-age pensions, or raised wages, or helped trade union organisation, or made it easier to carry on Socialist propaganda or organisation…”

If this is to be our practice for the future, why wait?

[alanjjohnstone]

I thought the difference has been quite clear for those in the party. Reformism is a believe that either a capitalism can be made into a system devoid of many of its social problems and/or socialism can be achieved in steps through the enactment of a series of reforms – otherwise labelled gradualism.What our difficulty is how do we approach reforms and how we relate to workers engaged in fighting for reforms.  Some on the forum know I am fond of quoting Solidarity’s As We See It

Quote:

“Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self -activity of the masses and whatever assists in their demystification. Sterile and harmful action is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses, their apathy, their cynicism, their differentiation through hierarchy, their alienation, their reliance on others to do things for them and the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others – even by those allegedly acting on their behalf.”

On the other thread I have cautioned that we shouldn’t pigeon-hole

Quote:

“Sometimes the purpose of a reform campaign is questionable, other times it is the tactics they are using, and others it is the organisational structure running it. But we are accustomed to not expecting perfection in the union movement. My problem is how to offer critical support that does not deter what people are doing by discouraging them  nor distancing them from ourselves by not always agreeing.”

There is no point in us simply patting reformers on the back and saying, keep up the good work. I read a blog by an American prisoner who said something along the lines that, call for all the changes you want on conjugal visitor rights, parole, rehabilitation programmes etc etc but in the end you still defend a system where people are locked up for property-related and non-violent crimes. We have to be able to confront reformers without alienating them.It means we have to be selective in where we devote our efforts towards. Not merely for the sake of allocating our resources and efforts in a worthwhile manner to the literally millions of campaigns out there. I mentioned another attitude we should possess…the dangers of parachuting into reform campaigns where we have no actual connection with – but instead that individuals should preferably either have some sort personal link or the party, a pressing class concern.I think we also must make a differentiation between reformism and resistance. For instance on the thread about the proposed laws by the Tories I consider protesting against them for the party is valid. In regards to the crises concerning refugees and migrants right now coming out clearly on the side of our fellow workers and advancing an open-door reform to border control is a class response, not merely a humanitarian gesture, by the party.  To give another example of our presentation problem, I am sure in these centenary years of WW1 many of us are puzzled why despite our unwavering opposition and the personal sacrifice of numerous members, the party rarely receives a mention when it comes to reviewing opposition to the war. It surely cannot be a conspiracy by historians singling the SPGB and erasing us from history-books.I think it is to do with the fact that we ourselves distanced ourselves from other anti-war activists. Again, as individuals, I recall reading of members coaching and representing non-party conscientious objectors at their tribunals. I recall reading that the Socialist Standard re-published a call for an international anti-war conference. We could have went a lot further and acted as a conduit for anti-war activism and it needn’t have jeopardised our socialist credentials but reinforced them.To close, we have to hammer out our views on how we politically engage with reforms since I think we have already sufficiently agreed a collective position on reformism. We worked hard from our earliest years to develop an analysis on trade unionism BUT I think we still fail to communicate with the trade union movement. It is pretty much the same issue we have on both fronts – applying our ideas politically and actually giving meaning and depth to the phrase “socialist movement”.The criticism that we are not a real political party and definitely not a movement is fully justified until we begin to influence and shape the ideas and aims of the working class to make change a real possibility and not some airy-fairy aspiration far in the future when somehow the SPGB are transformed by a tremendous influx of members. My question is – and I claim no answer – is how do we achieve a mass membership. I mentioned on Libcom, that one thing confirmed by all our election activity over the years, is that all we got to lose is 0.2% of voters. Not a lot to risk if we decide to experiment or even gamble with a new way of doing our politics. 

[alanjjohnstone]

In response to Gnome can i suggest this sort of scenario arising. Chairman of a meeting: "You at the front, you are asking too many questions and making too many points.I know everybody else is getting to say their piece and you aren't stopping them in anyway from expressing themselves and we have plenty of time to discuss and debate but i'm ruling that you are too mouthy, being too lippy…so shut up.Stay quiet from now on regardless of any subsequent topic that crops up or any other future remark made by another, otherwise i will expel you from the meeting. I'm the chairman and i can do this." and then brings down his hammer on the gavel. Anyways, we witnessed the 3-message rule on the previous forum and saw its ineffectiveness at being put into practice. Why repeat mistakes?

[alanjjohnstone]

I have suggested that one weakness i have experienced is that there is no visible list of those sitting in the "sin-bin"  of a suspension. People should be aware of the reason that requests and exchanges on various threads are being involuntarily ignored.Also who knows, naming (and shaming) may even help

[alanjjohnstone]

Once more the subject of the increasing resistance to existing anti-biotics, the over-use of them in livestock farming has been covered by our SOYMB blog in a number of posts.http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/search?q=antibiotics

[alanjjohnstone]

Meel, you previously asked a question but i had an enforced absence so apologies for not responding but the conversation i see has moved on. However for the record

Quote:

You did not state explicitly whether you agree with the SP case on "capitalist conditioning".  If you agree, how would you answer my question at the end of my paragraph third to last in my (previous to last) post?

The obvious anser is that there has to be very much more to human nature/behaviour than "capitalist conditioning" simply for the fact that capitalism didn't become the dominant social system until the 16/17th C. Other pre-capitalist relationships had their effect and as Marx said the "muck of ages" can persist long after the need for it. Attitudes of racism,sexism,etc etc despite being used by some for division are more undermined by capitalism itself. Our pamphlet on apartheid i think expressed it ..the belief in apartheid (and its ideology of racial superiority) had to fall for the benefit of capitalism to fully develop. I go along with the prevailing view that we have various genetical dispostions to certain ways of acting (both negative and positive) but that social/societal situations are required to trigger them.  i expect you have by now read the references to this reporthttp://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/14/early-men-women-equal-scientists

[alanjjohnstone]

A game of musical chairs…?

[alanjjohnstone]

When we consider the experience of the real world, we should be very concerned about where it can all lead. We have already seen existing anti-terrorist laws being used against protesters and political activists with no regard to any supposed terror threat context. . We know that the State has revived and resurrected obscure age-old laws.The law on religious officials influencing election, recently cited on the forum, originally brought in to counter Catholic church priests from influencing the Irish vote, now being applied to Muslim imams.We see strikes obstructed by injunctions and by the police enforcing rarely used laws to stop the movement of pickets during the Miner Strike.Our blog  explains how Canada is using a small amendment to have a great effect on their "hate crime" law to stop the BDS campaign against Israel. http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2015/05/free-speech.htmlALB very appropriately highlights the anti-union laws proposals which may well extend to the internet and social media freedoms to comment and express support and solidarity. It should also all be linked to the Tory intention to withdraw from international law obligations and re-write human rights the way they want it to applyThe issue for us as a party and as individuals is how far should we oppose what is the start of a slippery slope, the thin edge of the wedge and all the other cliches.Should it be the last straw that breaks the back of our anti-reformism passivity?We rightly place much weight upon our democracy but will we defend it? I recall from my reading of of our party history (the experts can perhaps fill in the details) that we were active in protecting free speech in Hyde Park, Glasgow Green and other open-air forums when the authorities sought to close them down. Could we cooperate with others in opposing the ongoing curtailment of our freedoms as workers and citizens to organise without mounting threats to that? Or does our hostility clause trumps all? 

[alanjjohnstone]

i had no intention of being critical of a person's talk but what i found questionable was the exchange on cannibalism. I first heard the rationale about the lack of protein from some French (or was he Spanish) historian/anthropologist, forget his name or the book, it was a long time ago, and he tried to use the Aztec sacrifice and the preponderance of only maize in the diet to explain human sacrifice and cannibalism. Not sure but i think that interpretation has been challenged. Many cannibalistic traditions is in the form of religious ritual and shamanism..acquiring the power of another person etc, or so i have been led to believe. 

Quote:

Children, far from starting out in life as emphatic, are not able to put themselves in somebody else’s place, to see the world from another’s vantage point, until they are about 6.

 i am no expert on child psychology but the simple google search confirms your statement but adds a caveat, qualifying it 

Quote:

 but youngsters do have the emotional – rather than cognitive — ability to pick up on another child's feelings and match them with their own.

http://www.sesamestreet.org/parents/topics/getalong/getalong01But i repeat i have not read very much about it. I agree about how basic training and the dehumanisation of the enemy plus the fear of military disciplne turns ordinary ( but perhaps testosterone-high males) into killers.I recall reading Himmler visited the eastern front to inspect the slaughter of Jews and Communists and returned with the opinion that there has to be a better (sic) way…a less personal manner of extermination because ot it. But here the debate over Hitlers Willing Executioners is of interest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_Willing_Executionersi read about the Bonobo before…apparently aside from human females they are the only other species where females experience orgasms…(but have they tested dolphins, i ask you, eh?)I think we can all agree with your conclusion that we can generalise and accept the exceptions to the rule or a particular contradictory study and support the position that  basically human nature is not an obstacle to either establishing socialism or a socialist society's functioning. How we develop psychologically and socially once capitalism is ended , well, the science fiction writers such as Marge Piercy is better qualified to speculate.

[alanjjohnstone]

BTW, Stuart, when you return can i have your opinion on these statements and where you disagree:“That's why, actually, we are not sectarian and the left are. We join workers struggles as workers. We take part in the democratic process as equals with our fellows. We do not join for purposes of our own; we have no programme of demands hidden up our sleeves to be produced at a later date, nor a one-party dictatorship to produce as a nasty surprise at an even later date. That's why, when we join workers struggles as individuals and not as a leadership party, and reject the left, we are not being sectarian — quite the opposite. We are being principled socialists. As for the proposal to join a new SDF, what's the point? We'd just have to leave it again, as we did the old one. ”“Workers do not need any advice or leadership from socialists when it comes to struggling to defend their own interests within capitalism. They do it all by themselves all the time. However, such struggles have their limits within capitalism: they cannot go beyond the law of value, and the combined forces of the capitalists and the state can almost always defeat them if they put their mind to it. Workers who realise this tend to become socialists. As they become socialists, they see the necessity for going beyond such day to day struggles (these unavoidable and incessant guerilla battles, as Marx put it) and the need for a political party aimed solely for socialism. This political party must not advocate reforms, not because it is against reforms (how on earth could a working class party be against reforms in the working class interest?), but because it wants to build support for socialism, and not for reforms.”“We do not oppose workers defending their social wage. See recent issues of our journal, the Socialist Standard, for confirmation. What we oppose is a socialist party promising to do something about the social wage, NHS, etc, not because it really gives a stuff, or is deluded enough to think that capitalism can deliver on its demands, but because it wants to recruit members, win votes, or give workers an education in failure, in the limits of struggle. The reason we are against such tactics are amply demonstrated by recent history, eg, of the Labour Party.”

[alanjjohnstone]

I'm not sure if i am doing the right thing by drawing attention to the way our blog reports various reform movements and humanitarian causes. To end every post about the tragedies and suffering with the usual sign-off…"only socialism which is blah blah blah, will end this" would be rather repetitive, and it would also be emasculating those who are striving to protest and resist, sometimes successfully in particular cases. We report and highlight the problems caused by capitalism and we relay information and pass on statements of those involved in trying to end or mitigate those situations.TWC, since you are in Australia, in the past the blog, for example, has featured the immigration policy of the Australian govenment and offered expressions of working class solidarity and sympathy to the asylum seekers and economic migrants detained or turned back. We have linked this to Fortress Europe, the UKIP anti- Eastern European and to South African xenohobia. In fact perhaps the current bioat people crises in SE Asia is caused by the lead of the Australian position of naval interception forcing refugees to seek sanctuary in less wealthy countries with less state infrastructure to cope. The blog has called for an end to this treatment, if not directly but by inference . Do you expect the blog to demonise the many organisations that are challenging the prevailing false capitalist narratives and who are trying to stop these actions of capitlaist inhumanity in every message we post. Or do we applaud that some put solidarity and fellowship before vested interests. In regard to the blogs environmental coverage, it has been pointed out that we cannot achieve socialism if the world has already been destroyed and our message is constantly that without socialism the world will be destroyed. And the ecological mission can only be achieved by a socialist society and that the se activists must adopt the aim…but, importantly, we do not say they should also then abandon their campaigns and protests and concentrate solely on the socialist case, as i think Vin, suggests we do, (forgetting his NERB comrade's critique of fracking perhaps). Understanding the underlying cause of the problem helps the immediate fight. If we want to present life as simply only black and white with no shades of grey, we will be seen as having no true perspective of reality. …i argue much of the issue for the SPGB is our presentation, and our practice, not our theory that a working class incapable or unwilling to struggle against the effects of capitalism are not going to be able to organise for the fight for socialism. I can’t find the source but I am sure the SPGB explained that does not minimise the necessity or importance of the workers keeping up the struggle to maintain wage-levels and resisting cuts, etc.If they always yielded to the demands of their exploiters without resistance they would not be worth their salt, nor be fit for waging the class struggle to put an end to exploitation. However I did note thisThe Socialist Standard wrote  

Quote:

"It seems unlikely that the working class and its organisations are strong enough to stop these austerity measures being imposed, let alone imposing their own demands. But we must start from where we are. David Cameron and the new government will be expecting that you’ll just take whatever’s coming to you. We must try to prove them wrong…where socialists have their most vital contribution to make – a clear idea about alternatives is not mere utopianism, but an important ingredient in inspiring successful struggle. An upturn in class war, such as we’re seeing in Greece, and may perhaps soon be seeing in this country too, is the only basis on which socialism can begin to make sense and seem like a credible and possible alternative to capitalism for the working class as a whole."

my emphasisAnother Socialist Standard said  

Quote:

"We welcome any upsurge in the militancy and resistance and organisation of our class. But we also know, from bitter experience, that work of an altogether quieter, patient, more political kind is also needed. The skirmishes in the class war must be fought if we are not to be reduced to beasts of burden. But as human animals capable of rational thought and long-term planning, we must also seek to stop the skirmishes by winning the class war, and thereby ending it. .."

again my emphasisTo repeat my previous post, I see little wrong with people campaigning for reforms that bring essential improvements and enhance the quality of their lives, and some reforms do indeed make a difference to the lives of millions and can be viewed as "successful". There are examples of this in such fields as education, housing, child employment, work conditions and social security. Socialists have to acknowledge that the "welfare" state, the NHS and so on, made living standards for some sections of the working class better than they had been under rampant capitalism and its early ideology of laissez faire, although these ends should never be confused with socialism. However, in this regard we also recognise that such "successes" have in reality done little more than to keep workers and their families in efficient working order and, while it has taken the edge of the problem, it has rarely managed to remove the problem completely. Socialists do not oppose reformism because it is against improvements in workers' lives lest they dampen their revolutionary ardour; nor, because it thinks that decadent capitalism simply cannot deliver on any reforms; but because our continued existence as propertyless wage slaves undermines whatever attempts we make to control and better our lives through reforms. Our objection to reformism is that by ignoring the essence of class, it throws blood, sweat and tears into battles that will be undermined by the workings of the wages system. All that effort, skill, energy, all those tools could be turned against class society, to create a society of common interest where we can make changes for our common mutual benefit. So long as class exists, any gains will be partial and fleeting, subject to the ongoing struggle. What we are opposed to is the whole culture of reformism, the idea that capitalism can be tamed and made palatable with the right reforms. If the view remains that the struggle for reforms is worthwhile then imagine just how many palliatives and ameliorations will be offered and conceded by a besieged capitalist class in a desperate attempt to retain ownership rights if the working class were demanding the maximum socialist programme of full and complete appropriation and nothing less. Reforms now derided as utopian will become two-a-penny in an attempt to fob off the workers. Perhaps, even, capitalism will provide a batch of free services, on the understanding that this is "the beginning" of a free society, but, of course real socialists will not be taken in.The welfare state – most particularly its health service component – originally represented an advance for many workers, though it was certainly not introduced with benevolence in mind. We have never said that all reforms are doomed to failure and do not really make a difference to workers' lives?  There are many examples of 'successful' reforms in such fields as education, housing, child employment, conditions of work and social security. The Socialist Party does not oppose all reforms as such, only the futile and dangerous attempt to seek power to administer capitalism on the basis of a reform programme – reformism.But as Vin has pointed out and the moderator no doubt will caution, we have strayed considerably from the topic of Russell Brand

[alanjjohnstone]

Or alternatively demand the return of Northumbria which can now include that Yorkshire First regional party

[alanjjohnstone]

North of England to secede to Scotland petition – signed now by almost 18,000…https://www.change.org/p/the-uk-government-allow-the-north-of-england-to-secede-from-the-uk-and-join-scotland?recruiter=30737323&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_facebook_responsive&utm_term=des-lg-no_src-no_msg

[alanjjohnstone]

I would have thought Vin and TWC that campaigns by the trade unions since Marx's time of limits to the working day but since then,  score after score of health and safety regulations in industry such as the end of child labour and the ongoing campaigns against such in the Third World. Of course, you wll counter and with some justification that only laws that benefit the ruling class are passed or enforced but in many cases that is indeed the situation where the working class are using the divisions and rIvalry of various sections of the ruling class fo its own benefit and which reduces the share of surplus value for their share of profit.  Vin you worked in an industry that spawned probably more numerous legislation laws specifically for itself than any other industry. Are you saying that each and every mining regulation was fully supported, firstly by the private mine owners and then the state – owned NCB. Or did not the union have any say and muscle in their enforcement. 

Quote:

It must be acknowledged that our labourer comes out of the process of production other than he entered. In the market he stood as owner of the commodity “labour-power” face to face with other owners of commodities, dealer against dealer. The contract by which he sold to the capitalist his labour-power proved, so to say, in black and white that he disposed of himself freely. The bargain concluded, it is discovered that he was no “free agent,” that the time for which he is free to sell his labour-power is the time for which he is forced to sell it, that in fact the vampire will not lose its hold on him “so long as there is a muscle, a nerve, a drop of blood to be exploited.”  For “protection” against “the serpent of their agonies,” the labourers must put their heads together, and, as a class, compel the passing of a law, an all-powerful social barrier that shall prevent the very workers from selling. by voluntary contract with capital, themselves and their families into slavery and death.n place of the pompous catalogue of the “inalienable rights of man” comes the modest Magna Charta of a legally limited working-day, which shall make clear “when the time which the worker sells is ended, and when his own begins.” Quantum mutatus ab illo! [What a great change from that time! – Virgil] 

Oh, so despite what i take as his bit of sarcasm (or is irony) at the end and even when workers themselves opposed it, Marx understood the need for reform and the campaign for it as a class need. I dare say you would indeed accept the end of the free medical service and free education because they benefit the ruling class as a whole by making us better and fitter workers, more profitable for employers. I dare say the reason we can see a host of public health laws is because the ruling class don't have a natural immunity to disease and that now the back-lash to such legislation is that they simply live elsewhere rather than tackling it. i dare say the over-60s in Scotland should surrender their free bus passes as being sectional bribes to a redundant cast-off ex-workers…but of course you will claim the bus company capitalists like Brian Soutar, the SNP supporter, designed and defended such a travel concession. Oh, his company doesn't support it and describes it as forcing Tesco to prove pensioners with free food despite government subsidies to compensate…again the capitalist class collectively picking up the bill…and many demurring at what they deem an unnecessary cost to them… Are we not to make the reproduction of daily life, to cite the title of the pamphlet recommended by Stuart, as expensive as possible for the ruling class. that we are to help out our employers by selling our sweat and blood as cheaply as possible and not exacting as high a price for it as we can. Surely we should and these demands shouldn't stop at the factory gate but extend to every aspect of our life. When workers gathered together and insisted that the employer enter into collective negotations on their contracts or face a walk-out, is it not the same as when a group of tenants join as an association and demand changes to their leases and threaten a rent strike. I believe our position was to oppose reformism, not reforms themselves since some will be beneficial.  

Quote:

Some workers welcome reforms; some reforms have improved working class conditions, but no reform can abolish that basic contradiction between profits and need.

my emphasis

Quote:

In 1910 some members, interpreting this principled anti-reformism as a dogmatic opposition to all reforms under capitalism, put their point by writing a letter to the Socialist Standard signed "W. B. of Upton Park". The reply given to them was that a single socialist or a minority of socialists elected to parliament on the basis of whether such measures benefitted or harmed the working class. For example, if measures extending the freedom of socialists to disseminate ideas or reducing election deposits or banning religious control of schooling were on the agenda it is quite possible that a socialist minority would be instructed to vote for them…Like dogmatic sectarians, inspired by doctrine to dismiss social reality, they went as far as to argue that no reforms have ever helped or could ever benefit the working class. The exchange of documents between the Executive Committee, expressing the position which we maintain today, and the ultra-sectarian Committee, of which McCartney was possibly a member, is highly educative and explains well why our party is opposed to reformism but not to reforms.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1993/no-1063-march-1993/book-review-dare-be-daniel-history-one-britains-earWalking the line of defending reforms gained or struggling for improvements and reformism is a tight one to walk and the reason why i quoted Luxemburg…that sometimes workers may well not get it always right but as a class they will recover while submitting to a party line all the time is always self-defeating. Once more i refer to actual practice of a socialist delegate to parliament

Quote:

O’Brien concluded by saying: “I have no confidence in either of you, and it does not matter to me which of you win. It is a fight between political representatives of different corporations over surplus values that have been and are to be stolen from my class. When I voted on the last division I did so because I saw an opportunity to benefit a few of my class, the laborers in the construction camp. There is no opportunity to get anything for the workers on this vote, and I shall not vote. On every vote where there is no opportunity to get something for my class, I shall not vote. On every vote where there is no opportunity to get anything for my class, I shall leave the House and refrain from voting. The Attorney General has said that this is a family quarrel. Correct. Between you be it!”  And O’Brien left the House.

– The Proletarian in Politics, https://www.worldsocialism.org/canada/

[Author]

Posts