alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Perhaps i should amalgamate and re-phrase the extracts i provided to offer a version of the Luxemburg case….. “The most important aim of socialist activity in a parliament, the education of the working class, is achieved by a systematic criticism of the ruling party and its politics. The socialists are too far removed from the bourgeois order to be able to achieve practical and thorough-going reforms of a progressive character. Therefore, principled opposition to the ruling party becomes, for every minority party and above all for the socialists, the only feasible method with which to achieve practical results. Elementary principles for the practical activity of Social Democracy depend on the above conception: the socialist struggle must be a mass struggle of the proletariat. It must be a daily struggle for the democratization of the institutions of the state, for the raising of the intellectual and material level of the working class, and at the same time, for the organization of the working masses into a particular political party which consciously sets itself against the entire bourgeois society in its struggle for a socialist revolution. That which separates the Social Democratic position from those of other socialist movements is, above all, its conception of the transformation of the modern society into a socialist society. In other words, its conception of the relationship between the immediate tasks of socialism and its final goals. The basic question of the socialist movement has always been how to bring its immediate practical activity into agreement with its ultimate goal. Our minimal program has a very specific meaning. We know that socialism cannot be introduced all at once, as if it were shot from a pistol, but only if we force small reforms from the existing order by leading a sharp class struggle on an economic and political basis in order to increase our economic and political strength, to take power, and finally to wring the neck of today’s society. To that end our minimal demands are tailored to the present. We will take everything they give us, but we must demand the entire political program. Precisely because we do not yield one inch from our position, we force the government and the bourgeois parties to concede to us the few immediate successes that can be gained. [If we demand the 8 hour day we do not negotiate in the meantime for the 10hour day] The fragmentation of even these minimal demands into still smaller morsels goes against all our tactics. We must make our minimum demands in unamended form. Even if we are ready to accept any installment, we must leave it to the bourgeois parties themselves to whittle down our demands to fit their interests. Precisely because we do not yield one inch from our position, we force the government and the bourgeois parties to concede to us the few immediate successes that can be gained. But if we begin to chase after what is ‘possible’ according to the principles of opportunism, unconcerned with our own principles, and by means of statesmanlike barter, then we will soon find ourselves in the same situation as the hunter who has not only failed to stay the deer but has also lost his gun in the process. If we were, in this fashion, to make a small fraction of our minimal program into the real practical minimal program, then what we now see as our minimal program would become our ultimate goal, and true ultimate goal would be entirely cut off from reality and would indeed become merely “revolutionary sloganeering”. Thus a prerequisite for the conversion to socialism must be the conquest of political power by the working class and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, a necessary step for the institution of transitional measures. But in order to be able to fulfill this task, the working masses must be fully aware of their goal and become a class-organized mass. On the other hand, the bourgeois society must have already reached a state of economic as well as political development which allows the introduction of socialist institutions.” ……And that is merely from my selective quoting and presenting Luxemburg’s reformist approach in her own words.
And another of Luxemburg discussing reforms. http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1898/09/30.htm The basic question of the socialist movement has always been how to bring its immediate practical activity into agreement with its ultimate goal. The various ‘schools’ and trends of socialism are differentiated according to their various solutions to this problem. And Social Democracy is the first socialist party that has understood how to harmonize its final revolutionary goal with its practical day-to-day activity, and in this way it has been able to draw broad masses into the struggle. Why then is this solution particularly harmonious? Stated briefly and in general terms, it is that the practical struggle has been shaped in accordance with the general principles of the party programme….Precisely because we do not yield one inch from our position, we force the government and the bourgeois parties to concede to us the few immediate successes that can be gained. But if we begin to chase after what is ‘possible’ according to the principles of opportunism, unconcerned with our own principles, and by means of statesmanlike barter, then we will soon find ourselves in the same situation as the hunter who has not only failed to stay the deer but has also lost his gun in the process…"
Another article bt Luxemburg for your reading listhttp://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1903/02/proletariat-party.htm “That which separates the Social Democratic position from those of other socialist movements is, above all, its conception of the transformation of the modern society into a socialist society. In other words, its conception of the relationship between the immediate tasks of socialism and its final goals. From the standpoint of Social Democracy, which bases its views on the theory of scientific socialism, the transition to a socialist society can only be the result of a phase of development, of greater or lesser duration. This development, to be sure, does not preclude the necessity for the final conversion of society by means of a violent political overthrow, that is, by what is usually called revolution. However, this resolution is impossible if the bourgeois society has not previously passed through the necessary phases of development. This development must take place in the objective factor of the socialist overthrow, the capitalist society itself, as well as in the subjective factor, the working class. Beginning with the principle of scientific socialism that the “liberation of the working class can only be achieved by the working class itself.” Social Democracy recognizes that only the working class as such can carry out the overthrow, that is, the revolution for the realization of the socialist transformation. By working class, it means the truly broad mass of the workers, above all the industrial proletariat. Thus a prerequisite for the conversion to socialism must be the conquest of political power by the working class and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, a necessary step for the institution of transitional measures. But in order to be able to fulfill this task, the working masses must be fully aware of their goal and become a class-organized mass. On the other hand, the bourgeois society must have already reached a state of economic as well as political development which allows the introduction of socialist institutions. These prerequisites are dependent on one another and influence each other reciprocally. The working class cannot attain to any organization or consciousness without specific political conditions which allow an open class struggle, that is, without democratic institutions within the framework of the state. And conversely, the attaining of democratic institutions in the state and their spread into the working class is – at a certain historical moment, in a certain phase in the development of class antagonism – impossible without the active struggle of a conscious and organized proletariat. The solution to this apparent paradox lies in the dialectical process of the class struggle of the proletariat fighting for democratic conditions in the state and at the same time organizing itself and gaining class consciousness. Because it gains this class consciousness and organizes itself in the course of the struggle, it achieves a democratization of the bourgeois state and, in the measure that it itself ripens, makes the bourgeois state ripe for a socialist revolution. Elementary principles for the practical activity of Social Democracy depend on the above conception: the socialist struggle must be a mass struggle of the proletariat. It must be a daily struggle for the democratization of the institutions of the state, for the raising of the intellectual and material level of the working class, and at the same time, for the organization of the working masses into a particular political party which consciously sets itself against the entire bourgeois society in its struggle for a socialist revolution….. ….. the parallel formulation of the demands which form the content of the socialist revolution: “1) that the land and the means of production cease to be the property of the individual and become the common property of the workers, that is, the property of the socialist state, 2) that wage labor be converted into communal work, etc.”; on the other hand, the formulation of the political demands which, at first glance, have the content of parliamentary-democratic institutions designed for the bourgeois state: “1)complete autonomy of political groups, 2) the participation of all citizens in the making of laws, 3) direct election of all public officials, 4) complete freedom of speech, press, assembly, organizations etc. 5) completely equal rights for women, 6) completely equal rights for all religions and nationalities, 7) international solidarity as a guarantee of the common peace”. It is almost impossible to say to what category this program actually belongs. Upon close examination, two different interpretations are possible. The political demands listed here, with the exception of the first, which is not entirely clear, remind one of the usual minimal program of Social Democratic parties. But just this placing of these demands as coordinates of the demands for a socialist revolution awakens the suspicion that they were not related to the actual bourgeois social order. At the same time, it is doubtful whether they were supposed to deal with the socialist society. since they take so strongly into account the actual social order based on inequality of classes, sexes, and nationalities. Perhaps we have here not a minimal program but a program which is aimed at the transitional period after the seizure of power by the proletariat, and which has as its goal the kindling of the socialist transformation. The pattern of a similar program, which also puts political-democratic demands and socialist reforms on the same level and which aims directly for the transitional phase after the revolution, is found, for example, in the demands of the “Communist Party of Germany” formulated by the central committee of the Communist League in Paris in 1848, and carrying, among others, the signatures of Marx and Engels….”
' Our minimal program has a very specific meaning. We know that socialism cannot be introduced all at once, as if it were shot from a pistol, but only if we force small reforms from the existing order by leading a sharp class struggle on an economic and political basis in order to increase our economic and political strength, to take power, and finally to wring the neck of today’s society. To that end our minimal demands are tailored to the present. We will take everything they give us, but we must demand the entire political program. But instead of point three, which explicitly contains a demand for the militia, the comrade in Munich put forth a demand for the reduction in the length of military service as the party’s practical demand. If we were, in this fashion, to make a small fraction of our minimal program into the real practical minimal program, then what we now see as our minimal program would become out ultimate goal, and true ultimate goal would be entirely cut off from reality and would indeed become merely “revolutionary sloganeering” ' http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1899/10/11.htm From the same article i found this quote quite insightful and wonder why i never ever heard it before. "In its struggle, the working class has no greater enemy than its own illusions."
"However, the legal eight-hour day is one of the demands on our minimal program. i.e., it is the very least minimum of social reform which we, as representatives of the workers’ interests, must demand and expect from the present state. The fragmentation of even these minimal demands into still smaller morsels goes against all our tactics. We must make our minimum demands in unamended form. Even if we are ready to accept any installment, we must leave it to the bourgeois parties themselves to whittle down our demands to fit their interests." http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1902/09/19.htm
“The circumstance which divides socialist politics from bourgeois politics is that the socialists are opponents of the entire existing order and must function in a bourgeois parliament fundamentally as an opposition. The most important aim of socialist activity in a parliament, the education of the working class, is achieved by a systematic criticism of the ruling party and its politics. The socialists are too far removed from the bourgeois order to be able to achieve practical and thorough-going reforms of a progressive character. Therefore, principled opposition to the ruling party becomes, for every minority party and above all for the socialists, the only feasible method with which to achieve practical results. Not having the possibility of carrying their own policies with a parliamentary majority, the Socialists are forced to wring concessions from the bourgeois majority by constant struggle. They achieve this through their critical opposition in three ways. 1.Their demands are the most advanced, so that when they compete with the bourgeois parties at the polls, they bring to bear the pressure of the voting masses.2.They constantly expose the government before the people and arouse public opinion.3. Their agitation in and out of parliament attracts ever greater masses about them and they thus grow to become a power with which the government and the entire bourgeoisie must reckon.” http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1901/socialist-crisis-france/ch03.htm
In answer to the thread's title…Frankie the Pope says , no i am not a Marxist. "The ideology of Marxism is wrong. But I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don't feel offended," Francis was quoted as saying. Defending his criticism of the "trickle-down" theory of economics, he added: "There was the promise that once the glass had become full it would overflow and the poor would benefit. But what happens is that when it's full to the brim, the glass magically grows, and thus nothing ever comes out for the poor … I repeat: I did not talk as a specialist but according to the social doctrine of the church. And this does not mean being a Marxist."http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/15/pope-francis-defends-criticism-of-capitalism-not-marxist
How I became a member of the Socialist PartyAny takers? Press-ganged, Shanghaied, kidnapped into membership??
Can we first define minority and majority? We all agree it is not numerical, 50% plus 1…the SPGB calls for an "effective" majority and that could just as easy mean a numerical minority. "the whole class has to be conscious." This is actually more extreme position of what a majority is. More so than the SPGB's …we only want just a "majority" Shouldn't we also define what is are the class organisations? the unions, factory committees, workers councils , neighbourhood general assemblies, workers/labour/socialist party (with small w, l, s and p)? If the class is the party and vice versa, are they politically distinguishable in the actual revolutionary act. One of the reasons i moved from the workers council/industrial unionist position is that a party one encompasses the members of our class more comprehensively. (There is even room in it for the odd capitalist or two who may join in a wish to avoid the environmental end of the world!!) We come together for class interests , not sectional ones, to abolish ourselves as a class, not to perpetuate classes. The party presents itself as society , in a way. NB like the SPGB i do not exclude the particiption for those other means of organising – we simply don't claim for them an exclusive role, nor the decisive one. A play may have a lead but it requires a supporting cast too. (even a one-person show requires technical support) …Didn't Marx talk about the conductor and the orchestra perhaps not in this context but i think it applies. Also any flaws in a political party can be just as easily laid at the door of any alternatives. Reflecting my views is a post on my blog and i think a more nuanced interpretation of the SPGB's http://mailstrom.blogspot.com/2011/05/vote-as-weapon.html(forget now the sources i plagiarised it from )
i managed to acquire a copy of the Return of Kerl Marx at one time which went on the circuit of lending out, never to be returned, alas. He is also is a great critic of the CP of the time , taking work for the Daily Worker as a wage slave. But now you got me interested in seeing what the Green Child is like.
Paul Mattick had a long political (and personal) relationship with the companion party in the US when he contributed to their journal Western Socialist.There may be some disagreements on the declining rate of profit and its consequence, different emphasis on parliament versus workers councils, but overall i think members consider Mattick (and his son, Paul Jnr) as comrades. My introduction to Mattick was his Anti-Bolshevik Communism. http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Bolshevik-Communism-Paul-Mattick-Jr/dp/0850362229/ref=la_B002887ZQY_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1386990764&sr=1-3His final book too is highly commended Marxism , the Last Refuge of the Bourgeoisie? (well the easier to read non-technical-economic Part 2)http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Refuge-Bourgeoisie-Paul-Mattick/dp/0873322614/ref=la_B002887ZQY_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1386990764&sr=1-1
Also this article about Mondragon makes interesting reading.http://systemicdisorder.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/capitalism-limits-cooperation/ "Despite that internal cooperation, Mondragon must operate like a traditional capitalist enterprise outside its gates. Forced to compete against capitalist corporations operating in capitalist market conditions, it can not do otherwise if it is to survive. This is the case for other cooperatives today. In essence, cooperative workers in a capitalist economy are, in the words of Karl Marx, forced to “become their own capitalists.”…Cooperators’ own wages remain a commodity if everything else is a commodity priced by markets. In an economy dominated by cooperatives but with capitalist market relations intact, collective workers would face market pressure to reduce their own wages in order to compete better against their competitors. Some enterprises would become much bigger than others; smaller enterprises would be compelled to sell themselves to larger competitors, consolidating production until an oligarchy arose. Some industries would be much bigger than others. As market competition intensified, survival would require more ruthless behavior. "
You may also find this of interest to you, Richard Wolff. http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/12/13/a-qa-with-richard-wolff/His "redefined" socialism he calls "workers self-directed enterprises", and again promotes the Mondragon model as an example.
It is a great pity that Vic is not computer-literate enough to contribute to these (and other) discussion lists. We are missing the member's very insightful views and valuable input on many issues
Oh, yes he does, i am sorry to say…See here,http://www.garalperovitz.com/2013/04/the-question-of-socialism-and-beyond-is-about-to-open-up-in-these-united-states/ "My goal is much simpler: First, to suggest that the questions classically posed by the word “socialism” that is now coming back into public use need to be discussed and debated by a much broader group than has traditionally been concerned with these issues; and second, to suggest further that if one looks closely there is evidence that some of the potential real world elements of a solution may be developing in ways that might one day open the way to a very American and very populist variant (whether called “socialist” or not)."He chooses to call his variant pluralist commonwealth“An alternative system must begin at the bottom and democratize ownership from the bottom up—all the way from small co-ops and neighborhood corporations on up through city and state institutions and even, when necessary, regionally and nationally. I think we can see the outlines of such a model already emerging in developments in the New Economy. It might be called a “Pluralist Commonwealth.” Plural forms of common wealth ownership. Worker ownership, co-ops, municipal utilities, neighborhood land trusts, state ownership of certain national firms.” http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/16847-the-next-american-revolution-has-already-begun-gar-smith-interviews-gar-alperovitzHis aims are contradictory…to get people talking about "socialism" but advocating they struggle for non-socialist reforms rather than discussing socialism. I detect that he like many who have learned their "socialism" from critiques of Russia, define it purely on the legalistic ownership basis rather than a social relationship between production and consumption – production for use. Whether he admits it or not, his new economic model incorporates production for profit.In fact he moreorless admits a problem in an update on his Mondragon sympathies.http://www.garalperovitz.com/2013/11/mondragon-and-the-system-problem/He counsels activists to get serious about scaling up co-ops and advances a proposal of investing $2 trillion in a highspeed rail-line..just where is this investment coming from? Wall St? The Wall St dominated State? He assumes the mantle of the realist but is actually a fantasist. He may acknowledge the calss conflict but he doesn't actually understand it. The rich won't surrender privileges without being politically deposed in it entirety . There is no middle way. No new economics third way. Capitalism is or it isn't just as there is no little bit pregnant..
