ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
SocialistPunk wrote:It's pretty obvious why no mention of parliament is spoken of, as in Britain, it wasn't until 1918 all men over twenty one got the vote and 1928 that all women over twenty one got the vote.So as parliament was not the route of obvious choice for the workers to bring about socialism in 1904, does anyone know what the SPGB had in mind then?
I don't think that that is correct. There are, in the end, only two ways to gain control of political power: the ballot box or an armed uprising. Since the early party didn't contemplate an armed uprising the only alternative was the ballot box. The early party accepted that adult suffrage would be best but argued that, even on the basis of the restricted franchise of the time, the working class made up a majority of voters and so could win control of the state via elections and parliament if they wanted to. This reply to a correspondent from the November 1913 Socialist Standard explains this:
Quote:We have received the following questions from Mr. John Drysdale. Our reply is appended.(1) Would you kindly let me know your attitude toward Adult Suffrage?(2) Do you think the working class have a majority at the ballot box with the franchise they have now?(3) Do you think the working class should use the franchise they have got in their own interests before the Socialist Party should fight for more? (1) Our attitude towards Adult Suffrage is as follows :While Adult Suffrage would be a useful measure for the working class, to enable them to more quickly and completely take control of political power when they understand how to use their votes, yet as the working class have a franchise wide enough for the initial steps of their emancipation, it is not the business of a Socialist Party to spend time and energy in advocating the extension of that franchise, but to educate the workers in how to use the voting power which they already possess; hence the business of a Socialist Party is to advocate Socialism only.(2) The working class are overwhelmingly in the majority at the ballot box, as is shown by the following figures :According to "White Paper" No. 478 on " Parliamentary Constituencies (electors)" for 1913, there are 8,058,025 voters on the Register. Of these 4,895,840 are in the Counties and 3,111,062 in the Boroughs, while the remaining 51,123 are University electors.In the Counties the Owners number 637,608, the Occupiers 4,086,829, and the Lodgers 171,402.In the Boroughs the Freeholders and Freemen number 54,854, Occupiers 2,824,923, and Lodgers 231,285.It may be accepted that the Owners, Freeholders, and University electors are members of the capitalist class. They number 743,585.The Lodgers may be taken as members of the working class, the few exceptions to the contrary in this case being probably balanced by the few very small property owners in the first case, and they number 402,687.We have left, the Occupiers, who number 5,911,752. Who are the Occupiers? An answer is found by looking at the rent of private houses is given in the In. Rev. Report. Of the 1,473,214 houses that come under their survey only 1,088,631 are of the yearly rental of £25 and upwards. It is a poor capitalist whose house is not estimated at more than £25 per annum, while plenty of slum property is rented above his amount. In addition, many houses that are let out in tenements are returning a total rental of £60 or £70 a year. Still others are Occupiers under the Service Franchise who are servants.We will, however, suppose that all the occupiers of Houses of £25 and upwards are members of the capitalist class, even then we get:Total Electorate …… 8,058,025Owners, Freeholders, University Electors and Capitalist Occupiers 1,832,216Working-class Occupiers & Lodgers 6,225,809 Or more than 3 to 1.(3) Certainly. In whose interest should they se it if not in their own ? It would be absurd to urge them to use it in anyone else's interest.The full article is here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1913/no-111-november-1913/franchise-questionsSee also this manifesto for one of the 1910 general elections:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1910/no-76-december-1910/general-election-our-manifesto-workers
Vin Maratty wrote:Perhap the party should commission a survey to find out the effect the inclusion of 'Great Britain' has on the perceptions of the party?We had this discussion in the 1980s and the solution that emerged:1. The retain the full name of "The Socialist Party of Great Britain" for legal anf international contexts.2. To call ourselves "The Socialist Party" for propaganda purposes (meetings, elections, adverts).3. To use "World Socialist Movement" more.To try to unravel this by changing (1) will just stir up introversy. And be unnecessary as the "Great Britishers" have already lost the argument as well as the vote. What could be done would be apply (2) and (3) more strictly and more consistently. In most contexts members should already not be referring to us as "The Socialisr Party of Great Britain".
Surely concerns over "power" are more an anarchist concept whereas Marxists are more concerned about "ownership". When you argue with them an important part of their case, for instance, against using parliament is that socialist MPs would inevitably abuse this position and betray the workers. But why "inevitably"? Only if you think that there is some propensity for humans to want to exercise some power of others, i.e, the human nature argument.It is the same in socialism. Why would those elected or delegated to positions in socialism abuse or want to abuse their positions? In fact, how could they? With everyone having free access to what they needed they wouldn't be able to allocate themselves any material privileges. And they wouldn't have any armed forces at their disposal to enforce their will.Having said this, of course I'm all in favour of checks and balances on elected people or delegates, eg shorter terms, rotation, recall, regular reportback meetings, etc. That's part of what a genuine democracy is and socialism will be a participatory democracy. It's just that I think the danger of abuse of "power" may be exaggerated and that therefore we won't need to prioritise direct democracy as the ideal to be resorted to as much as possible.Anarchists see this as the ideal because they don't want individuals to have to "obey" any decision that they haven't taken part in deciding. I agree with YMS on this one. I don't want to wake up every morning in socialism and switch on my computer to be confronted with hundreds of decisions to vote on. I'm prepared to delegate all but the most important to elected councils and committees and get on living my life rather than voting all the time.
I thought I'd look up the position of the old Socialist Labor Party of America (now more or less defunct) on this issue. Here is what they said in Socialist Industrial Unionism: The Workers' Power by Eric Hass, first issued in 1940 (but this is from the 1977 edition):
Quote:The mission of the political party of labor may be briefly stated:1. It is to agitate, educate, clarify the issue and lay bare the true nature of the class struggle;2. It is to place the issue of collective ownership squarely before the people by adopting a platform based on this single demand and by nominating candidates to contest elective offices; finally3. It is to complete its mission the moment its candidates are elected, by adjourning the political State sine die and by itself disbanding.According to the biblical tale, Samson destroyed himself when he destroyed the Temple of the Philistines. Except for the fact that Samson was blind and the political party of labor has its eyes wide open, the parable holds. Instead of taking office to govern, the candidates of the political party of labor will take office only to abolish political office. It captures to destroy, in the same sense that a conquering army captures, only to destroy, the fortifications of the vanquished foe, though blood and treasures were poured out to secure possession of these fortifications. The political State is the robber citadel of capitalism, and can serve capitalist purposes only. The political State is a weapon of suppression and oppression — a weapon designed to enable the skinners to keep in subjection the class that is being skinned. The true Industrial Union is a tool designed to direct the processes of production for socially useful purposes. Hence the victorious workers will turn the reins of government over to the administrative councils of the Socialist Industrial Union!In other words, quite similar to LBird's scenario except that power is to be handed to the "Socialist Industrial Unions" rather than to "Workers' Councils" and they don't mention the armed forces.It is obvious that the SLP and us came from the same stable and outsiders might not notice the subtle differences in our position (but both them and us did at the time!), I still think they are wrong, if only because they are advocating a species of syndicalism.
Article on Islam as non-socialist and pro-capitalist here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2005/no-1214-october-2005/islam-and-socialismSome modern currency cranks like Islam because of its supposed opposition to interest (supposed, because it's all hypocrisy as Islam accepts interest under another name).http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2009/no-1257-may-2009/cooking-books-1-theology-interestOn the other hand it is true that there's nothing of interest is Islam.
You live and learn. Or do you? Here's what wikipedia says about Great and Little (or Lesser) Britain:
Quote:Brittany (French: Bretagne [bʁə.taɲ] ; Breton: Breizh, pronounced [brɛjs] or [brɛχ];[1] Gallo: Bertaèyn, pronounced [bəʁ.taɛɲ]) is a cultural region in the north-west of France. Covering the western part of Armorica, as it was known during the period of Roman occupation, Brittany subsequently became an independent kingdom and then a duchy before being united to the Kingdom of France in 1532 as a province. Brittany has also been referred to as Less, Lesser or Little Britain (as opposed to Great Britain).(…)The word "Brittany", and its French, Breton, and Gallo equivalents "Bretagne", "Breizh" and "Bertaèyn" derive from the Latin Britannia, which means "Britons' land". This word has been used by the Romans since the 1st century to name Great Britain, and more specifically the Roman province of Britain. This word derives from a Greek word, Πρεττανικη (Prettanike) or Βρεττανίαι (Brettaniai), used by Pytheas, an explorer from Massalia who visited the British Islands around 320 BCE.(…)After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, many Britons settled in the Western part of Armorica, and the region started to be called Brittania. However, the name Armorica persisted for some centuries, and it had not fully disappeared until the 5th century.[10] Later, authors like Geoffrey of Monmouth used the terms Britannia minor and Britannia major to distinguish Brittany from Britain.At least this means that a revived socialist party in Ireland would not have to call itself the Socialist Party of Little Britain.The other ironic thing of course is that the present-day descendants of the Ancient Britons would be the Welsh not the English.
Blog item here analysing from a Left Keynesian point of view (that the blogger imagines to be Marxian) the possible economic consequences of the implementation of a yes vote:http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/scotland-yes-or-no/His conclusion: (which seems fair enough) is:
Quote:At best, the majority of the Scottish people will find little difference under Holyrood than under Westminster and it could be worse if a global crisis erupts again. Scotland as a small economy, dependent on multinationals for investment, still dominated by British banks and the City of London and without control of its own currency or interest rates, could face a much bigger hit than elsewhere in terms of incomes and unemployment.So independence would not bring dramatic economic improvement to the majority of Scots; indeed, it could mean a worse situation. But then the decision on independence is not just a question of the economy and living standards. That brings us back to the issue of the Scottish and English/Welsh (and Irish) working class sticking together in the struggle against British capital. Will an independent Scottish capitalist state strengthen that in any way?alanjjohnstone wrote:Indeed when the Irish Republic got its independence, there was hopes of a cultural/language revival, with Irish mde a compulsory school subject and a requirement for any government jobs. It failed utterly.Yes, in the 1970s we had a member of the old Haringey branch who came from Ireland. Because he didn't know Gaelic he couldn't get a job in the Irish Post Office. So he came over to London and got one in the British Post Office instead.Incidentally, there's an interesting talk at Head Office this Sunday by a guest speaker on "The Strange Death of Labour Ireland 1912-1922" which should have some relevance for the Scottish referendum. iN fact, that's why we've organised it.More details here:http://www.meetup.com/The-Socialist-Party-of-Great-Britain/events/176391572/
I don't think that, in the event of Scotland breaking away, we would need to change our full name. Maybe just adopt another name for our activity in Scotland. There's a precedent for this, in this resolution carried at 1992 Conference after the members of the Irish (All-Ireland) party transfered to the Socialist Party of Great Britain:
Quote:This Conference notes that circumstances have led to the transfer of the Irish comrades to membership of the Socialist Party of Great Britain for the time being. In view of the political work put in since 1949 under their previous name, Conference agrees that, if Belfast Branch so desires, it can continue to operate under the name of "The World Socialist Party (Ireland)".Mind you, we've not yet tried contesting elections in the Republic under our full name. But then we don't contest elections in GB under it either (We use "The Socialist Party (GB)").
Brian wrote:What about a self-destruct strategy? Capture parliament to use it, to destroy it?This is the same sort of debate, about the state, we've had in the Socialist Party for 30 or so years. The position at the moment (Conference resolution carried in 2004):
Quote:That the 1984 Conference Resolution, 'This Conference affirms that socialism will entail the immediate abolition and not the gradual decline of the State', be rescinded and replaced with: 'That as the State is an expression of and enforcer of class society, the capture of political power by the working class and the subsequent conversion of the means of living into common property will necessarily lead to the abolition of the state, as its function as the custodian of class rule will have ended. Those intrinsically useful functions of the state machine in capitalism will be retained by socialist society but re-organised and democratised to meet the needs of a society based on production for use'.I know it doesn't specifically mention parliament as an "instrinsically useful function", though personally I'd have thought a central, elected decision-making body would be …I can understand why some members and sympathisers don't like us talking of "parliament" surviving into socialism as today, in view of the antics and ineffectiveness of MPs, "parliament" has become a dirty word. I'm not sure that this is an encouraging development as it is not just anarchists who are anti-parliament but fascists too. In fact, hadn't the rise of fascism in Germany in the 1930s something to do with many workers blaming "democracy" rather than capitalism for their problems? So I don't think it's in our interest to go along with any anti-parliament sentiment.
Here's the names of those on our list in the North East for the 1999 European elections: J. Bissett, S. Colborn, S. Davison, A Pitts.I remember that election campaign and going right up to the border to Berwick to leaflet and crossing over to Jedburg (just to see a bit of Scotland) and was struck by the fact that the notices on park benches there were in English and Gaelic. Ridiculous. They won't have ever spoken Gaelic in this part of the world. Before the "English" came (and Lowland Scots which Robbie Burns wrote in is a dialect of English) the language people would have spoken there would have been more akin to Welsh than Gaelic (which came from Ireland much later).Gaelic is not going to become one of two official languages if Scotland votes yes, is it? Or is it? You never can tell how silly nationalists can be.
LBird wrote:ALB wrote:In any event, once there's a socialist majority outside parliament the game is up for the capitalist class…[my bold]Doesn't this statement rather undermine the SPGB strategy?That is, if a 'socialist majority' comes into existence within society whilst socialists are still a minority in parliament (for example, workers don't follow the SPGB strategy of 'electing MPs', but concentrate on building extra-parliamentary Councils), the 'game is up' anyway.
That's what I meant to say and, no, it doesn't. Yes, as you repeat, the existence of a socialist majority outside parliament would mean that the game is up for the capitalist class. But that doesn't undermine "the SPGB strategy". Assuming that more or less fair elections are possible, a socialist majority outside parliament would reflect itself as a socialist majority inside parliament. So why not go for it? Why take the longer and more risky route of trying to ignore or by-pass parliament and so lose the "legitimacy" aspect you emphasised?Not that I think that, when there is a socialist majority outside parliament, the dogmatic anti-parliamentarists would get much of a following. As James Connolly put it, when in 1908 he left the DeLeonist SLP to join the IWW and
Quote:was asked if he approved of its repudiating the principle of political action. He laughed, "It will be impossible to prevent the workers taking it." (G. Desmond Greaves, The Life and Times of James Connolly, p. 228)That seems one reasonable strategy in the event of a pro-capitalist coup against the election of a socialist majority in parliament (though I think keeping parliament in being would help re-inforce the "legitimacy" of the revolution). In any event, something like that would have to happen.Here's how the Socialist Standard answered this precise question in November 1933 (see: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1930s/1933/no-351-november-1933/parliament-and-constitution):
Quote:"What would the SPGB do in the event of them obtaining a majority in Parliament and Parliament was suspended by Royal decree or some other such trick by the Capitalist class?"Our correspondent asks us to deal with the hypothetical situation of a capitalist minority attempting to suspend Parliament after they had allowed an election to be held in which Socialists obtained a majority of seats. If the capitalists were so obliging as to wait until after the election before making the attempt to suspend Parliament, they would, of course, be weakening their own position and strengthening that of the Socialist majority. In our reply we have assumed the less improbable situation of the capitalist minority making their attempt without waiting for elections to take place which would demonstrate their (the capitalists') minority position. If we assume the other hypothesis, then the position of the Socialist majority would be even stronger than we have stated it to be.This question has often been answered in the SOCIALIST STANDARD. In essence, it boils down to this: “Can a capitalist minority which happens to have control of the machinery of Government continue indefinitely to govern and make capitalism function, in the face of the organised opposition of a majority of Socialists?” If that were possible, then, it would be a sheer waste of time to consider Socialism at all or the method of achieving it.However, it is not possible for a minority to maintain its hold in those circumstances. Faced with the hostility of a majority of workers (including, of course, workers in the civil and armed forces, as well as workers in productive and distributive occupations), the capitalist minority would be unable, in the long run, to enforce its commands and the workers would be able to dislocate production and transport. In such circumstances the capitalists would themselves be divided. Not all of them would be disposed to provoke chaotic conditions in an heroic last-ditch struggle.A look at the way in which governments do behave in face of a hostile majority under existing conditions will show how impossible it is for any minority to retain cohesion and to act decisively when it is conscious of being actively opposed by the majority.A few years ago, for example, the King of Spain and his immediate supporters, in spite of having organised a so-called military dictatorship, lost their nerve and fled the country merely because some municipal elections had gone against their candidates.In Russia, in 1917, we saw Kerensky throw in the sponge as soon as he saw the Bolsheviks voted into control of the chief Soviets.We invite our correspondent to name a single instance of a capitalist minority managing to maintain its hold on the machinery of Government for any length of time in face of the organised and united opposition of a majority of the population. We know of no such instance.We would then ask him to consider how much more clear and certain the outcome would be if the organised and united opposition is composed of convinced Socialists who have gained their majority in face of a long drawn-out struggle with all the defenders of capitalism. So far, of course, such a majority of Socialists has not existed at any time or in any country.It remains to speculate how likely some such action by a recalcitrant pro-capitalist minority is likely to be. In any event, once there's a socialist majority outside parliament the game is up for the capitalist class whatever some of them might choose to do.
SocialistPunk wrote:Nothing wrong with what you've just stated Adam, I think your earlier reference to the continued use of "parliament" was like waving a red flag at a bull.I don't see why talking about retaining parliament in a thoroughly democratised form should have been a red rag to anybody here or at least not to anyone taking part of the discussion (it might be our dogmatically anti-parliamentary friends) since we are all agreed here that workers should organise to win control of "parliaments" through elections.What workers should do then will be up to them, but I would have thought the easiest option would be to retain parliament rather than set up some other elected central decision-making body. I know that the old DeLeonist SLP in America argued that congress, once there was socialist majority in it, should be dissolved and central decision-making power handed over to the central council of the "socialist industrial unions" they advocate. And that LBird is proposing something similar except that central decision-making power be handed over to a Central Workers Council. These are both possibilities of course but, to me anyway, seem like going the long way round.Actually, we have said something about how we think decision-making might be organised (might of course not will since the final decision is not ours) in chapter 3 of our pamphlet Socialism As a Practical Alternative. Here's a couple of extracts:
Quote:A democratic system of decision-making would require that the basic unit of social organisation would be the local community which could elect is delegates to a local council which could be given the responsibility for local administration. If, for example, local communities in socialism began by operating from the basis of the existing structure of district councils in England, this would give 332 local communities. This would be a democratic development of the existing procedures for electing local councils which could become the basic means for dealing with day-to-day local issues. Then, regional councils could provide organisation through which decisions affecting wider populations could be made at the regional level. Similarly, global decisions could be made by delegates elected to a world council.Quote:The procedures for electing delegates to the various councils could vary, but would include machinery whereby the councils could be instructed by majority poll. On an everyday basis, the responsibility for deciding upon routine matters could be delegated to such councils, and providing they had sufficient members, they would broadly reflect general opinion. But, in certain circumstances councils would want to ascertain the view of the whole community on specific questions. In these cases a majority poll could be carried out, and the same method could be used to challenge council decisions where this was thought necessary. With modern communications the means for carrying out majority polls would be straightforward and would present no difficulties. In their final detailed form, which would doubtless vary from region to region, the arrangements made for everyday decision making would be the outcome of the democratic wishes of the whole community. Society could delegate certain decisions to people who take on the responsibility for running particular parts of production or services. For example, in workplaces committees could be chosen to co-ordinate and organise production, subject to democratic control by all of those involved. Where the numbers of people are few, for example, in the running of small-scale services, no doubt work will be organised along more informal lines. But wherever responsibility has been delegated to an individual or group, this would only be with the consent of the whole community. Democratic checks on councils, committees, groups or individuals to whom responsibility has been delegated, would mean that ultimately control would still be exercised by the community as a whole. The important point to be made about an integrated world system of cooperative decision-making is that decisions would flow throughout the structure upwards from local communities. This would replace centralised control by governments Such a system would be adaptable, for any purpose, on any intermediate scale between the local and world levels.This of course is only a suggestion and reflects the time at which it was written, 1987, when the internet was not so widespread. It also doesn't say anything about whether the regional councils should be directly elected or be composed of delegates from local councils (though it does seem to imply the latter). But, then, do we need to?
