[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Just to widen it a little, i think RL reflects a social democratic view as also espoused by Debs in America

OK, let's widen it, to those in the "impossibilist" tradition in North America: the SLP and the SPC both of which, like us, were committed to standing in elections on a socialist ticket and so faced with the same question as us as to what a Socialist "MP" (or whatever) should do.In 1910 Victor Berger of the "Socialist Party of America" (Debs's party) was elected a member of the US House of Representatives for a district in Wisconsin. He was an open and out-and-out reformist. In 1911 De Leon, of the rival Socialist Labor Party (which was an "impossiblist" party) wrote a series of articles in the Daily People commenting on Berger's activities in Congress. These were later published as a pamphlet, the latest edition of which is called A Socialist in Congress: His Conduct and Responsibilities. The SLP to the 1963 edition says:

Quote:

This pamphlet answers the question: How would a Socialist act if he were elected to Congress or to other high office? The Marxian answer is given by Daniel De Leon, this country's master Socialist, in an analysis of how a false Socialist acted. A basic part of the answer is that a real Socialist would not use his office to advocate reforms of capitalism. He would use it as a rostrum from which to attract the attention of the workers of the land, and from which he would show that capitalism cannot be reformed so that it will operate on behalf of the workers. He would demonstrate the imperative necessity for the elimination of capitalism, and the need for a Socialist reconstruction of society.

Good stuff. Basically De Leon criticised Berger for not using his position to propagate Socialist ideas. He only praises him once, for proposing a constitutional amendment that would make it easier to change the Constitution.Also in 1910 Charlie O'Brien, of the Socialist Party of Canada, was elected to the Alberta Legislature. His first speech was published as a pamphlet The Proletarian in Politics. The SPC added a note at the end:

Quote:

NOTE.– The amendment to open the agreement between the government and the A. & G. W. Ry Co. was the only question upon which O’Brien voted in the House in connection with this affair. Just previous to the next division he said: “I am asked to record a vote of lack of confidence in the government. Why, of course, I have no confidence in this or any other government. I know that governments are for the purpose of pacifying slaves, and holding them in subjection while the masters take the largest possible amount of the surplus values. How could I have confidence in a government that would (just previous to dissolution) pass an eight-hour law for coal miners, and then in less than six months after re-election nullify a very important part of that law on a cheap pretext of a possible scarcity of coal? But then, if I do as I am asked, record a vote of lack of confidence in that government, I, by the same action, vote confidence in this opposition. And who are they? They are just as bad as the government, perhaps worse.” 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.

That's the stuff.Ken MacLeod in his SF novel The Stone Canal imagines a situation in which there are a couple of "World Socialist" MPs and who are faced with a vote of confidence in the existing government:

Quote:

The next day the government lost a no-confidence motion (due to the abstention of only five MPs, the three Workers Power and two World Socialists) and fell, to be replaced by a more radical coalition drawing in support from the smaller parties.

Abstaining can have consequences, but Charlie O'Brien was right that to take part in such a vote is to support one or other capitalist party or coalition.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Surely in the current immigrations debate if May introduced her intentions of retrictions we would be vociferous in opposition. Would we also not put forward our own counter proposal of open door borders?

I'm sure we would denounce immigration controls, but not so sure not that we would counter-propose an "open door borders" policy under capitalism. (More likely that we would say that we want the world without borders that socialism would be). No state is going to adopt such a policy so this would fall into the category of "unrealisable" reforms. But would we actually advocate or propose it? Is it in fact our policy?Officially, it is our policy that a minority of Socialist MPs should not propose anything, only vote for, against, abstain or not take part in the vote, on proposals put forward by other MPs, i.e. that they should not themselves propose any reform measures (as that would be the thin end of the slippery slope to reformism).Of course, as you say, that's us today. What would actually happen in the future would be up to the socialist movement at the time. Maybe the future mass socialist movement will adopt instead what Luxemburg or Debs advocated. Hopefully no (especially not Debs's oxymoronic concept of so-called "socialist reforms"), but it's not up to us today.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Someone with their finger on the actual source will help me out but we do possess a conference ruling that protects members raising objections and differences to party policy.

The Conference Resolution you are referring to will be this one passed in 1973:

Quote:

This Conference reaffirms that nothing in the Party Rules should be so understood as to prevent any member or members from expressing criticism of the Party verbally or in writing.

[ALB]

David Broder has already replied that the "Internationalist Communist Party" got about 20,000 votes in the whole of Italy in both elections, concentrated in the Milan area.This wikipedia entry confirms that in the 1948 this party got 20,736 votes of 0.08% Which, I suppose, is what we would have got if we'd contested every seat in, say, the 1945 general election here.These figures came from the site of the Italian Ministry of the Interior. The site also shows that in the region covering Milan the PC INTERNAZIONALISTA got 12,239 or 0.65%. So, we have now have official confirmation that the predecessors of the CWO did once contest elections. Good for them.Bordiga himself did not support this party, but it was still a continuation of the Italian Communist Left.

[ALB]

Actually, the early Party members would have shared Rosa Luxemburg's view that there was a growing or soon to grow socialist movement of which they were part of the anti-reformist wing and so felt they had to take a position on what a minority of Socialist MPs and councillors should and should not do as this was seen as an immediate or at least imminent issue.Looking at it today the (eminently sensible) conclusion that was reached (that they could vote for some measures) has only symbolic significance today since we are not anywhere near there being a minority of Socialist MPs. What it shows is that we are not opposed to all reforms on principle.It's the same with the decision, taken at the same time but which was also contested by some members, that a Socialist elected to parliament should take the Oath of Allegiance so they could take their seat.

[ALB]

Brian, I think Colin was seeing what you wrote as supporting those who disagreed that a minority of Socialist MPs could vote for some reform measures (while not proposing any) and who resigned over the matter, as mentioned in this article in the June 2004 Socialist Standard:

Quote:

The early dispute in the Socialist Party which led to the formation of the tiny Socialist Propaganda League was the product of the optimistic belief of the Party’s founder members that the socialist revolution was near. A group of members around Harry Martin and Augustus Snellgrove wanted the Party to take a definitive stand on the attitude socialist delegates elected to parliament or local councils would take towards reform measures proposed by one or more of the capitalist parties. In February 1910 a letter from “W.B. (Upton Park)” was sent to the Socialist Standard asking “What would be the attitude of a member of the SPGB if elected to Parliament, and how would he maintain the principle of ‘No Compromise’?” The perspective of this small group of members was that no reform of capitalism could ever be supported by the party claiming to represent working class interests as it was not the job of socialists to take part in the running of capitalism. Any attempt to do so would run counter to the famous ‘hostility clause’ of the Declaration of Principles.The Standard ’s reply on the matter,backed by the Party’s Executive Committee, stated that each issue would have to be looked at on its merits and the course to be pursued decided democratically. This did not satisfy the members who had raised the question, who formed a ‘Provisional Committee’ aimed at overturning the position espoused in the Standard’s reply and who set their case out in an ‘Open Letter’ to Party members, arguing that socialists were required to oppose measures introduced by capitalist parties on each and every occasion. This was again rebutted firmly by the EC who contended that it would be ridiculous for socialists, by way of example, to oppose a measure designed to stop a war in which the working class was being butchered.Believing this approach to be a violation of the principle of ‘no compromise’ several members resigned over this issue during 1911, a small number going on to found the Socialist Propaganda League. The SPL’s principal speaker and writer was Harry Martin, Snellgrove having been one of those from the Provisional Committee later to rejoin. Though Martin was sympathetic to the Party in all other respects, he continued to denounce the SPGB’s willingness to engage in ‘political trading’ in pamphlets and on the outdoor platform until his death in 1951. One of the SPL’s pamphlets, From Slavery To Freedom, was critically reviewed in the Socialist Standard in November 1932.

It did sound a bit like it.There are clearly degrees of anti-reformism ! Luxemburg at one end, the SPL at the other, with us somewhere in between?

[ALB]

I suppose I should have gone to the meeting but I didn't fancy going into the centre of London during the pre-xmas period. Just listened to it and noted confirmation of something I remember reading somewhere else: that Damien (whose organisation later became the one which the CWO is now affiliated to) stood in elections in 1946 and 1948. It would be interesting to see his election programme and how many votes he got. I think I'll email David Broder to see if he knows.Imposs1904, what were the questions you wanted to ask?

[ALB]

Robbo, I don't disagree with your points. I was just hesitating to accuse Luxemburg of "reformism" or of "defending reformism" on the ground that she defended a socialist party having a minimum programme of reforms. I think it fairer to say that she was a revolutionary socialist who was mistaken on this point. In any event, the early Party considered her a revolutionary socialist. An article in the January 1907 Socialist Standard, reproducing part of and commenting on a speech of her at her trial for sedition, ends:

Quote:

After an hour’s deliberation Rosa was found guilty and sentenced to 2 months imprisonment.Well done, “red Rosa”; you have grandly expressed the sentiments of the class-conscious workers of the world and may you live to see the Social Revolution accomplished!

[ALB]

colinskelly wrote:

… Luxemburg's pamphlet defends reformism (after all, the day to day practice of the SPD) …

alanjjohnstone wrote:

presenting Luxemburg's reformist approach in her own words.

Certainly her pamphlet defends the day-to-day practice of the SPD of the time, i.e having a minimum programme of reforms as well as a maximum programme of the capture of political power for socialism. But is having or defending having a minimum programme automatically of itself reformist? I thought our position was more subtle, i.e that having a minumum programme runs the high risk of a party becoming reformist as its support will be built up on this basis rather than for socialism and eventually someone (like Bernstein) will come along and call for theory to be brought into line with practice. And the party become a reformist party.What I'm suggesting is that we restrict the word "reformist" to those who advocate that socialism can be established gradually by a long series of reform measures. But maybe this is too narrow as reformist (in this sense) parties go on to suffer a further degeneration and drop even the pretence that "socialism" is the long-term goal and end up just advocating reforms to capitalism as an end in itself. In other words, the link between "reformism" and "socialism" is completely broken. In practice we've more or less accepted this evoluion of the word "reformism" and apply it to parties such as the Tories, Liberals, Greens and Nationalists which have never even claimed to be socialist.Even when Luxemburg wrote her pamphlet (at the turn of the century) the SPD had become reformist (Bernstein was right).  Its voters and most of its members wanted social reforms and political democracy in Germany not socialism. Her mistake was to not realise this and to assume that it was a mass socialist party. On this assumption some of the things she says about reforms in the quotes Alan has given make more sense. A mass, genuinely socialist party would not neglect the position of workers under capitalism while this lasted. After all, even we can countenance Socialist MPs and local councillors when they are a minority voting for reforms or other pro-worker measures under some circumstances.

[ALB]

It's here. Haven't you noticed SPGB members disagreeing with each other !

[ALB]

I never said that socialists/communists should refuse to discuss theoretical issues at this stage of the development of the socialist movement (if I did, I'd be a hypocrite). I merely said that, when the socialist movement takes off, there'll be less need for such deeper theoretical understanding amongst socialist in general. Frankly, I don't see why, when socialism becomes a mass movement, every worker should have to have a theoretical understanding of the Marxian theory of value. Today, as I said, when the tiny minority of us who are socialists are engaged in a battle of ideas with the dominant ruling class ideologists we do need to have a deeper theoretical understanding in order to combat their ideas more effectively. But once they're on the run we can be more relaxed about such issues. Anyway, that's my view.

[ALB]

An anonymous sympathiser has sent us a cutting from the London Evening Standard of 10 December about David Lammy, the Labour MP for Tottenham (Bernie Grant's successor).

Quote:

David Lammy said it was time to stop demonising bankers as "fat cats" and that the interests of financiers and other Londoners were not "at odds" (…) He said today: "I have not been one to bash the banks and big business. We must challenge the divide that exists between the financial sector and the rest of London. I want a London where kids from Tottenham can become bankers, not simply serve their sandwiches and clean their offices."

Yes bankers should not be demonised as if they caused the present crisis because they didn't. The capitalist system did. To blame them is to deflect criticism from capitalism as a whole. But there is a difference between not demonising them and praising them as Lammy is doing.Also his statement exposes why there's nothing socialist about "identity politics" as some claim. Women generals and black bankers, that'll make a difference.Apparently he wants to be the Labour candidate for the next elections for the mayor of London, but most people out there must realise by now that there's no practical difference between Labour and the Tories. A Labour MP and former Minister praising bankers, what's new?

[ALB]

I don't think that a majority of workers need to understand value theory before they can establish socialism/communism.It will be enough that they know that capitalism can never be reformed to work in their interest and that the only way forward is to make the means of wealth production the common heritage of all so they can be used, under democratic control, to turn out goods and services to satisfy people's needs to which people can have access in accordance with the principle "from each their ability, to each their needs".Having said that, I don't think the concept of surplus value is all that difficult to understand or get across. Most people can easily realise that the only way that useful things can be produced is by people working and that a non-work income such as profit can only be derived from what those who work produce. This will reflect itself as "profit" becoming a dirty word for most people.Understanding value as a social relationship is a bit more difficult but everybody knows about money (which today is another expression of the same relationship). So an easy way to get across that socialism will get rid of value is to say that it will get rid of money. I know we get stick and get mocked for it, but saying that socialism will get rid of money is easier for people to understand even if they don't agree with it. We might get less stick from leftwing intellectuals if we said we were for the abolition of value but wouldn't be so readily understood. We are painfully aware that even the good old socialist slogan of "Abolition of the Wages System" isn't immediately understood these days.Let's not put the bar for majority socialist/communist understanding too high. It's only because today we are a tiny minority faced with having to wage an ideological struggle against entrenched ruling class ideas that we socialist/communists need to be clued up on these things. As socialist ideas spread this will become less necessary. and people can talk about the practicalities of organising socialism rather than analysing in great detail how capitalism works and why.

[ALB]

robbo203 wrote:

It certainly does seem that the title of Luxemburg's pamphlet was somewhat misleading.

I agree that the title doesn't properly convey the content as she wasn't opposed to reforms. The original German title was Sozialreform oder Revolution?  But a better one might have been "Reformism or Revolution?" or "Gradualism or Revolution?" or even "Possibilism or Revolution?" We, too, are not opposed to reforms that really do benefit workers, but rather to the policy of reformism, of trying to gradually reform capitalism into something else, which is what she was effectively criticising and refuting.I think it is clear that she did distinguish between "social reform" (state intervention to try to improve the lot of the workers), trade union action, co-operatives and political democracy, which were the four things that Bernstein thought made a gradual transition from capitalism to socialism possible.For instance, she writes in Chapter 3 on "The Realisation of Socialism through Social Reforms":

Quote:

Therefore trade unions, social reforms and, adds Bernstein, the political democratisation of the State are the means of the progressive realisation of socialism.

I'll have to read yet again her pamphlet to see if did think that the SPD should offer workers "inadequate" reforms so that, after they got them, they would realise this and turn to socialism. I don't think so, if only because she thought the SPD was the working class organised politically and that it was natural for workers to struggle to try to improve their lot within capitalism (as it probably is, thankfully).I don't think either than she would accept the distinction between "political" and "economic" that we've traditionally made. After all, one of the reason she is so popular in leftist circles is that she advocated the "mass strike" (as opposed to parliamentary bargaining or alliances with bourgeois democrats) as a way to get both political democracy and social reforms.And of course, although we don't advocate them (so as not to suffer the fate of the SPD and become a reformist party), we ourselves are not opposed to all reforms. Wouldn't we too describe any favourable reforms obtained as "indequate"? We do regard some proposed reforms as "unrealisable" but say this openly and that workers are wasting their time pursuing them. Which of course is the basis of our criticism of Trotskyist "transitional demands".

[ALB]

I don't think value as a non-tangible social relationship and angels as a non-tangible figment of the imagination can be put on a par just because both are non-tangible. Social relationships exist while angels don't. The extraction of surplus value happens too and is not a figment of the imagination, as I'm sure you agree.

[Author]

Posts