[ALB]

I got a text from another member which said:

Quote:

Who do you find the most annoying? Martin Jacques? Or the underconsumptionism?

Tempting as it was to reply Jacques, the one-time editor of the CP magazine Marxism Today, who said on the programme that we had a choice only between a better capitalism and a worse capitalism, I replied "the underconsumptionism".Right from the start, she said that the "Marxist" explanation of the present crisis was that it was caused by the fact that over the last 30 or so years workers' incomes had been squeezed so much that they didn't have enough to buy what the capitalists had to sell them. The trouble is that some in the Marxist tradition do argue this, but so do leftwing Keynesians (for instance, Clinton's Secretary for Labor, Robert Reich here). They also explained, as she mentioned, the crisis of the 1970s by workers' income rising too much at the expense of profits which slowed down production as profits are what drives the system. See this popular book of the time British Capitalism, Workers and the Profit Freeze.So, I suppose we can't criticise her for this, even if it's not the explanation we think Marx would have given of today's crisis and that of the 1970s. But it remains a fact that Marx was not an "underconsumptionist" and would not have explained the present crisis by saying that workers' income had become too low to buy what they had produced. This is always the case, even in a boom with rising wages, and, besides, suggests that the way out would be to increase workers wages, as trade union leaders and leftwing reformists claim (whereas in fact this would make things worse).Still, at least she accepted a two-class theory of society and all those who were interviewed accepted that the market was uncontrollable, even if some of them thought this didn't matter since capitalism still delivered the goods.

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

As for general strike not being an impossibilist tactic, sure the Winnipeg General Strike wasn't revolutionary, but impossibilists support the class struggle and the principle of workers organising collectively to better their working conditions under capitalism.

I think that's right. While we are against the syndicalist idea of a general strike to try to overthrow capitalism, we are not necessarily against a general strike as a trade-union tactic. In fact, we supported the holding of a general strike in Britain in the 1920s.There was a reply to that article criticising of the SPC members on the strike committee for "not taking a lead" which of course, as Gnome pointed out, was really a compliment. A reply was published in the May 2005 issue of the SPC journal Imagine under the title "Bolshevik bullshit: What Leninists failed to learn from the Winnipeg General Strike".  All copies of Imagine are on the SPC site here, but the article can be accessed more easily here:http://www.socialisthistory.ca/Publications/Reviews/Bolshevik_Bullshit.htmWhile there was no organisational continuity between the old SPC (which virtually died out in the 1920s) and the reconstituted SPC that was formed in 1931 on the basis of the same declaration of principles as us, there was a continuity of membership including some involved in the Winnipeg General Strike. In fact for a long time the new SPC's headquarters were in Winnipeg.It don't think we should run down or reject the old SPC. For all its faults, it was the biggest "impossibilist" party there's ever been yet and it did heavily influence those who founded the SPGB,Some of their pamphlets and leaflets can be found on that Canadian Socialist History site at:http://www.socialisthistory.ca/Docs/docs.htm#PreComPeople here can read them and judge for themselves.

[ALB]

Actually, Socialist Punk, Party opinion is more evenly divided on this issue of morality than over letting religious people in. A couple of years ago we had a big set-piece debate on this. Conference 2010 passed the following resolution:

Quote:

Socialism is both scientific and ethical (For: 64. Against 52)

A Party Poll of all the members then carried this resolution:

Quote:

That the 2010 Conference resolution that 'Socialism is both scientific and ethical' be rescinded on the basis that 'the case for socialism is one of class interest not one of morality'. (Yes: 81. No: 39)

I'm not sure why none of those who voted for the Conference Resolution and against its rescindment have intervened in this debate.In any event, two separate debates seem to be going on here. One about whether morality exists. The other about whether or not socialism is a moral issue. I think the reluctance of a majority of Party members to endorse the view that socialism is a moral issue (even as well as a class issue) can be explained by the fact that we see the working class as the agent for the establishment of socialism so the socialist appeal is directed at them on the grounds that it is in their material class interest. If socialism is seen as a moral issue then the agent would become simply people of good will and we would cease to be, or no longer need to be, a class-based party.Ironically those here who are arguing that socialism is in a person's self-interest are also making a non-class appeal (as it could be argued that socialism is in the self-interest of everybody, including the owning class).As to whether morality or ethics exists, I don't like the words myself but I can't see how it can be denied that in socialism (which will be a classless society with an overall common social interest) there will still be choices to be made and some of these will involve invoking general principles whatever you call them.

[ALB]

robbo203 wrote:

if you even bothered to read what I wrote.

I just have again and this is what you wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

These are hugely important theoretical questions which, as far as I know, the SPGB has not yet come up with an answer to.  It needs to do that  if it is to make its whole electoralist strategy more credible in the eyes of skeptics.

To describe the issue as “hugely important” and making our “whole electoralist (!) strategy” less “credible” is a gross exaggeration. It’s an interesting subject for speculation, I agree, but having a definite policy on this, at this stage, is not that crucial.You’ve just gone over the top again in your reply to Steve:

robbo203 wrote:

If you cannot do that then there is no hope for socialism

In any event, as the extract from the Questions of the Day pamphlet shows, we have faced and discussed the issue and come up with something, ie (1) that it’s not very likely to happen, (2) that if it was going to, the decision would be up to the World Socialist International to decide. What’s wrong with that? No need to go into details about ISRs and RCSs or whatever which anyway begs the question by assuming that it is likely that the socialist movement would win political control in just one minority part of the world while the rest will be unaffected. More useful to begin by discussing whether or not this is a realistic assumption. So why do you think that the socialist movement will be more advanced in one part of the world than the rest, and where and why?

robbo203 wrote:

  I could just as easily retort the Party’s insistence that political power needs to be democratically captured is an equally “hypothetical” matter which we should not really make a fuss about now but wait till the socialist consists of tens of millions of people rather than a few thousand  to decide.  But does the party think that the need to democratically captured political is something best left to when socialism is more or less on cards?  No it does not .  To the contrary  I believe that one of the questions on the current membership application  form is “Why do socialists maintain that democratic methods such as parliamentary elections, must be used to capture political power for the achievement of socialism?

Good debating point, I concede. But surely that socialism can only come about democratically is a basic socialist principle and that if there’s not a majority in favour of socialism then socialism cannot be established. That’s the key point.  Yes, it is theoretically possible that once a majority wants socialism they could decide democratically not to try to take political power out of the hands of the ruling class and set about trying to establish socialism while leaving them in control it. However, this would be such a stupid decision that I can’t see it being decided: any dogmatic anarchists proposing it would simply be ignored.Incidentally, this principle (and question) does not say that parliament must be used, but only that political power must be won, democratically. This leaves open the possibility that political power could be won by some other means, as long as they were democratic. This is in fact a hypothetical situation that we have faced, eg in the event of the ruling class suspending political democracy. Once again, what to do has to be left to those around at the time to decide in the light of the precise circumstances. It is not something we can lay down now, though we can speculate about what they might or could decide to do. But would it help our case or add to our credibility if we decided now that the answer must be, say, a general strike?But, surely, you don’t want to include in the membership questionnaire, a question like this: Why do socialists maintain that an initial socialist region must be established if the socialist movement is in a position to win political control in just one country?” Do you?

[ALB]

I was in fact trying to make a serious point in a light-hearted way (even though we were warned in speakers’ class not to employ irony as it is likely to be misunderstood). There is something a bit ridiculous in the few thousand of us in this country who are socialists trying to lay down a detailed policy as to how the future mass socialist movement should react in a hypothetical situation which may or may not arise. We can speculate of course but at this stage it can be no more than that, so to claim that not having an answer to some hypothetical situation is a serious theoretical inadequacy that reflects on the creditibility of our whole case is to go right over the top. Our “answer” can only be to say that it is up to the future mass socialist movement to decide what to do in the light of the actual situation and in accordance with its democratic procedures. All we can do is stick to generalities and insist that whatever is decided should be decided democratically.

[ALB]

Lighten up, Robbo. Why is it always you who introduces an element of acrimony into these discussions?Incidentally, I’m not sure you can call the late Pieter Lawrence to your aid, at least not by what he wrote in 1988 about your ideas:http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/message/19536?var=1

[ALB]

I’d go for the last few decades of the 19th century on the grounds that it was by then that the effects of the so-called second industrial revolution – the application to production of the electric motor and the internal combustion engine – were beginning to be felt. Marx and Engels, remember, were judging the possibilities of socialism on the basis of the first industrial revolution (the application to production of the steam engine). Marx, who died in 1883, never saw either an electric motor or an internal combustion engine. But of course every advance in technology made (and still does make) the case for socialism even more relevant.By the turn of the 19th century, thanks to this second industrial revolution, capitalism had become the predominant world system.  “Predominant” not in the sense that capitalism existed all over the world, but in the sense that all the people of the world, even if they lived under pre-capitalist conditions, were decisively affected by the workings of world capitalism. During this period capitalism became a world system – a fact which some Marxist writers have described as its becoming “imperialist”. 1914, with the outbreak of the first world war in the history of mankind, was a bloody confirmation of this.In 1847, Engels had written of the means of production not being available in sufficient quantity to permit the immediate, or even rapid, establishment of socialism. A quarter of a century later, in 1872, he was writing :

Quote:

…it is precisely this industrial revolution which has raised the productive power of human labour to such a high level that – for the first time in the history of mankind – the possibility exists, given a rational division of labour among all, of producing not only enough for the plentiful consumption of all members of society and for an abundant reserve fund, but also of leaving each individual sufficient leisure so that what is really worth preserving in historically inherited culture – science, art, forms of intercourse – may not only be preserved but converted from a monopoly of the ruling class into the common property of the whole of society, and may be further developed. (The Housing Question)

And six years after that, in 1876, in that part of Anti-Dühring later published as the immensely popular pamphlet Socialism, Utopian and Scientific (still the best introduction to “Marxism”), he wrote :

Quote:

The possibility of securing for every member of society, by means of socialized production, an existence not only fully sufficient materially, and becoming day by day more full, but an existence guaranteeing to all the free development and exercise of their physical and mental faculties – this possibility is now for the first time here, but it is here. (Engels’ emphasis)

Socialism probably could have been established in the 1870s but I’m not sure it would have been able to fully implement the principle of “from each acording to their ability, to each according to their needs”. Marx didn’t think so, but surely somebody could have thought of a better stop-gap measure than the “labour-time voucher” scheme he mentioned. 

[ALB]

robbo203 wrote:

These are hugely important theoretical questions which, as far as I know, the SPGB has not yet come up with an answer to.

I propose that this hugely important theoretical question be referred to the Crystal Ball Dept for report nearer the time of the socialist revolution. Is there a seconder?

[ALB]

Daniel De Leon’s on this:http://www.slp.org/pdf/de_leon/ddlother/two_pages.pdfand Ian Bone:https://ianbone.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/the-plebs-league-a-syndicalist-history/

[ALB]

Ed wrote:

On largest party aren’t the Left communists in France bigger than us? I think it would be a little petty and dare I say sectarian not to recognize them as socialists. Even though they do have some messed up ideas.Although technically they’re an organization rather than a party.

I doubt that there are more “Left communists”, ie people like the ICC, CWO, Bordigists, etc who have the same definition of socialism/communism as us, in France than there are members and sympathisers of us here in Britain. And of course they are socialists, even if they do have some “messed up ideas” about the Russian revolution, trade unionism and how to get there. Still, it’s another example of capitalism throwing up the idea of a classless, stateless, moneyless, wageless world as the way out of the problems it causes.

[ALB]

Apparently, he’s also speaking at the “Anarchist Economics” meeting later that afternoon:

Quote:

4.30pm – 6.30pmAnarchist Economics Even amidst economic crisis, experts and politicians tell us that, ‘there is no alternative’. When the Left proposes an alternative it is invariably the Marxist one of nationalisation and often just seems a mirror-image of capitalism as usual. Anarchists by contrast have explored and experimented with economic alternatives for 172 years. At this meeting a panel of speakers will discuss some of these experiments. We hope this will evolve into an open discussion taking up at least half of the available time.Speakers include: David Graeber, Iain McKay and others

“the Marxist one of nationalisation” ! No wonder they won’t let us have a stall there. We might shatter their illusion that Marxists stand for nationalisation when we’ve been denouncing this as state capitalism for over a hundred years. See for instance:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/nationalisation-or-socialism-1945

[ALB]

Fabian wrote:

Could it be said that socialism is based on an view that everyone has the right to fulfillment of their needs?

You could put it that way and enabling people to fulfil their needs is what socialism will bring about. But there is no need to make out a moral or philosophical case for socialism since socialism will not come about through people accepting such a case. It will come about when material circumstances eventually lead the excluded majority to realise that their material interest (in fulfilling their needs) can only be achieved by making productive resources the common heritage of all, ie as a practical solution to a practical problem, not as the implementation of an abstract principle. This may well be reflected, as others here have pointed out, in a feeling that this change is right/fair/just, etc. In fact I would imagine it will be.

[ALB]

Yes, he does seem to have become obsessed with debt and getting rid of it rather than concentrating on getting rid of wage-labour (which you’d think a card-carrying member of the IWW might prioritise).I see he’s speaking at the Anarchist Bookfair in Queen Mary’s university in Mile End, London, on 27 October, but as he’ll be with Chris Kinght I imagine this will be on his specialist subject of anthropology:http://anarchistbookfair.org.uk/whatson.htmlI see their talk is followed by one by the ineffable Michael Albert and his ridiculous “parecom” scheme. That’s one to give a miss.

[ALB]

Thought this from Zeitgeist about the concept of “property” in a moneyless world of abundance makes a useful point that is relevant to this discussion, ie that the concept of ownership will come to be replaced by that of use and access to use:

Quote:

Concurrently, one of the more in depth changes in values and lifestyles will be the way people think about ‘property’. In most of the world today, property is a powerful concept, with people often associating their social status with what they own. As stated before, the monetary system requires ‘cyclical consumption’ to function. This naturally leads to the need for people to be manipulated into thinking they want or need a particular good or service. With the powerful tactics of modern advertising, most in the world support an artificial, materialistic value system that entails wanting more and more goods and services, often regardless of their necessity or utility.In a Resource-Based Economy, the monetary system will no longer pollute the human mind via its manipulative arm – “advertising”. The endless sea of billboards, media commercials, magazines and the like will no longer poison the landscape or our perceptions. This will cause a dramatic shift in the human value system and hence lifestyle.More powerfully, in a Resource-Based Economy there is no reason for property. Property is an outgrowth of scarcity. People who had to work very hard to create or obtain a product or resource in turn protected it because it had immense value relative to the labor entailed along with the scarcity associated. Property is not an “American” or “Capitalist” idea… it is a primitive mental perspective generated from generations of scarcity. People claim “ownership” because it is a legal form of protection.In a system of abundance, without the need for money, the idea of ownership becomes irrelevant. In this new system no one owns anything. Instead, everyone has unrestricted access to everything. Ownership is a massive burden. No longer will a person need to live in one place. One could travel the world constantly. Anything needed is obtained, without restriction. There is no reason for abuse for there is nothing to gain. You can’t steal things that no one owns and you certainly couldn’t sell them.Household items are obtained through central distribution in the cities, while recreational items are available on call or near the location of their use. For example, if you go to a golf course you would select, on site, your clubs from the most effectively designed models available. You use them, and then you return them. If you decide to keep the clubs, go ahead – that is your burden… for why would a person want to transport, maintain and store golf clubs, when they can always have access to them and then return them onsite? Our homes today are full of junk that we hold onto because of the supposed value they maintain. This waste will no longer be needed.In this model, the city complex or, in fact, the entire world, is really your home. Instead of having extraneous items like recreational equipment and vehicles sitting about your physical house, collecting dust when they are not in use, they are stored centrally for everyone’s free access, with products being utilized actively, minimizing redundant waste.If you require an automobile for whatever reason, the car is made available for you. When you get to your destination, the satellite based driving system will automatically make the car available for others to use, as opposed to sitting in some parking lot wasting space and time.In society today, the need for property results in extreme product overlap and redundant waste. There is no reason for every person to “own” a car. Most only drive them for an hour a day. It is much more intelligent to create a universal shared system, for it dramatically reduces waste, redundancy and increases space and efficiency.-The Zeitgeist Movement – Observations and Responses. Activist Orientation Guide.(pp.67-69)

 

[ALB]

SocialistPunk wrote:

As a point of relevant interest, does any body know which country has the largest socialist party?

The “largest” in terms of numbers is the party here in the British Isles. In terms of members per head of population it will be the World Socialist Party (New Zealand).But of course the spread of socialist ideas and the growth of the socialist movement doesn’t depend on our puny efforts. If we are right then it is capitalism that will, as it were, sponpontaneously keep generating these ideas. The “technological determinist” element in Marxism (yes, I don’t deny it!) suggests that this should happen in the most developed part of the world, i.e the USA and in particular California. And we do find some (slight) confirmation of this in two examples of a “spontaneous” generation of the idea of a moneyless world based on the world’s resources becoming the common heritage of all humanity (spontaneous in the sense that it had nothing to do with us). Here’s an extract from 1983 from a publication called Commie Rag:

Quote:

Socialism is a word whose root is society. It originally referred to a way of living in which all the means of producing our needs would be controlled by society as a whole. This would entail the free association of the world’s people, with every associate a co-owner of the entire world’s vast array of resources, natural and human made. The global community would collectively make decisions on matching their needs with available resources. This would mean the end of wage labor, i.e. the selling of one’s ability to work in order to gain access to social wealth, an end to separate nations and enterprises, an end to money and all forms of exchange. Once such social relations were to mature, becoming an unconscious element of daily activity, earth would become a big commune, and its way of living would be known as communism.

The other would be the Zeitgeist Movement with their aim of a world “resource-based economy” which they define as “a global system in which the planet’s resources are declared the common heritage of all the world’s people” and “in which all goods and services are available to everyone without the use of money, barter, or any other form of debt or servitude”:

Quote:

Earth is abundant with plentiful resources; today our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival. Modern society has access to highly advanced technologies and can make available food, clothing, housing, medical care, a relevant educational system, and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy such as geothermal, solar, wind, tidal, etc. It is now possible to have everyone enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities that a prosperous civilization can provide. This can be accomplished through the intelligent and humane application of science and technology.To better understand the meaning of a resource-based economy consider this: if all the money in the world were destroyed, as long as topsoil, factories, and other resources were left intact, we could build anything we choose to build and fulfill any human need. It is not money that people need; rather, it is free access to the necessities of life. In a resource-based economy , money would be irrelevant. All that would be required are the resources and the manufacturing and distribution of the products.

We can expect such ideas to keep cropping up as long as capitalism lasts since, objectively (not as a mere matter of opinion), they represent the only framework in which the problems humanity faces can be solved.On the other hand, there is the remark one of our comrades in Belfast is always making: people in the West will “want” socialism, but people in the rest of the world “need” socialism. In which case Socialist Punk’s “large proportion of the worlds workers [who] have not had decent material conditions” might need less convincing and persuasion than workers in the more developed parts of the world. So the movement might start to take off there.Who knows or can know at present? 

[Author]

Posts