ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The early SPGB was not uncritical of Kautsky on economics as well as politics. In 1902 Kautsky gave two lectures in Amsterdam which he later published as a pamphlet that was translated into English the following year as “The Social Revolution and On the Morrow of the Social Revolution” (and later as “The Social Revolution and on the day after the Social Revolution”).
In a written debate with a Tory party election agent in the columns of the Socialist Standard in May 1914 Jack Fitzgerald described Kautsky’s pamphlet as
“one of the worst works he ever penned”.
In it Kautsky discussed to what extent a “proletarian regime” would be able to immediately increase wages, and went on, prefiguring what he was in write in 1924:
“I speak here of the wages of labor. What, it will be said, will there be wages in the new society? Shall we not have abolished wage labor and money? How then can one speak of the wages of labor? These objections would be sound if the social revolution proposed to immediately abolish money. I maintain that this would be impossible. Money is the simplest means known up to the present time which makes it possible in as complicated a mechanism as that of the modern productive process, with its tremendous far-reaching division of labor, to secure the circulation of products and their distribution to the individual members of society. It is the means which makes it possible for each one to satisfy his necessities according to his individual inclination (to be sure within the bounds of his economic power). As a means to such circulation money will be found indispensable until something better is discovered.”
Fitzgerald was criticising another point that Kautsky had made, which had been quoted by his opponent, that there wouldn’t be enough to immediately increase what workers consumed by much. He said:
“Let us say at once, however, that we repudiate Kautsky on this as we have done on several other points.”
Kautsky’s pamphlet can be found here:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1903/xx/socrev2.pdf
And the debate with the Tory here:
I thought Kautsky might have been advocating free love or something like that that the internet censors thought unsuitable for under 18s.
“The Class Struggke” is more generally known as “The Erfurt Programme”, the theoretical underpinning of the programme adopted by the German Social Democrats at their congress held there in 1891.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1892/erfurt/index.htm
The first three SPGB pamphlets were translations, approved by Kautsky, of the first three sections of his work. According to the introduction to the first section, the intention seems to have been to publish the whole work but the last two including the one of “The Commonwealth of the Future” were not published.
I will find sone time listen to the podcast to see what it makes of what Kautsky wrote.
From Monday’s Guardian on the current purge in the Labour Party:
“About a month ago, Neal Lawson, a member of Labour since the late 70s, got a letter from the party’s governance and legal unit, inviting him to defend himself over a two-year-old tweet. His apparent offence? He had praised an example of cooperation between the Lib Dems and the Green party, saying: “This is what grown-up politics looks like.” If this was deemed to be an incitement to vote for a party other than Labour, he was warned, he would be in breach of party rules and expelled.”
Mind you, all parties do that.
When I clicked that link I got this message :
“Content not available
We’ve restricted some content for people who aren’t over 18.”What was Kautsky advocating?
It’s not even a realistic hypothesis:
https://labourlist.org/2023/06/labour-free-school-meals-policy-free-universal-poverty/?amp
Nigel Farage was interviewed on BBC radio 4 this morning after having obtained the resignation of the chief executive of NatWest Bank. At the end he mentioned that what he saw as the danger of “central bank digital currency”. He has been complaining against this for years. Here’s a recent tweet from him:
Central Bank Digital Currencies will give the state total control over our lives. This must be resisted. https://t.co/3QwqbkkPjD
— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) February 7, 2023
This has become a big issue for the “libertarian” fringe in British politics. They see it as a totalitarian attempt by governments to keep an eye on how people spend their money.
For instance, the Reform Party (the successor to the Brexit Party) candidate in the Somerton and Frome by-election said “oppose a cashless society and central bank digital currency” and one of Piers Corbyn’s slogan in his election address in Uxbridge was in bold capitals KEEP CASH.
We’ve got a better idea of course:
https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2009/11/smash-cash.html?m=1
How the Ukraine regime deals with opposition MPs who disagree with them:
https://english.nv.ua/nation/sbu-charges-ex-mp-yevgeniy-murayev-with-treason-50341629.html
Thanks. The Party, as publisher, does claim copyright and passed this resolution at 2007 Conference:
“Be it resolved that all material created and published by the Party shall be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs copyright licence.”
I think this means anybody can reproduce articles without needing to ask permission as long as they acknowledge the source and don’t change the text.
So you should be in the clear.
I can’t see how Labour can be content with the results of the 3 by-elections.
They won in that rural seat in Yorkshire but can expect to lose it at the general election when Tory abstainers return to the fold. They should have won Uxbridge in west London but didn’t. They are pleading that there was a local issue there that sunk them (extension to the area of a charge for using old cars and vans) but, besides being a bread and butter issue, this concerns all the outer London boroughs.
It is clear too that, in seeking to please the international speculators who lend governments money, they are alienating the more radical-minded of their voters sone of whom are deserting to the Greens. In fact, they lost by much less votes in Uxbridge than the Greens got. Starmer may be regretting his outburst about hating tree-huggers.
They weren’t trying in the West Country but what happened to their vote there is also relevant. An “independent socialist” picked up 635 votes compared to their candidate’s 1009. They lost winning the London by-election by less than 635. In other words, Left-of-Labour candidates in other constituencies in a general election could prevent them winning some marginal seats and might even result in a hung Parliament with the LibDems and the Scots Nats holding the balance of power.
Serve them right, some might be inclined to think. That’ll teach them to behave like a government in waiting whereas they might just be a minority government in waiting. On the other hand, that would provide them with the same alibi they used to try to get out of the failure of the 1924 and 1929 Labour governments that “we were in office, not in power”.
Actually, of course, all governments are just in office as no government has the power to overcome the economics laws of capitalism and make the system serve the interest of the majority.
And here is how the Socialist Standard reported the discussion on the issue at the Copenhagen congress in 1910
In the committee on Disarmament and Peace, Vaillant (France) said: “The abolition of war will naturally only be made possible by Socialism, but for that we cannot wait. It is therefore necessary to make a stand against armaments and militarism in the different Parliaments.” Keir Hardie said: “If now the German and English Governments came to an understanding about the limitation of armaments it would not be due to their
LOVE OF PEACE,
but because these two countries can no longer bear the burden of armaments. The workers are strong enough to prevent war. On the day of the declaration of war the workers must cease work. That is not a general strike. It is also necessary to make a stand against the vile action of the capitalist Press.” Bruce Glasier said : “Christianity has been unable to abolish war. There are already Socialists who are prepared to sacrifice their principles of peace. The fighting instinct can unmistakeably be found in some Social-Democrats. That is the animal instinct which one must overcome. Let us unfold the most far-reaching agitation for peace, then the United States of Europe will soon become an accomplished fact.” Radec (Poland) said : “The attitude of Vorwaerts and of the German Social-Democratic Party in Parliament concerning the Anglo German arrangement is nothing short of an alternative to the defence of naval armaments advocated by Hyndman and Co. which has generally been condemned.” Hillquit (U.S.A.) said : “No word has yet been uttered concerning the main point. The debate has until now only been a continuation of the Stuttgart discussion on anti-militarism.” Dessin (England): ”We must
ABOLISH CAPITALISM
to ensure peace. But we can already now contribute towards a diminution of the dangers of war, and that is what the resolution of the British delegation is aiming at.”
(. . . )
The resolution on Disarmament and Peace was, like all the other resolutions put before the Congress,
FULL OF CONTRADICTIONS
and inconsistencies. It started with explaining the necessity of war under capitalism, and finished with a demand for suppression of hostilities by the democracy, and giving directions to the International Bureau how to act in case of a declaration of war. Socialism would stand a poor chance indeed if it were as impossible as this resolution. Vaillant and Keir Hardie moved the following amendment: “The Congress regards the General Strike as a means for the prevention of war, more especially a refusal to assist in the production and transport of arms and amnrunition.” This was rejected by a vast majority and the amendment carried.
During this debate Keir Hardie, replying to an attack by Ledebour on the British delegation, stated that the English Labour Party is against war and militarism. Ledebour had taken the attitude of the I.L.P. to be that of Hyndman and Quelch, but his Party had nothing to do with these. If his Party had supported the Liberal Budget that was
NOT A QUESTION OE PRINCIPLE, BUT TACTICS.
Here is what we said in 1907 on militarism and anti-militarism:
Breaking News Selby and Ainsty by-election: fiscal conservative gain from fiscal Conservative. Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election: fiscal Conservative beat off fiscal conservative challenge. Somerton and Frome by-election: fiscal conservative vote collapses from 12.9% to 2.6%. Overall result: No Change.
It seems that Farage’s bank account was cancelled because of his political views. So, yes, a disturbing development, especially as imposed by “progressives” not reactionaries. Supposed do-gooders who are really do-badders.
