Brian
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
dedelste wrote:I have some disagreements with you, and I am not convinced the society you are aiming for could actually work, but neither am I convinced it couldn't.My main question, though, which I'm sure you've heard before, but I haven't seen answered, is what makes you think that your approach will ever achieve a worldwide super-majority for socialism? I may be wrong, but your party doesn't seem to have grown any in over one hundred years. Do you feel like things are going reasonably, or is something wrong with your tactics? In the end, do you ever doubt that you will ever succeed, even if you're right about everything else? I actually admire working for something you will never live to see, but not for something that will never happen at all (virtually anything "can" happen, I think, but that's not an adequate standard to me). People who take a rational, scientific approach have to consider empirical evidence, don't they? Anyway, I'd like to know what evidence you see that you will ever win politically.
Like socialism itself our "approach" has never been tried. Why you may ask? Firstly, because it depends on class maturity when the working class transforms itself into a class for itself and becomes class conscious of its class position. Secondly, unlike previous changes in the mode of production the socialist revolution is going to be a conscious revolution. Thirdly, in order to change the social relationships of present society the working class have to change their mindset by withdrawing their support for capitalism.This means in effect that without a socialist minded working class majority you are not going to have socialism. The major question is how do the working class register their support for socialism and likewise express the major change in mindset?The short answer is for them to get more involved with the class struggle economically and politically. The long answer is: 1. They understand the purpose, temporary nature and logic of reforms. 2. They set up their own organisations based on the principle of direct participatory democracy with transparency, accountability and delegation the prime drivers for the goverance of the organisation. 3. They directly challenge the political system of capitalism through the ballot box.Being critical thinkers we are never 'reasonable' over our progress and as for 'tactics' we leave that to the left wing who are well versed in a frequent change of position. Our approach is based on the strategy outlined above which does not require any tactical adjustment.There is no 'evidence' that we are ever going to win politically, and socialism is not inevitable. But there is evidence that the working class is becoming more aware of its class position in capitalism. For instance despite its failings the Occupy Movement and its voicing of how the 99% are treated in capitalism went viral. Then there's the advent of TZM who also advocate production for use and free access. They prefer to call it a resource based economy but its very similar to socialism. With the withdrawal of reforms the workering class are at last coming to recognise they are of a temporary nature. The left wing are a spent force in regards influencing the workers. Last but not least discrimination of all types is on the defensive.
ALB wrote: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?
I'm firmly with the stance taken by the EC regarding how far the issue of no compromise can be taken. For it seems they also made the distinction between the political system and the political process. To clarify:If we were to accept the political system it would mean agreeing for all it stands for. Which not only includes advocating and proposing reforms but also the day-to-day running of capitalism and thus, effectively compromising our position for a revolutionary transformation. On the other hand by placing ourselves firmly alongside the political process we are stating that despite the limitations of representative democracy our participation in electoral campaigns and the political process in general – which includes voting on reforms – is not to be mistaken for participation in the political system where 'political trading' takes place between the conflicting and competive interests of the capitalist class.In practice this means that socialist delegates will have no hand in advocating, proposing or amending any reforms when clearly such participation is designed to distract the class struggle from the revolutionary process. Therefore each and every socialist delegate will be mandated by their electorate that they shall only participate in the running of parliamentary procedures as and when necessary and when its clearly in the interests of the working class to do so. All reforms will be judged and voted on their merits of whether or not they will benefit the working class.In effect the socialist delegates will be noted for their absence in the chamber rather than their attendance for much of the business of parliament is concerned with the day-to-day running of capitalism.
colinskelly wrote:But that would mean that a socialist MP or group of MPs, whilst still a minority, would just sit in parliament as a sterile protest group. Whilst not adopting a programme of reforms these MPs, as delegates, could use their votes in favour of working class interests. How that might be determined is, admittedly, problematic – what reform is a gain for the working class and what a palliative prolonging the system? But should the socialist movement have got that far it would not really be possible to keep its hands clean.You keep your hands clean by not advocating reforms and by making a judgement on the merits of accepting a particular reform within the political process. In short the delegates would have to be mandated by the electorate on whether or not they accept or abstain from voting on particular reform(s) which affect working class interests.
It seems you are all failing to see the difference between the 'political system' and the 'political process'. And consequently getting into a mess over the meaning of reforms,reformism and revolution. Luxemburg et al mistakenly thought that in order to obtain revolution it meant accepting an involvement with the political system and forgot there is no need to get your fingers dirty when you understand that actually its the political process which offers the means for self-emancipation.Why accept class corroboration (crossing the rubicon) has a forgone conclusion when involvement in the political process is sufficient to get the message across in terms of no compromise with the political system.Why rattle on about who said what when the solution is staring you in the face? A revolutionary party does not become involved with the political system.
During some searches I also picked up a comment that Mandela actually died in June and it was decided by his family to keep him alive on life support until the disputes over his will were settled.
DJP wrote:Brian wrote:By the way, from a materialist perspective Descates' got it wrong. Indeed he forgot to put his individual thinking cap on regarding an understanding of matter. Matter is primary and its impossible to isolate the individual thinking process from it. Which means in effect 'I am, therefore I think'.Actually Descartes was wrong but not for the reason given here. He assumed an "I", a self, when by his own logic he should not have. So he should have said "it thinks, therefore thinking" or something like that…Now Brian, for the purposes of this thought experiment, what irrefutable reason have you got for thinking that matter exists? Lets presume that all our sensations and perceptions are just fed to us by an evil demon that is trying to deceive us. How can we prove that this is not the case?
From a materialist perspective I would say you are going off topic! What have demons got to do with alienation and the division of labour?I was merely correcting Descartes materialistically not philosophically.
By the way, from a materialist perspective Descates' got it wrong. Indeed he forgot to put his individual thinking cap on regarding an understanding of matter. Matter is primary and its impossible to isolate the individual thinking process from it. Which means in effect 'I am, therefore I think'.
OK slothjabber I think everybody on this thread got the message many posts ago. It appears your (repeated messages) intentions are for the party Campaigns Committee to give the ABF one more try next year to test the waters on whether or not there's been a change of policy regarding an application from a political party. Who knows – its early days – but I'm sure they are willing to give it a go – if only to get written confirmation we face a permanent ban.
ALB wrote:Brian wrote:I don't see any one here agreeing that the formal abolition of apartheid made no difference or that it was not a welcome advance. What is being strongly argued is that the outcome made no essential difference to the situation – other than the introduction of representative democracy – and explaining why and how this major advance came about.I think it meant rather more than the introduction of representative democracy. It meant above all the abolition of the colour bar, which so far has meant more for the everyday life of the "Non-Whites" than has political democracy.
I find that comment rather edging on trollish behaviour when its impossible to separate the 'colour bar' from the system of apartheid itself. In fact from reports I've come across it appears that the colour bar is starting to be applied to the white farmers in South Africa. Zumba in this respect has taken a page from Mguabe by actively encouraging the poor black population to violently evict the farmers.But that deserves a separate thread for discussion.
The videos on the website: http://www.post-crasheconomics.com/events/our-events/91-2/ also deserve a mention for those socialists who may need some direct quotes on the current thinking on the subject in academia.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I think the word has now widened to apply to Zionist Apartheid Regime of Israel. The latest blog by our Zambian comrade makes your point , Brian, that Mandela did initiate multi-party democracy in neighbouring Southern African countries and a whole spate of elections took place but the backlash was that those parties then sought tribal/ ethnic support to gain political power. http://www.socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2013/12/mandela-his-political-legacy.htmlYep this article makes the point we need to consider the wider picture in respect of the introduction of representative democracy in South Africa had repercussions on the political make-up in the rest of southern africa. P.s. I tried to make a correction on SOYMB (Mandela spent 16 years on Robbins Island not 27) but the comment box is not working.
ALB wrote:Quote:John Pilger's 1998 documentary "Apartheid did not die"I can guess what he's arguing but, strictly speaking, the title is inaccurate. Apartheid, as the legal separation of the different so-called "races" in South Africa with jobs reserved for some of them, did die (and a good thing too). And it died because it had proved to be a barrier to the normal operation of capitalism and the process of capital accumulation in South Africa. What its death didn't do was to improve the economic situation of most "Africans", even though it did improve that of some of them, not just businesspeople and politicians (who were able to enrich themselves).but also skilled workers (who were able to move into jobs previously reserved for "Whites"). Come on, let's not say that the formal abolition of apartheid made no difference and wasn't a welcome advance.
I don't see any one here agreeing that the formal abolition of apartheid made no difference or that it was not a welcome advance. What is being strongly argued is that the outcome made no essential difference to the situation – other than the introduction of representative democracy – and explaining why and how this major advance came about. A nuance perhaps but nontheless an important one to be considered when discussing the whole picture of capitalist development.
For what its worth in my opinion the process for the workers coming to terms with the realities of the division of labour has already started with the effects so apparent they are impossible to ignore. Yet this process will only reach its completion in a socialist society with the citizens of the world being in a position to participate in the tasks which match their abilities.The use of the term 'polytechnic worker' does has its obvious drawbacks that's why I much prefer 'generalists' to describe the skills of the well rounded fully developed producer.
LBird wrote:Reduced 'productivity' doesn't necessarily lead to lack of 'abundance'.Hmm. Don't lose sight of the possibility that a reduction in the division of labour will necessarily lead to a reduction in 'productivity' – never mind abundance. I think its safe to assume that the division of labour will continue whatever measures are taken to offset/alleviate alienation. For instance, any industies will reduce their volumes of production i.e. motor vehicles. And with many industries and occupations no longer fit for purpose, this will mean there will be a total reduction in the division of labour but the remaining industries and occupations will by necessity continue the practice.
LBird wrote:Jonathan Chambers wrote:Brian wrote:…in a socialist society we'll be more conscious of our potential to engage in productive activity which is beneficial to the individual and the community?Of course. But the fact remains that there are limits to that potential.
The real issue is:'Who or what determines what 'potential' consists of and how it is realised, and who or what determines its 'limits'?'For example, the answer could be 'genes' or could be 'society'. And if 'society', it could be a 'minority social authority' or a 'majority social authority'.
There's also the limitations of the circumstances we will find ourselves in regarding the reorganisation of the present authoritive institutions. Do we let them continue with their agreed procedures and processes when in most cases they are geared towards filtering and selecting subjects of a capitalist nature? Or does the review and assessment of these civic bodies take place during the run up to the revolutionary transformation of political power, or after the social relationships of capitalism have been abolished?
