robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Vin wrote:"I believe in public ownership, but I have never favoured the remote nationalised model that prevailed in the post-war era. Like a majority of the population and a majority of even Tory voters, I want the railways back in public ownership. But public control should mean just that, not simply state control: so we should have passengers, rail workers and government too, co-operatively running the railways to ensure they are run in our interests and not for private profit."This has been used against my criticism of a return to old labour. Corbyn -they say – is not suggesting the same thing so we cannot use the same knee jerk response. We have to criticise his form of 'common ownership' and recognise it is not the same as Stalin's.Or we will look stupid. There is also the fact that he wishes to put the Party's questions to the opposition not his own. Never heard any labour politician say that
To be fair though, Vin, Corbyn's "common ownership" is still an essentially statist construction except that its "not simply state control". Its still nationalisation -state capitalism – albeit with a particular Corbynite twist. Socialists can reasonably attack this but at the same time acknowlege the particularities of what he is promoting. In general, though, I agree with your position. Socialists need to be very very careful about the way in which they go about attacking Corbyn otherwise they could spoil things for themselves big time. You cannot be seen to be lumping together Corbyn and, say, Cameron as if there was absolutely no difference whatsoever between them. Thats just stupid and it would certainly do the SPGB no favours going down this road. It would just make the Party seem less credible. And it would close off completely any possibility of tapping into this surge of political consciousness and nudging it in a more positive and socialist direction Far better to acknowledge the differences and also to acknowlege the apparent intent behind the difference – so IDS for example would clearly be fully deserving of a more personalised attack (as some have argued here) rather than say Corbyn since the sentiments of the former are indeed loathsomely anti working class. But you cannot say that of the latter. He may be politically naive but his heart is in the right place at least. It would seem churlish – even foolish – to deny that. The point is that in the long run the needs of capital will prevail over the intentions of the politicians, however well intentioned, and this is what we should be focussing on and emphasising . Or, as Alan says, we should keep our eye on the ball and not the player – except perhaps for the occasional obnoxious player like IDS who is not intent on playing ball but on viciously headbutting those unfortunates who stand in his way and apparently relishing it.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Oh, just to stir it a bitQuote:We will introduce a ‘friends of Left Unity’ category whereby those who have chosen not to remain members can continue to receive our newsletter and participate in joint discussion and common action on issues that unite us.Would a SPGBer becoming a member of such a category disciplinary face charges?I'm sure on a personal level there are members who are friends with Left Unity members And is there any circumstance that we ourselves would create such a category…for instance, for those who do not cast off their religious convictions and supernatural beliefs.
Not a bad idea, Alan. Although I would prefer the SPGB jettisoned completely this silly bar on religious socialists – it is totally superfluous and unnecessary given all the very strict criteria you have to fulfil to become , and continue to be, an SPGBer – this idea of starting up something equivalent to a ‘friends of Left Unity’ for the SPGB itself is certianly a step in the right direction. It would be a more inclusive and accommodating approach as well as being a welcome acknowledgement of the plain fact that socialism is not going to be brought about by a movement of committed atheists but will require the involvement millions (billions) of others as well who understand and want socialism (which, after all, is all that basically counts at the end of the day). However, all this is contingent upon a clear recognition that just because you are not currently a member of the SPGB this does not make you a "non socialist", still less an "anti-socialist". Which is why it is very important to get this message across on these various threads to do with Corbyn, Lucas and the like. We have got to adopt a more discriminating, nuanced, and what SP rightly calls "intelligent", approach to this whole matter. Hardline and unremittingly uniform hostility to everything and everyone outside your own small circle is an approach that is destined to keep your circle small
It seems that the members in question – those who maintained that the class struggle could not be waged independently of the SPGB – could be considered guilty of a kind of idealist position on this matter. Did they imagine that classes only materialised out of a worldview exclusively promulgated by the SPGB or, if not , if classes existed independently of the SPGB, that the relationship between these classes was not in fact in an underlying sense, intrinsically antagonistic i.e.. took the form of a "struggle" over such things as wages etc. Their whole position seems absurd and utterly contrary to anything that could be called recognisably Marxian in its approach to society and history. All this, needless to say, has ramifications for what we are talking about on other threads such as the need for a more nuanced and sophisticated approach to what might be called "non socialists", based on the recognition that there are clearly degrees of socialist understanding so the question of where to "place the bar" becomes critical. Too low raises the prospect of being swamped by reformists and the like; too high on the other hand, has crippling implications for the growth of the organisation and its future vitality. Given the gradual and seemingly remorseless decline in the membership of the SPGB since the War, I would suggest this is a matter that needs to be urgently addressed. Mind you, personally, if I was in the SPGB in the 1920s I wouldn't have voted myself in favour of expulsion of the above members. I think there must be room for differences of opinion within a revolutionary socialist organisation and I don't think the difference of opinion in this case was sufficiently significant to warrant expulsion. Pragmatically, all that matters is Isaac Rab's core criteria of what constitutes a socialist; anything else is secondary and dispensable
alanjjohnstone wrote:Can we explore this a little further?What is the difference between a non-socialist and an anti-socialist?Can one have socialistic ideas but not socialist ones?Are there socialists outside the SPGB or in other words are members of the SPGB the only socialists in the UK?I endorse the drift of your whole argument, Alan. Yes of course there are socialists outside the SPGB and if there were not, I would say there would be little point in the SPGB carrying on – after 110 years and with a membership down to a few hundred. Socialists are the product of the interaction between material circumstances and socialist ideas and the notion that the SPGB alone is the sole fount of socialist wisdom is ludicrous and idealist. The SPGB for me, more than any other organisation, ticks most of the boxes of what, for me, should figure in a revolutionary socialist political organisation – although as you know, and I wont go on about this here, I think some of its policies, notably the exclusion of religious minded socialists (in Isaac Rab's sense of the word , socialist), is utterly daft and another case of the SPGB shooting itself in the foot. Hopefully one day in the not too distant future it will abandon these self imposed obstacles to its own growth… You mention the difference between a non-socialist and an anti-socialist. I think Caroline Lucas would be classified as the former rather than the latter. I interpret "anti-socialist" to mean active opposition to the ideas and values of the socialist movement. I don't think she can be called that even if she does not have socialism as her chosen explicit political goal in mind. It is silly to argue that there are no difference whatsoever between individuals who fall under this heading , let alone those who are not in the SPGB. i.e. 99.99% of the population. I'm not in the SPGB . Am I, then, a non socialist or even an anti socialist? I think socialist consciousness, or what you call a "socialistic" outlook, is a matter of degree. It is a question of values amongst other things. You could argue that much of what Lucas or indeed Corbyn are talking about is implicitly "socialistic". Yes of course it jars with the fact that they belong to organisations whose horizons do not extend beyonds the capitalist market economy and which are definitely non socialist if not actively anti-socialist. Nevertheless, people are complex and contradictory creatures, We should cut them a bit of slack at times and encourage them to develop their ideas and resolve their inner contradictions at their own pace. Attacking them personally as if the fact that they did not explicitly advocate socialism was some kind of moral defect, is frankly not conducive to them or indeed, more to the point, others who are their supporters coming to embrace socialism as a definitive political objective
Here's something by him in the Gruaniad http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/09/peter-hitchens-tory-trotskyite-left-right I suppose its not inevitable that Trots will morph into crusty old right wing reactionaries in old age but there does seem to be a high probability of that happening. I wonder why that is? There must be some kind of structural continuity in thinking that eases the switch in allegiance. Perhaps Trotskyist vanguardism is basically just the ideology of the managers – echoes of James Burnham's "managerial society" here – and the gravitational pull of the Right on aging Trots is just a logical development of all this. After all, Trotsky himself headed up the militarisation of labour programme in Russia in the early 1920s which crushed independent working class resistance to the newly emerging state capitalist regime. Colonel Blimp would have heartily approved
ALB wrote:That's the solution to Robbo's problem. Get people whose only difference with us is over religion to declare that they support our aims and values, pay £3 and get to vote to choose our election candidates ….Well not quite, ALB – though the "problem" you refer to is not mine but the Party's to the extent that it seeks to handicap itself with unnecessarily restrictive membership criteria that inhibit it own growth as in the case of its on religious beliefs. Not even Marx would have upheld such an extreme position as the rules of the First International would demonstrate. Nevertheless to take up your idea and run with it a little – if people were asked to declare that "they support our aims and values", (barring the contested issue of religion) would this not amount to a kind of membership test? If so, how would you justify limiting their involvement to the selection of election candidates alone?. Is an intermediate or compromise solution possible? I am asking this in all seriousness. I would be interested in exploring this idea further though I don't believe the suggestion of paying £3 for the privilege of choosing an SPGB election candidate in an open election is a desirable, or even practical, one but I assume you offered made this suggestion in jest – no?
DJP wrote:jondwhite wrote:Because our organisation has as our purpose their emancipation. We can't do it without them.You're right the socialist party on it's own cannot and will not bring about Socialism. But at a time when our ideas are not shared with the vast majority we cannot just act is if they where.
Strictly speaking, this is not relevant since what I gather from what Jondwhite is saying is that participation of outsiders in the affairs of the SPGB in open elections would be limited to the selection of it personnel, party officers or parliamnetary candiates in these open elections. It wouldn't effect policy which would remain under the control of the membership, Personally, I cant see much point in the idea though it might in theory attract more interest – or at least curiosity – in the SPGB. At a latter stage, if and when the SPGB were ever to become a "mass party", this idea might become a lot more relevant. But hopefully by then the Party would have long since dispensed of some of those more restrictive and redundant policies it has at prersent – like its silly idea of barring religious minded socialists – that have inhibited its progress thus far.
Osborne is a complete and utter prat.It is comical how these politicians puff themselves up into pundits when they are more often than not just a bunch of bar room bullies and buffoons The whole situation in Syria is a bizarre contradiction into which the western powers (and others) have sleepwalked. The Assad regime, despicable though it is is, in practice, ISIS's most formidable foe. I read somewhere that when Kobani was under siege it was the Syrian airforce that was inflicting by far the most damage on ISIS, not the Americans or their allies. So here is the dilemma for the West – you can attack Assad but that will surely strengthen the hand of ISIS . Or you can attack ISIS but that will to the advantage of Assad. Which is it to be? Either way the result will be more death and destruction , more brutalization and dehumanisation, and a rise in the outflow of refugees which some in Europe are complaining about while contributing to the very thing that is prompting Syrians in their hundreds of thousands to flee in terror and fear of their lives. Shamefully, it has even been suggested by some that since many of these refugees end up a relatively "peaceful" neighbouring states like Lebanon where they don't face persecution they can no longer considered "refugees" when they move on from there to Fortress Europe but rather "economic migrants" without any right to settle in Europe. Such is the duplicitous and warped logic of these disreputable politicians Of course there is another option which is not to engage militarily in the conflict at all and cut off arms as far as possible to all sides in the conflict – perhaps by means of arms blockade – in the hope that the intensity of the conflict will diminish as the supplies run out. But thats not gonna happen either. If there is a demand for weapons that wonderful, if not so, "invisible" hand of the market is gonna meet it . By hook or by crook but usually in the guise of the latter
How does one do that? Maybe you could just draw his/her attention to this thread, if you didnt mind?
ALB wrote:Here is Derek Wall speaking only 3 years ago:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2P7zXktn3gSometimes we're our worst enemy.Is Derek Wall aware of the discussion going on in this forum? It might be an idea to point him in this direction and perhaps also invite him to contribute to it..
This shouldn't be such a difficult thing to resolve. I just don't get why the point is being so belaboured and fretted over. Why not just simply acknowledge those things about Corbyn that are at least positive and seem to be part of the reason for his mass appeal – his breaking of the political mould, his willingness to speak his mind rather than whatever opportunist sound byte will get him into power, his seemingly quite genuine concern for those who have had a raw deal out of capitalism. And so on and so forth. These are good qualities and should be automatically (compulsorily?) invoked or referenced alongside whatever criticism socialists may make of him. The point in doing so is precisely to illustrate that he is going to fail and to inevitably disappoint his followers despite these qualities and not because of the absence of them as some people might be inclined to think we are saying. They might think we are attacking Corbyn because his personal qualities are lacking which seems to be the line peddled by the Right wing gutterpress and we do ourselves no favours by appearing to align ourselves with these people. A carrot and stick policy is ALWAYS better and more effective than a purely negative policy of wielding the big stick. Unfortunately some comrades in the SPGB – I don't tar the whole organisation – have the habit of being unremittingly negative and hostile towards anyone who has not "seen the light" when they should be encouraging people to abandon their illusions, not bashing them over the head with that big stick for holding such illusions. It stems from this black-or-white view of the world which lies at the heart of the SPGB's malaise and goes a long way towards explaining why the Party is not making the sort of progress one might have expected at a time when capitalist politics is at an all time low in terms of its credibility So I can sort of understand Derek Wall frustrated and despairing reaction even if it is rather over the top and frankly he should no better than to have come out with this silly comment of his on Twitter
ALB wrote:I think our different assessments of what is the more important in the economic system today stems from the fact that you are judging it by the amount of labour involved while I'm judging it by the amount of capital involved. It is true that about 80% of production goes towards government and people's consumption and therefore only about 20% to re-investment (capital accumulation).The point I was making was that what drives the capitalist economy is capital accumulation, overwhelmingly of buildings and machinery. Ok, it might be an oversimplification to identify this entirely with manufacturing but there is virtually no non-market accumulation of buildings and machinery. The non-market sector just does not have anything like the same economic weight as manufacturing and construction.Basically, the current economic importance of the non-market sector is being exaggerated as well as the illusion that it could spread beyond services, repairs and, yes, food grown on alotments.I don't doubt that "what drives the capitalist economy is capital accumulation", I just wonder whether this is so overwhelmingly concentrated in the manufacturing sector as you suggest and which after all, at least in the UK accounts for only 12% of the total national output. Does "capital accumulation" not also occur in the much larger services sector? While I'm sure you are right to say that 80% of production goes towards government and people's consumption and therefore only about 20% to re-investment (capital accumulation), the more pertinent question is where does that "re-investment" occur?. In what parts of the economy do we find "capital accumulation" as opposed to other parts where this does not happen? This is why I asked is what you saying here a reference to the Marxian distinction between "productive" and "unproductive work" – work that generates surplus value (out of which capital is accumulated) and work that is paid out of surplus value? If so , it is surely the case that while a large chunk of the services sector is unproductive other parts of the services sectors are strictly speaking productive I would appreciate it if you could clarify the above point, Adam, as I think it is quite an important one. Also, if possible, provide some statistical evidence for what you say. One further point I would make in this connection is that since all businesses in capitalism (with the exception of state bureaucracy perhaps which is not really a "business"), whether productive or not, are bound by economic competition to seek a monetary profit in order to be financially viable and are driven by these self same forces of economic competition to enlarge the profits they realise in order to maximise what can be reinvested in these businesses, there is a sense then in which all businesses are subject to quest to "accumulate capital". That is to say, subjection to the law of capital accumulation, strictly speaking, stands independently of the question of from whence this capital originates i.e.. in the productive sector alone Turning to your other point that our differing assessments of what is "more important in the economic system today stems from the fact that you are judging it by the amount of labour involved while I'm judging it by the amount of capital involved" – yes, I think that is a fair comment. You are looking at this matter from the standpoint of what makes capitalism tick whereas I am looking at from the standpoint of what could aid the changeover towards a post capitalist world. Naturally the question of labour and how it is applied today figures prominently in my view precisely because I hold that the working class will be the agents of that changeover or revolution. Obviously I am not suggesting that that is not also your view but we are coming at this from different angles…For you:"the current economic importance of the non-market sector is being exaggerated as well as the illusion that it could spread beyond services, repairs and, yes, food grown on alotments This however is missing the point in several senses. Firstly while it may well be the case that we cannot expect the non-market sector to spread much beyond services etc thus does not preclude the the non market sector "spreading". This is because the services sector is itself spreading and relentlessly growing at the expense of manufacturing to the extent that today only 8.2% of the UK workforce is in manufacturing. Overwhelmingly workers are based in the services sector precisely where you seem to agree the non market sector is capable of expansion. (Your reference to food grown on alotments incidentally seems to apply to the First World but overlooks that in the Third World a significant proportion of the food grown does not enter the market at all. it is self provisioning) Secondly I don't take the view that capitalism of itself will generate technological developments that will permit the expansion of the non market sector, thus heralding a post capitalist world This is the technological determinist position seemingly adopted by people like Mason and Rifkind which I oppose. For me the importance of non market sector is not so much economic – though I think, with respect, you underestimate that importance as does conventional economic thinking on the matter which tends to undervalue or disregard things that do not have a price tag. For me the importance is chiefly sociological. The non market sector provides a fertile and indispensable seedbed of ideas that could help to bring about a genuinely post capitalist world. You cannot underestimate the importance of actual lived experience in this regard. Those spaces in our lives that transcend the commodity relationship (as Marx himself recognised when he talked about the worker only becoming himself or herself outside of employment) are powerful sources of inspiration which, combined with an understanding of the workings of capitalism, is what will bring about a post capitalist socialist world. What is interesting about Mason's take on the subject as I see it ( though i cant pretend to be very acquainted with his ideas) is the importance he attaches to the role of information technology with respect to the non market sector. This is nothing new though,. The Internet has long been cited as an example of a fully functioning gift economy. But because it engages consciousness in quite a direct way this could facilitate the change in outlook and values that a post capitalist world would depend on. Or at least I hope so….
lanz the joiner wrote:Likewise, the SPGB rejects some aspects of Conservative thinking, but agrees with others. And here I'm referring to their shared belief in the necessity and importance of "austerity" policies in a capitalist economy, as the best/only way to deal with an economic slump.That makes it sound slightly like the SPGB advocates austerity policies which of course is outrageously not the case . It would be more accurate to say the SPGB opposes capitalism which, at times of economic slump, necessitates such policies. This statement is nevertheless totally compatible with the view that austerity should be resisted as far as possible
ALB wrote:robbo203 wrote:So it seems we have been at Mason's "choke point" for some time but capitalism is still around.The trouble is your "non-market sector" only concerns personal services and repairs to manufactured goods. But this sector is not the one that drives the capitalist economy. It's the production of manufactured goods (from raw material to finished product). Hardly any of this is in the non-market sector.
It depends how you look at it, though. Is the production of manufactured goods really what "drives the capitalist economy". The manufacturing sector is actually a rather small part of the capitalist economy and getting steadily smaller (at least in the more developed capitalist economies). For example, this is what Wikipedia says about the manufacturing sector in the UKDuring the second half of the 20th century, there was a steady decline in the importance of manufacturing and the economy of the United Kingdom shifted toward services, although manufacturing remained important for overseas trade and accounted for 83% of exports in 2003. In June 2010, manufacturing in the United Kingdom accounted for 8.2% of the workforce and 12% of the country's national output.I guess the argument could be made that Manufacturing constitutes the productive sector of the economy in the sense that it generates surplus value whereas the non productive sector lives parasitically off this surplus value e.g the bureaucratic apparatus of the state. That would certainly raise the profile and functional significnace of manufacturing to the capitalist economy although it has to be noted that some service industries also fall within the productive sector. I don't quite agree with your comment that "non-market sector" only "concerns personal services and repairs to manufactured goods". That is largely (but not entirely) true of the developed economies but it would certainly not be true of the so called Third World where self provisioning subsistence agriculture remains important . Having said that, the point of my previous post was to question the validity of Mason's claim that the choke point for the transition to post capitalism comes when the market sector and non-market sector become round about the same size.". Like I said, that choke point has been around for quite a while and we still have capitalism. I might be wrong here but Mason seems to have a rather limit view of what actually constitites the "non market sector" and for him it seems to centre mainly on activities heavily influenced by, or implicated in, information technology. Would this be a correct reading of him?
ALB wrote:In any event we don't have to wait for the labour content and marginal cost of production of manufactured goods to reach zero before socialism, even as a world of abundance, to become possible. A non-market "post capitalist" world is possible now if the means of production were commonly owned so that they could be geared to producing goods for free use and consumption. We don't need to way for further "spontaneous" technological developments to make this even more feasible. The technological basis for socialism already exists and has done for years.Yes I agree with all this and this is why I am critical of the apparent technological determinism of people like Mason and Rifkin. They seem to posit the view that the shift towards a "post capitalist world" is dependent on technological developments that "augur a zero marginal cost society". The underlying argument behind all this is unconvincing and misleading. The impression is inadvertently conveyed that thanks to technological developments, production costs have fallen to virtually nothing so that the whole rationale for a market economy has ceased or will soon cease, to exist. Of course, this is not case and it is to overlook the vital distinction between total costs and marginal costs. Even if marginal costs – the cost of each additional unit produced did fall to zero as claimed the costs of production would not at all be eliminated. The point is that capitalism continues not because we lack a sufficiently developed technology to underpin a socialist society but rather because the social relations of production that define capitalism go largely unchallenged and taken for granted. And the point about the "non market sector", I would suggest, particularly that part of it opened up by development of information technology is precisely that it makes it easier to envision and to a degree, even "experience", an alternative to capitalism. The internet for example has often been presented as a kind of "gift economy" in practice. Without practical examples such as these to draw inspiration from how else can we hope to break the stranglehold of capitalist hegemony on our collective imagination?
