robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Vin wrote:SPGB COMMUNICATION STRATEGYAccepted wisdom [again?] is that you communicate mostly to the undecided. You need not talk to those already on your side [they have already heard the message], and it is a waste of time [well, mostly] to talk to your intractable enemies, so you are best advised to concentrate your fire on those who are possible but not yet in your fold. The great masses…and also coincidentally those already on the left but not true socialists. Here I suppose I break with tradition: rather than emphasising the extent to which we denounce these misguided fools in their mistaken political activism, we should send them out a more welcoming message – the concerns that attracted you to a left wing party are valid and we are likely to share them. I believe we are more likely to gain new recruits from those already on the left than elsewhere: hopefully the other parties have in some sense warmed them up for us. If our message is so much better than theirs [well, it is, isn’t it?], then it shouldn’t be too difficult to get them over. And if that is the case, then it isn’t very clever acting all hostile to them…sensible?
I think this is a key point in Howard's paper – the need for more precisely targeted propaganda. Say what you like about the Lefties – including the Greens – but they are the people most likely to become socialists in our sense of the word. That means reaching out to them in particular without ignoring the wider electorate. It also means developing a more welcoming and conducive attitude towards them. Its difficult, I know, and I don't have any quick answers. Also, I have been a guilty as the next person in ignoring this suggestion, giving into temptation and laying into the Left in heavy handed fashion. To err is to be human. Nevertheless one should not forget the long term objective which is not about scoring points but gaining supporting for genuine socialism. I have not been active on the Revleft forum lately but I have noticed a shift in thinking towards a more explicit understanding, and embrace of, what genuine socialism is about. One slight problem I have with Howard's line of reasoning has to do with his implied recommendation that we abandon the language of, and perhaps any reference to, certain dead Germans. All very well but the language of Marxism has a strong resonance among the Left – we speak this language when we talk to the Left – and yet it is the Left who we are urged to target. I'm not quite sure how to get round this one either but its worth thinking about
Vin wrote:So, talking to the rest of the electorate…those who might see the world in terms of tory and labour or LibDem, etc. Those who worry about taxes and the price of petrol and employment security…Going straight at them and talking about scrapping money is a big jump for most of them, and it consigns us as extra-terrestrials as far as many are concerned, no matter how great the idea is. As things stand we have got to make the case that there is an alternative because most of them do not believe it: they think this is all there is. At least when the USSR was in existence, there was a tangible alternative -admittedly not much of one but one that was present within everyone’s consciousness. At the moment received wisdom is that this system is the only possibility. Our giving them both barrels as an opening gambit is counter-productive: it simply deters them from listening. Moreover the language in which much of our case is made is, to many, far too opaque. At a recent election meeting, I found myself paraphrasing some of the answers to questions given by those speaking on our behalf: the questioners being visibly confused….. My point is about key messages at election time and similar: I think a money-less society and leaderless world was a bit of a big step for most of our intended audience [much as it felt right in a self-congratulatory way]. I think my suggestions of seeding as above is far more palatable to many. It will not bear immediate fruit, but I suspect there is not much that will. At least it gets people thinking – which is foremost what we want [surely?].Yes I think this is an important point that Howard is making. Socialism comes across as a remote and disembodied abstraction something that, if is ever going to come about at all, will probably only come about in the very long term. But in the long term, as Keynes said, we are dead. Therefore people are not inclined for the most part to take socialism seriously. The case for socialism may be highly rational but if socialism is not on the cards for the foreseeable future what is the point? People will simply rationalise to themselves that we live in a sub-optimal world and we might as well just go about making the best of what we have in the meanwhile. In other words there is a huge credibility gap that socialism suffers from. This idea of Howard's of starting from where people are today and using a step by step approach to win them over is a sound one. My gloss on this would be that it means identifying and encouraging those developments with capitalism that run counter to the logic of the market – the various ways in which workers strive to cope under capitalism by adopting forms of organisation that transcend the market and which unmistakably point point to the possibility of another alternative to capitalism while not necessarily representing that alternative themselves. This was, as some might recall, the central argument of the old Guildford Branch circular produced back in late 80s (Gawd how time flies!) – The Road to Socialism – which caused a bit of stir. I think what the circular was actually saying was largely misunderstood within the Party and the discussion got bogged down in fruitless and defensive debate about the merits or otherwise of workers co-ops and the like. The bigger picture was sadly missed in the heat of the argument – namely that "socialistic" or non-market developments – like the growth of intentional communities, for example – while they do not necessarily lead to socialism or generate a socialist outlook, provide a fertile ground in which socialist ideas can be seeded. The point is that these things address the short term concerns of workers which mere abstract propagandism by its very nature cannot and so therefore tends to present socialism as a mere abstract long term goal. Highly rational though the case for socialism may be it demonstrably lacks the potency to motivate. Thus, goes the argument, it is only by linking up with these "socialistic developments in a more positive way that the movement for socialism will be able to gain traction, will be able to overcome that massively daunting hiatus between the short and long term perspectives. Or, if you like, by bringing closer together the utopian and scientific traditions of socialism I think it is worth revisiting this argument and seeing what in practical terms that might mean as far as an organisation like the SPGB is concerned. I do not imagine that ever means changing its function as a political party and a source of socialist propaganda. But it might very well mean a significant change in emphasis and tone and possibly also what individual members of the Party might do as distinct from the Party as a collective entity….
SocialistPunk wrote:For me at least, this raises a question as to what parts of the state get converted into "the agent of emancipation"? Or to put it another way. What use is the state to socialism, when workers have already organised outside it to ensure the transition from capitalism to socialism?If I might just paste here what i wrote in the other thread to provide context…
robbo203 wrote:In the first place. it is nonsense to claim that the " immediate abolition of the state is an anarchist position". The anarchist position is rather to bypass or circumvent the state altogether. – because of its toxic association with hierarchy The "abolition of the state" necessarily implies the capture of the state which is definitely not what anarchists advocate. You cannot "abolish" something unless you have control of it to begin with. Secondly, if you do not abolish the state immediately then be aware of what this means and what it is in fact that you are calling for. The state is an instrument of class rule. The existence of the state implies the existence of class society. In rejecting the idea that the state should be immediately abolished, you are asserting the need for the existence of the state to be prolonged and perpetuated and by that very same token therefore you are asserting the need for the existence of class society to be prolonged and perpetuated. This, after a democratic socialist majority has just captured political power with the clear mandate to eliminate class society. I have had this argument before with Left Communists and others who apparently, like you, call for a period of transition commonly know as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" during which the the proletariat consisting mainly of revolutionary socialists will continue to administer a class – based society. I put it to you as I have put it to them that whole idea is absolutely baloney., I don't care if Marx , Karl or Groucho, advocated it. It is still complete nonsense How is it logically conceivable that this interim, a (so called) "socialist" administration in the face of the democratic socialist capture of power going to administer class society in the interests of the proletariat. Its like trying to run the abattoir in the interests of the cattle. It cannot be done. A class society exists by virtue of the exploitation of one class by another. Accordingly anyone who takes on the administration of such a class society must necessary administer it in the interests of exploiting class and against the interests of the exploited.So to respond to your point SP, its not the "state" that gets converted once it is democratically captured. It is the "machinery of government" and, even then, only some of this – the rest will be scrapped as dysfunctional or pointless to needs of a socialist society e.g.. tax collection The moment the state is captured by a socialist majority will coincide with its demise. Anything other than than is is to buy into that preposterous notion that a slave society can be administered in the interests of the slaves – the so called "dictatorship of the proletariat". If the state continues in any way shape or form after the capture of it by the worker then that implies the perpetuation of class society since the state is essentially a tool of class oppression and you cannot have class oppression without there being classes.There may be disgruntled ex capitalists – but not capitalists – around who might seek to violently overthrow the new system but the force applied against such individuals will not be tantamount to the actions of a state but rather those of a stateless society (and as the anthropological literature attests, stateless society are also capable of wielding coercive force; this is a function not limited to state-based/class based societies) Perhaps an analogy might help. If an individual dies some of his her organs might be used – transplanted into the body of another individual. The heart or liver of the deceased person is, however, not the person as such. The person is more than the sum of his or her individual parts and it is that which has ceased to exist when that person dies. In the same way, when the state dies some of the functions carried out by the state and in the name of the state will to operate but they will no more imply the existence of a state than a transplanted organ implies the continued existence of the original donor
Just seen on the news that Russia has just recently introduced restrictions on foreign NGOs operating within the country – like Amnesty International – which has predictably elicited a response from the British government via its embassy along the lines that this amounts to a curtailment of free speech. Oh the hypocrisy of it all! But I guess inter-capitalist rivalries is something else that needs to be factored into the equation. In much the same way as economic competition is supposed to be good because it brings down the price of commodities, so political competition between capitalist states over their claims to represent the interests of their subject might not be a bad thing either. In a way bourgeois democracy is the Achilles heel of capitalism though the Left as usual can't seem to see this
ALB wrote:Denounce it? Why not? As it's aimed at "non-violent extremists" it is an infringement of the principle of free speech which we have always upheld.Join with some of our opponents to try to stop the proposal becoming law? I don't think so, especially as the most vocal of them will be supporters of Islamist extremists like the SWP crying "Islamophobia". And remember of course that the Islamist extremists if they got power wouldn't simply ban us; they'd behead us.(Even so we defend their right to say we should be beheaded, but drawing the line at them actually doing it.) Best leave this sort of thing to Liberty. That's what they're for.I agree with Adam that the proposed legislation is very unlikely to be used against socialists. It would backfire spectacularly on the Tories if they tried to do so. Question is – what are socialists to do or say about it? While I don't think we should in some formal sense "join with some of our opponents to try to stop the proposal becoming law", merely "denouncing" it hardly seems adequate either. There is surely some middle position to be adopted here. For instance, joining in a mass demo or march against the proposal. It is not relevant to the question that some opponents of the proposal – like the SWP – adopt a position that is ultimately hypocritical. That is their problem, not the problem of revolutionary socialists. The question is how do we bring about or safeguard a political environment in which the right to free speech is entrenched. We cannot just passively sit on the fence; we have to actively participate in the shaping of that political environment even if we are not alone in wanting to do this. You can't really have an effective socialist movement without the minimal trappings of bourgeois democracy so it would be foolish not to agitate for these. And, no, that is not "reformism" either….
Vin wrote:robbo203 wrote:With the socialist revolution, the state goes – immediately –I believe the SPGB's position is that the state is converted from an instrument of oppression into an agent of emancipation. the immediate abolition of the state is an anarchist position and as you know a position opposed by both Marx and the SPGB. A conference resolution in the 80s or 90s went against our D of P and was later corrected – I think. But I agree that gaining control of the state is essential.
Sorry, but I cannot go along with your reasoning here, Vin. To me it makes no sense at allIn the first place. it is nonsense to claim that the " immediate abolition of the state is an anarchist position". The anarchist position is rather to bypass or circumvent the state altogether. – because of its toxic association with hierarchy The "abolition of the state" necessarily implies the capture of the state which is definitely not what anarchists advocate. You cannot "abolish" something unless you have control of it to begin with. Secondly, if you do not abolish the state immediately then be aware of what this means and what it is in fact that you are calling for. The state is an instrument of class rule. The existence of the state implies the existence of class society. In rejecting the idea that the state should be immediately abolished, you are asserting the need for the existence of the state to be prolonged and perpetuated and by that very same token therefore you are asserting the need for the existence of class society to be prolonged and perpetuated. This, after a democratic socialist majority has just captured political power with the clear mandate to eliminate class society. I have had this argument before with Left Communists and others who apparently, like you, call for a period of transition commonly know as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" during which the the proletariat consisting mainly of revolutionary socialists will continue to administer a class – based society. I put it to you as I have put it to them that whole idea is absolutely baloney., I don't care if Marx , Karl or Groucho, advocated it. It is still complete nonsense How is it logically conceivable that this interim, a (so called) "socialist" administration in the face of the democratic socialist capture of power going to administer class society in the interests of the proletariat. Its like trying to run the abattoir in the interests of the cattle. It cannot be done. A class society exists by virtue of the exploitation of one class by another. Accordingly anyone who takes on the adminstration of such a class society must necessary administer it in the interests of exploiting class and against the interests of the exploited. There is no way round this, Vin, except to called for the immediate abolition of the state along with class society following the capture of political power. In my view, some members of the SPGB are rather confused on this point. It is notable that the two branches that were expelled in the 1980s for the their undemocratic behaviour also took the same position as you seem to do – that the state will "wither away" rather than be immediately abolished. Their position is closer to a Leninist position than that of revolutionary socialists. Lenin merely took up Marx's incoherent comments on the concept of the DOTP and took then to their logical conclusions – state capitalism! Far from the state withering away it was enormously strengthened and reinforced One final observation – on this idea of converting the state from an instrument of oppression into an agent of emancipation.. The only acceptable interpretation of this in my book is that once the state has been captured much of the machinery of asministration inherited from the capitalist era will continue to exist and be adapted in a socialist society but in no sense could one impute to this the existence of a state as such ( and therefore class society). The administrative machinery built up by the state will continue to exist in some form but not the state as such. I think it is absolutely crucial to recognise this distinction…..
I suppose what can be said about the parliamentary method of establishing socialism is that it ticks all the boxes as far as the revolution is concerned and it is for that reason, I would endorse it . It is difficult to see quite how the democratic nature of that revolution can be demonstrated and put into effect without some form of head counting. And it is difficult to see how, in turn, that could be done outside the electoral or parliamentary process. True, dual power scenarios in which alternative structures – e.g.. workers councils – exist alongside the parliamentary institution seem to do this but the great weakness with them is that they don't really address the question of the state and who controls that. They are thus constantly at risk of being attacked or taken over by the state which regards them as a rival source of social legitimacy Nevertheless that does not necessarily mean we have to reject the idea of workers councils. It would be more helpful to see their role as supplementary – or complementary. The same would be true of other sorts of other developments – including the growth of the non market sector which is almost certainly bound to happen in the wake of the growth of the revolutionary socialist movement itself. The repercussions of such growth are also likely to transform incrementally the entire social climate in which political debate takes place, making it more and more difficult for governments to get away with implementing the kind of measures that the present Tory government is contemplating. One thing I would caution against is any suggestion of the socialist movement taking over and reorganising the state. In my view the capture of the state is synonymous with its complete and immediate disappearance. It cannot be anything other than this. Call me pedantic but, for me, the state signifies the existence of classes- it is a class institution. Holding on to the state in any way shape or form means holding on to some form of class society. I am vehemently opposed to the Marxian concept of the so called "dictatorship of the proletariat" which is fundamentally flawed and illogical. You cannot run a slave society in the interests of the slaves and the longer you pretend to do so the more likely are you to morph into a slave owner yourself. So a distinction needs to be clearly made between the state qua state and its administrative machinery. It is acceptable to talk in terms of taking over and adapting that machinery for the benefit of a socialist society but it is totally unacceptable to talk in terms of taking over and adapting the state itself. With the socialist revolution, the state goes – immediately – because the institution of class ownership likewise goes immediately. If organised coercion or force is required to thwart the intentions of any undemocratic minority to overturn the decision of the great majority then this coercive force will be of a non statist nature because it will issue from a non class society. It is not as if you cannot have organised force without a state and there are numerous examples of non statist – or pre-statist -acephalous societies that actively deploy force and engage in violent methods to achieve their ends. I am thinking in particular of mainly pastoralist societies such as the Nuer in southern Sudan which is a fiercely egalitarian non statist tribal society but also one noted its warlike activities…. Not that I am suggesting a socialist society would be organised along lines similar to the Nuer but the basic point remains – organised coercion does not have to be statist in nature
This will be of interest to you, Meel -"Nature vs Nurture results in a draw, according to twins meta study http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-05-nature-nurture-results-twins-meta-study.html Coming from a family with two sets of twins – identical and fraternal – I can sort of relate to this…
I would go along with all that , Alan, but one thing is missing – you don't actually define what you mean by "reformism". In my view, this is a serious problem that has long dogged the Party. It is the very vagueness of its working definition of reformism that has had a paralysing effect on the development of more imaginative – and productive – approaches to activity such as you envisage. I agree with the argument that you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere that differentiates a revolutionary socialist political party from a reformist political party – otherwise you will simply be swallowed by the capitalist machine and co-opted by capitalism. Contrary to Stuart's claim that the distinction is meaningless, all the historical evidence shows absolutely compellingly that if you don't make such a distinction sooner or later your whole perspective will be drained of all revolutionary intent and you will find yourself completely trapped on a reformist treadmill going nowhere. You might just as well join the Labour Party or the Liberals and good luck with wanting to change the world. But where to draw the line – this is the problem. There was a circular produced by the old Islington Branch back in the early 90s, I recall, entitled "What is Reformism?" Is a copy available? It might help shed some light on this important subject….
ALB wrote:If they planned to introduce something like the Anti-Socialist Law of 1878 in Germany that would be something to get worried about. It starts off:Quote:Societies [Vereine] which aim at the overthrow of the existing political or social order through social-democratic, socialistic, or communistic endeavors are to be prohibited. This applies also to societies in which social-democratic, socialistic, or communistic endeavors aiming at the overthrow of the existing political or social order are manifested in a manner dangerous to the public peace, and, particularly to the harmony among the classes of the population.That would cover us explicitly.Actually, while it caused great inconvenience to the German Social Democratic movement it didn't work to suppress it and was eventually repealed in 1890, largely because they couldn't stop more and more people voting for the SPD. That's what would (hopefully) happen if they tried it on the socialist movement here at a later stage.
Would that not be because the SPD soft pedalled their maximum programme at the time as a way of protecting themselves from the authorities – that is to say, by putting greater emphasis on their minimum programme which then had the effect of drawing more workers to the SPD which, in turn, resulted in the maximum programme fading into the background and eventual disappeaing altogether as the Party converted into a fully fledged capitalist reformist organisation. Bismarck seemed to have cottoned on to the idea and began introducing his own "socialistic" programme of reforms when he realised their electoral appeal However, the SPGB would be in a quite different position if something similar happened in the UK and Cameron and his ilk decided to go the whole hog and ban all revolutionary socialist organisations. In that event, the SPGB would not be able to camouflage itself behind a minimum programme and I guess under those circumstances the Party would have to go underground or something. Not that I imagine for one moment that things will come to that. Cameron may be an idiot but he is not that stupid.
Vin wrote:J Surman wrote:"Reference to a 'parasitic minority' could be used as 'hate speech'"Surely 'reference to a parasitic minority' would be simply a statement of fact?I agree, and I use it often, but in relation to the legislation it may be interpreted as 'hate language'We are trying to turn one class against another.
Yes I would endorse that too. Though I very much doubt that such legislation will be brought to bear against organisations like the SPGB – the SPGB lawyers would probably have a field day in court getting any muzzling or banning order overturned and the publicity the case would generate would be unprecedented ("Government fails in its bid to ban Britain's oldest socialist party") – we should not overlook the ideological function of such legislation which is to intimidate and to bully and promote what it calls core "British values". The very vagueness of the key terms it uses goes to assist that purpose. Cameron foolishly let the cat out of the bag in his speech to the NSC when he said:“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance.“This government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach. As the party of one nation, we will govern as one nation and bring our country together. That means actively promoting certain values."On the face of it , this is a recipe for creeping totalitarianism, a kind of quasi Stalinist form of social engineering and a significant departure from the tradition of so called liberal bourgeois democracy which asserted that, providing you stayed within the law, you were free to espouse whatever ideas or values you wanted to. Of course that is a lie because the state has never stood neutral between different values; it has always promoted certain values such as patriotism. In any event, the idea that revolutionary socialists share such "British values" with Mr Cameron – there is nothing "British" about , democracy for example and it it is not confined to "Britain" – is preposterous so on paper we too would fall victim to such legislation but as I say this is most unlikely to happen. Appearance and reality are two different things….On paper, such legislation is supposed to be directed against "terrorism" – not just the practicioners of violence against the state but the against the ideologists who preach hate or advocate violence but do not themselves commit acts of violence. That would certainly seem to mean that any organisation advocating the violent overthrow of capitalism would be muzzled or banned and that includes quite a few far left organisations. The hypocrisy of it all is, of course, stunning beyond belief. So its OK for a state or members of the government to preach hate against another state (Iraq, Syria etc etc) and even to inflict violence on the latter, but the citizens of the country who elected that government to power are not permitted to do the same. Thus, we have a government that is sending out that message, on the one hand, that violence is justified and moreover works and on the other , condemning those citizens that take this message to heart and start to practise what this government itself actually preaches As I say, unbelievable…
" I still think that we rely too much on "proving" that either HGs – or bonobos – were/are peaceful, therefore we must be (innately?) peaceful, therefore socialism is possible.I am not at all sure about that line of reasoning. Chimps/bonobos aren't all that close to us anyway, according to some recent reading I have done." Hi Meel,Just to connect up with some of your comments from the other thread….I agree with your last point above although I note that both the blank slaters and the genetic determinists have a tendency to fall back on claims about chimps/bonobos anyway…. Regarding your first point , the way I look at it is this – that it is the thesis that human beings are inherently warlike, advanced by people like E O Wilson, that is questionable and what makes it questionable is the track records of HG societies themselves. Given that for 95% of our existence on this planet as a species we lived as hunter gatherers if anything can throw light on what might constitute our "human nature", it would be a hunter gatherer way of life. And the evidence purporting to demonstrate HG violence is weak and often misleading (so for example , pastoralist or horticulturalist tribal societies are quite often presented as proof of this thesis even though such societies are not immediate-return HG societies at all and unlike the later have a developed sense of territoriality) I wouldn't say the fact that HG societies were relatively peaceful proves that we are innately peaceful or that socialism is possible (although it might support the claim that socialism is not impossible?) It is interesting that Pinker advances the view that, relatively speaking, society is becoming more peaceful for the several reasons you mentioned earlier, which seem to be fundamentally social in origin and would pit Pinker against a strict determinist position. I would re-orientate the whole discussion away from this simple blank slate/genetic determinism dichotomy. Have a look at this link on the work of the anthropologist Sarah Mathew http://phys.org/news/2015-04-anthropologist-explores-warfare-cooperation.html Mathew's work focuses on the relationship between "moral boundaries" and "cultural boundaries". In other words, who do we morally identify, or cooperate, with and how is this constrained by our sense of cultural belonging? The paradox of war , she argues, is that it is both a highly co-operative project as well being incredibly socially divisive – although on this case she is looking at the Turkana people who are pastoralists and not HGs. Her proposed research will focus on two areas. First, what are the social boundaries of people's moral and cooperative dispositions? This issue is paramount because some theories of the evolution of human cooperation predict that the social boundary will be defined by the cultural or ethnic boundary.Second, Mathew will attempt to determine whether there are consistent cross-cultural patterns in the psychological costs of killing in warfare.Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-04-anthropologist-explores-warfare-cooperation.html#jCpThis whole argument that "in-group amity necessitates out-group enmity" goes back a long way – to Social Darwinists like W G Sumner (Folkways, 1906) and beyond him to Darwin and Huxley themselves. The ramifications of this argument for socialists are important and need to be confronted. We talk about the development of a global cosmopolitan capitalist monoculture (the Communist Manifesto itself predicted this development!) but what are the implications of an alternative path of development towards greater cultural diversification which some of us endorse? How do we achieve (global) unity in, or through, diversity? Its a fascinating subject….. " I can see that HGs living in harsh circumstances would have a harsher life style whereas others in more lush surroundings would not need to kill their grandmothers! "Actually, I would see it, if anything , the other way round. Harsh circumstances tend to make for more, not less, cooperation. The examples I gave you in an earlier post of the !Kung and the Australian Aborigines in which there are widespread and far flung cooperative networks between HG groups, happen to coincide with particularly harsh arid environments . Amongst the Bedouin of North Africa there is a strong tradition of hospitality towards strangers. I've had personal experience of this when my family and I were travelling in the Sahara quite a few years ago and somewhere in Southern Algeria we encountered a Bedouin who invited us to a sumptuous meal of lamb , rice and dates (although as I recall the dish was topped with the eyeball of a lamb which was quite alarming and I couldn't quite bring myself to eat it!). Point is that this is part of a cultural tradition in which people are typically hospitable to strangers and which makes sense: you never know when yourself might be in need of support in your travels through the desertIronically it is in particularly lush and productive environments – such as in north American western coastal region where there are extensive salmon runs, that you find complex HG societies emerging which differ from simple HG societies in displaying more hierarchical tendencies and are perhaps, in a way, precursors of tribal societies proper" I no longer believe that capitalism "conditions" us into various personality types. At the extremes, yes, conditions of life can impact on us – think children that grew up in the awful Romanian orphanages, child soldiers being brutalised in Africa, American marines going through their training. I am convinced we are not born as "blank slates". I don't think this needs to be a barrier to changing society – as long as we don't look for perfection, a utopia!"I agree. I would say that capitalism conditions us in a generalised background sort of way but it is far from being the only factor involved. The impact of capitalism is mediated by all sorts of other factors including also genetic ones and historically contingent ones. That influence is still there though. The brutalisation of child soldiers in Africa happens in the context of vicious "resource wars" over things like diamonds and oil which cannot really be divorced from capitalism. And stress, particularly over financial matters , is a major cause of family break ups and divorce and again cannot really be divorced from capitalism. But even so we are not blank slates. We have different tolerance levels and react to different situations differently . That is actually not a bad thing. Because if capitalism was such a totalising system of conditioning as is sometimes made out, we would be well and truly stuffed! How could we ever overcome this systemic conditioning to overthrow capitalism in that case?
Meel wrote:I doubt that life in a hunter-gatherer society was always what it is sometimes cracked up to be, see my #257 on the Hunter Gatherer thread. Granted, the Tierra del Fuego tribes mentioned were living at the extremes. I think HG tribes often considered people in the next valley as non-human and therefore part of the wild life, to be hunted down if they got the chance. Our "visceral insulation" may make it difficult for us to envisage this. But I have a reading list to get through on HG's…………(my bold) Hmmm. Don't know if I would go along with that, Meel….Ethnographic research in HG's societies like the '!Kung and the Australian Aborigines suggest otherwise – an elaborate support network consisting of blood relatives and friends extending over literally hundreds of miles ( Peter J. Richerson, Monique Borgerhoff Mulder, and Bryan J. Vila, 1996. Principles of Human Ecology. Pearson Custom Publishing, Part II, ch 3). This was – is – not just a function of the normal process of fissioning, the break up of the hunter gatherer band into smaller units for environmental and social reasons, but also of course because of the operation of the incest taboo. Quote from the above: The !Kung, according to Polly Wiessner, used a gift exchange system to cultivate friendships with people in distant bands.Women exchanged fancy beadwork and men arrows. The Central Australians had elaborate “section” systems of extended kinship that classified marriage with allbut a few women as incestuous. Men might have travel hundreds of kilometers to find an eligible mate. According to Aram Yengoyan and Wiessner the effect of these institutions was to ensure that every family had friends and inlaws scattered everywhere.When subsistence or political problems occurred, people could seek aid from any of a number of kin or friends in a number of different environments Also , there is that recent notable study of violence in HG societies carried out by researchers from the Abo Academy University in Finland which showed that such violence as there was, was "driven by personal conflicts rather than large-scale battles" and that "war is not an innate part of human nature, but rather a behaviour that we have adopted more recently" . Using contemporary evidence the research team looked at 148 documented cases of violent deaths. Patrik Soderberg, one of the authors of the study, reported that:"Most of these incidents of lethal aggression were what we call homicides, a few were feuds and only the minority could be labelled as war.. Over half the events were perpetrated by lone individuals and in 85% of the cases, the victims were members of the same society." ("Primitive human society 'not driven by war' ", BBC News: Science and Environment, 18 July 2013) The nomadic nature of HGs means that there was little reason to regard people in the next valley with animosity let alone to "to be hunted down if they got the chance" since there was no real sense of territoriality among such groups. On the contrary , there was probably far more reason for them to cooperate with their neighbours .in the next valley, some of whom would likely be individuals that once belonged to their own group…
stuartw2112 wrote:If the party took the same attitude to reformist campaigns and social activism of all kinds as it does to the trade unions (and why not, since the unions are often leading them anyway), then I would no longer have any problem with its position or attitude or politics. Speed the day!Funny you should mention Pieter. I always think of him when talking about reformism. Once he was telling me about the (reformist?) campaign he had been involved in to save the local bus service. You'd really have to be mad to oppose or not get involved in supporting such things, which Pieter might well have said, though I can't quite remember!This illustrates once again what is a real problem for socialists – what exactly do we mean by "reformism"? I don't know what Brand's position is on the subject but I don't think what is vaguely called "social activism", such as he is involved in, can strictly be called "reformist" – not in my book at any rate. For the same reason, I don't think Pieter's involvement in a campaign to save a local bus service is a "reformist" either. These kinds of activities , though different in form to trade unionism, are in a sense analogous to trade union activity and should therefore be regarded in much the same light as the latter "Reformism" to me necessarily entails two key aspects 1) It involves the introduction of legislative enactments or policies by the state operating within the political field which are designed to address and ameliorate the various problem thrown up by capitalism. So, for example, Pieters' campaign to save his local bus service was not about trying to change a particular piece of legislation but rather to challenge an executive decision made by his bus service provider to cut a particular bus service. It was therefore not reformist. The same would be true of groups of workers fighting cuts in spending on the NHS which is part of the social wage that workers receive 2) Its focus is essentially economic. This follows from the fact that capitalism itself is defined in essentially socioeconomic terms and what reformists are attempt to "reform" is precisely the way capitalism operates as a socio economic system in respect of the particular problems it seeks to address. So for example, a measure that increases the scope of democracy in the political field would not strictly speaking amount to a reformist measure Yes I know all the usual objections will be thrown up in response to this argument – such as that you cannot exactly disentangle the political and the economic fields (even though that is effectively what the Party does by approving of trade union activity but disapproving of reformist activity). I would say in response that you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere and if you are going to draw such a line it would be far better to do so from the standpoint of a rigorous and tightened-up definition of reformism. The political field is about what kind of society we would like to have . Its about social aspirations and choice. It is completely correct that a revolutionary socialist party should have as its sole objective the socialist transformation of society. You cannot both strive to end capitalism and mend capitalism. These objectives are fundamentally incompatible. However we also live in the here and now – or, as Marx would have put it, the "realm of necessity" as upon which the "realm of freedom" is predicated – and so while the goal of a socialist political party is necessarily oriented to a socialist future, it has also to take on board the needs of workers in the present – not in the sense of advancing a reformist programme to meet these needs but rather of acknowledging these needs and endorsing the action by workers to meet them rather than dismissing such action as futile or pointless. It, as a Party, quite rightly cannot get directly involved in such actions , but that is no reason not to give such actions it enthusiastic endorsement It is lack of clarity over what the Party means by reformism that gives rise to the kind of objections that Stuart raises which are understandable in a way but which. I think, can be shown to be ultimately groundless if only the party were to more rigorously tighten up its definition of reformism. Conveying the impression that any kind of activity to improve the lot of workers in the here and now is futile does the Party no favours and reinforces the impression of it being "utopian"
Hi Stuart, I'm in a rush to get off to work but I will come back with a more detailed critique of your position later. I don't think the relative unpopularity of an idea is any measure of its validity and the question posed by Rosa Luxemburg all those years ago – reform or revolution? – still stands and its relevance to anyone seeking to bring about social change of any kind, remains undiminished. Unless you draw a line in the sand somewhere or somehow, what is stop any movement simply being coopted by capitalism? The tragic history of the parties of Second International that all without fail having adopted a reformist strategy, transformed themselves into thoroughly capitalist organisations bears witness to the folly of denying this simple truth. You cant just brush this under the carpet, Stuart There are others ways of supplementing or complementing revolutionary political activity but reformism in my view is not, and cannot be, one of them… Cheers
