[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

I can feel yet another ban coming on… to keep the site safe from critical thought, and safe for the Religious Materialists, like robbo, who won't have workers' democracy in truth production.

 So not  content with dodging all my arguments and flinging round the odd cheap insult to cover your tracks , now your are resorting to down right porkies to plug the holes and stem the draining away of what little credibility you have left on this forum.   So I'm a  "religious Materialist" now meaning, in your terms, a positivist, some one who thinks that "rocks talk" as you put it.  Ill have you know, LBird,  that long before you announced your triumphal entrance on this forum in a fanfare of trumpets,  I was doggedly critiquing positivism and the so called "fact- value" distinction .  Your initial comments on the subject actually attracted my support, if you recall.  However, your pattern of behaviour since then – abusing those who dare disagree with you, twisting their arguments or just simply walking away from them when attempting to deal with them would expose your own argument for claptrap it is – has all but lost my sympathy vote.  A case in point  is is this idiotic mantra of yours –  "workers' democracy in truth production".  What the hell does that mean in practice LBird?  You wont say. You adamantly refuse to say time after time after time when repeatedly asked to elaborate.  Frankly, arguing with you is like debating with a Jehovah witness zealot on the merits of creationism. Are you seriously trying to tell us that 7 billion people are going to be voting on the "truth" of thousands upon thousands of scientific theories every year. (why they even need to vote on the truth of such theories is another matter).  It is not as you stupidly continue to assert that  I am saying workers should not be allowed to have an opinion on some scientific theory and that this should be left to expert elite. I have no problems with anyone whatsoever venturing an opinion. I'm just saying that no one individual, however clever or gifted, can ever acquire more than a tiny fraction of the sum total of human knowledge and that consequently for any theory it is more than likely that most people (including the experts in  some other field) will have neither the knowledge or the inclination to pass an informed opinion on the subject,  I  have precious little knowledge of, for example, molecular biology and wouldn't presume to pass an opinion on some theory  relating to this field.  Does that bother me? Nope.  Not at all.  I  am quite happy for the molecular biologists to discuss among themselves the rights and wrongs of this particular theory.  You on the other hand have no conception whatsoever of the simple fact  that there is such a thing as a social division of labour and that with advances in human knowledge this is becoming more and not less pronounced. Your head is completely  in the clouds and that is why you never seem to progress beyond the utterance of empty mantras My point is that there are structural limits to democratic decision making and my interest is in trying to delineate where these lie. I'm all for democratic decision making but where it is needed and  not where it is not needed. Are you trying to tell that global population should determine what I read, where I live , what clothes I wear , what music I should be allowed to listen to and so on,  No? Well then if you say no then you too by implication accept that there must be structural limits to democratic decision making.  That is why I mentioned local or decentralised decision making in a future socialist society.  You didn't seem to understand the point of this example. In fact it serves as an analogy  for the example of expert elites.  If you agree that a local community knows best what it needs locally and does not need the global community to determine whether it requires a local hospital and where to siute it then what is the difference between that and saying that some people know more about a particular theory than others and are therefore in a better position to pass comment. In principle not much  This is nothing wrong in admitting you know less about a particular subject than someone else and it is nothing short of arrogant self delusion to pretend that the situation is different Of course if you dont think there will be some degree of decentralised decionmaking in socialism then that makes you a central planner.  In which case would you care to demonstrate  how you imagine one single plan for the whole of global society is remotely practicable?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Perhaps the real problem, robbo, is that you don't want to explain to workers, and you're quite happy with your own 'individual understanding'. That thesis would certainly fit with your refusal to democratise truth production, and your wish to retain 'elite expert' control in science. You could then pose as the 'elite expert' in philosophy and history, and prevent workers from controlling the production of history writing, too.In fact, this sequence is precisely what happens with the Leninist philosophy, of elite 'special consciousness' being embodied in a cadre party, who will 'lead' the dumb workers to socialism. No workers' democracy there, and none with you, either.

  You do talk a load of tosh at times LBird, as well completely evading my central point – that your so called "critical reading" of Engels may have quite misread what the guy was saying on the first place. As your nonsense about "democraticising truth production" perhaps you might care to respond to the relevant section in my earlier post – reproduced below -something else  you completely evaded, preferring it seems to hide behind cheap and empty smears about "elite experts" and repudiating "workers democracy"  Your problem, L Bird, is that that you dont know what democracy is for, what its purpose is, and that is why you come out with kind of idiotic kneejerk comments such as the above

robbo203 wrote:

Groan.  Not this daft idea again!  It is not a question of anyone trying to stop anyone from saying what is the truth in their view.  Its just a simple fact that none of us however talented or gifted can ever acquire more than the tiniest fraction of the  sum total of human knowlege  and therefore the idea that any of us, let alone all of us , can competently pronounce on the "truth" of everything is just plain ludicrous.  Democratic control of production is a relative thing or are you seriously trying to tell us that the total global workforce (7 billion people) is going to have a say in what goes on in Factory no.156 in William Morris Avenue,  Surbiton, Surrey in the new global communist world order?  Pull another one, LBird! It does not follow from the fact that production is a socialised process that the totality of society has to be involved in literally every single decision made in the global economy.  If this is what you are saying that makes you an advocate of crackpot central planning and an opponent of any kind of decentralised or localised decisionmaking whatsoever. Ironically that would make your perspective more of a Leninist one than you perhaps care to admit

On this last point,  do tell us LBird – what is your take on central planning? Do you believe that the totality of production should be democratically controlled by the total global workforce (i.e. there should be no localised or decentralised decisionaking)  and how in practical terms are you going to achieve this?  C'mon lets hear from you on the subject. Why do you keep mum every time it is brought up?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

   Engels then goes on to throw away, once again, Marx’s notion of human ‘production’ (theory and practice, plans and product, human social and historical creativity), and reverts to the ‘economic’ as ‘ultimately decisive’, and specifically says that ‘human minds’ do not play ‘the decisive one’.

Engels, Bloch letter, wrote:

We make our history ourselves, but, in the first place, under very definite assumptions and conditions. Among these the economic ones are ultimately decisive. But the political ones, etc., and indeed even the traditions which haunt human minds also play a part, although not the decisive one.

[my bold] 

 But he doesnt say what you say he is saying.  This is not a "critical" reading of the text  as you claim  but a display of your own prejudices in the pursuit of this  hobbyhorse of yoursThere is a difference between saying Engels "specifically says that ‘human minds’ do not play ‘the decisive one’"  and what Engels actually said viz But the political ones, etc., and indeed even the traditions which haunt human minds also play a part, although not the decisive one."   Can you spot the difference? It is not the human mind as such which does not play a decisive part but rather the political conditions and traditions which haunt the human mind.  There is nothing in what Engels says that the human mind per se (i.e. consciousness) is not also implicated in those conditions that do play an ultimately decisive role i.e. the economic ones Your claim that " His use of ‘economic’ excludes ‘mind’, and so he thinks that the term is equivalent to ‘material’, something to do with ‘matter’, to the exclusion of ‘mind’ is unproven.  You say:  It’s obvious to all that human ‘production’, being social, involves both ideas and materiality, in equal measure.  Assume for the sake this applies to all forms of activity not just production and that that is what Engels actually meant  Is it possible to argue that some forms of activity exhiting this fusion of what you call the ideal and  material can predominate in influencing the course of history while other forms of activity are less influential.  I think it is . Im quite persuaded by Keith Graham's (another ex SPGBer) way of looking at the matter thusRecall that synchronic materialism concerns the relations of a society frozen in snapshot, as it were.  Some of these difficulties of verification may be eased by observing societies in motion, over time.  Although relations of production cannot be observed without accompanying superstructural attributes, any pattern in successive relations of production and their accompaniments may allow inferences of subordination and domination to be drawn  (Keith Graham , 1992, Karl Marx Our contemporary  Harvester Wheatsheaf,  p54-55) Or to ram the point home here is another , and one of my favourite, quotes from Carolyn MerchantAn array of ideas exists available to a given age: some of these for unarticulated  or even unconscious reasons seem plausible to individuals or social groups; others do not.  Some ideas spread; others die out.  But the direction and accumulation of social changes begin to differentiate between  among the spectrum of possibilities so that some ideas assume a more central role in the array, while others move to the periphery.  Out of this differential appeal of ideas that seem most plausible under particular social conditions, cultural transformations develop (Carolyn Merchant, 1980, The Death of Nature: Women , Ecology and the Scientific Revolution,  Harper and Row      p.xviii)It is in this context that economic circumstances can be seen to act as a crucial part of the "sifting process" that leads to cultural transformation – not as something separate from the realm of ideas but as the expression of ideas like the idea of property rights or the idea of self interest, say

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

So, WHY call it the 'materialist'?I agree that, not only does Marx's 'conception' of history 'not preclude consciousness and a role for ideas', but argue also that 'consciousness and ideas' play a central role in 'theory and practice'.If the 'term' doesn't have any significance, why not call it the 'chocolate conception of history'?

For the reason hinted at, I think, in the Bloch letter – it was called the materialist conception of history to redress the balance somewhat in the light of the predominately idealist conceptions of history making the rounds at the time.  Whether or not "materialist conception of history" is the right phrase or an inappropriate description –  I am sympathetic to the latter conclusion – the main point is that at least in the hands of Marx (and Engels despite what you say) it does not  preclude consciousness and  the role of ideas in history at all.[quote-LBird]No, most workers seeing, for the first time, the word 'material' attached to Marx's concept, naturally think that it's something basically to do with 'material' things.Then, when they meet the Religious Materialists, who tell them that 'idealism' is an evil best avoided, the die is cast.[/quote] I think you are engaging in a bit of caricature here. Opposing "idealism" is not the same as saying ideas dont count.  Rather it is oppposing the idea that ideas alone count. Material circumstances likewise count.  Of course it is quite true that material circumstances are never presented to us unmediated by ideas but that is not what an idealist theory is saying. It is saying something rather more than that, is it not?  The main reason why I dont like your clumsy formulation- the idealist-materialist conception of history – though I understand the point you are trying to make is that, taken literally, its a contradiction in terms  

LBird wrote:

Let's face it, there are even 'socialists' on this very site who won't have workers electing 'truth'. So much for the democratic control of production.

 Groan.  Not this daft idea again!  It is not a question of anyone trying to stop anyone from saying what is the truth in their view.  Its just a simple fact that none of us however talented or gifted can ever acquire more than the tiniest fraction of the  sum total of human knowlege  and therefore the idea that any of us, let alone all of us , can competently pronounce on the "truth" of everything is just plain ludicrous.  Democratic control of production is a relative thing or are you seriously trying to tell us that the total global workforce (7 billion people) is going to have a say in what goes on in Factory no.156 in William Morris Avenue,  Surbiton, Surrey in the new global communist world order?  Pull another one, LBird! It does not follow from the fact that production is a socialised process that the totality of society has to be involved in literally every single decision made in the global economy.  If this is what you are saying that makes you an advocate of crackpot central planning and an opponent of any kind of decentralised or localised decisionmaking whatsoever. Ironically that would make your perspective more of a Leninist one than you perhaps care to admit

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 So, if it involves 'ideas', why not call it the 'idealist-materialist conception of history'? Why do you continue, against the drift of your posts on this very thread, which, I agree, continuously stress the role of ideas and consciousness, to use the term 'materialist'? 

 I didint invent the term.  I am just  saying what the expression "materialist conception of history " signifies and it does not signify what you think its does.  Its does not preclude consciousness and a role for ideas

LBird wrote:

I'll quite happily ditch 'materialist conception', 'idealist conception' and 'idealist-materialist conception', if we can get away from the Engelsian myth that Marx was a 'materialist'.But, whilst the Religious Materialists continue to insist, following Engels, that Marx was a 'materialist', we're compelled to argue about these 'labels'.

 Again, I ask the simple question – where is your evidence for this? Point me to the evidence where Engels expressed a crude reductionist standpoint.  How difficult is that? You say you produced lots of evidence earlier on this forum.  Where? On what thread? Can you be specific?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

I've read Alison's article (it was provided to me by a comrade from here), and I think that she is too influenced by Engels, and fails to see the differences between them.She still refers to 'Marx's materialism' (p. 20), and so clearly doesn't understand that Marx was an 'idealist-materialist'. She then refers to 'his materialist conception of history'. This is Engels' term, not Marx's. Marx merely referred to 'our conception'. I've given all the relevent quotes, previously.

 I think you are too hung up on the fomality of labels.  In no way does a materialist conception of history preclude a role for ideas as I explained.  You say you have given all the relevant quotes concerning Engels previously but where? At least till me what thread your are talking about

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo, go back and read some of the numerous threads in which I've discussed these things with you and others, and provided copious evidence.To be truthful, I've been caught out before by the Religious Materialists, and spent hours, days and weeks 'providing evidence', explanation and discussion, but the RM-ers will not engage.If you hold the belief that Marx was a 'materialist', nothing I write here for you will shake your faith. Sorry, but you're going to have to do the work, this time.

 LBird, there are numerous threads and  tons of posts to plough through to get the precise informationm I asked for – whether Engels was a crude reductionist as you claim he was.  I frankly do not have the time to go through all of that.  I cannot see why, if you claim to be so familiar with the subject that you cannot reproduce here one or two quotes that you have at your fingertips  from Engels to substantiate your view of him You already know my views on "materialism".  I was arguing long before you appeared on this forum that the "fact-value" distinction was a bogus one and made clear that I favoured an emergence paradigm over a reductionist model.  I have also made a sharp distinction between historical materialism and metaphysical materialism and a particular quarrel I have with the Party is that it – totally unecessarily – makes membership of the organisation effectively conditional upon acceptance of the latter as though it served as some kind of sheet anchor for the former. Hence its bar on religious socialists.  I dont think it does and I agree with Alison Assister , an ex SPGBer, that " Marx’s materialism should not be seen as philosophical materialism’ (Alison Assiter "Philosophical Materialism or the Materialist Conception of History", Radical Philosophy, 23 (Winter 1979). In Marx's materialism, theory and practice are indeed unified.  In the so called base-superstructure model, there is no such thing as a base which is somehow  idea-free and then, functionalist-fashion,   "gives rise" – like mushrooms in a compost  – to a set of ideas that are conducive to the perpetuation of that base .  "Ideas" are there right from the get-go .  Property relations presuppose a certain set of social expectations and values and the productive forces are themselves the product of the application of ideas interacting with cicumstances

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

[I know that you're not convinced, robbo, and you won't accept the evidence that I've provided time and again, that show two things:1. Engels can be quoted to support either position;2. Some of Engels' formulations were not shared by Marx.

 I haven't seen this evidence you say you have produced to support the view that Engels was a crude reductionist.  Could you please resubmit this evidence or point  me in the direction where it can be found

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Yes, robbo, Engels did write that, amongst other things that contradicted it. He was confused.But, even given what you've quoted, the Religious Materialists still insist that 'consciousness' can be reduced to 'matter'.'Matter' was a hobbyhorse of Engels, not of Marx.

 I'm not convinced that Engels is quite the reductionist you make him out to be.  Where is your evidence?  His later writings, like the quote I provided seem, if anything, to provide good evidence of an anti reductionist  position.  To wit, his famous letter to Joseph Bloch  (September 21, 1890) in which he said.  According to the materialist conception of history the determining element in history is ultimately the production and reproduction in real life. More than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted.If therefore somebody twists this into the statement that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms it into a meaningless, abstract and absurd phrase.The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure – political forms of the class struggle and its consequences, constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc. – forms of law – and then even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the combatants: political, legal, philosophical theories, religious ideas and their further development into systems of dogma – also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form.There is an interaction of all these elements in which, amid all the endless host of accidents (i.e., of things and events, whose inner connection is so remote or impossible to prove that we regard it as absent so and can neglect it) the economic movement finally asserts itself as necessary. Otherwise the application of the theory to any period of history one chose would be easier than the solution of a simple equation of the first degree.(my emphasis) If anything this seems closer to an emergence perspective than a reductionist perspective

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Any 'materialism' which separates nature into two essences (the 'material' and the 'ideal', of which only the former is regarded as 'real') is forced to bring in 'ideas' and 'consciousness' by the back door. Engels was the thinker who brought this 'old-style mechanical materialism' back into socialist thought, after Marx had attempted to unite the two in a philosophy of 'theory and practice', which by its nature requires both the 'ideal' (consciousness, spirit, geist) and 'material' (a 'material substratum' to quote Marx) to be worked upon by human labour (mental and physical).

 And yet Engels is the guy who wrote this…"And, in fact, with every day that passes we are acquiring a better understanding of these laws and getting to perceive both the more immediate and the more remote consequences of our interference with the traditional course of nature. In particular, after the mighty advances made by the natural sciences in the present century, we are more than ever in a position to realise, and hence to control, also the more remote natural consequences of at least our day-to-day production activities. But the more this progresses the more will humanity not only feel but also know their oneness with nature, and the more impossible will become the senseless and unnatural idea of a contrast between mind and matter, humanity and nature, soul and body, such as arose after the decline of classical antiquity in Europe and obtained its highest elaboration in Christianity." (my emphasis) https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1876/part-played-labour/

[robbo203]

John Oswald wrote:

 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, for all their revolutionary ideas, also toed the old nature-conquest line. …

 Hmm. Not too sure about that, John, sympathetic though I am to your line of argument.  Here for example is something that Engels wrote that would rather contradict the above…. “Let us not, however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human victories over nature. For each such victory nature takes its revenge on us. Each victory, it is true, in the first place brings about the results we expected, but in the second and third places it has quite different, unforeseen effects which only too often cancel the first.“The people who, in Mesopotamia, Greece, Asia Minor and elsewhere, destroyed the forests to obtain cultivable land, never dreamed that by removing along with the forests the collecting centres and reservoirs of moisture they were laying the basis for the present forlorn state of those countries.“When the Italians of the Alps used up the pine forests on the southern slopes, so carefully cherished on the northern slopes, they had no inkling that by doing so they were cutting at the roots of the dairy industry in their region; they had still less inkling that they were thereby depriving their mountain springs of water for the greater part of the year, and making it possible for them to pour still more furious torrents on the plains during the rainy seasons.“Those who spread the potato in Europe were not aware that with these farinaceous tubers they were at the same time spreading scrofula.“Thus at every step we are reminded that we by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing outside nature — but that we, with flesh, blood and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst, and that all our mastery of it consists in the fact that we have the advantage over all other creatures of being able to learn its laws and apply them correctly.”— Friedrich Engels, The Part Played by Labor in the Transition from Ape to Man

[robbo203]

DJP wrote:

Unless you've got a specific question I think there's far too much bredth here for a discussion topic..

 Well, how about narrowing it down to the point made by Alison Assiter concerning  "Reasons why Marx’s materialism should not be seen as philosophical materialism’ (Alison Assiter "Philosophical Materialism or the Materialist Conception of History", Radical Philosophy, 23 (Winter 1979) – and to the wider argument that shackling historical materialism to a materialist metaphysic is not particularly healthy for the socialist movement itself?

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Just read the same article in this weekend's i paper. I read it as saying that within capitalism such schemes will never be mainstream, but isn't this was what we say?  It could have some relevance to the idea Robbo has revived on the SPGB Communications thread about encouraging such schemes as bits of pre-socialism within capitalism. Having said that, that doesn't mean we should reject or denounce them (after all, they are one way of trying to survive under capitalism), just criticise extravagant claims made about them.

 I think the point is that these kinds of developments – like the sharing economy – that, in a way, transcend  or go beyond the market relationship, provide a means by which we can begin to address that most daunting of problems – what are we to do in the meantime.  If we are honest with ourselves the reaction of 99% people to the idea of a socialist society – even if they like the idea  – is to consign it to some distant future, if at all.  It is because they think of it as a very long term future that they dont feel motivated to bring it about.  There is in other words a gap – or hiatus – between people's short term perspective and their view of socialism as a long term goal. Unless you have some kind of feasible transitional strategy  you will never will bridge this gap and socialism will remain forever stranded on the other side , a tantalising will o' the wisp never to be realised and for that reason never likely to motivate workers in sufficient numbers to do something about bringing socialism a little closer.  Its a vicious circle.With all due respect to Adam I dont think its enough to say we shouldn't reject or denounce such developments.  I would rather say that these are developments to be welcomed and encouraged.  Yes they are one way of trying to survive under capitalism.  So too is workers joining trade unions,  And does not the Party encourage  workers to join trade unions? Specifically in relation to the sharing economy I would say it provides a kind of organic or homologous connection between the present and a potential socialist future.  That is important because it is through praxis not just abstract propaganda – important though the latter is – that workers are likely to gain the necessary confidence and self  belief to change society

[robbo203]

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….

[robbo203]

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

[Author]

Posts