confrontationalist revolutionary movements, which in this day and age exist largely in the fevered imaginations of college boy communists.
yup.
as a college boy, i would like to say that my imaginations consist of nothing oif the sorts. and thats a very LAZY way of dismissing anti-refiormism.
if its so genione then it should have an anti-reformist element to it, no? 
what i'm trying to say, is that very little of anything exists in my life, genuine empowerment, genuinely nice people, etc does not mean that i'm going to act as if they cannot exist. not on the basis of some "attack" on students, anyway.
eta: i'm not saying that iu think that your way of working is undefensible. but it does need a defense, and not just what was quoted above. imo
Trotsky says somewhere that under communism it will not be a question of the majority imposing its will on the minority but of discussion and coming clear conscious decision about things, and if individuals or groups do not agree they will be enabled to carry out their own projects.
ernie, do you mean this quote from Literature and Revolution chapter 8?
All forms of life, Such as the cultivation of land, the planning of human habitations, the building of theaters, the methods of socially educating children, the solution of scientific problems, the creation of new styles, will vitally engross all and everybody. People will divide into “parties” over the question of a new gigantic canal, or the distribution of oases in the Sahara (such a question will exist too), over the regulation of the weather and the climate, over a new theater, over chemical hypotheses, over two competing tendencies in music, and over a best system of sports. Such parties will not be poisoned by the greed of class or caste. All will be equally interested in the success of the whole. The struggle will have a purely ideologic character. It will have no running after profits, it will have nothing mean, no betrayals, no bribery, none of the things that form the soul of “competition” in a society divided into classes. But this will in no way hinder the struggle from being absorbing, dramatic and passionate. And as all problems in a Socialist society – the problems of life which formerly were solved spontaneously and automatically, and the problems of art which were in the custody of special priestly castes – will become the property of all people, one can say with certainty that collective interests and passions and individual competition will have the widest scope and the most unlimited opportunity. Art, therefore, will not suffer the lack of any such explosions of collective, nervous energy, and of such collective psychic impulses which make for the creation of new artistic tendencies and for changes in style. It will be the aesthetic schools around which “parties” will collect, that is, associations of temperaments, of tastes and of moods. In a struggle so disinterested and tense, which will take place in a culture whose foundations are steadily rising, the human personality, with its invaluable basic trait of continual discontent, will grow and become polished at all its points. In truth, we have no reason to fear that there will be a decline of individuality or an impoverishment of art in a Socialist society.
Demo, that sounds like the one to me.
Harryr: Oh to be a college boy!
Hi Ernie
I dont quite see how the advocacy of parliamentary democracy in itself "means asking the working class to tie the golden chains that bind it to the capitalist system even tighter around their throats". It surely depends on what you use parliamentary democracy for. If it is to support one or other capitalist political party promising a reform programme then, yes, that will certainly bind the working class to capitalism. But thats not at all what I was suggesting. I was arguing the case for a anarcho communist movement making use of parliamentary democracy - amongst a whole range of approaches - solely for the purpose of advancing the communist cause. I also argued for there being certain advantages in being able to demonstrate to everyone including non communists, when a significant communist majority has been attained. It greatly facilitates the changeover to communism
The so called communist internationals where not communists in my book but supporters of state run capitalism. I am vehemently opposed to any form of leninism.
yes bourgeois democracy has been used to fortify capitalism but lets not forget that states that lacked any form of bourgeois democracy were no less capitalist. Surely you would agree that from a communist perspective it is better to be able to live in a capitalist society that has as least a modicum of freedoms to organise, vote, and say what you want than a totalitarian form of capitalism as in the Soviet Union. Sure its still bourgeois fredom and bourgeois democracy but I would rather have that than no freedom at all under fascist form of capitalism. Wouldnt you?
We can use this limited form of democracy without deluding ourselves that we live in genuine democracy and there is no reason to suppose that in using it for our own purposes we are somehow supporting capitalism or binding ourselves to capitalism. I have never understood this argument..
Thanks for the links Ernie which I will have a look at
Cheers
Robin
Robin, I will try to reply briefly to your questions.
Though you do not intend it, the argumentation you give for supporting democracy as a means of putting forwards revolutionary positions is exactly the same as that put forwards by the Third International from 1920. The shift in 1920 from the previous stress on the danger of democracy.
So-called democracy, i.e., bourgeois democracy, is nothingbut the veiled dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The much-vaunted 'general will of the people' is no more a reality than 'the people' or 'the nation'. Classes exist and they have conflicting and incompatible aspirations. But as the bourgeoisie represents an insignificant minority it makes use of the illusion, this imaginary concept, in order to consolidate its rule over the working class. Behind the mask of eloquence it can impose its class will. The proletariat, which forms the vast majority of the population is, on the contrary, completely open about use the class power of its mass organisatins and Soviets to eliminate the privileges of the bourgeoisie and guarantee the transition to the classless, communist society
The Platform of the Communist International, 1919.
In 1920 whilst still denouncing democracy as an ideological attack on the class the communist international due to a growing weight of opportunism -faced with the difficulties of the world revolution- start to make concessions to this ideology and its apparatus in the hope of winning more workers to communism:
...the bourgeoisie is still forced, by its relations with the working class, and also by the complex relations within the bourgeois class, to push measures sometimes and somehow though parliament. In parliament the various cliques haggle for power, exhibiting their strengths, betraying their weaknesses and compromising themselves etc.,etc.
The historical task of the working class is therefore to wrest the parliamentary apparatus from the hands of the ruling class, breaking and destroying it and replacing it with new organs of proletarian power...
Communist members of parliament must use the parliamentary platform to expose, not just the bourgeoisie and its avowed followers, but also the social-partriots, the reformists, the indecisive politicians of the 'centre' and the other opponents of Communism. Likewise, they must use it to spread the ideas of the Communist International
The Communist Party and Parliament 1920
(both quotes are taken from Theses, Resolutions & Manifestos of the first four congress of the Third International, edited by Bertil Hessel.
As you can see this is not a million miles away from the argumentation that you use.
All that revolutionary parliamentarianism did for the working class and its political minorities was to reinforce illusions in democracy. For all the criticism of the role of democracy and parliament in the end this position says that workers should vote, even if its is without illusions.
For the Communist International it marked an important step in its degeneration, and was fought tooth and nail by the Communist Left.
As to the argument about living in a democracy being better than living in a dictatorship and providing a better chance of spreading communist idea, this is a powerful argument, but a false one. It is precisely this idea of democracy being better than anything else that allows the bourgeoisie to maintain its dictatorship so powerfully in the main capitalist countries: that is why communist talk about golden chains. We have seen how the ruling class also use this against workers in dictatorships and former dictatorship to maintain their control over them.
For example Poland 1980: there was the most massive self-organised movement of the proletariat since the 1920's however, the Polish state with the help of the West trapped this powerful movement in the prison of democracy: democratic unions, making the aim of the movement a possible future democratic state etc etc. All of this diverted the class from the spreading of their struggle beyond Poland which is what terrified the bourgeoisie East and West. And when the movement was crushed in 1981 the bourgeoisie in the West used this to drive home the message that it was better in the West than East.
Yes we do not get a bullet in the head or charted of to a gulag for selling our press etc, but that is because the ruling class knows that democracy is one of its best weapons against the class. Workers in dictatorships do not have illusions about the nature of those ruling them but they do have very powerful illusions about democracy being better, which the bourgeois fractions opposed to the ruling fraction use to maintain a hold over the class.
This is a very difficult question and one that is very hard to fully grasp when we are told from the day we are born that democracy is best.
This probably does not answer all of your question but I hope that it provides some food for thought. The following link should help this reflection: it gives short account of the development of the Communist Left, which inseparable from the development of the struggle against the weight of democratic illusions on the workers' movement
link
Hi Ernie
Thanks for your thought-provoking response and the link which i will get round to reading shortly. I think the problem is basically that while I completely accept that bourgeois democracy is a facade behind which the capitalist class impose their will on society, the problem is not so much the institution of parliament as such but the pro-capitalist ideology that prevails today. That in the end is what governs how existing democratic structures are used and the purpose for which they are used
You mention the Polish state and the rise of Solidarity as "most massive self-organised movement of the proletariat since the 1920's". Possibly so but , lets face it , Solidarity was a movement that consisted overwhelmingly of workers who held reformist pro-capitalist (not to mention religious) views. It was not so much the instition of bourgeois democracy that helped to trap the Solidarity movement and bind it to capitalism; it was the actual ideological outlook of the workers themselves that did this. You are confusing cause and effect here.
In a sense, then, what I am saying is that the conditions under which a genuine communist movement could successfully use the parliemantary approach and transcend bourgeois democracy itself - exposing if for the sham that it is - have never yet materialised. We need to exercise a little historical imagination here by projecting into the future when the circumstances of a mass communist movement might obtain. Such a movement would be opposed to reformism, uncompromising in exposing the class nature of capitalist politics and completely against any alliance or having any dealings, with capitalist political parties. This is because of the growth of any genuine communist movement has to be expressed in the form of a growth of a genuine communist outlook; communism is not just a label which some left capitalist party or movement attaches to itself for opportunistic reasons. It is fundamentally different way of looking at society altogether. And quite frankly Solidarity in no way resembled such a thing
I still think that bourgeois democracy is the Achilles heel of the bourgeois state. Once acceptance of the authority of an electoral majority's decisons becomes culturally institutionalised and deep rooted, it becomes more and more difficult for the capitalists and their supporters to thwart the expressed will of a movement of class conscious workers to install communism. That is one reason - there are others - why it could facilitate the changeover to communism but of course such an approach needs to be backed up by other approaches outside parliament and complementing the palrliamentary approach. To believe that all you need to do is to persuade workers to be come communists and vote for a genuine communist party is a bit naive , in my opinion
Cheers
Robin
Robin expresses well the standard Socialist Party of Great Britain argument on the potential of using bourgeois democracy, but still fails despite using that description of democracy, to understand that we are not dealing with some nuetral institution, but a whole set of practical and ideological barriers to the growth of a genuinely independent class movement which might challenge capitalist social relations in a practical way, in advance of becomming a fully fleged class conscious revolutionary movement.
Democracy today is a deeply rooted ideological mystification which often prevents workers actually taking action in their own defence and moving forward as a class. Its not just about parliament but all the other institutions of the wider capitalist state from schools to the media, which seek to imbue us with the idea that we can solve our problems through participation in their debates and activities.
Robin has completely missed Josephs comment about anarchist communism being about 'praxis' not 'preference' because the SPGB approach is an entirely ideological one in the worst marxist sence of that word. The key is not winning the ideological debate with other competitors in the market place of ideas in front of an invited audience of citizens each with an equal vote, but rather helping to advance through struggle, the strength, confidence and self organisation of our class in a practical way, that makes communism become a real possibillity, rather than just a nice idea.
This struggle will be advanced through a process that inevitably, at any one point, will involve minorities of our class taking action without the vote of the majority of our class or even relevant sections of our class,whilst seeking to involve more and more in action.
Despite some other dodgy ideas you will find a good marxist critique of the depth of the democratic mystique in modern capitalism under the title 'Communism Against Democracy' and 'Against the Myth of Democratic Rights and Liberties' on the ICG Web site.Other material and links can be found on the John Gray Web Site including I think 'The Implosion Point of Democratist Ideolgy' from Le Brise Glace. I think Lib Com has links to this last site under the 'Council Communism' listing.
On one point I agree though, namely that opposing parliamentary elections and the like with 'direct action' does not necessarily immunise you agianst some of the worst of reformist practices.
Good post spikymike.
Hi Spikeymike
Many thanks for your response. I think I perhaps need to clear up one or two misconceptions you seem to have about my position
Firstly ,regarding your claim that I fail to understand that , in the case of bourgeois democracy, we are not dealing with a socially neutral institution, this is just not the case. In fact , I was quite explicit that it is far from neutral. I acknowledged quite clearly that bourgeois democracy is a facade behind which the capitalist minority impose their will on society and, as such, is very far from being a genuine democracy. However saying parliament is not a neutral insitution is not the same thing as saying it cannot possibly be used by a communist movement to transform its purpose into something else. This is the point you miss. I still maintain the bourgeois democracy is the "achilles heel" of capitalist rule . The elecloral or parliamentary approach is a useful one for us to use - not at the expense of other approaches but in conjunction with them -insofar as it facilitates an effective chanegeover to a communist society by minimising the potential disruption of capitalist opposition (see my earlier post on this)
Secondly you make the claim that I overlook that communism is a praxis not a preference. Again, sorry Spikey but this just isnt the case. In fact , here I tend to agree with your criticims of the SPGB that it overlooks the importance of praxis. I used to be a member of Guildford Branch of the SPGB which back in the late1980s brought out a heretical document called "The Road to Socialism" which broke with the SPGB´s traditional emphasis on electoralism and abstract propgandism to the exclusion of other approaches. But at the same time as I am critical of the SPGB overlooking of the importance of praxis, I am also criticial of some my anarchist comrades who err in the opposite direction by overlooking the importance of preference, the need to propagate a communist consciousness of a radical alternative to capitalism. You cannot have communism without a class consciousness majority ofworkers "preferring" it to capitalism i.e. wanting and understanding communism
With respect , Spikey, I think what you are doing is setting up a false dichortomy between praxis and prefernece when there is none. Each reinforces and enhances the other. My plea to the various currents in broad non-market anti-statist sector is that we should try to get away from this kind of black-or-white mode of thinking . We have more in common than whatever it is that supposedly divides us. The point is that our differences dont have to be divisive. We should learn to live together and work together. By all means concentrate on the approach we particularfly favour as a group or individual but we should remember there is no single magic bullet that is going to end capitalism. What we our movement needs is a plurality of approaches to achieiving our common goal - unity in diversity!
The sooner we grasp this the sooner will we begin to make real progress
Cheers
Robin
I am also criticial of some my anarchist comrades who err in the opposite direction by overlooking the importance of preference, the need to propagate a communist consciousness of a radical alternative to capitalism. You cannot have communism without a class consciousness majority ofworkers "preferring" it to capitalism i.e. wanting and understanding communism
the point is a communist preference is expressed via praxis, not via voting. how does voting expand class consciousness? surely it is premised on abdicating agency, on alienated action by another on your behalf? voting for anarchism is like fucking for chastity innit. the point is running an election campaign requires shitloads of resources, and anarchist resources are notably finite, so it isn't sufficient to proclaim 'unity in diversity!' because in concrete terms electoralism must mean a reduction in some other activity.
I acknowledged quite clearly that bourgeois democracy is a facade behind which the capitalist minority impose their will on society and, as such, is very far from being a genuine democracy. However saying parliament is not a neutral insitution is not the same thing as saying it cannot possibly be used by a communist movement to transform its purpose into something else.
really? you seemed to suggest we just needed politicians with better ideas ...
the problem is not so much the institution of parliament as such but the pro-capitalist ideology that prevails today.
i mean the notion anarchists need to capture state power is palpably absurd in itself really, on what 'anarchist MPs' would actually do, you said...
Consider reforms proposed by the capitalist political opponents on their merits and to the extent that they benefit the working class as whole and vote on them accordingly but WITHOUT BEING SUCKED INTO ADVOCATING A REFORMIST PROGRAMME THEMSELVES. This is absolutely crucial.
how in the name of christ does MPs in a bourgeois parliament making decisions on behalf of the working class have anything to do with the real movement for communism? The idea such reformist practice is revolutionary as long as the perpetrators believe the right things is just idealist nonsense - they are being reformist by mediating between capital and the working class on our behalf. however they justify this to themselves makes no difference to that - revolutionary action is self-emancipation. i mean you're not even arguing they should get elected then refuse to take their seat as per Sinn Fein, but that they should wholeheartedly engage in parlieamentary activity 'for communism' - but communism is not another idea in the marketplace but the real everyday struggles for self-emancipation.
Hi Joseph
You raise a number of interesting points which I will try to answer
1) "the point is a communist preference is expressed via praxis, not via voting. how does voting expand class consciousness? " The short answer to this it doesnt. It merely expresses class consciosuness or has the capacity to reveal the extent of class consciousness if you like. Granted praxis does this too but the electoralist strategy does have certain advantages which I have already touched on which praxis on its own lacks. Which is not to reject praxis obviously. As stated I am for a pluralist strategy and against false dichotomies
2) "surely it is premised on abdicating agency, on alienated action by another on your behalf?" No it doesnt at all. You are reading into the communist use of electoralism what happens in capitalist politics. No communist candidate is going to gp round promising to do something for voters if elected. The only acceptable approach for the communist movement to take as far as I am concerned is to insist that it promises nothing and is not in the business of doing anything on behalf of the worki ng class. A vote for ant communist candidate must be understood simply as showing prefernece for a communist alternative and nothing more
3),"so it isn't sufficient to proclaim 'unity in diversity!' because in concrete terms electoralism must mean a reduction in some other activity." Why? You dont explain this at all. Putting an X against a communist candidate on a voters list involves minimal effort. Engaging in electoral activity means nothing more than putting forward the case for communism which we have to do anyway.- the preference for communism does not automatically emerge by magic in the minds of workers. It is the product of material circumstances AND sharing ideas
4) "how in the name of christ does MPs in a bourgeois parliament making decisions on behalf of the working class have anything to do with the real movement for communism? The idea such reformist practice is revolutionary as long as the perpetrators believe the right things is just idealist nonsense - they are being reformist by mediating between capital and the working class on our behalf" As explained this is totally NOT what I am suggesting. I am NOT arguing for communist or anarchist delegates in parliament making decisions "on behalf of the working class". I am opposed to this idea totally. This is not what I suggested parliament should be used for by our movement
5) "I mean you're not even arguing they should get elected then refuse to take their seat as per Sinn Fein, but that they should wholeheartedly engage in parliamentary activity 'for communism' - but communism is not another idea in the marketplace but the real everyday struggles for self-emancipation" Again there seems to be this false dichomy emerging here. Communism does involve struggle certainly but it also involves direction, some notion - or idea - of a goal to be achieved. Mere struggle on its own doesnt take you very far. You say the struggle for self emancipation. Certainly this is what communism entails but what does self emancipation consist in? It has to be goal directed otherwise it is just meaninglerss talk. And communism is not just self emancipation, it is the emancipation of our class that we are talking about - collective emancipation. The use of the electoral strategy provdes a reasonably reliable collective indicator of the extent to which we seek our collective emancipation and a means of ensuring the smoothest possible changeover to a communist society itself. And it certainly doesnt rule out or detract from the many other approaches that can and should be used, we should see them all instead as mutually reinforcing
Cheers
Robin
Robbo203,
I can assure you that I do respect the fact that no one group can claim all the answers in terms of how we advance towards a communist society - it is something I have argued at least indirectly on other threads on this site. I am very much in favour of an open approach and comradely debate amongst what my sadly departed comrade John Crump once referred to as 'the thin red line'
I appreciate that straightforward rational argument against capitalism and for communism has its place and indeed the SPGB can boast some good propaganda in this area, but the potential to overthrow capitalism and create a new society does not advance (in my opinion) primarily through the appication of of abstract propaganda for communism however hard the SPGB and its adherants try to relate that proganda to the 'passing show' of capitalism.
I am familiar with your deviation from the standard SPGB approach but you have perhaps not moved as far as you claim. The 'Road to Socialism' as I recall failed to understand the link between the practice of the class struggle, the emergence of class consciousness and the overthrow of capitalism, but simply sought to locate the SPGB concept of Socialism as a preformed model in the coperative practices of certain activities wholly within the framework of capitalism. As such it did indeed tend towards reformism,
Contrary to your view I believe it is 'democracy' itself, as it actually exists in the real world, which is the 'archilles heal' of working class struggle. It is constantly used to undermine the determination of militant and radical minorities to widen and deepen struggles.
The effectiveness of democratic proganda reflects ,in part, the fact that the traditional workers movement of the past as represented by the Social Democratic Parties, Trade Unions, Mutual Societies etc was still tied to the politics of the emmerging capitalist class and based its critique of capitalism not on the need to destroy capitalist social relations root and branch, but rather to complete the incomplete democratic capitalist revolution against previous class formations by adding 'economic' and 'social' democracy to the 'political' democracy established and eventually extended to the whole of the citizenry of modern society.
This conception of communism as the perfect democracy has bedevelled both anarchist and marxist currents as they have emmerged from the wreckage of the old workers movement. It treats communism as an organisational model rather than a new human community.
I think it is therfore important that those who adhere to the thin red line struggle to throw off this baggage from the past if they are to be effective in the class struggle as pro revolutionaries.
Robbo: spikeymike and Joseph K are trying to point out that at the heart of your position on the use of parliament is an erroneous idea that communism can be gained or developed through the use of parliament. You say
We need to exercise a little historical imagination here by projecting into the future when the circumstances of a mass communist movement might obtain. Such a movement would be opposed to reformism, uncompromising in exposing the class nature of capitalist politics and completely against any alliance or having any dealings, with capitalist political parties. This is because of the growth of any genuine communist movement has to be expressed in the form of a growth of a genuine communist outlook; communism is not just a label which some left capitalist party or movement attaches to itself for opportunistic reasons. It is fundamentally different way of looking at society altogether.
But your imagination is confined to parliament and totally misses the central point that the proletariat expresses it consciousness not in an abstract way but through a praxis as spikey mike and joseph k point out. This has been shown in the Paris Commune, 1905, 1917-1926 when the working class broke away from the confines of bourgeois democracy and took their own organisation into their own hands. This prefigures the future of communism., where humanity will be in control of its own actions. In this society as I have said there will be no parliament or workers' councils but the means of collective discussion and decision making. One of the most important expressions of class consciousness is the ability of the class to organise itself.
Robbo you are clearly not happy to remain confined within the SPGB's parliamentarianism, but you will not be able to go beyond it without making a critique of the illusions in democracy and above all parliament that it spreads.
I think once you have read the links I have given and those that spikey has given (though I would not agree with all of them) you will get a much clearer idea of what we are trying to explain to you. Take a bit of time to reflect.
Robbo: Solidarity certainly was able to imprison the mass strike in Poland in 1980 because workers had illusion in bourgeois democracy and freedom, but it was not product of these illusions. It was a very carefully developed weapon that the Western powers helped to form. It was this alien body that isolated and exhausted the workers powerful desire to organise themselves. You appear to put to one side that beside the illusions in democracy there was also a very powerful desire to self-organise and spread the struggle. The mass workers assemblies existed before Solidarity. This powerful effort of the class to self-organise itself was the product of the workers historical imagination of the need to organise itself, after the bitter experience of the crushing of their struggles in 1970 and 1976. It was this praxis that terrified the international bourgeoisie and which at the high of the tensions around Afghanistan saw the 'enemies' uniting to defeat the class. This example and its defeats is the stuff that our historical dreams have to be made of, not bourgeois talking shops.
Joseph K. wrote:
"how in the name of christ does MPs in a bourgeois parliament making decisions on behalf of the working class have anything to do with the real movement for communism? The idea such reformist practice is revolutionary as long as the perpetrators believe the right things is just idealist nonsense - they are being reformist by mediating between capital and the working class on our behalf"As explained this is totally NOT what I am suggesting. I am NOT arguing for communist or anarchist delegates in parliament making decisions "on behalf of the working class". I am opposed to this idea totally. This is not what I suggested parliament should be used for by our movement
but you wrote ...
Consider reforms proposed by the capitalist political opponents on their merits and to the extent that they benefit the working class as whole and vote on them accordingly
so you can see how i got that impression? the caveat "but WITHOUT BEING SUCKED INTO ADVOCATING A REFORMIST PROGRAMME THEMSELVES. This is absolutely crucial" doesn't take away from the fact you clearly stated that such 'anarchist/communist MPs' should act on behalf of the class, which seems to render the caveat mute, a bit like saying 'we should sleep with the boss without getting sucked into sleeping with the boss' or something. My point is "considering reforms proposed by the capitalist political opponents on their merits and to the extent that they benefit the working class as whole and voting on them accordingly" is acting on behalf of the wider class, and thus is substitutionist activity
Hi Joseph
Yes I can see where you might have got the impression that i was suggesting anarchist/communist delegates would be making decisions on behalf of the working class but, with respect , your interpretation is incorrect. Let me clarify. I do not hold that the communist movement should solicit votes on any kind of reformist programme when contesting elections; it should not make, or appear to be making, promises to do something on behalf of the working class. The communist movement is not aiming to become a government; it is aiming to get rid of government altogether on achieving an electoral majority at the same time as it formally abolishes capitalism. The communist movement is the only movement actively seeking its own demise which will happen on the achievement of communism
So the communist movement should not advocate reforms; it should only advocate communism and only urge workers to vote for communism if they want and understand this and accept the case against refromism
The question is what happens in the meantime before we have a significant majority when there are a few communiost delegates already elected to parliament.? In my opinion they should be doing two things
1) using this platform to promote the case for a communist alternative
2) consider any reforms put forward BY OTHER ORGANISATIONS on their merits and to the extent that they benefit the working class as a whole and vote on them accordingly if there is case for doing this. This is quite different from ADVOCATING reforms . If you start advocating reforms then you are on the slippery slope to adopting a refromist programme. I say the only thing a communist movement should actually advocate is communism and nothing but . But if a capitalist party advocates a particular refrom that has some benefit to the working class I think the movement should instruct those communist delegates that have already been elected to vote in favour of this particular reform. This is delegative democracy rather than representative democracy . The actual decision would be democratically made outside parliament in this respect
Whether there will be many refroms that can be considered to clearly benefit the working class as a whole I dont know. I suspect not. But there might be some. For the rest, I see no reason for elected communist delegates to participate in the parliamentary process of debating reforms. In effect this would amount to a policy of parliamentary abstentionism and would help to undermnine the authority of bourgeois democracy and capitalist rule.
Cheers
Robin
Hi Spikey
Just a few points in response to your post
You say "the potential to overthrow capitalism and create a new society does not advance (in my opinion) primarily through the appication of of abstract propaganda for communism". The key word here is "primarily". I would probably agree with you in this respect but I would have to say also that it is quite impossible to envisage moving towards a communist society without the conscious understanding of what such a society entails and that this conscious understanding neccessarily calls for abstract propaganda. In other words, abstract propaganda has a vital place in the development of a communist outlook alongside other approaches
You say further
"I am familiar with your deviation from the standard SPGB approach but you have perhaps not moved as far as you claim. The 'Road to Socialism' as I recall failed to understand the link between the practice of the class struggle, the emergence of class consciousness and the overthrow of capitalism, but simply sought to locate the SPGB concept of Socialism as a preformed model in the coperative practices of certain activities wholly within the framework of capitalism. As such it did indeed tend towards reformism,"
No this is largely incorrect, I'm afraid. If you read The Road to Socialism (TRTS) document again you will see that what it is talking about is the growth of non-capitalist economic relationships accompanying or complementing the growth of the communist movement; the larger the communist movement, the more pervasive the impact of communist ideas on the social landscape and the greater the potential to develop forms of activities that prefigure communism and transcend capitalism - like the developments of communes and collectives, LETS and so on. This is not "reformism" at all. Refromism involves measures carried out by the state to modify the economic behaviour of capitalism. What was being referred to in the TRTS document was relationships OUTSIDE of capitalism. The argument presented in the TRTS was precisely one that drew attention to the importance of praxis - not just in the sense of miltant industrial struggle which we fully supported but also in the sense of developing one's confidence to be able to transcend the cash nexus experientially in a practical way. We need to experience something prefigures communism to some extent to boost our confidence in the communist alternative. Just thinking of communism as a nice idea is not enough
You say
"Contrary to your view I believe it is 'democracy' itself, as it actually exists in the real world, which is the 'archilles heal' of working class struggle. It is constantly used to undermine the determination of militant and radical minorities to widen and deepen struggles."
Again I think you are missing the point here. I dont doubt for one moment that the existing practice of bourgeois democracy does undermine militant struggle. But what are we talking about? We are talking about political supporters of capitalism using the formal decisionmaking structures to impose a capitalist agenda on the working class, thereby undermining the struggles of our class. It is not the fact that you have a parliament that is the problem; it is the PURPOSE for which parliament is used that is the problem. You have to separate these two quite analytically different things. What I am sugesting is that we should transform the use to which parliament is currently put and in this sense the cultural entrenchment of the parliamentary process which gives authority to political decisions in a capitalist world, is indeed the achilles heel of capitalist rule. Becausse it makes increasinbgly difficult for the representatives of capitalism to thwart the will of a growing communist movement (if they themselves accept the authority of the instituions through which the will of the populace is expressed)
cheers
Robin
Robo,
This is ground you and I have discussed previously and neither of us has so far changed our views on this matter.
I am still of the opinion that your approach encourages the democratic mystification which runs deep throughout
capitalist society, where 'parliament' and 'political democracy' are but the tip af a very dangerous iceburg from a communist perspective.
Whilst I acknowledge that TRTS contain a particular version of praxis which it claims can, and sometimes does prefigure communist society, it seems to me that this approach is much closer to the old anarcho-syndicalist claim to be able to build socialism within the shell of the old society (an essentially evolutionary approach), than to a revolutionary approach which recognises the extent to which modern capitalism is able to absorb these isolated attempts at voluntary co-operative organisation, and may even at critical points, promote them in opposition to more dangerous attacks on the system by our class. This is not to write off every co-operative effort by sections of out class but to recognise that these do not form a basis for advancing towards communism.
You appear to view the development of a working class movement for communism as essentially an evolutionary one, based around abstract propaganda by political parties on the one hand and experimentation by groups of workers in co-operative schemes of various kinds on the other, but historical experience, as Ernie and others have pointed out on this and other threads, suggests that it is periodic situations of crisis brought about by direct confrontation between the classes that weakens the whole structure of capitalist rule, both political and economic, and opens up the potential in practice, of going beyond the system. It is only in these situations that there is a possibillity of mass communist consciousness arising in the first place. Class confrontation comes before communist consciousness not the other way around. In these situatiions communist minorities need to be able to advance both practical ideas to take the struggle forward and a more general vision of a communist future. We don't of course have to wait around for that to happen, we can develop our discussions and organisations now and we can take part as workers ourselves in the struggles which do occur.
As I said before reformism in its broader context, is as much a danger to the 'direct action' movement as to those who would claim to be able 'to make use' of parliament and other democratic capitalist institutions.
Spikymike.
Hi Spikey
You appear to view the development of a working class movement for communism as essentially an evolutionary one, based around abstract propaganda by political parties on the one hand and experimentation by groups of workers in co-operative schemes of various kinds on the other, but historical experience, as Ernie and others have pointed out on this and other threads, suggests that it is periodic situations of crisis brought about by direct confrontation between the classes that weakens the whole structure of capitalist rule, both political and economic, and opens up the potential in practice, of going beyond the system. It is only in these situations that there is a possibillity of mass communist consciousness arising in the first place. Class confrontation comes before communist consciousness not the other way around. In these situatiions communist minorities need to be able to advance both practical ideas to take the struggle forward and a more general vision of a communist future. We don't of course have to wait around for that to happen, we can develop our discussions and organisations now and we can take part as workers ourselves in the struggles which do occur.
You may well be right about about the growth of a working class movement for communism not being a smooth linear process. In fact I think that probably is the case. But there is absolutely no contradiction whatsover between adopting what you call an evolutionary approach - abstract propagandism plus practical experimentation in cooperative schemes that seek to transcend the market relation - and recognising that it is "periodic situations of crisis brought about by direct confrontation between the classes that weakens the whole structure of capitalist rule". Indeed the growth of the movement incrementally may actually help to precipitate the situation in which real progress towards a communist goal becomes more achievable. I am not quite sure what is the point you are driving at here. Are you suggesting we manufacture a crisis situation so to speak rather than focus on fostering a communist outlook. I agree that class confrontation comes before communist consciousness but there is no dichotomy here. Facilitiating the growth of communist consciousness facilitates the class struggle and vice versa
Robin
Robo,
Just to say that 'we' that is Communist pro-revolutionaries can neither manufacture a crisis nor manufacture communist consciousness but we can contribute to situations which help develop the class struggle in some circumstances to undermine and confront capitalist social relations. I do not believe those situations include LETS schemes, co-ops or the like, irrespective of whether we might as individuals partake of those schemes.
No time now - got to cook the tea!
I may return to this discussion later when I have read the Link from Red Marut?
Spikymike.
Great discussion. I'm a great believer in Anarchists consaciously adopting a policy of "strategic reform" and you can read a controversial article by me on this very subject in the latest edition of of Rebel Worker, online in pdf at http://www.rebelworker.org/latest.pdf . That's a facsimile of the paper, my article is at page 14.
One tiny quibble to make here right now:
Lifestylism is trying to drop out of capitalism by changing your consumption patterns and generally not working.
That is a popular form of anarchist lifestylism, but self-consciously adopting supposed working-class norms (for example) is just as much lifestylism. There is an anarcho-syndicalist lifestylism which focusses on such things as the correct way to make a red-and-black flag and exhaustive knowledge of the works of a few favoured authors and so forth. I don't think the lentil-munchers should have to wear suspicion of lifestylism alone.
That is a popular form of anarchist lifestylism, but self-consciously adopting supposed working-class norms (for example) is just as much lifestylism.
true, there was a poster here once who suggested we should dress 'like the local working class' 
(though to be fair i think that was halfway between them breaking with lifestylism and getting a class analysis)
Robo and others?,
Having read the 'Whinger Press' critique of the SPGB I think it is pretty spot on. I particularly like the stuff on the divisions within the wider 'working class' and the need to address the practical forging of unity as opposed to merely proclaiming the abstract theoretical unity of all workers, (though I think throwing in the reference to the 'peasantry', if that term is used correctly was not helpful). This is an area which the two groups (Wildcat and Subversion) which I was last involved with, spent much time debating, in the context of our activities in the Miners and Dockers disputes, the anti- JSA campaign and anti-roads movement etc.(There that's pigeon holed me then!).
You can also find an early critique of the SPGB which I was involved in publishing, under the heading 'Monument or Movement?' in the Subversion section of the AF-Northern Web site. On re-reading this text published in 1972 I can see it reflects some of what was both good and bad about the enthusiasm of that era. I appreciate also that Robin certainly, and some of the SPGB modernisers, have taken on board at least the peripheral criticisms in that text. However, the core of the criticism (which I have only partly summarised in my earlier postings) still seems pretty accurate to me. Evidenced by the fact that the SPGB itself has never managed to carry out any self critical examination of its own origins and practice at a fundamental level.
Now all this may seem of only limited interest to most people on this site since few groups outside the SPGB and its companions still exibit this particularly strange mix of mechanical marxism and idealism, but there are some small overlaps in both the critiques refered to here with the activity of other groups.
In particular, the abillity of a group to have a strong paper comitment to 'communism' and even to some sound communist ' positions' in relation to 'issues' like the Labour Party, the Trade Unions, National Liberation etc whilst in its organisational practice throwing up barriers to the kind of movement that might practically advance the ' autonomy, initiative,the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies, the self-activity and the demystificationn of the masses'. In the case of the SPGB this has ocurred by their continual practice of either not participating in struggles in an organised way at all and generally being negative about struggles, or participating in a way that reinforces barriers (as with the trade unions).
A similar phenomena can however be seen in the bureaucratic internal, and dogmatic and sectarian external behaviour of groups like the ICC (which despite this comment I still have some vestige of respect for). This is a group which has for instance produced numerous splits, not over any basic disagreement on its communist 'class lines' but precisely over its organisational behaviour and inabillity to accomodate genuine internal debate. An organisation which sees all the fault only in the 'splitters' and never in itself. The fact that most of the splitters have since dissapeared from political activity (with the honourable exception of Internationalist Perspective) whilst the ICC keeps going, is seen in itself as proof of their correctness. It never occurs to them that they may have some responsibillity for the disillusionment of these otherwise good comrades. This attitude is suprisingly similar to that of some of the older SPGB members - when will the ICC proudly proclaim its equal longevity!
The point of this rant is not just to have a go at groups like the SPGB or the ICC (both of which still count in my books as part of the ' thin red line'). I am well aware of my own vunerabillity to criticism as an individual not currently in any group and of the faults in those groups I have previously been involved with.
The point, I suppose, is just to be very aware of the dangers which all potentially pro revolutionary groups face in current circumstances and to try and maintain a critical self awareness (both collective and individual) and some recognition of our own limitations.
Perhaps on this last point Robin and I may agree.
I think this site has been very useful in opening up some more honest debate - maybe that will also lead, in time, to some small areas of other practical cooperation as well ?
Hi Spikey
Perhaps on this last point Robin and I may agree.
I think this site has been very useful in opening up some more honest debate - maybe that will also lead, in time, to some small areas of other practical cooperation as well ?
Well let me just say that I too have some disagreeements with the SPGB (I am currenty airing one of these on the WSM forum regarding the blanket ban on all religious believers in the party which I think is irrational and counter-productive) , But ,at the same time I , like you, recognise that the SPGB is very much part of the thin red line that Rubel and Crump wrote of.
I agree very much with your comments about this site. It has been extremely useful and illuminating. The group that i have been involved with - the World in Common group - has been trying to achieve (not very successfully it has to be conceded) precisely the thing that you hope for - a greater degree of practical co-operation within our non-market anti-statist sector. At the end of the day we need to build on what we have in common despite our differences. We need to also recognise that a diversity of approaches may in fact help us make greater progress towards our common goal. We should stop trying to see them as competing but more as complementary
cheers
Robin
Robo,
I would leave this particular debate here normally but with a few days off work I am indulging myself a bit.
Coincidentally I attended an open Manchester AF meeting last night. These meetings have attracted quite a lot of younger people along lately and whilst I have been unable to comprehend most of the discussion about the latest alternative music scene, I have been encouraged by the desire of most people attending to discuss more general 'political' 'issues' and have made a few contributions to those discussions.
As it happened there was a tail end discussion about religion and whether it was compatible to hold any religious ideas alongside anarchist ideas - especially in a group like the AF.
There seemed to be unanimous agreement on opposition to all organised religion given its role in supporting class society in a variety of ways. But the possibillity of believing in some kind of 'other' or spiritual world still lingered in some peoples minds. Not unsuprisingly to me , Budhism (as a philosophy rather than in its organised form) was trotted out as perhaps significant in this context. It seems that eastern mysticism still holds some sway with western radicals (as it did in my hippy days).
A couple of us managed to put forward the usual materialist case (as opposed to a standard atheist approach) but I don't think we convinced anyone. We did try to show that, to the extent such vague beliefs did not affect our understanding that it was 'we' , that is social human beings, who potentially were able to control our own destiny, rather than some 'external' force, then those beliefs were largely irrelevant and perhaps then pretty harmless. The informal discussion more or less fizzeled at that point.
My own view is however in agreement with the SPGB on this matter of the incompatibillity of relgious views with membership of a genuinely pro-revolutionary group, as I do not believe it is possible to maintain a clear materialist analysis of the modern world and our struggles within it, if religious views of any kind were to eventually hold sway in such as group.
This of course is NOT the same thing as imagining that the advance of the class struggle and the revolutionary overthrow of capitalist social relations is dependent on some prior intellectual conversion of the mass of workers to a rigorous materialist and non-religious view of the world, which it decidely is not.
Neither does it necessarily mean that a pro-revolutionary group cannot in some areas and circumstances co-operate with other organisations with less rigorous views on religion.
In less than two weeks time hundreds of neo-Nazis and racists will descend on the coastal town of Dover calling for Britain to “close the border”. It is vital that anti-fascists and anti-racists...
A short biography of Séraphine Pajaud, French anarchist and champion of atheism, anti-militarism and women's liberation
An article by Staughton Lynd reinterprets the concept of union democracy to include workers of all kinds (unionized workers, nonunion workers, and farmers); protection of the rights to strike,...
Please read the posting guidelines before posting. If you see anything which falls outside them please use the down' button on the offending post to flag it for the moderators' attention, or in the case of spam, click the 'spam' button. Site admins are listed here, and feedback can be posted in the feedback forum.
Click here to register now. Logged in users:
Can comment on articles and discussions
Get 'recent posts' refreshed more regularly
Bookmark articles to your own reading list
Use the site private messaging system
Start forum discussions, submit articles, and more...
IMHO what Tacks refers to as reformism is nothing of the sort. Reformism refers to changing society through legislative change via the state. What Tacks is on about is incrementalism, the strategy of empowerment of individuals, groups, and communities; who create new possibilities for themselves here and now. That benefit them here and now, without conceding power and control to the ruling class and state functionaries. This has a long and honourable history of anarchist activism dating back to Proudhon and the mutualist labour movement he inspired. It also has the added benefit of being harder for the state to marginalise or supress, than confrontationalist revolutionary movements, which in this day and age exist largely in the fevered imaginations of college boy communists.
Kind regards
harry