Are SPGB Libertarian Communist?

Libertarian communists, yes but flawed libertarian communists.

jondwhite

Is Libertarian Communist just anarchists?

Here is something about roots of this term, what does it means and from where it came from:
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/150-years-of-libertarian

In short it was coined as synonym for anarchist communism. It means non-authoritarian, non-statist communism. Non-authoritarian in the sense rejecting authority (and not only "non-dictatorial" maybe this is the reason for misunderstanding). Communism which doesn't intend to use the state for its own purpose. This is the difference between authoritarian and libertarian communism. Which of course exclude both SPGB and any other political party which aim to seize state power, authority. This is what this term means, end of story.

Now, in 20th century some Marxist groups abandoned earlier Marxist theories about the state and the possibility of using it therefore they are sometimes called libertarian communist but only if they are similar to anarchism in this respect (i.e they are not political parties aiming at seizing state power).

augustynww: I would suggest actually reading what the SPGB, etc have said and done (Socialist Party of Canada actually elected people) before cutting and pasting definitions. Helps to know what you're talking about first.

So the state abolished the state and introduced libertarian communism in Canada then? Never heard about this glorious moment in Canadian history, sorry.

where did I say that? Perhaps you need to learn to read.

And to bandy quotes

http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionI1

"Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron. In a word, no"

Therefore, rather than being an oxymoron, "libertarian socialism" indicates that true socialism must be libertarian and that a libertarian who is not a socialist is a phoney. As true socialists oppose wage labour, they must also oppose the state for the same reasons. Similarly, libertarians must oppose wage labour for the same reasons they must oppose the state. So, libertarian socialism rejects the idea of state ownership and control of the economy, along with the state as such.

Just where does the SPGB stand counter to that definition? ...Our case is to capture the state to disarm the capitalist class who currently are in control of it, and then to abolish its class and coercive function. Some are critical of that approach but it does not make the SPGB statist or authoritarian or reformist but nowhere is anything recognisable as a state exists in our vision of socialism...

The SPGB has always differentiated between supporting reforms and reformism. In regards to it AF says "The boss class is our enemy, and while we must fight for better conditions from it" so why not turn your attack on their reformism but of course it would be a deliberate mis-reading by myself of their position, just as you are intent on misrepresenting the SPGB case on reformism.

A rare moment in history was when a Socialist Party of Canada member did get elected to a Province parliament, as been referred to by FNBrill. It is worth re-posting what his attitude was and which will probably be the approach of any future elected SPGBer.

“I feel it is my duty to clearly define my position in this House ….I have no confidence in either of you, and it does not matter to me which of you win. It is a fight between political representatives of different corporations over surplus values that have been and are to be stolen from my class. When I voted on the last division I did so because I saw an opportunity to benefit a few of my class, the laborers in the construction camp. There is no opportunity to get anything for the workers on this vote, and I shall not vote. On every vote where there is no opportunity to get something for my class, I shall not vote. On every vote where there is no opportunity to get anything for my class, I shall leave the House and refrain from voting.”

I may be mistaken but I get the impression that augustynww is reacting to the words 'party' and 'socialist' and would possibly be saying much the same if this was about the SPEW, the SWP or the Scargillite SLP. He/she also appears to have a downer on any association with Marx and holds an extremely narrow and territorial definition of 'libertarian communism'.

In fact, I don't see how anyone reasonably informed about the SPGB could not see them as libertarian communist. That said, I don't see how anyone sympathetic to the SPGB could not see the flaws in a political strategy based on a unique kind of 'revolutionary' parliamentarism mixed with an endearing form of socialist evangelism... but that's another story...

ajjohnstone

Just where does the SPGB stand counter to that definition? ...

uhm, In your next statement

ajjohnstone

Our case is to capture the state

In being political party.

On the other thread you actually gave an explanation why. Usual explanation of state socialism which had led anarchists at the time to regard Marxism as authoritarian version of socialism and communism:

ajjohnstone

Marx in 1852 “But universal suffrage is the equivalent of political power for the working class of England, where the proletariat forms the large majority of the population, where, in a long though underground civil war, it has gained a clear consciousness of its position as a class and where even the rural districts know no longer any peasants, but only landlords, industrial capitalists (farmers) and hired labourers. The carrying of universal suffrage in England would, therefore be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the continent. Its inevitable result, here is the political supremacy of the working class.”

His meaning is clear - a working class majority in Parliament, backed by a majority of the population, can bring about the real transfer of power. Marx reaffirms “the way to show political power [in Britain] lies open to the working class. Insurrection would be madness where peaceful agitation would more swiftly and surely do the work.”

Several decades later Engels still argued for its use commenting that in the USA the workers "next step towards their deliverance" was "the formation of a political workingmen's party, with a platform of its own, and the conquest of the Capitol and the White House for its goal." This new party "like all political parties everywhere . . . aspires to the conquest of political power."

In Britain Engels continued to argue that the task of the British working class was not only to pursue economic struggles "but above all in winning political rights, parliament, through the working class organised into an independent party" (significantly, the original manuscript stated "but in winning parliament, the political power").

So we are in good company even if not the popular one at this moment in time.

(btw I have no idea what you meant by "not the popular" as state socialists always think like that)
Is this how you understand "libertarian socialism"? Really?

As I said on the other thread these Marx and particularly Engels ideas have led to the creation of social democracy in Germany. And it is reformism. "Capturing the state" is what make SPGB authoritarian and reformist and what differs you from libertarian socialism

I'm also curious what you meant by this:
ajjohnstone

and then to abolish its class and coercive function.

So, you don't want really abolish the state but "its function". That's the real catch here because libertarian socialists believe the state as such is class and coercive apparatus and saying that you only want to abolish "its class and coercive function" doesn't make much sense. It's like saying you only would want "to abolish class and exploitative function of capitalism"

Serge Forward

I may be mistaken but I get the impression that augustynww is reacting to the words 'party' and 'socialist' and would possibly be saying much the same if this was about the SPEW, the SWP or the Scargillite SLP. He/she also appears to have a downer on any association with Marx and holds an extremely narrow and territorial definition of 'libertarian communism'.

In fact, I don't see how anyone reasonably informed about the SPGB could not see them as libertarian communist. That said, I don't see how anyone sympathetic to the SPGB could not see the flaws in a political strategy based on a unique kind of 'revolutionary' parliamentarism mixed with an endearing form of socialist evangelism... but that's another story...

I do not think my definition of libertarian communism is narrow. I also said I regard some marxists as libertarian communists. Of course only those who reject "capturing the state" and party organization i.e rejecting authoritarian socialism. This is broad definition of libertarian socialism and communism I think.

As for Marxism in general there are some theoretical reasons why historical Marxism accepted state socialism - look at this quote about Marx and Engels - (and later created state capitalism). I'm critical of Marxism, that's true but I don't think all Marxists are necessarily authoritarian. It depends in what direction they go - libertarian or authoritarian and how critical are they in terms of those authoritarian elements of Marxism.

Well, the Left Comms on LibCom tend to get a pass because we don't see that the role of the political organisation is to take control of the state; so under augustnww's definition we'd qualify (though the 'party/organisation' question might be a source of contention) - certainly earlier discussions around this question as it related to the Communist Left revolved around conceptions of taking 'state power' as being the defining factor. Which I think is why there aren't really any Bordigists who post here, and why incidently when anyone (eg on RevLeft) asks about the relationship of the Communist Left to Anarchism I tell them that the ICT and ICC can be regarded as 'Libertarian Communist' but the ICP can't.

But the SPGB do want to take state power; even if they immediately want to give it up again. And they're a party organising to do that, which may again be a problem, though to be honest most Anarchists don't seem to have a problem with the organisational forms that Marxists might call a 'party'. I think the role of the organisation is more important than its name or even its statutes.

I see Serge's argument, I really do; but in the definition of 'libertarian communism' that seems to be the consensus on LibCom, I think the SPGB would be ruled outside of it, even if the roots of the SPGB, and the goal of 'world socialism', are the same as the majority of the historical traditions of the Anarchist movement in the UK (fraction of the SDF, free-access communism). I can't see how you can have an "electoral libertarian communist party". It seems to me that the methodology doesn't fit the definition (no matter what else fits, which is let's face it is the majority of what the SPGB says, part of what we all have in common, whether Anarchist-Communist, Anarcho-syndicalist, Impossiblist or Left Communist).

As i keep saying...you insist in reading what you want into things...

Even a quick glance at the history of the socialist movement indicates that the identification of socialism with state ownership and control is not common. For example, Anarchists, many Guild Socialists, council communists (and other libertarian Marxists), as well as followers of Robert Owen, all rejected state ownership

Now there is an oxymoron according to you....but if you cite a source, i am free to cite the same source and i include the SPGB in that definition...(although reading Slothjobber contribution, he might think it refers to the Left Communists)

Does the SPGB accept state ownership... " For if the state owns the workplace, then the producers do not, and so they will not be at liberty to manage their own work but will instead be subject to the state as the boss."...ummmm, yessss, that's our position, so do we meet that criteria of libertarian Marxists. It appears so.

So we are guilty of following the Marxist tradition of declaring that political action is necessary and in particular circumstances primary, that the suffrage was a hard-won victory It's totally irrelevant that like every other victory achieved bythe working class it has been somewhat co-opted and the use of it is has not been put to revolutionary practice despite the possibility of it being applied...something we have always said. And people also forget that we were no slaves to democracy and the suffrage. We opposed the Woman's Suffrage Movement for it was not giving the vote to working class women. Nor did we think it was required...we supported effective political majorities, which may mean a minority headcount, not the proverbial arithmetical 50% plus one.

In being a political party are we similar to all the rest. Do we have a party leader? Do we have a politbureau cental committee? Do we even have informal influencial members who determine policy? Do we have closed meetings? Not at all...We are to be admired for our democratic...libertarian...yet structured organisation which permits even the most recent recruit to have as much say and participation as the longest member. We are inclusive, not exclusive....and we have over the years coped admirably with the occasional upset.

For the typical Left party, all activity should be mediated by the Party (union activity, neighbourhood community struggles or whatever) , whereas for us, the Party is just one mode of activity available to the working class to use in their struggles. We are blamed for no entryism/intervening in workers struggles and trying to dominate the unions. But our position is that shared by the IWW when they decided unions should not be used as vehicles for political parties and decided upon no political party manipulations of workers self-organisation. Very authoritarian of us not to impose our political programme on the unions as many would like to.

Our analysis isn't very popular because of the Leninist distortions misquoting Marx on the Paris Commune in attempt to pass off smashing the state as orthodox Marxism.

Other state socialists who i am guessing you mean the social democrats of the 2nd International and since, well again, our critiques of using the state in the interest of the workers led to us distancing ourselves from those and setting up our own party and never joining with them.

The only role of the state is a very limited one, right at the beginning of the revolutionary process to ensure the capitalists are appropriated and to defend that action from counter-revolution...You may think some sort of militia, or whatever can perform that role, the SPGB differs in that opinion. It doesn't make us authoritarian, just pragmatists and realists.

The function of the state? Every department has no social use...the office of statistics...health...agriculture...education....science and technology...environment ...none possess a useful function that can be retained and adapted to make it more fit for purpose? We start at Year Zero? Everything must go. Every civil servant is a parasite of no social use? Is it the same for the local state, every council worker has no contribution to make to the community?

As some are aware i often suggest a reapproachment between us on Libcom and always so far get spurned as being impractical and wishful thinking but after all i was signatory to Libertarian Communism statement within the SPGB in the 70s that led to the evolution of various groups and my own personal development politically and journey.

I do interpret Marx and Engels as a libertarians and anti-statists. In 1844 Marx wrote that "the existence of the state and the existence of slavery are inseparable" - "The King of Prussia and Social Reform"
Again, as Engels wrote in a letter to Bebel in March 1875, "Marx's book against Proudhon and later the Communist Manifesto directly declare that with the introduction of the socialist order of society the state will dissolve itself and disappear.”
Then, in a circular against the Bakunin prepared for the First International in 1875, Marx wrote: "To all socialists anarchy means this: the aim of the proletarian movement--that is to say the abolition of social classes--once achieved, the power of the state, which now serves only to keep the vast majority of producers under the yoke of a small minority of exploiters, will vanish, and the functions of government become purely administrative"

I also stand by what Dietzgen said "If a worker wants to take part in the self-emancipation of his class , the basic requirement is that he should cease allowing others to teach him and should set about teaching himself."

And when he said

"The terms anarchist, socialist, communist should be so "mixed" together, that no muddlehead could tell which is which. Language serves not onlythe purpose of distinguishing things but also of uniting them- for it is dialectic." June 9, 1886
And on anarchists and socialists generally, he said:
"For my part, I lay little stress on the distinction, whether a man is an anarchist or a socialist, because it seems to me that too much weight is attributed to this difference."....
"While the anarchists may have mad and brainless individuals in their ranks, the socialists have an abundance of cowards. For this reason I care as much for one as the other."... "The majority in both camps are still in great need of education, and this will bring about a reconciliation in time."- April 20, 1886

Perhaps it was never emphasised as much before since a battle of vying ideas was being waged but the SPGB never rejected workers councils or industrial unions but simply said that it would necessarily be parallel to the parliamentary political action. I think the SLP defined it well ...sword and shield (although they kept switching the roles)

All the above i have said before and some will no doubt recognise my repetition...just as i recognise the same stale old humbug.

I am half-prone to venture to think those who are hyper-critical of the SPGB, it just maybe stems from psychological denial of their own political impotence, so we serve as the whipping boy for their frustrations...particularly since we have a nice Head Office and loadsa dosh at our disposal and don't spend it the way they would have us do. But i reckon that is too simplistic explanation. I think it is the baggage of history we have carried with us...My criticism of my own party is that we should be doing more to jettison some of it and take a few risks...After all, like all yourselves, we are so small and inefectual to make any difference in the big picture of our class, if we err. Who would miss the SPGB, the AF, the ICC, CWO, Solfed, and lets not forget in the 50/60s the Industrial Workers of the World, were down to a hundred members, if i recollect my Thompson history right. practically extinct for all practical purposes...the 60s New Left brought the renewal. And even Freedom has gone apart from online...and the SLP has disappeared.

Who knows ...the May general election just might revitalise the SPGB...and would that be such a bad result...be honest ...or can i take it that August will be delighted by our disappearance and dance on our political grave with joy...

ajj,

Local State (ie most Civil Service and Local Authority) workers are not the local state or a department of state and where they might continue to perform a useful communist function they are quite capable of organising themselves do do so. Using the state apparatus as a means of trying to achieve communism is a specifically political/military matter which defines such as the SPGB as a statist political party and is unrelated to questions about 'state ownership' ie nationalisation.

I think you took a wrong turning somewhere around the 1970's though when you could have stayed true to a definition of libertarian communism more acceptable to most around here rather than the particular version used by some in the SPGB!!

Whether the SPGB is considered by some and not others to be 'libertarian communist' can in my opinion be relegated to a secondary issue in asessing both the positive and negative contributions of that organisation to working class struggle in and against capitalism - so the starting point of this discussion thread was frankly not helpful.

Some "libertarians" do make the difference in arguing local administration in socialism being based on the local state machine.

Murray Bookchin's municipalism?

His suggestion of using the New England town meetings and contesting local elections.

...and i have heard many suggest the parish councils in this country could be given new life as administrative organs. Why re-invent democracy when the structures exist?

I'll accept the definition that we are statist in regards of desiring the state to commit suicide, once we provide it with the means to do so.

But does that preclude us from being libertarians, the title of this thread...

What we call this movement has, in different times and places, been called 'anarchist communism', 'libertarian communism' or simply 'socialism' or 'communism'. What matters, however, is not the name or ideological label but its existence, not just as a future ideal but as the living embodiment of our needs, our desires and our spirit of resistance in our everyday lives. This spirit of resistance exists, and has always existed, in every society and under every regime where there is injustice and exploitation; so then, does the possibility for a world based on freedom and equality for all.

....Someone want to tell me where we do not meet that criteria?

Upon reading the analysis of the State

And where workers have attempted to use the state, or even take it over to further our interests, they have failed - because the very nature of the state is inherently opposed to the working class.

Where has the SPGB not said that the state is a class institution. But instead we have come to conclusions about why previous endeavours to use the state failed and offer a solution ...and i'm surprised Slothjobber was let off the hook so easily by claiming Left Communists, who fully endorsed he Bolsheviks of 1917 seizure of the State in what the SPGB at the time said would fail, are libertarians !

Mike, it took over 30 years of exploration before i re-joined the SPGB again when i recognised their weaknesses still outweighed the strengths of other groups and organisations....i may have taken a wrong turning but i returned to the right track....perhaps you might ponder whether you yourself are still straying off-course down the wrong path ;-)

I have previously answered this question of majorities and minorities before on Libcom, (no idea the thread now to link)...but i will return now to it again.

One of the most confused issues is the party case that it must be a majority that establishes socialism (the cartoon strip expressed that very clearly) and perhaps the SPGB have been amiss in not spelling out what this means. The stress on requiring a majority was in response to historical circumstances where there were those who argued that an elite could take political power and decree socialism upon an ignorant working class. We held to Marx who employed the misunderstood term “dictatorship of the proletariat” but his interpretation was that it was an act of "the immense majority in the interests of the immense majority."

How do we determine a majority? Although it means more than half of people, we well know that many are political inactive, either through complete apathy or content to go with the flow. In other words, there will always be a section of people who will not express their preferences. Everyone knows that, not just from politics but experience of trade union decision-making. We do not and never have said that the majority is all about the majority of the whole population or even the whole electorate What we do say is that those who signal their support for the ruling class and those who side with the socialist cause determine how we count a majority or minority. We judge majority on the contending forces

Once more our emphasis on a majority revolution is to counter those who declare a resolute minority can win the revolution in the name of the people. It is not from the abstract concept of democracy but that an effective majority is required to ensure success of socialism. If the mass of people do not reject capitalism, if a blood bath doesn’t arise during the course of the revolution, then the organization and application of the new society will be confounded and corrupted. That’s why we view minority revolutions as dangerous tactics and not a winning strategy. To assume political power prematurely is disastrous. And I won’t insult those on the list by listing the precedents from our history.

The SPGB can perhaps rightly be accused of over-caution rather than impulsively haste and we constantly argue over that type of mind-set within our party. But better safe than sorry.

While we do accept the strength of capitalist ideology via the media and its institutions such as school and church which presently holds the minds of the workers we aren’t slaves to determinism but understand that there exist the possibility of consciousness arising within the working class in spite of the power of the conditioning and brainwashing conducted by the ruling class. And the SPGB has never said that it is through being textbook-clever that the worker learns. A mixture of material conditions, experience and education is the revolutionary process. A militant class conscious worker is fully capable of exercising either the power of the vote or the power of folded arms...We seen no either/or...What is best suited for a particular time and place will be used.

ajjohnstone

As i keep saying...you insist in reading what you want into things...

Even a quick glance at the history of the socialist movement indicates that the identification of socialism with state ownership and control is not common. For example, Anarchists, many Guild Socialists, council communists (and other libertarian Marxists), as well as followers of Robert Owen, all rejected state ownership

Now there is an oxymoron according to you....but if you cite a source, i am free to cite the same source

What oxymoron? I didn't use that word and I don't know what you mean.

ajjohnstone

and i include the SPGB in that definition...(although reading Slothjobber contribution, he might think it refers to the Left Communists)

no, you don't, particularly if you cite that source "state control" is what SPGB supports, right?

ajjohnstone

So we are guilty of following the Marxist tradition of declaring that political action is necessary and in particular circumstances primary

Yes, you are guilty of this. This precisely is why you are not libertarian socialists in my opinion. This is part of Marxism which anarchists criticized as authoritarian, rejected and called this socialism which not use what you call "political action"/"capturing the state" etc - liberrtarian socialism and communism.

ajjohnstone

In being a political party are we similar to all the rest. Do we have a party leader? Do we have a politbureau cental committee? Do we even have informal influencial members who determine policy?

This is very good, but I'm afraid it works only until you actually achieve your goal of "capturing the state".
Tell me, if you do that if you will be able to say the same about the state: "we don't have ruling politicians in parliament, we don't have government, we don't have ministers, we don't have prime minister, we don't rule at all"?

ajjohnstone

For the typical Left party, all activity should be mediated by the Party (union activity, neighbourhood community struggles or whatever) , whereas for us, the Party is just one mode of activity available to the working class to use in their struggles.

That's right and that's why I can't admit you are libertarian socialists. For libertarians is only one way of socialism, libertarian one.
I can admit though you sometimes support libertarian methods. This is what you just said yourself.
ajjohnstone

We are blamed for no entryism/intervening in workers struggles and trying to dominate the unions. But our position is that shared by the IWW when they decided unions should not be used as vehicles for political parties and decided upon no political party manipulations of workers self-organisation. Very authoritarian of us not to impose our political programme on the unions as many would like to.

Again I must remind you it works only if you aren't winning. As if you don't understand how the state works

ajjohnstone

Other state socialists who i am guessing you mean the social democrats of the 2nd International and since, well again, our critiques of using the state in the interest of the workers led to us distancing ourselves from those and setting up our own party and never joining with them.

So why you quoted Engels supported it and said it's "your company"? You know his role in 2nd International?

ajjohnstone

The only role of the state is a very limited one, right at the beginning of the revolutionary process to ensure the capitalists are appropriated and to defend that action from counter-revolution...You may think some sort of militia, or whatever can perform that role, the SPGB differs in that opinion. It doesn't make us authoritarian, just pragmatists and realists.

The function of the state? Every department has no social use...the office of statistics...health...agriculture...education....science and technology...environment ...none possess a useful function that can be retained and adapted to make it more fit for purpose? We start at Year Zero? Everything must go. Every civil servant is a parasite of no social use? Is it the same for the local state, every council worker has no contribution to make to the community?

Everything must go if the state is concerned. Functions are sometimes useful and should be regained in new social organization. There is big, substantial, qualitative difference between abolishing the state while keeping some functions and abolishing some functions and keeping the state.

ajjohnstone

As some are aware i often suggest a reapproachment between us on Libcom and always so far get spurned as being impractical and wishful thinking but after all i was signatory to Libertarian Communism statement within the SPGB in the 70s that led to the evolution of various groups and my own personal development politically and journey.

It's good to hear that, nonetheless:

ajjohnstone

I do interpret Marx and Engels as a libertarians and anti-statists. In 1844 Marx wrote that "the existence of the state and the existence of slavery are inseparable" - "The King of Prussia and Social Reform"
Again, as Engels wrote in a letter to Bebel in March 1875, "Marx's book against Proudhon and later the Communist Manifesto directly declare that with the introduction of the socialist order of society the state will dissolve itself and disappear.”
Then, in a circular against the Bakunin prepared for the First International in 1875, Marx wrote: "To all socialists anarchy means this: the aim of the proletarian movement--that is to say the abolition of social classes--once achieved, the power of the state, which now serves only to keep the vast majority of producers under the yoke of a small minority of exploiters, will vanish, and the functions of government become purely administrative"

And as you know libertarian socialists, anarchists answered to this that that there is no such thing as "purely administrative" state, as in every state it's only minority group who rule "vast majority" and every member of this ruling group is ex-worker in best case scenario (but rather bourgeois) This group will become new ruling class exploiting the rest etc. All of this actually happened in Russia and other countries with "real socialism" (btw interesting, because you used the same word earlier when you said you are "realists" and pragmatists - you are at the begging of this road which led to this).
Since 1917 it's not some theoretical discussion only. Anarchists have facts to base this on, you don't. You are behaving as if all of this didn't happened at all.

ajjohnstone

I am half-prone to venture to think those who are hyper-critical of the SPGB, it just maybe stems from psychological denial of their own political impotence, so we serve as the whipping boy for their frustrations...particularly since we have a nice Head Office and loadsa dosh at our disposal and don't spend it the way they would have us do.

Now this is funny :D I envy you your office :) Listen, I'm from another country, from Poland, never met any of you and never heard the name SPGB until i registered on libcom (and didn't pay attention to what SPGB is until this election thing because this is more than I can stand.)

ajjohnstone

But i reckon that is too simplistic explanation. I think it is the baggage of history we have carried with us...My criticism of my own party is that we should be doing more to jettison some of it and take a few risks...After all, like all yourselves, we are so small and inefectual to make any difference in the big picture of our class, if we err. Who would miss the SPGB, the AF, the ICC, CWO, Solfed, and lets not forget in the 50/60s the Industrial Workers of the World, were down to a hundred members, if i recollect my Thompson history right. practically extinct for all practical purposes...the 60s New Left brought the renewal. And even Freedom has gone apart from online...and the SLP has disappeared.

Well, in Poland all of it actually was destroyed by "socialist realists" using the state as a weapon - in theory against bourgeois of course, in reality against workers and peasants, political oponents (as anarchists predicted)

ajjohnstone

Who knows ...the May general election just might revitalise the SPGB...and would that be such a bad result...be honest ...or can i take it that August will be delighted by our disappearance and dance on our political grave with joy...

Or you can simply throw away some state socialist illusions ;)

Augustynww, at least try and find out a little about what you're criticising here. You seem to be talking about a generic 'Socialist Party' of some sort, which the SPGB doesn't easily fit into. In fact, I wouldn't disagree with much of what you say if it were aimed at some generic leftist party X but come on, criticise the SPGB for things where they are a bit crap at (and there are a few of these) rather than what you imagine they are guilty of because it's all making you sound a bit clueless.

I criticize what SPGB and other socialist parties have in common actually (and theory behind it) basing it on what ajjohnstone said mostly. So...

The SPGB is not 'other socialist parties' and I would say it has little in common with most other socialist parties, apart from the words 'socialist' and 'party' and references to Marx and Engels.

Sorry, Augustynww, but the SPGB have never been "State Socialists" in any sense of the term. I acknowledge that, coming from a former Comicon/Warsaw Pact country, you may have issues with anything mentioning Marx, Engels, "Socialism", etc, but don't misconstrue either ajj or the organization. Go check out their stuff on organisation, their attitude to reformism and the State (any State!), and their trenchant, ongoing critique of Leninism, the Soviet Union and "national liberation" struggles - for example - then make your mind up.

Nobody has exclusive ownership of terms and concepts such as "libertarian", or, indeed, "communist". We learn and evolve, or we ossify and become ineffective.

And ajj is right about the ICC and CWO, by the way - whilst they have a fantastic critique of trotskyism, how are these groups "libertarian"?

Serge,
And this whole thing with capturing the state and reasons for it, running in elections... Which basically constitute socialist parties as socialist parties. And make SPGB one of them.
All of this is here.
I don't criticize them for some other actions which you have in mind I think. They may be positive I don't know.

Edward Sexby

Nobody has exclusive ownership of terms and concepts such as "libertarian", or, indeed, "communist". We learn and evolve, or we ossify and become ineffective.

That's true but I'm actually only one who gave here some definition (not mine though) of libertarian socialism and communism.
You people who defend SPGB as being libertarian have never gave some other definition of it which would allow to include political parties running in elections. That's convenient ,such vague libertarian socialism when no one knows what does it actually mean.

Edward Sexby

And ajj is right about the ICC and CWO, by the way - whilst they have a fantastic critique of trotskyism, how are these groups "libertarian"?

Neither CWO or the ICC has ever claimed the libertarian mantle and in general would reject this libertarian, authoritarian divide as being meaningless.

Due to some of the gaps in the SPGB's explanations as to how they intend to organise society and perhaps just plain old ignorance on my behalf (I can't see anything on their website) as to how they make decisions and structure their organisation now, makes me question whether they could credibly claim to be libertarian communists in the here and now. How we structure, decide and distribute now, combined with the objective of creating a society based on these principals is what I understand as the criteria of whether an organisation is libertarian communist or not.
So, are the SPGB libertarian now? I don't know - I'd like to know how they decide and structure themselves. Are they an organisation with the objective of creating a society based on libertarian communism? Perhaps, but maybe only nominally - but this really depends on the key issues of structure and decision making. (Again, it may be ignorance on my behalf and they may be die hard horizontal federalists, etc.)

ajj,

My previous criticism of the SPGB's poor (and unmarxist) understanding of the relationship between material conditions and both class and communist consciousness stand despite your references to that here and was tackled to some extent in the links offered above.

But on the quoted reference to the ''spirit of resistance in our everyday lives'' and the distinction between 'ideological labels' and our practice both as individuals and organised groups, I think my experience (and your in the 1970's?) would suggest that the SPGB has serious shortcommings in so far as this area is not commonly considered in your organisation as a matter for collective discussion or response in a way in which it is in many anarchist groups (for all their shortcommings in trying to do this effectively). This is not to say that some some individual SPGB members don't and haven't engaged in seeking to marry their socialist politics with their everyday activity but it seems to me to have been as much a matter of other influences as those comming from their SPGB membership. Equally I understand that all of our efforts, especially as isolated individuals, are severely constrained in current circumstances so I'm not looking for 'working class heroes' but rather collective engagement.

Still I do accept that at the present time the different tiny genuinely communist groups in our milieu are unlikely to approach things in exactly the same way and that each may have something to contribute. Here I am of course putting more emphasis on the label 'communist' than 'libertarian'. (As an aside you make a valid point about Murray Bookchins 'liberatarian municipalism' but then that has been severely criticised as a strategy by both myself and many anarchist-communists - though you seem to have got hopelessly muddled over this in your brief interventions to the Kurdish discussion threads)

I'm nowhere near knowledgeable or clever enough to join in with this conversation but regardless of anything the simple fact remains - The SPGB are participating in parliamentary elections and that is most definitely an activity entirely contrary to anarchist principle. It would also seem to me to be adding fuel to the capitalist lie that we have political control through the ballot box.

plasma,

As I understand it - The SPGB (but not the wider WSM as a whole) have a centralised organisational structure based on branches, delegate conferences and an elected central executive committee based on individual membership voting. Branches nowdays have a limited measure of independence in their activities but much less than the equivalent groups in an anarchist federalist structure (such as in the AF). In the past the Executive Committee exercised a fairly dictatorial control over the written and oral expression of politics and political activity by branches and members, but that has broken down to a greater degree mainly due to the inabillity to exercise such control in the age of the internet with many members publishing their own websites and blogs with a more flexible approach to other groups and tendencies and the world in general! Suffice it to say that both types or organisational structures have their strengths and weaknesses depending more on the level of collective comitment, consciousness and independence of mind of the members in each case than the formal structures.

Thanks Spiky - you alluded to a change in the '70's on another thread.. Was this related to changes to the organisational structure?

plasma, Just in answer to you specific question my reference to the early seventies in the SPGB is really a dig at ajj who was briefly associated with myself and others who were involved in a factional rebellion amongst members then that resulted in our leaving/being expelled on the excuse of what I might call organisational indiscipline when the Executive Committee and most branches were reluctant to take us on politically. We were not the only members at the time (late 60's to early 70's) to rebel against the 'dictatorial' approach of the EC but (apart from some theatrical proto-Situationists) we were the most politically critical influenced by a mixture of anarchist-communism, Council Communism and Womens/Gay liberation theories. Some of that experience has been written up and posted here I think by my old dearly departed comrade Bob Miller from that era. Bit of a diversion but you asked.

It might be worth breaking the question down into different parts. I can see four aspects, two pre-rupture, one post-rupture and the question of the process of rupture itself. For lack of anything better let's use the terms "process", "strategy", "rupture", "goal".

Working backwards, "goal" would be the vision of the immediate post-rupture society - i.e. what kind of society we want to construct to replace capitalism. For e.g. the goal of most self-described socialists is a "transitional period" in which exchange, money, wage-labour and the institutions of the state are retained, but private property in land and capital goods is abolished. AFAICS from the SPGB's writings on the need for abolition of exchange, money, wage labour (and thus bodies of waged workers that make up the state institutions) as an immediate post ruptural task, they can be categorised as libertarian communists in relation to the "goal".

By "process" I'm referring to the prefigurative aspect of "practicing what you preach". i.e. to what extent are the characteristics of the goal reflected in the practical organisational processes of the specific political organisation/party? In certain instrumentalist theories of process, there is no necessary connection between goal and process - a radically democratic libertarian goal may be pursued by a rigidly authoritarian organisation and vice versa. Despite Burgers intervention above, however, the recent announcement from the Turkish section that they were leaving the ICC, in fact pointed to difficulties of process, even if they may not necessarily chose to use the words, "authoritarian" and "undemocratic" for political reasons. In terms of process, ajj informs us that the SPGB has an internal culture than is non-hierarchical, non-authoritarian and democratic. I haven't come across any evidence from ex-member accounts to the contrary, so we could say that in terms of process also, the SPGB doesn't appear to have any features that would contradict its libertarian communist goals.

However, on the questions of strategy and the model of rupture itself, things are a little more problematic.

First of all, in terms of strategy ajj's account is more ambiguous. "Folded arms" is not really the kind of antagonistic proletarian counter-power that most more traditionally revolutionary organisations envisage. ajj seems to claim continuity of SPGB strategy back to the pre-WW1 period:

And people also forget that we were no slaves to democracy and the suffrage. We opposed the Woman's Suffrage Movement for it was not giving the vote to working class women. Nor did we think it was required...

Ignoring, for the time being, the juicy bait of that last sentence, if the SPGB's strategy today is supposedly unaltered from the 1910s, then I have a few questions from my readings of the attitudes expressed in the Socialist Standard around the time of the 1913 Dublin Lockout (which was a big history project for us here in Ireland last year, hence the research).

I think any fair reading of what Jack Fitzgerald was saying in the SS at the time, is of a violent opposition to syndicalism (see especially his super-sarcastic review of Tom Mann's translation of the Pouget Pautaud pamphlet) to the extent of opposition to any form of working class struggle, or activity that distracted from the central message that "only through the ballot box" can the working class exercise power.

Now in terms of strategy, this is pretty key. If the SPGB's strategy remains unchanged, that building the actual fighting capability of the class is unnecessary (which is what Fitzgerald was saying, effectively), then the strategy remains a purely educational or ideological one. This is definitely not in keeping with any of the diverse strategic tendencies in the libertarian communist tradition, which, despite their divergent paths, do all still have a certain commonality in building working class counterpower, not just "consciousness raising".

This leads us to the most problematic part of all - the process of rupture itself. As ajj outlined it above:

The only role of the state is a very limited one, right at the beginning of the revolutionary process to ensure the capitalists are appropriated and to defend that action from counter-revolution...You may think some sort of militia, or whatever can perform that role, the SPGB differs in that opinion. It doesn't make us authoritarian, just pragmatists and realists.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, this is in keeping with Fitzgerald's scoffing at the syndicalists for their lack of appreciation for the need for a strong army and navy. That is, the process of the rupture of capitalist class power, for the SPGB, involves their party forming the government and then commanding the police and armed forces to defend "the revolution" against the capitalist counter-revolution.

Obvious problems -

1) the armed forces of the state are waged workers ("soldier" actually means wage-worker, etymologically), so you can't end wage slavery without liquidating the armed forces of the state. So as long as the protection of the state's armed forces is required against the counter-revolution, the goal of a communist society must be postponed.

2) If the counterrevolution holds the financial power to destroy the finances of the state (they do) then sooner or later the troops will go unpaid, and the power of the "socialist state" collapses.

3) In the UK the armed forces swear allegiance to the monarch. Assuming the monarch joins the counter-revolution, what guarantees the loyalty of the armed forces to a government ripping up the constitution (with or without a referendum for a constitutional shift to a republic). Especially if it looks like the "regicides" may not be able to guarantee wages and pensions in the near future.

Practical problems aside, the idea of "seizing" hold of state power to carry out the revolution, especially the sovereign ministeries (ministères régaliens in French - Defence/Army, Interior/Police, Justice/Prisons, Foreign Affairs, Treasury/Tax,State-wages) is definitely not a libertarian communist model of the process of rupturing capitalist class power. And also shows no possibility for transition to the desired wage-less, state-less goal.

So, overall, no I wouldn't categorise SPGB as libertarian communist, despite their compatibility in terms of process and goals.

Just a quick interim comment, i'll try later to do a fuller one.

August, i simply was relating that the Anarchist FAQ accepted that there was such a political grouping as "libertarian marxism", which many anarchists, particular Bakunists would say is a contradiction and accuse Marx of being authoritarian and which i believed you too would also think him and his followers to be...hence my reference. I was not saying you used it but reading between the lines of your previous comments inferred you would consider such a description would be an oxymoron. Apologies for misunderstanding and adding to any misunderstanding.

Burgers i believe Slothjobber did say so "I tell them that the ICT and ICC can be regarded as 'Libertarian Communist' but the ICP can't."

But more later once i digested the comments...

ajjohnstone

Burgers i believe Slothjobber did say so "I tell them that the ICT and ICC can be regarded as 'Libertarian Communist' but the ICP can't."

Yes Slothjobber did say that, but in a very specific context of revleft, which is a very strange and confused forum at the best of times and to make the difference between Bordigism and other left communist currents, like the ICT and ICC.

ajjohnstone

Just a quick interim comment, i'll try later to do a fuller one.

August, i simply was relating that the Anarchist FAQ accepted that there was such a political grouping as "libertarian marxism", which many anarchists, particular Bakunists would say is a contradiction and accuse Marx of being authoritarian and which i believed you too would also think him and his followers to be...hence my reference. I was not saying you used it but reading between the lines of your previous comments inferred you would consider such a description would be an oxymoron.

Yes, that's misunderstanding. I said earlier that I consider some Marxists to be libertarians but only if they reject use of the state. But this apply to particular Marxists after Marx. What would I said in the times of Marx/Engels-Bakunin dispute is another thing. I would support Bakunin of course. It was polarized dispute between libertarian and authoritarian socialism.

Augustynww, definition of libertarian communist... I'd say, at its most simple, it's anti-state socialism. The SPGB fits that simple criteria in so far as they aim to abolish the state once a majority of the population demonstrate a desire for proper socialism in a recognisably libertarian form. As a socialist party in the tradition of Marx, they are unusual in this aim because most socialist parties aim to capture the state and use it as an instrument of power - whether to carry on a leftish variant of capitalist business as usual or to establish some sort of "workers' state". The SPGB have no desire to do either of these things.

How do they establish that a majority of the population want socialism in a meaningful sense? Well, in countries where you have an electoral system, the vote could be used as a barometer of the popular desire for socialism, a simple way of measuring whether the greater population wishes to establish a form of libertarian anti-state communism, if you like. As with the guy in Canada, if a minority gets elected, then they will take no part in administering capitalism and would stand aside. Should they have a majority however, then they immediately abolish parliament and the majority who voted SPGB, with the help of everyone else, would then get to work establishing a form of socialism that would not really differ from the type of society those who define themselves as libertarian or anarcho-communists would want to see.

How realistic this all is, is another matter and I for one can see massive flaws with this strategy. Either way, it is anti-state socialist as they aim to immediately abolish the state and establish a free socialist society.

Apologies to any SPGBers if I've misrepresented or oversimplified.

Everything must go if the state is concerned. Functions are sometimes useful and should be regained in new social organization. There is big, substantial, qualitative difference between abolishing the state while keeping some functions and abolishing some functions and keeping the state.
I concur and so does the SPGB, August

All of this actually happened in Russia and other countries with "real socialism"
The SPGB have been critical of the Russian Bolshevik Revolution since information concerning it began to filter out and was denouncing it by early 1918. We have consistently argued since then it was not socialism.

Serge and Sexby point out that the SPGB developed from a very different tradition from ones that you maybe acquainted with and sharing similar terminology does not mean we share the same meanings as “other socialist parties”

Plasma and Mike, the party member poll trumps all within the SPGB. Every conference decision has to be ratified by it. One important difference from centalised control by the EC is that it cannot submit motions to the conference nor decide actual policy of principle. The EC minutes are online for all to read and you can attend in person to verify their veracity if you so wish. The General Secretary?…Hell, we have to press-gang volunteers for that task, since it carries no authority or status. A dogs-body.
Mike is correct. Since my first membership there has been a positive change in attitudes but it was attitude that determined the “heretic hunts” of the past and a different attitude of a much more open approach today. Whether it was due to the internet and blogs, I’m not sure I accept, since it seemed that it was the expulsion of certain branches that had something more to do with it but I hadn’t yet re-joined to 100% declare so.

Great debates over differences have taken place within the party over the decades, great orators and influential writers unable to use any personal charisma to control the party against the wishes of the members. The SPGB structure is a template for others to follow. It did evolve from trade union organization and strictly adheres to rules of debate inherited from them but its rejection of personal fiefdoms of party leaders was one of the decisive reasons for the party creation and forming a structure as democratic as possible.

Ocelot, your contribution I think made me think the most. I think I did mention that much of the SPGB politics were in response of repudiating rival theories. Syndicalism and industrial unionism was an example. I accept there was what I would in retrospect describe as over-compensation by viewing the ballot box as the primary process (and all members still accept control of political power, political action, is a necessity). However, it was never treated as the sole process to the exclusion of industrial action
But when you describe “working class counterpower” I think you don’t acknowledge enough that the SPGB always supported workers engaging in class struggle, and endorsed their actions. They were always critical of any acquiescence or collaboration with employers. One example is suffice from 1937.

“we regard Socialism not as a purely political theory, nor as an economic doctrine, but as one which embraces every phase of social life…The Socialist Party, in aiming for the control of the State, is a political party in the immediate sense, but we have an economic purpose in view, namely, the conversion of the means of living into the common property of society. Therefore, the question necessarily arises whether an economic organisation acting in conjunction with the political is vital to our task. We have on more than one occasion pronounced ourselves in agreement with the need for such an organisation, and in so doing have flatly denied the charge that the Socialist Party of Great Britain is "nothing but a pure and simple political party of Socialism."… the greater the extent to which they combine on the economic field the more the workers present the capitalist with a situation which the latter cannot afford to ignore… “All action of the unions in support of capitalism, or tending to sidetrack the workers from the only path that can lead to their emancipation should be strongly opposed, but, on the other hand, trade unions being a necessity under capitalism any action on their part upon sound lines should be heartily supported”… The workers' political organisation must precede the economic, since, apart from the essential need of the conquest of the powers of government, it is on the political field that the widest and most comprehensive propaganda can be deliberately maintained. It is here that the workers can be deliberately and independently organised on the basis of Socialist thought and action. In other words, Socialist organisation can proceed untrammelled by ideas other than those connected with its revolutionary objective…”

You may disagree with its viewpoint of needing to go beyond trade-unionism, but the point I make is that it ‘working class counter-power” is not ignored. What I think maybe the question as it has been brought up elsewhere….Does the class struggle automatically result in a rise in consciousness. The SPGB has always said it will be a combination of material conditions, experience (praxis) and education (ideology).

The SPGB have always argued that the army, the police, are workers in uniform and are not immune to the rise of revolutionary ideas. They too will reflect what is happening elsewhere in society. And I can’t think of too many successful take-overs that did not involve the disaffection and mutiny and cross-over of the military. Not only is there the Queen’s oath but several members of the royal family are colonels in charge of the regiment. How loyal? As loyal as the SPGB elected requiring to take his or her oath to take the parliamentary seat. Those with a history perspective cite the example of the Franco or Pinochet. Franco had to execute the senior officers and he used Moorish troops. What is forgotten is Allende promoted Pinochet to commander-in-chief of all Chilean armed forces for services rendered. And Prats, another general was against the coup, resigned when he could have been later in a position to stop it. He was later assassinated on the orders of Pinochet.

John Keracher of the Proletarian Party, a critic who can be considered nevertheless a comrade, accused the SPGB of misunderstanding control of the state in 1930 arguing “Getting control of Parliament does not mean that the workers have gained control of the public power of coercion, the state. At such a critical moment the capitalist class (not so stupid as the S.P. of G.B.) will send its ‘armed forces’ to disperse Parliamentary representatives. The real State will show itself.”
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1930s/1930/no-312-august-1930/parliament-or-soviet
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1930s/1930/no-316-december-1930

The debate is then just who does control the military. The Government or the capitalist class and if it is the capitalist class then just exactly how…it then becomes a conspiracy theory of cigar smoked backrooms of generals and industrialists. But more importantly, with the existing state captured and under control of the socialist movement, just how would a new state form arise. I suggest the “folded arms”, a general strike and civil disobedience of the masses would simply frustrate any return to the old state or the creation of a new one.

And finally as our pamphlet explains we are not gradualists…that horrible phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat” is not foressen as a lengthy one. It will be “the more or less rapid changeover from capitalism to socialism…This is not to say that the socialist majority only needs to organise itself politically. It does need to organise politically so as to be able to win control of political power. But it also needs to organise economically to take over and keep production going immediately after the winning of political control. We can’t anticipate how such socialist workplace organisations will emerge, whether from the reform of the existing trade unions, from breakaways from them or from the formation of completely new organisations. All we can say now is that such workplace organisations will arise and that they too, like the socialist political party, will have to organise themselves on a democratic basis, with mandated delegates instead of leaders.”

I don’t think there will be any issues with tax, treasury state wages. They simply cease to exist from Day One. Nowhere do we envisage the revolution being an overnight event, with everyone waking up to an SPGB government.

Foreign relations will already be in place through a “new international”, the World Socialist Movement ;-)

Justice and prisons has been debated at our conference and all we can say in advance is when the time comes that will be resolved. Who better to know who should be kept locked up than fellow prisoners and the wardens. But if anybody thinks a socialist will take the keys and unlock the gates of Rampton or Carstairs and throw them open in a liberatory gesture, well, I think he or she should be inside too.

There will be countless things to plan and discuss and organize, and that is why we stand by our argument that it has to be participatory and not a minority revolution. These problems you are raising are exactly the same that any anarchist or Left Communist revolution would have to tackle. I’m sure you have faced the same interrogation of …what you going to do?…what if…? how will you?

And just as a qualifier. I am not speaking in the name of the Party as one person on Weekly Worker once tried to imply because i happen to be a pretty opinionated and gobby member. Other members will have their own take on certain aspects. Not everybody here will agree 100% with the positions of their own organisations and i have a few reservations myself regards my sympathy for workers council and their potential role but when push comes to shove, i chose membership of the SPGB not as the lesser evil but as the best option.

Whether libertarian label is useful or not as has been already asked, i think Crump's Thin Red Line and the non-market socialist criteria is the most worthwhile one to build upon.

http://theoryandpractice.org.uk/library/thin-red-line-non-market-socialism-twentieth-century-john-crump-1987

"Apologies to any SPGBers if I've misrepresented or oversimplified"

I've probably over complicated and over elaborated and provided enough rope to hang myself :)

ajjohnstone

Everything must go if the state is concerned. Functions are sometimes useful and should be regained in new social organization. There is big, substantial, qualitative difference between abolishing the state while keeping some functions and abolishing some functions and keeping the state.
I concur and so does the SPGB, August

Yeah, and then you quote with approval Marx and Engels supporting use of the state. Or you're saying SPGB is not reformist and yet you support Engels' claims about some parliamentary/statist reforms etc.
Many things you say are contradictory in this way. Of course I'm aware why: you are hopelessly trapped between Marx and Engels statism (because they were statist in theory and practice and Engels proved that when he and others Marxists created social democracy) and real life facts - it doesn't work. You oscillate between them all the time.

ajjohnstone

All of this actually happened in Russia and other countries with "real socialism"
The SPGB have been critical of the Russian Bolshevik Revolution since information concerning it began to filter out and was denouncing it by early 1918. We have consistently argued since then it was not socialism.

I've read some texts by SPGB on Russian Revolution. That's true you are critical but mostly for wrong reasons. All of this critique is ultimately based on very orthodox and rigid form of historical materialism with all those "stages of development" and you claim Russia was on wrong stage of development therefore socialist revolution couldn't succeed. First capitalism and bourgeois democracy and only then socialism.

ajjohnstone

Serge and Sexby point out that the SPGB developed from a very different tradition from ones that you maybe acquainted with and sharing similar terminology does not mean we share the same meanings as “other socialist parties”

Nope, what I criticize is what you all have in common (perhaps in various forms - social democrary, leninism, other forms of statism, it doesn't matter) and it's based on Marx and Engels ideas you yourself cited on the other thread.
I'm not saying you are bolshevik, you are not.

ajjohnstone

Whether libertarian label is useful or not as has been already asked, i think Crump's Thin Red Line and the non-market socialist criteria is the most worthwhile one to build upon.

http://theoryandpractice.org.uk/library/thin-red-line-non-market-socialism-twentieth-century-john-crump-1987

These categories are and will be useful as long as authoritarian, statist socialism in one form or another will be around. They are equally important as socialist - capitalist, market- anti-market etc. But if you or someone else consider them not important then don't use them. And I also want to remind you are on libertarian communist website, not some communist without adjectives ;)

Webby

I'm nowhere near knowledgeable or clever enough to join in with this conversation but regardless of anything the simple fact remains - The SPGB are participating in parliamentary elections and that is most definitely an activity entirely contrary to anarchist principle. It would also seem to me to be adding fuel to the capitalist lie that we have political control through the ballot box.

Webby's on it.

In my personal experience SPGBers are good people and solid class warriors. That said, I don't see how any group which participates in elections (which to me seem like a more important distinction between libertarian and statist than, say, reform v. reformism) can be considered to be libertarian socialist.

And that shit applies just as much - if not more so - to Class War. Their anarchist credentials go out the window once they stand candidates in elections. I'm afraid it's the same case for the SPGB.

As for the SPGB's desire to abolish the state, I don't doubt it's genuine. But all communist parties claim to want to eventually abolish the state. I don't think the SPGB's professed immediacy of achieving that goal somehow redeems their participation in the electoral process and, indeed, seeking to place their members in positions of state power.

Having digested as best I can the above posts - I understand the SPGB are currently not libertarian communist in structure and praxis, however come the glorious day, if they get their way in the ballot box, they will usher in a new dawn along these lines. Which, to be fair, is a completely unique position - at least the authoritarian socialists practice what they preach.
But, switching the emphasis away from the SPGB and looking at participating in parliamentary elections. If an organisation that was structured on libertarian communist lines (which the SPGB is clearly not) and sought to create a society built on these principals using parliament, would this then be enough to thought of as libertarian communists?
I ask this because, on a personal level, I think that class struggle on our terms (ie not deferring control or decisions to intermediaries) is paramount; not just because I believe that benefits to people's material conditions that are fought and won by themselves is the cornerstone to building confident antagonism, but also because I do sometimes wonder why so many libertarians (not all) rely so heavily on methods that defer control - from complete reliance on reformist unions, to petitioning parliament, all the way up to Class War and the SPGB using elections (and expecting their Right Hon MP's to make decisions for them). Surely if we use the term class struggle (and I refer to Chilli - class warrior), we mean uniting as a class of workers in keeping with our role in the capitalist mode of production, and fghting on our terms to build a wider culture for this society we keep mentioning? If so, how relevant is it - or accurate - to even describe the SPGB (or anyone else for that matter) as class struggle? A class struggle anarchist is someone who is united by class, organised on anarchist lines and struggling along with fellow workers to achieve the day to day victories as part of the bgger story, is it not?

The SPGB may preach class struggle, but it is not doing it by participating in elections for state power. The criteria for being libertarian communist isn't just about having the right structure, or about having a vision of post-capitalism that is 'classless, stateless, and moneyless'. It’s about being strategically oriented towards developing the self-activity of the working class, laying the foundations of the future communist society in the here and now, and not just putting that off into some distant future.

Individual members of the SPGB may participate in workers’ struggles or other revolutionary organizations outside of the party, and even advocate libertarian direct action and self-organization, but those who deny the SPGB the ‘libertarian communist’ label are making a judgment on the organization, not those individuals.

ajjohnstone

For the typical Left party, all activity should be mediated by the Party (union activity, neighbourhood community struggles or whatever), whereas for us, the Party is just one mode of activity available to the working class to use in their struggles.

Yes. The SPGB is one of many options available to the working class in their struggles, but it’s one that they should reject. The SPGB is an option as much as the next ‘revolutionary’ political party striving for state power.

ajjohnstone

Perhaps it was never emphasised as much before since a battle of vying ideas was being waged but the SPGB never rejected workers councils or industrial unions but simply said that it would necessarily be parallel to the parliamentary political action.

The point that I'm trying to make is that it would be more useful and in line with libertarian communism to put our efforts into those former activities/organizations (workers' councils, industrial unions, etc.), whereas the latter (parliamentary political action) is not useful towards bringing the greater self-activity and self-organization of the working class.

"Would it be possible for SPGBers (or WSPUS) to be involved in running this site if SPGBers wished?"
What and be subjected to more pro-electoralist blather from the SPGB.? As if we didn't have enough already.
Alternative proposal "Would it be possible for SPGB to drop its electoralism one and for all and then be welcomed into the libertarian communist camp?"

Battlescarred

"Would it be possible for SPGB to drop its electoralism one and for all and then be welcomed into the libertarian communist camp?"

Nailed it. Roll down the shutters and close the thread. Oh, and light up a cigar and help yourself to a biscuit of your choice, Battlescarred.

jondwhite

So what counts as 'class struggle' other than syndicalism? Because you're in danger of excluding even anarcho-communists with this narrow definition.

Nonsense - if people unite as a class and struggle as a class, despite being half a dozen or half a million, this is class struggle. Notionally being in favour of class struggle should be the starting point - never attempting to go further than discussion groups and online forums is IMHO not class struggle. On a personal level I see my politics as being anarcho-communist, however I use anarchosyndicalism as the vehicle to which I attach my political ideas about class struggle to. Personally, I don't see anarcho-communists as either wishing to exclude themselves or being excluded from class struggle by dint of their politics - perhaps the most relevant example today would be especifism. But in short, if an organisation - any organisation - only ever aspires to go as far as liking, upping, linking, discussing, critiquing or writing about class struggle, then they are not actually a part of any class struggle.

OK so participating in government is non libertarian communist. Does this mean CNT-E is not libertarian communist? Does this include the folks of the FAI? Would the fatwa extend to IWA and the International Anarchist Federation?

fnbrilll

OK so participating in government is non libertarian communist. Does this mean CNT-E is not libertarian communist? Does this include the folks of the FAI? Would the fatwa extend to IWA and the International Anarchist Federation?

CNT doesnt participate in government, and it is an federation of anarchosyndicalist unions - therefore building through struggle for a libertarian communist society. I fail to see what you are driving at tbh.

The CNT and FAI participated in the government in Republican Spain. 3 ministers

Then you tell us whether they are libertarian communist for something that happened in the 1930's. In 2015, CNT doesn't participate in government - or receive any state funding.

I doubt there are many anarchists who would want to claim that participation in government in Spain in 1936 was libertarian communism par excellence. This is indeed regarded as abandonment of libertarian communism not by CNT though but by those who participated in government and supported it.

On the other hand Syndicalist Party in Spain is something one could mention here as group of people with anarchist background who established actual political party.

Today if you want to compare SPGB politics and claims about SPGB being libertarian with something what is called "anarchist" not necessarily being it - here you have an example,

Alliance of Ukrainian Anarchists

https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%8E%D0%B7_%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%85%D1%96%D1%81%D1%82%D1%96%D0%B2_%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D0%B8

this is actual political party participating in elections, only one "anarchist" party in the world as far as I know. I wouldn't call it "libertarian socialist party" or anarchist organization

Apologies jondwhite - I thought I had answered your question. What constitutes class struggle other than syndicalism? Well, I wouldn't say syndicalism is the one true path - class struggle is imo workers united by a shared interest in their roles at work that fight to improve their material conditions. Even if I hate the reformist unions that we have in Britain as flawed, representative parodies, they are involved in class struggle. But to answer more specifically your question, I don't believe anarcho-communists (that is, comrades that see the need to organise on a level that demands politically agreement) are excluded from class struggle (I gave the example of especifism), however I do see this as very limited when trying to organise as a class due to the restrictive demands on political agreement - whereas syndicalism makes demands only around the methods of organising (which are, in the case of anarcho-syndicalism, in keeping with the principals of anarcho-communism). This is the reason that, as a anarchist-communist, I believe syndicalism is our best hope of fighting capitalism.
The especifistas have shown a way to organise with success - albeit largely on a community level. I admire what they have acheived in organising working class people; and given that capitalists may strike at working class communities without reference to who works where and does what, this is in itself class struggle organising. But it is very limited. It's limited because we aim to take control of the means of production, and this requires a wider class approach to organising that goes far beyond political unanimity.
So jondwhite - imo, class struggle is primarily about struggling as a class of workers, so extends to all organisational structures that do this (but not without criticism!), and anarcho-communism has never been written out within the context of the class struggle, it is just limited due its own specific political demands. I will say this though, I do believe there IS a need for a specific anarchist-communist organisation.

Plasmatelly #41..

. I understand the SPGB are currently not libertarian communist in structure ... If an organisation that was structured on libertarian communist lines (which the SPGB is clearly not)...

I can fully understand how our commitment to not leaving any field of struggle uncontested may raise questions and be challenged on the validity of being class as libertarian ...but your comments i quote are beyond my comprehension.

Could you please elaborate on how our democratic structure is not a libertarian one. I have already briefly described the internal workings of our party but a visit to our website or discussion lists, all open to anyone to look at, can provide you with enough evidence of our libertarian approach...unless, of course, you wish to restrict and limit and place such parameters upon the definition that it probably excludes every libertarian group. (Federalism does not equate with libertarianism if that is your reason.)

I hazard a guess that the IWA has over its history expelled several groups that did not fully accept its rules and regulations. I hazard a guess that there hasn't been an anarchist group that hasn't excluded someone either formally or informally.

Our democracy as an organisation is something i am proud of , and it is something every other member cherishes. So if you can, please explain the shortcomings and weaknesses that makes other structured organisations more democratic and libertarian, particular any with a history of over a hundred years of its rule book regularly being adapted and adjusted and amended.

"Would it be possible for SPGBers (or WSPUS) to be involved in running this site if SPGBers wished?"

Glasgow branch SPGB member Brian Gardner was active on the World In Common website as a moderator and a contributor, i believe. If an SPGBer did take on a role on Libom, i am sure he or she would conduct themselves with the highest integrity.

What and be subjected to more pro-electoralist blather from the SPGB.? As if we didn't have enough already.

As been mentioned, many individuals of the SPGB are active and elected to posts in their unions. If you have any evidence that party-line was more important than being a representative of their fellow union members, please give details.

Would it be possible for SPGB to drop its electoralism one and for all and then be welcomed into the libertarian communist camp?

If you want my opinion, we have a feud between purists and purists. If you want to pre-determine the course of the class struggle, that is your privilege but the SPGB has not...we have included both the streets and the seats in our interpretation of the what is required for the establishment of socialism. We can be rightly accused of prioritising the wrong one but not of excluding the other. It seems to me the doctrinaires and dogmatists are not the SPGB. At one time membership of the IWW was not permitted...but the IWW changed and our attitude towards it changed and membership is allowed.

ocelot's ealier suggested structuring of this discussion seemed the most useful and is still relevant. ajj's response goes some way to answereing the criticism of the SPGB's approach on the problems associated with its 'model of a revolutionary rupture with capitalism' and it's 'strategy of developing a working class counter power' but is inadequate. I presume ocelot would not suggest that working class struggle, without the influence of organised pro-revolutionary organisation, would automatically lead to a sufficient level of communist consciousness to achieve a rupture with capitalism, but the point of difference is precisely on the role of such organisation and it's strategy in trying to assist in the development of working class counterpower that might (in the right 'objective' circumstances) lead to such a rupture. In this area the SPGB, contrary to ajj's claim of wanting to 'go beyond trade unionism', rather reinforces trade unionism (and economism in general) in it's theoretical division between the economic and the political and it's seperation of activity between the two at a practical level.

theatrical proto-Situationists

Could you expand a little?

ajjohnstone

Plasmatelly #41..

. I understand the SPGB are currently not libertarian communist in structure ... If an organisation that was structured on libertarian communist lines (which the SPGB is clearly not)...

I can fully understand how our commitment to not leaving any field of struggle uncontested may raise questions and be challenged on the validity of being class as libertarian ...but your comments i quote are beyond my comprehension.

Could you please elaborate on how our democratic structure is not a libertarian one. I have already briefly described the internal workings of our party but a visit to our website or discussion lists, all open to anyone to look at, can provide you with enough evidence of our libertarian approach...unless, of course, you wish to restrict and limit and place such parameters upon the definition that it probably excludes every libertarian group. (Federalism does not equate with libertarianism if that is your reason.)

I hazard a guess that the IWA has over its history expelled several groups that did not fully accept its rules and regulations. I hazard a guess that there hasn't been an anarchist group that hasn't excluded someone either formally or informally.

Our democracy as an organisation is something i am proud of , and it is something every other member cherishes. So if you can, please explain the shortcomings and weaknesses that makes other structured organisations more democratic and libertarian, particular any with a history of over a hundred years of its rule book regularly being adapted and adjusted and amended.

Forgive me ajj if I seem so decided of the SPGB's structure being incompatible with my understanding of what a libertarian communist organisation should be - I like to think I have an open mind when it comes to different organisations approaches, but on this one, I can only go off what has been described on this thread, it just doesn't sound like base democracy. You appear to be defending a structure that is possibly libertarian to a degree - but not communist. Would this be fairer to say?
I have my own misgivings about federalism, and direct democracy - but most of these are fuelled by the current reality that it is largely used by politicos, as opposed to those workers and community members it is designed to serve; this in itself can throw up all sorts of question marks around participation and quorums... but, as yet, I know no more democratic a structure than those that use horzontal federalism. At the end of the day, participatory democracy - mass meetings feeding into federal democracy - is what fighting organisations need; omov is no more democratic, but can hamstring an organisation that wants to take the fight to the bosses.
With regards to the IWA, yes a few organisations have been shown the door over the years, but these tend to be because they have taken upon themselves to adopt reformist tactics, such as social partnerships with State or bosses - reasons, quite simply, that would have prevented them from entrance into the IWA in the first place. But just why you have mentioned expulsion and exclusion is a mystery to me!

The SPGB and libertarian communism;

Anarcho-Syndicalist Analysis of the state

void

fnbrilll

Anarcho-Syndicalist Analysis of the state

Why didn't you post this sooner? We could have avoided a load of waffle.

Waffle? I was holding out for Pancakes. :-P

Forgive me ajj if I seem so decided of the SPGB's structure being incompatible with my understanding of what a libertarian communist organisation should be - I like to think I have an open mind when it comes to different organisations approaches, but on this one, I can only go off what has been described on this thread, it just doesn't sound like base democracy. You appear to be defending a structure that is possibly libertarian to a degree - but not communist. Would this be fairer to say?

Not sure if it is off-thread. You originally said that "Having digested as best I can the above posts..."
Without having to return to the beginning of the thread (or the other one) and extracting the relevant quotes, my impression of comments by other contributors was that our organisational democracy was perhaps one of the few reasons they might concede us being actually libertarian.

I'm not sure i can accept your thought that we are not exercising a communist organisation...mainly because i don't know what you mean by that.

Perhaps you can elaborate on your concept of a libertarian communist method of organisation and where it conflicts with what the SPGB practice.

Everything decided has to be agreed by a poll of membership. I have heard that this is the dictatorship of the majority but once again, it is a fault not unique to the SPGB and shared by many who think themselves libertarian. The criticism is not especially reserved to the SPGB but applies to many libcom groups.

Oh fuck it ...go to the link

http://mailstrom.blogspot.com/2015/01/libertarian-anarchism.html

ajj - to answer the question as to whether the SPGB is libertarian communist or not, people have stripped the organisation down on several levels and the only area where you may score brownie points seems to be the desire to create a society in which you practice what you preach. All other areas - decision making, structure, culture, political adherence and engagement in actual class struggle - are either lacking or non-existent. It would seem that the jury reject the idea that the SPGB is libertarian communist. But this is to be expected.
The real question is whether the SPGB are claiming to be libertarian communist - or just plain old all things to all people?

1) The SPGB and its companion parties are organized much the same as AF, etc. There are no leaders, regular conventions, and all members are able to vote on member proposals. There is no discipline ala "democratic centralism" as long as you agree to the broad principles. It's been structure since 1904, even under repression in ww1.

2) I find the SPGB's understanding/vision of libertarian socialism is much clearer/deeper than most anarchists. Like the Bordigist/Italian Left Coms, they understand socialism to be a different mode of production and have clear ideas what it means when you say "abolish the wage system". On the other hand, many anarchists/syndicalists/etc are stuck in changing the managers of the present economy but keeping the underlying system more or less intact.

3) Classically, the impossibilist tendancy that the SPGB is a isolated reminder, never viewed elected to office members as representatives but as delegates. There role is seen to block the capitalist party(ies) where possible and undercut the capitalist state legitimacy as much as possible. In the rare occasions where they were elected (the Canadian Party elected I think 8 provincial legislators over 20 years) they were pretty spot on, occasionally getting some pro-working class health and woekplace safety legislation passed. This was always accompanied with provisos that the legislation would never be permanent, the capitalist class and it's parties would always work to destroy any gains made in the legislature and that class struggle and class organization was needed.

There was a tendency to emphasize solely the electoral position that arose in the SPGB, etc with the ascendancy of Stalinism and its thuggery.

But in the SPGB's defense the most famous "Australian IWW song" Bump me into parliament was actually written by Bill Casey, who was a member of the SPGB's companion party. It is an attack on labour/leninist attempts at electoral reformism. So how does it happen that these folks denounce precisely what you are accusing them of?

4) And the Socialist Party of Canada (SPC) did organize the class struggle in the form of the One Big Union. It pulled tens of thousands of workers out of the AFL in both Canada and the US. Here's some readings on libcom about the OBU. The AFL tasked it's number 3 man and $100,000s to innocculate its membership and isolate the OBU. We can talk about this some other place.

And quite frankly people, there are many problems with the SPGB. But you are not addressing them here. And you are ignoring some good lessons because you are acting like sectarians.

Plasmatelly, i have already accepted that many on the thread do not accept the claim we are libertarian communists but you went a bit further with your reasons than the others with this type of claim.

"All other areas - decision making, structure, culture, political adherence and engagement in actual class struggle - are either lacking or non-existent."

What i seek to learn was what were your grounds for the highlighted. I am asking, in what sense is our organisation not libertarian in its operation of party democracy and i 'd really like you to offer me some comparison of the type of libertarian organisation you had in mind as a better form of organising. Can you perhaps be a bit more specific so i can either agree with you or challenge you on that.

I am curious to learn what is the libertarian communist culture i have seemingly been missing out on :)

Engagement in actual class struggle is rather a relative term and i am happy to confess i would like to see much more engagement from the SPGB, a helluva lot more, in that area but the expression is rather vague since it declines to define what sort of engagement is meant.

Political adherence, i'm guessing that's the commitment to gaining political power via parliament which needs no response since its repeating earlier exchanges or do you mean something else? by the phrase. Maybe it is our hostility clause you mean...non-adherence to other political groups...i'm simply not sure what you are getting at.

fnbrilll

Like the Bordigist/Italian Left Coms, they understand socialism to be a different mode of production and have clear ideas what it means when you say "abolish the wage system". On the other hand, many anarchists/syndicalists/etc are stuck in changing the managers of the present economy but keeping the underlying system more or less intact.

fnbrilll

In the rare occasions where they were elected (the Canadian Party elected I think 8 provincial legislators over 20 years) they were pretty spot on, occasionally getting some pro-working class health and woekplace safety legislation passed.

so you're saying they were pretty good managers of the present economy? All 8 of them? Really?

This is how anarchists used to understand libertarian socialism
https://libcom.org/library/libertarian-socialism-practical-outline-gaston-leval

and libertarian communism
https://libcom.org/files/Libertarian%20communism%20-%20Isaac%20Puente.pdf

contemporary anarchists use rather broad definition of libertarian socialism/communism (this still exclude political parties) Compare this to something what Vanzetti said once about libertarian socialism (rather narrow definition):

"After all we are socialists as the social-democrats, the socialists, the communists, and the I.W.W. are all Socialists. The difference - the fundamental one - between us and all the other is that they are authoritarian while we are libertarian; they believe in a State or Government of their own; we believe in no State or Government."

There is no question SPGB "believe" in a state. For what purpose that's another matter. But SPGB's theory is unrealistic and its hard to imagine how could this would look like in practice.

It's like saying socialists should use 2 methods in struggle against capital:
1. workers should organize
2. socialists should become capitalists. Bigger the better, at least to "block anti-socialists" from using resources
So unions and corporations?
That's nonsense.

At first glance it appears you do understand what the state is, that's not neutral in terms of class and it should be abolished not "in the future" but together with capitalism
But your theory (well, electoralist practice too) is a proof you actually don't understand it and still thinking it's neutral apparatus that could be used against capital. That's contradiction
In both cases intentions (using capital to fight capital or using the state to fight capital) are not important. You become part of ruling class, part of economical and political system you are supposed to fight against.

btw bordigists are authoritarian Marxists so comparing SPGB to them is not very good argument for presumed libertarianism of SPGB...