File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/97-04-08.224, message 62


Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 20:00:29 +0100
From: Lew <Lew-AT-dialogues.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: M-I: SPGB and abolishing money


In article <199704051932.TAA18550-AT-gn.apc.org>, Chris Burford
<cburford-AT-gn.apc.org> writes
>
>
>No, it is clear from Lew's reference to their web site
>that he is writing from a closed position that goes back to 
>1904. I now remember hearing speakers from the Socialist Party
>of Great Britain at Hyde Park. At their best they are 
>perhaps secular Quakers, and have a part to play in the 
>moral criticism of capitalist commodity fetishism. And they
>are a reminder that variants of Leninists are not the only
>ones to claim a Marxist loyalty. But it is quite clear to 
>me that they are socialist sectarians of the sort described 
>(not as absolute enemies) in the Communist Manifesto.
>

Here we go again with the name-calling: "secular Quakers" (whatever they
are), offering a moral critique and sectarian. This is not helpful to
anybody.

>I would encourage everyone who gets in a debate with Lew to 
>check out their web site, though I do not see the value in 
>extended discussion of their positions in abstract, which
>they are probably very experienced at doing.
>
>The extract on money on their FAQ would have saved a lot of 
>reading of Marx. Clearly the SPGB is interested only in 
>going directly to the higher stage of communism, and of
>criticising everything that falls short of this.
>
>>>
>Q: The World Socialist Movement talks of a moneyless society, 
>does that mean we'll use the barter system?
>
>A: In a socialist society, there will be no money and no barter. 
>Goods will be voluntarily produced, and services voluntarily 
>supplied to meet people's needs. People will freely take the 
>things they need. 
><<
>
>
>The SPGB disdains to try to change the world by engaging in 
>"social activism" but spends its time among the working 
>class presumably doing purely educational work:
>
>Q: Why doesn't the World Socialist Movement get involved in 
>social activism? 
>
>A: By "social activism" most people mean demonstrating, 
>protesting, or otherwise attempting to influence immediate 
>events in society, and still under capitalism. These attempts 
>to reform  capitalism have a very long history: as long as 
>capitalism itself. We call these actions "reformism". 
>Organizations which claim to want socialism, and which also 
>promote reforms, ignore socialism and spend their time working 
>for reforms. 
><<
>
>The following passages from an SPGB statement in 1954
>on its relations with other socialists do not
>look promising for an exchange of views on these lists.
>
>>>
>8.In a given country there can only be one Socialist Party, 
>therefore no member can belong to any other political party 
>at the same time as he is a member of the Party. 
>
>9.Likewise no member can speak on any other political platform 
>except in opposition. 
>
>10.The Socialist Party must be entirely independent of all 
>other political parties entering into no agreement or 
>alliances for any purpose. Compromising this independence 
>for any purpose, however seemingly innocent, will 
>lead to non-socialists giving support to the Party. 
><<
>
>
>Thanks anyway Lew, for stimulating me to re-read the Critique
>of the Gotha Programme, but really you are not interested
>in the lower phase of communism at all.
>
>
>
>Chris Burford
>
>

As with your other quotes, it's not always clear what you think they
show. I see nothing wrong in a political party wanting to retain its
integrity. It certainly doesn't preclude an exchange of views, as I
believe I have shown on this list. 

You are right on one thing: I'm not interested in the lower phase of
communism. But then again, neither are you. I believe that I have shown
that the received interpretation of the Critique is based on a
misrepresentaion. Moreover, when looked at closely the defences of this
misrepresentation turn out to be defences of some form of state
capitalism. 

Some time back I asked rhetorically why some prople find it hard to
believe that Marx was a communist who wanted communism. They have fallen
victim to Bernstein's dictum that "the movement is everything, the goal
is nothing". So on the one hand there is a fierce defence of (their
understanding) of the transitional society, with the occasional and very
unconvincing lip-service paid to a commitment to full communism. On the
other hand, there is the often explicit denial that such a goal is
desirable or possible. So they are trapped in a half-way house; what was
for Marx a temporary strategic device has become an end in itself. But
even this form of society is based on a misunderstanding, and it bears a
striking resemblance to the sort of society Marx analysed in the volumes
of *Capital*, with only the relatively minor difference that there is
more state ownership.
-- 
Lew


     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005