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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005