In response to the Socialist Party of GB's slur on the Green Party & Ecosocialism.

24/11/2014

Earlier today the Socialist Party of Great Britain published an article on its blog, socialist courier "Eco-Socialism another grand concept with an adjective". It makes some good points about the deleterious effects of capitalism the limits of reformism, quotes Morris and starts with every ecosocialist's favourite green Marx quote:

“From the standpoint of a higher socio-economic formation, the private property of individuals in the earth will appear just as absurd as the private property of one man in other men. Even an entire society, a nation, or all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not owners of the earth, they are simply its possessors, its beneficiaries, and have to bequeath it in an improved state to succeeding generations, as boni patres familias” [good heads of the household]”

First observation is that the author does not distinguish between the Green Party and Ecosocialism. Such basic an error that the whole article can almost immediately be dismissed.

Ecosocialism is much more than the green party and doesn’t by any means have to include the Green Party. The Ecosocialist movement is, as I have argued elsewhere ‘multi-focal’. It has to be. Time is thin, too many ecological boundaries are being trounced, of which atmospheric carbon is only one. In my view the movement requires a reformist political wing, this is a mitigation strategy. My personal preference and being resident in England is that this is to be the Green Party of England and Wales. We also need a mass movement against climate change and to promote new ways of existing, prefigurative, perhaps moneyless, primitivist, eco-technic or some combination. Something that points the way to that which can exist beyond capitalism.

I will pick out key parts of the critique and address them accordingly.

“Ecological sanity can only come when we recognise that the present economic system of capitalism is a social construct that must be overthrown”

Agreed. However and developing from my earlier point we can’t simply sit back and wait for the overthrow of capitalism to try and limit damages from the efficient cause, that being capitalism.

When is the global capitalist system likely to be overthrown? Is the author able to predict this or at least make an informed guess? The system lets face it, is obscenely resilient. It will for sure be thrown into turmoil as ecological degradation leads to resource wars, salvage economics, food shortages and the like.

The point is we don’t know how long capitalism will last, how many crises it will absorb, new forms it will take (eco-fascism) but we do know that islands in the pacific are disappearing under rising seas now. It has been predicted that an additional 250,000 people will die annually between 2030 and 2050 from conditions caused or exacerbated by climate change.

If there is an argument against the kind of mitigation measures that can be born under reformist projects let’s hear it - please.

The enclosure and commodification of labour is the most important form of enclosure.

I agree, this is concordant with Joel Kovel’s conception and Marxism generally but I don’t see any great merit that leads us to say enclosure of Labour is more important than that of land, other ‘property’ and so on.

Do you not think that a universal citizens income, a green party policy would go some way into freeing labour from capital? I fear already at this stage that the author only think in absolutes, in binary, 'must wait for capitalism to end'

The Green Party and many of its supporters do not recognise that they require a struggle against the capitalist system.

Let’s assume this is true. What would be the detrimental effect? Perhaps that the Green Party of England & Wales will not go on to overthrow the global capitalist system? Do those in the Green Party that do recognise we need to struggle specifically against capitalism think that the party will achieve the overthrow of global capitalism (no)?

Clearly, however well developed an analysis of capitalism is amongst green party members, it does not change the fact that it is a reformist project that may through pressure politics (affecting governing parties) or decision making politics if its growth continues, be able to have some positive impact nationally, both socially and ecologically. This may as a G8 nation extend further afield.

If we acknowledge that a left wing Green Party could make significant improvements within the constraints of capitalism, what is the logic of dismissing it?

Ecosocialism is multi-focal, what is the problem with having a reformist wing. More than one well-considered line of attack can be advanced simultaneously. I repeat, we cannot wait for the overthrow of capitalism, real life working class people are suffering now, ecological limits are being surpassed now.

If you suggest that we simply ignore the Green project or other reformist projects such as Podemos in Spain or Syrizia in Greece, or potential for future eco-socialist coalitions, what project do you advance in its place, that will:

1 Be effective within ecologically imposed time-constraints.

2 Improve the well-being of human and non-humans in the near term.

If the author is not advancing a program that can answer either of these two questions, I believe this brand of socialism, is narrow minded and has little or no practical relevance.

I argue that it is possible to have a well developed analysis of capitalism and be a member of the Green Party fully aware of its limitations. Maybe you will argue that voting changes nothing, but if we are talking about the minimal effort required to support the green project, that is, to turn up to a voting booth twice every decade, why try and turn people against it?

but they seem to have no real conception of what "socialism" might mean. The working class, exploitation, the labour movement, do not figure at all. Neither does collective ownership. Their "socialism" is more a catchphrase for good causes in general than a vision of the democratic transformation of society, by workers, from below. While the Green Party may hold some good socialist members, and present some reforms, it is not a party of socialism and in the end will degenerate into a party that offers bike-lanes and budget cuts. Socialists must challenge green politics showing how ecological issues are of top relevance to the quality of life of working people.

Your point about lacking a conception of what socialism may mean is interesting. Traditionally Marxists have been associated with an acceptance of reformism, to gain improvements for the working class, whilst simulateously being fully aware of its limitations and need to overthrow capitalism. It is in my understanding that it is anarchists that dismiss reformism in its entirety. My point being that labels can be vacuous and your conception of socialism differs from others. Podemos are interesting, clearly reformist socialist but are superficially avoiding much of the traditional terminology.

I may be wrong but i'm not convinced the author is fully aware of many of the GPEW policies or they would have been acknowledged in the article. I'm not going to quote myriad Green Party policies here. One example to make a point.

WR610 We will grant employees the legal right to buy out their companies and turn them into workers co-operatives.

This policy was, like all others, suggested by a member, any member can do this, voted for by all in attendance at conference and accepted. The point being that the Green Party of England & Wales is one of the oldest Green Parties, it is a complex organisation, as is any of its size. It is always a work in progress. If you are in it, you can help create the party you want, just like the member who suggested this policy.

Socialists must challenge green politics showing how ecological issues are of top relevance to the quality of life of working people.

This has been one half of the leading mission of ecosocialists. To make the greens redder and the reds greener. We would not be having this exchange if it were not for the work of ecosocialists. Our efforts are clearly working.

We possibly have one more generation before it is too late. There won’t be any socialists, there won’t be any socialism, when nobody can breathe.

Sobering in the extreme. Ecoscialism or Barbarism indeed. This is precisely why we cannot wait, for capitalism to end and why we need to get behind the ecosocialist movement and push, not rubbish one element of it that resides in reformist politics.

Climate change is real and it’s as urgent as it gets that we make radical changes if we want a future on this planet. The working class have to continue to see ourselves as revolutionary because we are the part of humanity most indispensable for our survival. The Socialist Party viewpoint simply means that, until the working majority sets the rules of the political and economic game, any gains in such battles are provisional and vulnerable to co-option and reversal.

It saddens me to say it, but we the working class, do not see ourselves as revolutionary, indeed the working class are often not even sure what constitutes working class and accordingly whether or not they are even 'it'. Capitalism and consumerism, manufacturing consent, keep the multitude docile chasing trinkets and so on.

We are barely politicised, we are politically apathetic, many working class people in this country are being duped by a school boy fascist, you cannot fight this as a tiny socialist sect. There is much work to be done.

Certainly the unfolding ecocatrosphe will lead to a new class consciousness, this is another initial aim of the ecosocialist movement, to build this consciousness now, embedding ecological awareness with working class awareness.

The author goes on to make many points that I agree with about the limits of reformist politics. To which I can only refer to earlier points I have made.

It's important not to confuse what ecosocialism is and what green parties are. This exchange has certainly reinforced what I have long known to be true. That I am an ecosocialist first and foremost. The label is not so important, I accept that not everyone uses it. John Bellamy Foster for example prefers not to.

The point is that we need to unite, sectarianism has no place in the battles ahead. We need to stand together, put our bodies on the line, marches, occupations, eek out new possibilities for a post-capitalist world. The threat of eco-fascism looms. We have to contribute whatever we can as individuals based on our skills, talents and available resources.

When we view what is ahead as ecosocialists, party associations mean so little. If not in the name of ecosocialism but for what it represents, we must unite.

Best

Martin O’Beirne.

32 Comments

Author

Distinctive views & news from the inside of the Green Movement.

Occasionally recipes, photos, health issues, canal/boats, whatever interests me.

Live simply and solar-powered on my small but perfectly formed boat 'prefiguration' on the Gloucester canal.

Have written for Morning Star, Open Democracy, Climate & Capitalism, Green Left Weekly, Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal & Kurdish Question

Agitating for Ecosocialism for a decade. Bookchin fan.

alan johnstone link

24/11/2014 04:24:54 pm

i appreciate you reading the blog post although i do wonder if your article's title is justified in calling the criticism a slur and implying sectarianism.

However, the real bone of contention i think that exists between us is one that has existed from the turn of the 20th c which is should a socialist party advocate reforms that will patch up and prolong the life of capitalism. The only real difference from then in the debate is it is now about the urgency of doing away with capitalism before it does away with us.

Our contention is that you don't deal will the symptoms of a disease but go for the cause. As you say capitalism is resilient, it can cope with with various green taxation and regulation but those will not hold back the very essence of capitalism...its life-need to constantly accumulate profit and placing it foremost in everything and without challenging this and making it the priority then the pessimistic prognosis is in no way changed even if the patient lingers on for a little while longer. No matter how you can ameliorate the conditions of those sick with cholera, without changing their water purity it will recur and recur

We agree that we should not sit back and permit capitalism a free rein until it is abolished. As workers we organise and resist at our workplaces and as inhabitants of the planet we should do the same in our communities to mitigate the effects of environmental destruction. But just as wage rises does not do away with wage slavery, fighting fracking won't end climate change. If we don't keep discussing and advocating real cures then we will remain on the hamster-cage wheel of eternal movement but getting no-where and most definitely no way closer to our destination..

An eco-catastrophe MAY lead to a rise in social consciousness but we are not economic determinists. Experience of real conditions must be combined with ideas to develop the right solutions or we could end up with the most definitely fascism of the UKIP type where our problems are identified with the wrong causes.

I actually don't think we are very apart on most things. It is this issue of communication with people and convincing them of the vital necessity of change which you speak of at the end of your reply which is imperative. Without the people fully participating we can do little. Does offering what will result in ultimate failure such as all the G8 and G20 international (and anyway mostly unachieveable) treaties but which raises hopes and false expectations but then leads to disillusionment and further despair really the way to convince people that action has to be taken? When we reach a crossroads in social evolution and the choice will mean life or death, i think it is most important that a political party that declares it has the answer does do its best to make people choose the correct turning and point out that other parties are arguing for a road that leads to a cliff-edge.

We certainly should engage and discuss and debate with other political associations (Derek Wall is a contributor i much admire) but it doesn't mean laying aside criticism and denying the validity of their claims and policies. At a personal level, i have no doubt of the sincerity of Green Party members but the road to hell, as they say, is paved with good intentions. I recall the social ecologist Murray Bookchin receiving much flak when he criticised life-style anarchists. Much the same of what he accused can be said for those who limit themselves to personal consumer choices rather than social answers.

Unlike mainstream politics to capture government office, revolutionary politics is not about popularity contests or offering up a personality as the face of the party. It is about provoking thought making a stand rather than sitting on the fence. Our only regret is that our resources are fairly limited and we cannot express and reflect the whole case in more original and imaginative manners to make it more receptive to our audience. All we can do is keep repeating the core truths as often as we can. The mantra is, as you well know,...system change not climate change...We cannot be blamed for highlighting for many this maxim is mere lip-service, uttered parrot-fashion. For ourselves, changing the system is what it is all about.

I hope this response of ours to yours comes across as comradely even if it is worded emphatic. We don't seek to distance ourselves but nor do we seek false unity based on either opportunism or differing premises...such unity never fails to fall apart. The advantage of being a member of a party that has had a continual existence of over a hundred years is its inherited knowledge. We often speak and caution from bitter experience of the past.

alan johnstone

24/11/2014 06:29:52 pm

You may find today's post of interest. The blog's intention is to try and create a dialogue about future alternatives, even if we may not be too adept at it, judging from our low visitor numbers

http://socialist-courier.blogspot.com/2014/11/go-red-not-green.html

Martin O'Beirne

25/11/2014 09:14:00 am

Thanks Alan, great response. I think yes, both titles of both articles were provocative. I will also point out that I have much respect for the rich heritage of SPGB. Embracing ecosocialism can only be good news. I'm also fascinated by an organisation that promotes non-market socialism and operates without hierarchy. As far as i'm concerned the kind of prefigurative experiements that should be promoted. I think it is a historical position of the SPGB to dismiss reformism and despite adopting an ecosocialist analysis is simply unable to fully adapt and recognise that reformism now has some part to play. I think this is an oversight, knowing what we know now about ecological limits that weren't known at the turn of the 20th century. We both acknowledge that capitalism is the efficient cause of ecological decay. I put forward a transitional programme that i refer to as being multi-focal. I should write more on this. I will also say that I think the distinctive approach offered by SPGB should be more widely known, and i'd urge any readers who have not heard of SPGB to familiarise themselves with your works.

Best Martin.

steve w

4/1/2015 04:36:12 am

The great thing about the SPGB is it sticks to it’s guns. Green Party rhetoric is all over the place. One of the reasons why the SPGB is consistent is simply down to the vetting of its members, one can't simply fill in a form, pay some dues and you're in! Joining the SPGB is a process, a political process, and helps prevent infiltration by others with different agendas. Unfortunately the Green Party has as many views about life and the universe as it has members. Perhaps the argument is not about capitalism but the highly unlikely success of the greens to achieve much at all because of the broad span and agendas of its members.
It seems to me that you've already made up your mind. I actually see no problem with claiming to be anti-capitalist and green. The urgency you mention about climate change and environmental issues are indeed urgent, but the idea that reforms can be bulldozed through does not help anyone or the planet. The anxiety and fear felt by many is as much about reform as it is climate change. How can there be the required raising of consciousness if the populace is constantly receiving mixed messages, agendas, and confusing bias? Interestingly neo liberalism/popular culture endorses the idea of individualism thus preventing collective thinking/action, and the SPGB is simply saying what chance of change is there under those ideological conditions.
Your argument that somehow it's best to act within a corrupt system in the hope of change through reform rather than join the SPGB is baffling. The idea that the SPGB warrants respect because it's “old” and full of complex Marxist philosophy is also baffling. The SPGB is fundamentally very simple, the argument has nothing to do with capitalism, the SPGB has no interest in capitalism, whereas reforming agendas actually do! The Green Party like other mainstream parties are full of complex arguments and mostly undemocratic hierarchical lead ideas.
It always amazes me that arguing against the SPGB is mind-bogglingly pointless and at the same time their (SPGB) declaration of principles are so simple as to be almost instinctive. Throughout my life I have often wondered what the resistance to emancipation is, why do people like you prefer to spend years attempting to reform a failed constantly reformed system, rather like pushing water uphill when the alternative is pretty much in place, where there is an ideology of pure democracy ready to be harnessed and worked.
“The point is that we need to unite, sectarianism has no place in the battles ahead.”
The above comment is where the confusion lies; history is proof enough that united against an enemy without any alternative ideology is very futile.
“When is the global capitalist system likely to be overthrown?”
As the SPGB is the only party with a time-line to abolish capitalism then surely it makes sense to join the SPGB, the more people join the quicker the “green” revolution.

David Schwartzman link

28/2/2015 02:23:43 pm

Here is a response from an ecosocialist active in the Green Party of the United States, particularly in its affiliate the DC Statehood Green Party. The GP here is converging with the ecosocialists, e.g., the Climate Convergence held the day before the historic NYC Climate march in September (co-sponsored by the Green Party of NY and System Change not Climate Change; see http://convergeforclimate.org/). Nevertheless, it is important to build the GP as a welcome home to all on left of center whether or not they identify themselves as socialists. The converging climate, social and economic crisis of capitalism will open up consideration of ecosocialism as the only path worth fighting for. Noting the historic election of Kshama Sawant, let’s build the Red Green Coalition, both in mass movements and electorally, using the Green Party and other political formations.

alanjjohnstone link

28/2/2015 05:50:28 pm

While appreciating you adding your observation about the US Greens and socialism, i think t is a lot easier to form a coalition when one side concedes its objective and waters down their principles to meet the other faction demands as in the case of socialists seeking a convergence with the Greens. I think saying it is anti-capitalist is a lot different from actually being anti-capitalist.

I'd rather it was the socialists welcoming the Greens who have adopted socialism as a solution. i visited the converge website and was disappointed by its content. Socialism is not mentioned on the website but the usual leftist rhetorical demands are made.

Klein and Foster had made important contributions but are lost in the quagmire created by reformism

28/2/2015 07:32:24 pm

System Change Not Climate Change did not "water down its principles" as an explicitly ecosocialist group. Howie Hawkins, the GP of NY candidate for governor, has long been an open ecosocialist (btw his campaign made historic gains that led to Governor Cuomo banning fracking after the election. Like Howie and Jill Stein I strongly support a Green New Deal approach, with 21st century content, as the best chance to avoid climate catastrophe and open up an ecosocialist path. Lets not get hung up about using the correct rhetoric, rather promote actual movements that allow people to grow in their poltical experience and vision towards the end of the rule of capital on our planet.

28/2/2015 09:16:12 pm

This is a problem that goes as far back as the 19th c. and caused the rise of the social democrat reformists and the relegation of socialism to some far-off time in the distant future. That is no longer possible if our planet is to be saved. Socialism must be seen as an immediancy...an urgent demand...a planetary life or death issue

"The movement is everything, the aim is nothing" and it seems repeated by yourself...it is the dispute between the possiblists and the impossiblist traditions of socialism.

We have to get "hung up" on objectives and goals or simply engage in never-ending political battles for half-measures that simply cannot be conceded without ending capitalism...as Klein points out yet back-tracks upon in the hope of enticing support by inducements of hope in some small victories.

You have used the term "historic"in both your posts for events that simply aren't in any real context of the meaning. Hyperbolic claims don't make something so.

Perhaps you are right, Hawkins (et al) didn't water down his "socialism"...it was already well diluted as it was...almost to a degree that a homeopath would be happy with !

I understand the prevailing but changing attitudes to the mere mention of the word socialism in the US but there is no case to be made for not fully declaring the nature and content of the new society we wish to see.

Reformism dwells too much on the bus-stops to the destination and not enough on the destination itself. Our vision is not an hallucination...it has to be talked about, discussed, debated...not postponed and excuses created for procrastination.

If people don't know where they are going, how can there be a democratic inclusive discourse. Substituting palliatives

1/3/2015 01:35:04 am

Interesting discussion and I agree with alanjjohnstone re the “cats already out of the bag” and has been for centuries. Green Party, and members, may have the best will in the world to initiate change but sadly massively underestimates the scale of the political/capitalist agenda. David Schwartzman mentions one fracking ban as if that’s a result. Truth be told that is exactly what’s happening here in the UK, protesting against fracking in particular areas, and ignoring the sum total of capitalists being in charge of energy ownership and distribution and the environmental destruction they cause. Negotiations with capitalists are fruitless; reformist agendas are pointless, with the evidence all around us isn’t it obvious!
David Schwartzman says “Lets not get hung up about using the correct rhetoric, rather promote actual movements that allow people to grow in their political experience and vision towards the end of the rule of capital on our planet.” That is so annoying! Perhaps the drums were/are never beaten loud enough on the umpteen demonstrations witnessed over the decades, or maybe banging drums is just useless. This idea “promote actual movements” is at the nub of the criticism of the Green/left movement because the “growing of political experience” exists solidly entombed in the capitalist construct. Anything and everything is permitted in the capitalist construct so long as it obeys the rules! There is the dilemma, as Plato said one can think and do as one likes but you must obey.
Reformism within the capitalist construct includes the neo-liberalist ideas of “people power” “self-development” and “actualisation” and the whole concept of fooling masses of genuinely concerned citizens is not only a con but unethical. People in their millions sign up to these “movements” and become followers not participants in process, they bang drums! Here in the UK we have 38degrees which on the surface appears to instigate change, however, we see again no political process, and there is no rising of consciousness it simply allows people to “feel good” like they’re involved in something. It is a delusion not awareness. These agendas are unethical, people are duped into a false set of ideals, and it is the same reformism experienced for centuries. In fact it could be argued it’s nothing more than social media, mass popular culture control.
Socialism is again swept away by a wave of reformist hogwash. If it was so easy to change the agenda it would have been done by now. If capitalism was so flexible and adhered to ethical boundaries the world would not be in crisis. If capitalism worked in favour of equality and ethics I would not be writing this. It might be worth considering the 1912 Oklahoma presidential vote where 25% of the vote was socialist and ask the question what happened. It is simply naive to believe that reformism will somehow make the world greener. Every generation rolls out a new bunch of idealists with no political agenda just a loud voice that needs attention like a foghorn when the mists arrive. In the meantime the gathering crisis unfolds before their eyes and they all go home weary and despondent until eventual submission. Isn’t that the reality!

1/3/2015 12:41:36 pm

Need I remind you that “Peace! Land! Bread!” was the slogan of the 1917 Russian Revolution, not “Socialism Now”. The dynamics of the real mass movement and who is providing leadership and ideological clarity counts far more than cautions against reformism and appeals to ideological purity. The greatest threat to human civilization and biodiversity as we know it is the ever closer irreversible abyss of catastrophic climate change (C3). Curbing global carbon emissions radically is imperative to any chance for a prevention program, starting with the highest carbon footprint fossil fuels (coal, tar sands, natural gas because of direct leakage of methane to the atmosphere). To claim we must have socialism first to prevent this catastrophe is a huge disservice to the climate justice movement, indeed to our children and grandchildren, with the most disastrous consequences of C3 impacting people in the global South. But at the same time ecosocialists must provide clarity to this movement, showing how the rule of capital must first be constrained by utilizing divisions among sectors of capital (“Reloading Lenin”), by identifying the biggest obstacle to C3 prevention, the Military Industrial (Fossil Fuels Nuclear State Terror and Surveillance) Complex. Fighting for a global green new deal is a big part of how this obstacle can be overcome, multidimensional and transnational class struggle. I would be happy to send a pdf of my 2011 CNS paper which discusses this, “Green New Deal: An Ecosocialist Perspective”, just email me at [email protected].

2/3/2015 08:18:50 am

Who is providing leadership and ideological clarity? Not the Green Movement by a long shot. What is the problem with ideological purity, surely that's where the ethical dilemmas are resolved, if the majority are on the same page then the dilemmas are how can “we” sort out the issue instead of arguing for centuries who is right or wrong!
“To claim we must have socialism first to prevent this catastrophe is a huge disservice to the climate justice movement, indeed to our children and grandchildren”,
Emotional loaded statements are not helpful, persuasive as they may be for the media and masses following on behind, but is it not far better that the truth be told. Who is claiming we must have socialism now? You're misunderstanding of democratic choice is bewildering, the raising of consciousness takes time, possibly too much time working within the current capitalist construct. It is obvious the restraints placed upon us by the capitalist state cannot be underestimated. Direct action has little if any influence accelerating change. Therefore, working outside of the capitalist construct is the only way to rapidly advance change, and as we both agree time is of the essence.
“But at the same time ecosocialists must provide clarity to this movement, showing how the rule of capital must first be constrained by utilizing divisions among sectors of capital (“Reloading Lenin”), by identifying the biggest obstacle to C3 prevention, the Military Industrial (Fossil Fuels Nuclear State Terror and Surveillance) Complex.”
A far simpler and more productive plan is to endorse socialism and not capitalism. Capitalists own and run the construct for their agendas not ours. Capitalism cannot be controlled; working from within the construct the arguments for capitalism are too persuasive, so much so people still truly believe they will one day live the dream. You also appear to be persuaded by the capitalist argument. The Green Movement is losing the argument, losing the fight, losing the class struggle because the outcome relies on changing capitalism into another form of capitalism. This reformism is an evolution of capitalism and cannot lead to the outcome the majority requires. An ideological stance maintained for centuries by reformers has lead to the current crisis NOT capitalism. Capitalism evolves and is run, owned and maintained by a minority, we are the majority and therefore our lack of a cohesive joined up movement is and remains the problem. It’s our fault! I see no argument, the quickest way to avoid climate catastrophe is through a rising of class-consciousness in the sense of owning the means of production and nurturing a common responsibility towards our future.
Over population is driven by capitalism, profit, workers, consumers, more profit more workers more consumers, do the maths. Socialists ought not to be bothering with reforming capitalism. The lesson has not been learnt or experience has not altered the stubborn resolve to move on from the idea of a change from within despite its failings. The socialist prerogative is to forget capitalism and urge emancipation through the creation of an environmental space where a rising of consciousness can happen unimpeded and uninterrupted. Reformism is simply a domino in an infinite line of falling domino's and no matter how much energy and time is put into preventing that domino falling it always falls only to be replaced by another.

2/3/2015 11:49:46 am

You didn't read my post very carefully. I pointed to ecosocialists providing clarity to a broader movement which includes the Greens. Endorse socialism? By all means, I go further, an ecosocialist transition out of capitalism into a global civilization I called Solar Communism (see my 1996 article posted on www.redandgreen.org, Marxism & Ecology page). But simply calling for socialism is not a strategy, identifying the critical obstacle to C3 prevention and a path out of capital reproduction on our planet is.

2/3/2015 06:55:05 pm

Need i remind you of the history of the Russian Revolution.

I think this is an example of a very rose-tinted view of history and if an example of clarity then it is myopic, to say the least...to cite 1917 in a feudalistic country and then quote a political party that stole an opportunistic slogan from the SRs to gain dictatorial power to go on to emasculate workers genuine self-organisation ...i think we have to learn from history...not repeat its mistakes..

I will read your links later and try and respond but just back from a trip and lot of e-mails to sort through.

2/3/2015 09:00:57 pm

“Socialism means plenty for all. We do not preach a gospel of want and scarcity, but of abundance.”- Sylvia Pankhurst

If you think capitalism is capable of solving the climate crisis then logically you must believe it can also bring solutions to inequality, poverty disease and war…since you think capitalism can be reformed for the benefit of people which would indeed make any demand for socialism superfluous. Sadly, for all of us, this is not the case. Capitalism is self-destructive and bent on eco-cide as some have described it.

Your paper is certainly well sourced. You appear much better read on some aspects than myself. But the only section that does concern me is the part where the title of your article comes from. My first concern is your mistaken misattribution to Marxism that socialism is a transition to communism…ouch, I am sure you know only too well that the differentiation between those terms stems from a deliberate and purposeful mis-reading of the Gotha Critque by Lenin, But that’s neither her or there in this debate.

Our first task is to actually define scarcity and abundance. You are correct many needs under capitalism are obvious creations of consumerism and they are also in a hierarchal society. The notion of status based upon the conspicuous consumption of wealth would be devoid of meaning because individuals would stand in equal relation to the means of production and have free access to the resultant goods and services.

Let us define scarcity and abundance. It is limited supply - versus - boundless demand . Our wants are essentially “infinite” and the resources to meet them "limited" is the usual claim. According to this argument, scarcity is an unavoidable fact of life. It applies to any goods where the decision to use a unit of that good entails giving up some other potential use. In other words, whatever one decides to do has an "opportunity cost" — that is the opportunity to do something else which one thereby forgoes; economics is concerned with the allocation of scarce resources.

However, abundance is NOT a situation where an infinite amount of every good could be produced. Similarly, scarcity is NOT the situation which exists in the absence of this impossible total or sheer abundance. Abundance is a situation where productive resources are sufficient to produce enough wealth to satisfy human needs, while scarcity is a situation where productive resources are insufficient for this purpose. Abundance is a relationship between supply and demand, where the former exceeds the latter. In socialism a buffer of surplus stock for any particular item, whether a consumer or a producer good, can be produced, to allow for future fluctuations in the demand for that item, and to provide an adequate response time for any necessary adjustments. Thus achieving abundance can be understood as the maintenance of an adequate buffer of stock in the light of extrapolated trends in demand. The relative abundance or scarcity of a good would be indicated by how easy or difficult it was to maintain such an adequate buffer stock in the face of a demand trend (upward, static, or downward). It will thus be possible to choose how to combine different factors for production, and whether to use one rather than another, on the basis of their relative abundance/scarcity.

Whereas capitalism relies on mostly monetary accounting, socialism relies on calculation in kind. This is one reason why socialism holds a decisive productive advantage over because of the elimination for the need to tie up vast quantities of resources and labour implicated in a system of monetary/pricing accounting. In socialism calculations will be done directly in physical quantities of real things, in use-values, without any general unit of calculation. Needs will be communicated to productive units as requests for specific useful things, while productive units will communicate their requirements to their suppliers as requests for other useful things.

The modern world is a society of scarcity, but with a difference. Today’s shortages are unnecessary; today’s scarcity is artificial. More than that: scarcity achieved at the expense of strenuous effort, ingenious organisation and the most sophisticated planning. The world is haunted by a spectre – the spectre of abundance. Socialism means plenty for all. We do not preach a gospel of want and scarcity, but of abundance. If the assumption of abundance is not regarded as far-fetched (which, we say it is not) then there is a "better method of ensuring individual consumer choice than voting with vouchers/money: free access. Of course in socialism we may and probably will have to cope with genuine scarcity...a bad harvest...temporary shortages and there is various democratic fair ways of dealing with that. We can assume that the shortage can be tackled by some system of direct rationing such as prioritising individuals needs b

2/3/2015 09:01:37 pm

You miss my point once again. Slogans should embody the demands that address the immediate concern of people. The Bolsheviks understood that. People learn through their experience, and are not passive receptacles for propaganda from sects who don't have any real conception of strategy, analyzing concrete conditions, understanding that pushing the limits of what capitalism can deliver is the real process of deepening socialist consciousness.

2/3/2015 11:16:30 pm

And once again you missed your history lesson.

Firstly it was a Social Revolutionary slogan that the Bolsheviks stole...plus when it came to land for the peasants, factories to the workers it was all rather superfluous since those actions were already being taken post-February without Bolshevik sloganising. On both accounts, the Bolsheviks proceeded to reverse these gains once in power and it was a matter of sooner and not later as some apologists of the Bolsheviks try to make out.

I will grant you one thing in the Bolshevik's favour ..or rather Lenin's since there was internal Party opposition to it...he brought peace despite the draconian terms imposed by the Austrians and Germans....

Consciousness is a parallel development of both experience and ideology...ideas are important or experience can just as easily lead to right-wing "solutions" as much as any socialist...that is why politics is a battlefield for ideas...there is no automatic transmission of struggle, either class or climate, to socialism. Why you declare that Bolshevik ideas delivered when any honest reading of history proves that it didn't. The whole concept of Leninist leadership is contrary to your very accurate observation that people are not passive receptacles so why cite those who desired to substitute party for class...after all...without the party according the now discredited theory, we are only capable of trade-unionist consciousness...anything more must be brought to us by our party cadres in the vanguard parties.

If we don't start talking about socialism...start demanding socialism...just where and when will it appear on the agenda except for some academic paper mentioning it in the passing.

We have to engage people with our goal of socialism, for capitalism is about more than just the threat of climate, as you yourself wrote...it is about war and peace, poverty and plenty...it is about class emancipation and self-liberation...We have to join all the dots between what are made into single issues and discuss SYSTEM change as a solution...not ameliorations of capitalist conditions. We cannot debate bits and pieces of capitalism in isolation from its whole...which means raising the alternative ALL the time

Socialists inside capitalism aren't going to solve the problems we face in the world...People inside socialism will have that task thrust upon them and they will willingly undertake it with solutions suited to their economy, not band-aids to our present one.

Socialism isn't an option or choice to pick or not pick as we see fit but a necessity ...a prerequisite...it is as Rosa said and unfortunately her words are prophetic than ever...socialism or barbarism...and she argued against those who said the movement is everything...without a vision of socialism as possible NOW...the movement is nothing. We have to have as our slogan "SOCIALISM NOW." unless you don't think it is materially or technological possible because the way i see it...it is a matter of what people do think...too many say it is utopian...and not realisable right now. That is the ideological battle we face...I'm sorry you seem to reinforce this by your insistence that there exists something different between socialism and communism...that people aren't intelligent enough to understand arguments and explanations. It is a tough war of words when the media is so powerful...but it has always been the case ...nothing fundamental has changed ...except for one thing...the urgency to change peoples thinking to halt climate change...and we don't succeed if we side-step discussion of the only solution...

If you are an eco-socialist...then it is socialism we should have as our primary concern...not hoping for the best by trying to convince people and capitalists that there are technical means of solving the environmental catastrophe we face...at best it may postpone some of the effects but even that is questionable if there is not social solutions.

As i said , there was much in your essay i could agree with but there was crucial disagreements ...the end is always dependent upon the means...

3/3/2015 08:09:48 am

Of course the (eco)socialist/communist contingent of the movement should voice support for socialism in the public and mass movements, but this demand cannot be imposed on the the broad movement. Propaganda for socialism by itself is necessary but far from sufficient. As far as the debate regarding socialism as a transition to communism, I side with the view that their must be a transition, impure and potentially reversible as we have witnessed in the history of 20th Century socialism. You claim "If you are an eco-socialist...then it is socialism we should have as our primary concern...not hoping for the best by trying to convince people and capitalists that there are technical means of solving the environmental catastrophe we face...at best it may postpone some of the effects but even that is questionable if there is not social solutions." Not simply convince but make possible through class struggle! Implementing a prevention program for catastrophic climate change must begin under capitalism and is simultaneously an unprecedented opportunity to terminate the rule of capital. And of course this will entail social solutions, increasing social management and control of the economy. Again you are not confronting the threat of C3 unless you are some how involved in class struggles to curb carbon emissions to the atmosphere and create wind/solar power sufficient to end energy poverty in the global South and have the capacity to sequester carbon dioxide in the atmosphere down below the safe limit of roughly 350 ppm. If this challenge is ignored in the name of socialism, then it is not only hot air, but a cowardly retreat from the real challenges that face humanity. If you are interested in reading my paper "The Great Bifurcation and Prospects for Solar Communism in the 21st Century" I will send you a pdf. This paper goes into depth the subject we have been discussing. [email protected]

3/3/2015 01:23:18 pm

i am surprised by your expression "cowardly retreat" when i have been very politely suggesting that it is yourself (you meaning the green eco-socialist movement collectively) who have been reflecting a reluctance to put forward socialism as a solution...from fear of not being able to connect with people.

Throughout our history (the labour movement) immediate palliatives have been substituted for the the goal. The environment has no special claim on this tradition. I am old enough to remember the anti-nuke movement and the threat of nuclear apocalypse and the exact same argument being used..."put off your call for socialism...banning the bomb is more vital for the sake of humanity "...It hasn't removed the threat, nor has it stopped the bloody toll of conventional wars because the concession and the compromise proposed did not tackle the root problem...the cause of war.

You make a demand upon capitalism that capitalism will not concede as it will eat into its profits...If this is is a transitional demand that the Trotsky suggested as a tactic...it is a strategy tried and tested and found wanting. Your call for social control, social management are not social solutions as you seem to infer but state-ownership...state intervention...state-capitalism...the workers state as the half-way house to socialism...and that also draws me to a previous conclusion i made...this is still a difference between the possiblists and the impossiblists...well, the possiblists prevailed for half a century and the battle is still being fought...Is it not now time to demand the "impossible".

If it isn't and is a serious suggestion for capitalism to adopt, something that you believe is acceptable to them as the owning class, then you have removed yourself from the class struggle and should enter the green capitalist movement and campaign for it along with the carbon tax proponents and the divestment lobby for a more humane kind of capitalism. Get Bill Gates on board, appeal to his philanthropic side ...

But don't call it class struggle when you yourself have suggested we seek allies within the ruling class and dismissed critics of such a folly as "purists"

I read your link and as i said, you have a better grasp of the technical data than i have but it is the conclusion upon where it leads that i disagree with you. The old IWW slogan "you cannot reform capitalism" is as valid now as it was in their heyday...we fight capitalism with class politics ...It means being out on the streets protesting for our survival as a species, i am not advocating passivity. But as someone said to me recently...we shouldn't be asking people to decide whether the same old shit should be made more palatable with sugar or with honey...it is still shit they are making us eat and that is what we focus upon, not the sweeteners of it

I'll end this contribution by paraphrasing Marx "the climate scientists have interpreted the world, the point now is to change it."

It is not a case of paying lip-service to socialism but a matter of making that our core objective. We might fail in the end...

Marxists for all the counter-claims are not determinists...Marx said the end-result could be mutual ruin for all ...but are you seriously suggesting that a campaign for a modified capitalism that is still nevertheless incompatable with the essence and reason for being of the capitalist class (a tactic which you may not fully appreciated enough that still relies on the old fashioned argument of having to CONVINCE and PERSUADE people, since as i again indicated in a previous post there is nothing automatic in the process of class struggle unless ideas are given the same prominence within the struggle and for the worker in London, it is just as much an abstract campaign to call for "sacrifice" for the sake of the peasant farmer in an African village) is more possible and achievable and does not take us down abortive dead-end roads such as state capitalism than introducing a lot of other concepts of socialism...abolition of wage slavery...the end of buying and selling and the exchange economy...

Socialism has to become the umbrella movement that all those critics of Big Ag, Big Pharma, Big Brother etc etc etc ad nauseum gather under...and unite to remove the common cause of all social problems...We cannot carry on placing single issues as our activism and this is being increasingly recognised by the likes of Klein in latest book. We should not be a separate environment movement or an anti-war movement or labour movement...but an integrated social movement for socialism and all those issues are our ammunition...the experts like climate change scientists and even the NGOs such as Oxfam have provided the ammunition we need, socialists are about aiming the gun at the right target, but we still need the working class to pull the trigger ...

3/3/2015 01:49:52 pm

“Again you are not confronting the threat of C3”. On the contrary, socialists are not only dealing with the threat but also how the threat came about in the first place and how to prevent it from happening again. It's not about slapping on a new coat of paint, the old order needs replacing with the new. I hear the anxiety and the ticking bomb in your head. In your vision unfortunately I see only the old road down which I'm already travelling!
“I side with the view that there must be a transition, impure and potentially reversible as we have witnessed in the history of 20th Century socialism.”
There has never been socialism, it has yet to exist.

3/3/2015 03:09:51 pm

I have been pretty dismissive of capitalism's capacity to cope with climate change...i have always been a pessimistic glass half empty rather than glass half full person so i should make amends and refer you to this article for another opinion.

https://libcom.org/files/21-climate-change.pdf

Its conclusion is:

"Even if capitalism moves towards addressing the climate crisis, from a working class perspective this is a double-edged sword. Indeed, it is likely that any capitalist solution to climate change will displace the ecological crisis into a social one. The costs of reorienting global capital accumulation away from fossil fuels grow by the day. Should capitalism move in this direction, it is inevitable that capital will attempt to impose the costs of this transition onto the proletariat, whether through inadequate adaptation measures leading to population displacements or through 'green austerity'. Indeed, we can imagine an army of unpaid workfare labour installing insulation in every home being a far easier 'sell' than forced labour for Tesco.
Even a crisis as serious as climate change does not produce a unity of interests between capital and proletariat, and the possibility of a green capitalism is not a substitute for class struggle. But neither should we underestimate the flexibility of capital to restructure itself in response to crises and to open up new areas of accumulation. Indeed, given the business as usual path to 6C or more warming, the social impacts of both significant climate change and a capitalist decoupling from fossil fuels are not mutually exclusive."

David Schwartzman

4/3/2015 12:58:56 pm

Reform versus Revolution? Is there a dialectical relationship?
I suggest you read David Laibman's article on how class struggle impacts on the valuation of labor power, posted here: http://ouleft.sp-mesolite.tilted.net/?p=1011 ("Whither the Occupy Movement: Models and Proposals"). Btw thanks for the reference to the pdf.

4/3/2015 06:40:55 pm

Ouch !!!...David, you use a term that i find not at all useful ..."dialectical"...oh, how many transgressions have been committed by declaring something to be "dialectical"...But that is an aside ...i will read the link later today and hopefully find time to comment.

Thabang Ngcozela link

4/3/2015 07:41:17 pm

Quite thought provoking debate, now I have a number of things to reflect upon related to both my revolutionary socialist activism and my professional capacity as an employee of an NGO working on water, climate change and development in South Africa.

4/3/2015 11:48:29 pm

Thabang,

Don't give up your day-job...we can recognise and acknowledge that we cannot succeed in solving social problems but individually we can mitigate some of its effects. My opposition is to reformISM as a cure, not to actual reforms...As a trade unionist, i happily struggled for improved health and safety measures in the workplace but i certainly did not expect them to end occupational illnesses.

alanjjohnstone

5/3/2015 12:52:54 am

An interesting article.

If I understand you correctly you wish to claim that my position errs as External/Revolutionary isolating and utopian, a vision of the future that is vague and underdeveloped.
My initial response is that I have argued in my posts, (which you must grant), is that I repeatedly charged you with keeping the vision of the future vague by not raising it as an immediate aim.

I think we can take it as said that we agree on the view of one sort of reformism, the gradualist approach of advocating palliatives. It has no intention of bringing about revolutionary change. That, indeed, reforms are the antidote to revolution. The welfare state - most particularly its health service component - originally represented an advance for many workers, though it was certainly not introduced with benevolence in mind. We have never said that all reforms are doomed to failure and do not really make a difference to workers' lives? There are many examples of 'successful' reforms in such fields as education, housing, child employment, conditions of work and social security. Requisites required by the capitalist system that the article accurately explains has the side-effect of empowering workers.

The second reformist is the revolutionary reformist…the article’s ‘Internal/Revolutionary.’ As the writer said, it isn’t a new idea and much has been said about it before. In today’s context it is the concept of the Left based on Trotskyism, that socialist consciousness will develop out of the struggle for reforms within capitalism: when workers realise that they can’t get the reforms they have been campaigning for they will, Trotsky declared, turn to the "cadres" of the Fourth International for leadership. Quite apart from the fact that this has never happened, this argument has always been more of a rationalisation of their reformist practice by shamefaced reformists who want to imagine that they are revolutionaries. Biel in The New Imperialism writes:
“The organised left has itself opted for a mode of action which downplays (without completely rejecting) the idea of directly challenging the system…The left has had to retreat for a time from organising an alternative political economy, and is working instead on the terrain of capitalism”
“Working on the terrain of capitalism” is a euphemism for reformism. There are two implications in what Biel is saying. One is that there was a time when the left – or at least part of it – was working for socialism. The other is that, since the retreat was only “for a time”, there will be a time in the future when working for socialism will come to the top of the agenda instead of being downplayed.

So in criticism I would counter that revolutionary reformists argument is this:
It can be summed up in the following:
1 ) The working class has a reformist consciousness.
2 ) It is the duty of the Revolutionary Party to be where the masses are.
3 ) Therefore, to be with the mass of the working class, we must advocate reforms.
Further:
4 ) The working class is only reformist minded.
5 ) Winning reformist battles will give the working class confidence.
6 ) So that, therefore, they will go on to have a socialist revolution.
Thus:
7 ) The working class will learn from its struggles, and will eventually come to realise that assuming power is the only way to meet its ends.
8 ) That the working class will realise, through the failure of reforms to meet its needs, the futility of reformism and capitalism, and will overthrow it.
9 ) That the working class will come to trust the Party that leads them to victory, and come a social crisis they will follow it to revolution.

It all relies upon a notion of the inherently revolutionary nature of the working class and that through the class struggle this inherently revolutionary character will show itself. Although , it hasn't. It’s also flawed because it shows no reason why, due to the failure of reform, the workers should turn to socialism. Why, since it was people calling themselves socialists who advocated that reform, don't they turn against it, or even to fascism? Under the model of revolution presented by the Trotskyists the only way the working class could come to socialist consciousness is through a revolution is made by the minority with themselves as its leaders. This, then, explains their dubious point about needing to "be" where the mass of the working class is. It is the reason why a supposedly revolutionary party should change its mind to be with the masses, rather than trying to get the masses to change their minds and be with it. They do not want workers to change their minds, merely to become followers. Their efforts are not geared towards changing minds, or raising revolutionary class consciousness. Most on the Left believes class struggle militancy can be used as a lever to push the workers along a political road, towards th

Thabang link

5/3/2015 08:24:34 am

I would never do that because I need to pay the bills and sustain my family, I guess most of us are tied up in that way to the system. The issue for me is that NGOs are reformist by nature as they not seek revolutionary overthrowal of the capitalist system, but to reform the system by bringing human face to it. We all agree in the NGO I work with that capitalism is the root cause of climate change and environmental destruction but because we are we are an NGO that is tied up to instiutions and governments financially who are in pursuit of profits at the expense of people and nuture. In that way we remain reformist both in our outlook and practice whilst at the same time I trully believe in revolutionary socialism and in my out of work capacity I am part of groups that are advocating for revolutionary socialism.

I personally think any reform that protect and advance the rights and capitalist concessions by the ruling class within the capitalist order should be welcomed. But we have to keep in mind that such reforms chieved could be tracked back at any moment that the profits accumulation is thrratened. They can be suspended or taken away. This why I think revolutionaries should always priotirise revolutionary socialism and not substitute it by reformism. This is why we fight and march soldier to soldier with working class in support of living wage, improved and better working conditions etc within the capitalist order.

So I am bound by my employer relation to promote reforms at work as the end on their own and when I am engaging out of work then I have freedom to express my revolutionary socialist intentions.

This is why I am saying this discussion is helping me to further reflect on this tention I find in me. Any thought?

5/3/2015 09:08:30 am

Very well put Thabang. It is only by the participation and leadership of (eco)socialists in real struggles to better the quality of life of the working class and oppressed people that we can push the limits of what is possible under capitalism and deepen (eco)socialist consciousness. And our primary responsibility should be to humanity's children and grand children's future. Hence we must act to prevent climate catastrophe while there is still a window of opportunity! And further realize that this struggle is simultaneously for health (air pollution effects), sustainable employment (green jobs) and an immense opportunity to end the rule of capital on our planet. For those who haven't read Laibman's article yet here are relevant selections to our discussion:

http://ouleft.sp-mesolite.tilted.net/?p=1011
“The Reformist model sees contemporary capitalist society as having gone off the rails in crucial respects. Its description of the crisis, and the forces leading up to it, relies on metaphors and concepts such as “feeding frenzy,” “excessive polarization,” “loss of equilibrium between public and private,” and so on. We need impassioned and energetic forces, such as Occupy, to drive a new political momentum for balance, for reining in excesses, eliminating harmful externalities, generating the “shared prosperity” that is the “foundation for political democracy.” The movement should focus on reforms: fair taxation, government (public) responsibility for job creation in the last instance, full funding for health care, education, child and elder care, ecological sustainability. Issues concerning systems — of property, wealth, power — take back seat to the task of achieving measurable goals. The practical consequences of this model are fairly straightforward: pursue specific reforms, in concert with established forces (trade unions, reform movements, community organizations, the activist base of the Democratic Party). ..

Now the key feature of the system, thus understood, is that it is inherently incomplete. The classical text for this is Capital, I, chapters 6 and 7.
Labor power is, always and necessarily, a special commodity, never subject to full valorization like other commodities. Its value is always the outcome of the balance of class forces [bold added] (“balance” here in the sense of “relationship” or “correlation,” with no implication of “equilibrium” or any sort of inherent equality or consistency). For present purposes, this means that reforms — all of the proposals emanating from the Reformists as enumerated above, plus undoubtedly many more — are not only “good things” from the standpoint of the 99%; they represent changes in the balance of forces. They are empowering. Empowerment of the exploited is inherently problematic: capitalism must vigorously oppose it, even when it is entirely warranted in terms of general productive development or some superior social–philosophical ethic.
From the standpoint of the Internal/Revolutionary model, therefore, reforms have two features that the Reformist model does not perceive. First, they are inherently unstable. To switch to yet another animalistic metaphor, reforming capitalism is like taming a wild mountain cat. With enormous popular pressure, militant mobilization and deeply democratic organization, we can impose reforms, knowing that the system must, in its very nature, fight against them, the way the wild cat resists being restrained. The system’s drive to release its inner nature then provides the basis in experience for the popular movement to raise the bar: more thoroughgoing measures, including Keynes’ “more or less comprehensive socialization of investment” and other forms of encroachment on private capitalist prerogatives, become politically viable — still within the framework of capitalism, which increasingly looks like a highly trussed-up wildcat. The cat (one more metaphor clearly bites the dust here) will undoubtedly, at some point, force a decisive confrontation in the political arena, using all military, cultural and ideological powers available to it; this is, therefore, a revolutionary perspective on reforms….

Let me close with the obvious: there is a possibility of a grand alliance between the Reformist and the Internal/ Revolutionary views.
This coalition has the potential to capture the breadth of vision, and political muscle, inherent in the Occupy movement. By contrast, the External/Revolutionary model leads to a blind alley: it is an isolating and utopian stance that would divide working people, and ultimately demoralize us. Its vision of the future is vague and underdeveloped, and vulnerable to “pragmatic” criticism; its opposition to struggling to meet real needs of working people in the present, owing to fears of “co-optat

5/3/2015 09:10:58 am

Last section of Laibman's article got cut off:
"Let me close with the obvious: there is a possibility of a grand alliance between the Reformist and the Internal/ Revolutionary views. This coalition has the potential to capture the breadth of vision, and political muscle, inherent in the Occupy movement. By contrast, the External/Revolutionary model leads to a blind alley: it is an isolating and utopian stance that would divide working people, and ultimately demoralize us. Its vision of the future is vague and underdeveloped, and vulnerable to “pragmatic” criticism; its opposition to struggling to meet real needs of working people in the present, owing to fears of “co-optation” and “betrayal,” threatens to disqualify its adherents from genuine claims to leadership. Of course, there is always the possibility of co-optation and betrayal on the part of reformist politicians in leadership positions. The revolutionary implications of current struggles never emerge automatically, and much depends on how the Internal/Revolutionary forces frame their participation in the alliance. The matter was well put by an old mentor of this writer, the radical editor and activist Will Weinstone [a prominent leader of the Communist Party, USA]: life is, to be sure, a school for socialism, but there’s no such thing as a school without teachers. Now, within the grand alliance, the Reformists will think that Internal/ Revolutionists are ideologically blinkered dreamers, with their talk about capitalism, socialism, the system, revolution; but their energy, devoted in all demonstrated sincerity to the common battles for reforms, will be appreciated.
The Internal/Revolutionists, to the contrary, will smile at the naivete of the Reformists, for whom reforms are their own end entirely, and who think that capitalism (or whatever they choose to call it) can be “humanized.” Can it be humanized? How far can the stick bend without breaking? Our watchword, for the future, should be: let’s find out.”

5/3/2015 03:22:59 pm

"Can it be humanized? How far can the stick bend without breaking? Our watchword, for the future, should be: let’s find out.”

I'll use another quote again...this time from Einstein.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

The history of reformism and transitional demands is not a new development. If we wish to see how it pans out we have no need to conduct yet another experiment but merely to look at the results of past ones.
It is not the system that bends and breaks, it is the content of the reform and thus the nature of those that call for it which changes.

One thing we should always remember as socialists is that we we need the majority of people on board to make it work, and that they must understand and agree with the idea of socialism. This is an ideological battle. If we appeal to people on the basis of a reform, then it is obvious we receive the support of those who seek the reform, they are not joining up for the socialism...merely the reform...
As i think we all accept this debate is not new...Debs of the SPA understood the the tight-rope socialists walk along concerning reforms.

"...To my mind the working class character and the revolutionary integrity of the Socialist party are of first importance. All the votes of the people would do us no good if our party ceased to be a revolutionary party, or only incidentally so, while yielding more and more to the pressure to modify the principles and program of the party for the sake of swelling the vote and hastening the day of its expected triumph.
It is precisely this policy and the alluring promise it holds out to new members with more zeal than knowledge of working class economics that constitutes the danger we should guard against in preparing for the next campaign. The truth is that we have not a few members who regard vote-getting as of supreme importance, no matter by what method the votes may be secured, and this leads them to hold out inducements and make representations which are not at all compatible with the stern and uncompromising principles of a revolutionary party. They seek to make the socialist propaganda so attractive—eliminating whatever may give offense to bourgeois sensibilities—that it serves as a bait for votes rather than as a means of education, and votes thus secured do not properly belong to us and do injustice to our party as well as to those who cast them.
These votes do not express socialism and in the next ensuing election are quite as apt to be turned against us, and it is better that they be not cast for the Socialist party, registering a degree of progress the party is not entitled to and indicating a political position the party is unable to sustain.
Socialism is a matter of growth, of evolution, which can be advanced by wise methods, but never by obtaining for it a fictitious vote. We should seek only to register the actual vote of socialism, no more and no less. In our propaganda we should state our principles clearly, speak the truth fearlessly, seeking neither to flatter nor to offend, but only to convince those who should be with us and win them to our cause through an intelligent understanding of its mission...."
https://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1911/danger.htm

Did he get the right balance..or perhaps De Leon of the rival SLP approach is better.

"The moment things that are not in the nature of a demand, because they are not the goal, are raised to the dignity of a “demand,” they are apt to be, and generally are, confused with the goal itself. A political party that sets up “immediate” demands by so much blurs its constant demand or goal. The presence of these “immediate” demands in a socialist platform reveals pure-and-simple politicianism”corruption, or the invitation to corruption."
https://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/works/1911/110621.htm

As we see from the date - 1911 - it is still an old debate be re-fought. I think it has been won and perhaps you too, David...we just disagree on which side prevailed ;-p

5/3/2015 02:51:25 pm

i also agree with you Thabang.

It is the politics of reformism that we should oppose and it is the revolution we should always prioritise.

Fighting for wages does not exclude us from having the end of wage labour as our aim but it is not the means to the end and this we must remember. The day-to-day class struggle to survive and the political struggle for socialism are no incompatable, just as extra-parliamentary and political action can operate in parallel.

One thing i would add is a quote from Upton Sinclair and although originally about journalism,

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

I think you will recognise that tendency in your bosses !!

5/3/2015 11:57:35 pm

I just came across this article "Why you need the Socialist Ideal to Fight Capitalism" which i think offers yet another different angle on our debate.

http://home.mira.net/~andy/blackwood/utopia.htm

The question is never as simple as often is made out and if we are to include all contesting interpretations, we still need to arrange a priority system to implement them.

Party bus link

3/8/2023 01:02:03 pm

Fantastic article about party buses! Loved the detailed explanation of their features and the benefits of hiring one for special occasions. It got me excited to plan my next event with a party bus. Well done!

In response to the Socialist Party of GB's slur on the Green Party & Ecosocialism.

Leave a Reply.

Author