It has come to the attention of SOYMB blog that supporters of the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) candidate in the Brixton Hill have had a swipe at the Socialist Party candidate, Danny Lambert. On their Facebook, they state:
"The SPGB candidate summed up his party's position and program in one perfect sentence, "There's nothing we can do." Well done comrade. That's a great message to give out to the working class. Marx & Engels and all the working class martyrs would be proud of you (not)"
Certainly a malicious and misinformed interpretation of our political position. The lack of unity of ideas and purpose always ends in defeat. Some have profited by such movements and these generally are the self-appointed leaders with fame as their reward. Others, with perhaps more honourable motives have ended their careers in disillusionment and despair.
The issue is; will the socialists win over the majority of people to their case by fighting to improve their lives under capitalism ? Or by expending all their energy and resources in educating the workers to the necessity of eliminating capitalism and establishing socialism? We do not set ourselves up as opposing the attempts of the workers to improve their status under capitalism. It is one thing to say that socialists should not oppose the non-socialists fighting for reforms, and quite another to state that socialists should place themselves in a position of trying to make capitalism work in the interests of the workers, when all along they know it cannot. Not only is it inconsistent, in our opinion, for socialists to seek to solve problems for the workers under a system which they say cannot solve these problems, but in a practical sense, such an approach would never bring about socialism. And it is the latter which is our goal.
Suppose the Socialist Party were to embark on a high-powered campaign to obtain better housing, hospitals, roads, and so forth. Perhaps we would get a lot of people to join our organisation. On what basis would they join? The same basis on which we appealed to them. We would in the end have an organisation consisting of workers who were seeking continual improvement under capitalist methods of production and distribution, under a price, profit, and wage economy. What happens when such an organisation is voted into political power as a majority? It merely uses the power of the State to carry on capitalism under different forms such as state-ownership or 'nationalisation'. It cannot use the control of the State to abolish capitalism, because its own members who joined on a reform basis, would be in opposition to it. The Party would have to carry out reform of capitalism, or lose its members to another organization which advocated remedial measures. We say capitalism cannot be reformed in the interest of the majority but that it can be abolished. This is our objective: To abolish capitalism, not vainly attempt to reform it. The method advocated by the socialists is to appeal for members on the one sole platform of obtaining state power for the purpose of abolishing capitalism. If elected, we would not oppose social reforms but at the same time we would not advocate them.
By putting forth a program of immediate demands, we would not be educating any workers to the necessity for socialism. We would instead be educating on the need to get all they can under the capitalist system. This latter type of education has never produced socialists from among the workers, although it has contributed more than its share of members to the trade union officialdom. If you but take a glance around your union, you would see many union leaders who started out in the unions with your idea of “reforms today, socialism tomorrow.” They originally viewed reforms as a means to an end, but reforms became ends in themselves.
Socialists, where they are employed in work-shops and factories which are organised, do not spurn the day-to-day struggle. Are the workers to sit down and have their wages reduced? Are they to starve while capitalism lasts? This, if we believe our opponents, is our attitude. The charge rests on the failure to distinguish between economic and political demands. First of all, it should be obvious, that even if we wished to avoid the day-to-day struggle, we HAVE to take part in it. It is not something created by socialists or something we can ignore, but part and parcel of capitalism. By the very nature of the fact that Socialist Party members are workers we participate in the fight for better wages and working conditions. Socialist Party members take part in every struggle in the economic field to improve conditions. We are as militant as anybody else. But we also point out its limitations. That’s why we are members of the World Socialist Movement . The function of the Party is to make socialists, to propagate socialism, and to point out to the workers that they must achieve their own emancipation. It does not say: “Follow us! Trust us! We shall emancipate you.” No, socialism must be achieved by the workers acting for themselves.
The world socialist movement is the natural umbrella for all humanity. All the single issues are seen by socialists as effects, the cause of which is capitalism. Effects can be ameliorated but it is better to eliminate the cause and prevent the effects returning. Go to the root of the problem and not the symptoms. The abolition of the cause which enslaves the working class,(i.e. the private ownership of the means of life) and the introduction of the new organisation of society with its basis of the common or social ownership of the means of wealth production, MUST entail organisation without leaders or leadership. The act of abolition of capitalist society requires a primary prerequisite: knowledge on the part of the individual as to what it is that is responsible for his or her enslavement. Without that knowledge s/he can only blunder and make mistakes that leave their class just where they were in the beginning, still enslaved.
Our candidate in Brixton Hill by-election, Danny Lambert, is truly treading in the footsteps of genuine working class radicals.
" It is not any amelioration of the conditions of the most miserable that will satisfy us: it is justice to all that we demand. It is not the mere improvement of the social life of our class that we seek, but the abolition of classes and the destruction of those wicked distinctions which have divided the human race into princes and paupers, landlords and labourers, masters and slaves. It is not any patching and cobbling up of the present system we aspire to accomplish, but the annihilation of the system and the substitution, in its stead, of an order of things in which all shall labour and all enjoy, and the happiness of each guarantee the welfare of the entire community."
George Julian Harney, 1850, Red Republican
"The SPGB candidate summed up his party's position and program in one perfect sentence, "There's nothing we can do." Well done comrade. That's a great message to give out to the working class. Marx & Engels and all the working class martyrs would be proud of you (not)"
Certainly a malicious and misinformed interpretation of our political position. The lack of unity of ideas and purpose always ends in defeat. Some have profited by such movements and these generally are the self-appointed leaders with fame as their reward. Others, with perhaps more honourable motives have ended their careers in disillusionment and despair.
The issue is; will the socialists win over the majority of people to their case by fighting to improve their lives under capitalism ? Or by expending all their energy and resources in educating the workers to the necessity of eliminating capitalism and establishing socialism? We do not set ourselves up as opposing the attempts of the workers to improve their status under capitalism. It is one thing to say that socialists should not oppose the non-socialists fighting for reforms, and quite another to state that socialists should place themselves in a position of trying to make capitalism work in the interests of the workers, when all along they know it cannot. Not only is it inconsistent, in our opinion, for socialists to seek to solve problems for the workers under a system which they say cannot solve these problems, but in a practical sense, such an approach would never bring about socialism. And it is the latter which is our goal.
Suppose the Socialist Party were to embark on a high-powered campaign to obtain better housing, hospitals, roads, and so forth. Perhaps we would get a lot of people to join our organisation. On what basis would they join? The same basis on which we appealed to them. We would in the end have an organisation consisting of workers who were seeking continual improvement under capitalist methods of production and distribution, under a price, profit, and wage economy. What happens when such an organisation is voted into political power as a majority? It merely uses the power of the State to carry on capitalism under different forms such as state-ownership or 'nationalisation'. It cannot use the control of the State to abolish capitalism, because its own members who joined on a reform basis, would be in opposition to it. The Party would have to carry out reform of capitalism, or lose its members to another organization which advocated remedial measures. We say capitalism cannot be reformed in the interest of the majority but that it can be abolished. This is our objective: To abolish capitalism, not vainly attempt to reform it. The method advocated by the socialists is to appeal for members on the one sole platform of obtaining state power for the purpose of abolishing capitalism. If elected, we would not oppose social reforms but at the same time we would not advocate them.
By putting forth a program of immediate demands, we would not be educating any workers to the necessity for socialism. We would instead be educating on the need to get all they can under the capitalist system. This latter type of education has never produced socialists from among the workers, although it has contributed more than its share of members to the trade union officialdom. If you but take a glance around your union, you would see many union leaders who started out in the unions with your idea of “reforms today, socialism tomorrow.” They originally viewed reforms as a means to an end, but reforms became ends in themselves.
Socialists, where they are employed in work-shops and factories which are organised, do not spurn the day-to-day struggle. Are the workers to sit down and have their wages reduced? Are they to starve while capitalism lasts? This, if we believe our opponents, is our attitude. The charge rests on the failure to distinguish between economic and political demands. First of all, it should be obvious, that even if we wished to avoid the day-to-day struggle, we HAVE to take part in it. It is not something created by socialists or something we can ignore, but part and parcel of capitalism. By the very nature of the fact that Socialist Party members are workers we participate in the fight for better wages and working conditions. Socialist Party members take part in every struggle in the economic field to improve conditions. We are as militant as anybody else. But we also point out its limitations. That’s why we are members of the World Socialist Movement . The function of the Party is to make socialists, to propagate socialism, and to point out to the workers that they must achieve their own emancipation. It does not say: “Follow us! Trust us! We shall emancipate you.” No, socialism must be achieved by the workers acting for themselves.
The world socialist movement is the natural umbrella for all humanity. All the single issues are seen by socialists as effects, the cause of which is capitalism. Effects can be ameliorated but it is better to eliminate the cause and prevent the effects returning. Go to the root of the problem and not the symptoms. The abolition of the cause which enslaves the working class,(i.e. the private ownership of the means of life) and the introduction of the new organisation of society with its basis of the common or social ownership of the means of wealth production, MUST entail organisation without leaders or leadership. The act of abolition of capitalist society requires a primary prerequisite: knowledge on the part of the individual as to what it is that is responsible for his or her enslavement. Without that knowledge s/he can only blunder and make mistakes that leave their class just where they were in the beginning, still enslaved.
Our candidate in Brixton Hill by-election, Danny Lambert, is truly treading in the footsteps of genuine working class radicals.
" It is not any amelioration of the conditions of the most miserable that will satisfy us: it is justice to all that we demand. It is not the mere improvement of the social life of our class that we seek, but the abolition of classes and the destruction of those wicked distinctions which have divided the human race into princes and paupers, landlords and labourers, masters and slaves. It is not any patching and cobbling up of the present system we aspire to accomplish, but the annihilation of the system and the substitution, in its stead, of an order of things in which all shall labour and all enjoy, and the happiness of each guarantee the welfare of the entire community."
George Julian Harney, 1850, Red Republican
2 comments:
The Brixton blog has now published a report of the hustings here: http://www.brixtonblog.com/brixton-hill-by-election-hustings-round-up/9402
It reveals that what our candidate actually said was: "In times of recession public services are the first thing that gets cut. This is the nature of capitalism and it’s time to wake up. We’re in a society that doesn’t work in our interests. There’s nothing we can do about it unless we dump the capitalist system.”
There's a full report on the hustings up now on the Brixtonblog:
http://www.brixtonblog.com/brixton-hill-by-election-hustings-round-up/9402
Socialist candidate Danny Lambert had a more radical suggestion: “In times of recession public services are the first thing that gets cut. This is the nature of capitalism and it’s time to wake up. We’re in a society that doesn’t work in our interests. There’s nothing we can do about it unless we dump the capitalist system.” He added: “Capitalism is pernicious, sordid and disgusting and it needs to go in the dustbin of history.”
the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition candidate, said he was standing to campaign against austerity and cuts.
“If I’m elected I’ll immediately convene a Lambeth anti-austerity forum involving all the community campaigns in this borough, so we can start a movement like in the 1980s against those councillors who’ve made cuts in jobs and services,” he said. Perhaps he has forgotten the outcome. Neither Liverpool's Derek Hatton nor Lambeth's Ted Knight stopped the cuts, did they? Councillors could in theory do what TUSC asks them to do, but they would have to pay for it -- literally, by being surcharged. And the cuts would go through anyway.
Post a Comment