Sunday, May 08, 2016

Snake oil pitch

 Andrew Rawnsley in the Guardian comments section, under a heading of, "Dr Corbyn’s elixir for electoral success will kill only the patient"

"Labour’s catastrophic collapse north of the border makes it even more imperative that the party recovers support in England and Wales if it is ever to look like a party capable of winning a general election."

Imperative for whom? It is largely irrelevant which political party wins power 'over the people' to run a business friendly capitalist system. Peddling illusions that capitalism can be reformed in any way which reduces its innate exploitation of the vast majority in conditions of waged slavery is a damned lie. The Labour Party of Corbyn even if it were to win a general election can not reform capitalism any more than the Labour Party of Attlee, Wilson or McDonald could. If "Dr Corbyn’s elixir is snake oil", so to is the elixir of all the parties of capitalism whether avowedly capitalist or professedly labour.

 Capitalism can not be reformed and must be replaced by a post-capitalist, commonly owned, delegatory democratic, production for use, free access, global society, where governments 'over the people' cease to exist and the administration over goods and services based upon the organisational principle and ethos of, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs", will be self managed by the worlds population, in an elite free, money free, waged-slavery free, global,commonwealth organised locally, regionally and globally by the people themselves.

If you want to read more on how Socialism as  a Practical Alternative to capitalism could work see our pamphlet.

" The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves. We cannot, therefore, co-operate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philanthropic big bourgeois and petty bourgeois.’ (1879 Marx and Engels )



10 comments:

Mike Ballard said...

The class struggle is over the social product of labour. When workers win these battles, they get bits and pieces of the product of their labour back via the social wage. These bits and pieces are called 'reforms'.

matthew culbert said...

It is mainly over wages and conditions.It is the struggle for existence.It is only partly over this (social wage).It is still no advantage to support reformist political parties,which was my main point,as th struggle for reform becomes an end in itself in perpetuity, with little or no progress made in developing revolutionary consciousness.

Mike Ballard said...

"T'ain't necessarily so", Comrade. You're assuming the class conscious worker can be satisfied, co-opted, channeled or whatever into accepting the robbery inherent in the wage system. In my political opinion, a class conscious worker wants total control and common ownership of the collective product of labour, but until the 90% becomes class conscious, struggles with the capitalist class over his/her needs for healthcare, education and welfare which can be had free as a part of their social wage.

matthew culbert said...

I don't see where I assumed anything. Also if it is deemed as a part of their social wage, it is not 'free' despite appearances. It is a good deal for the parasite class who would have to include this additional cost for the worker to reproduce themselves in wage negotiated calculations otherwise.

Mike Ballard said...

This is what you're assuming, Comrade: "It is still no advantage to support reformist political parties,which was my main point,as th struggle for reform becomes an end in itself in perpetuity, with little or no progress made in developing revolutionary consciousness."

If one is still living within the marketplace of commodities and one does not pay the price of the commodity in order to use it, one is getting it free. I understand perfectly that wealth is commodified and put on the market for sale with a view to profit under the rule of Capital. But, when you take wealth out of the ownership of the capitalist class and put it into the social wage e.g. healthcare, you make it free to the producers. In America, the producers must climb a paywall in order access healthcare. In the UK, the bourgeoisie must part with some of the wealth they have courtesy of the wage system, to pay for public health, public education and public welfare e.g. the age pension. The bourgeoisie don't like this which is why they barrack for privatisation and commodification of public services.

matthew culbert said...

It is still no advantage to support reform parties.That is not an assumption it is a fact.

Welfare provision is an essential part of capitalism.They need educated reserve armies of labour for the cyclical upturn.It is a collective burden upon profits via tax hence the screams. If it were not so, it would still be a burden upon profits via waged negotiated settlements, where provision had to be made for insurance cover etc. Free at the point of use, is still not free, as funding has been overwritten by productivity gains to the parasite class and an increase in productive capacity overall, as well as GDP.
You say,"The bourgeoisie don't like this which is why they barrack for privatisation and commodification of public services.". well some don't and some do, hence the main bourgeois 'business friendly' parties Labour, Liberal and Conservative oscillation between different applications of it.

Reformism is still an argument for the retention of capitalism.

Mike Ballard said...

You can support the diversion of the wealth we produce as a class away from the possession of the capitalist class and towards the needs of the working class. I agree with you about the factional stances taken by the conservative and liberal bourgeoisie. My position is that those workers who do not get free medical care are worse off under the domination of conservative bourgeois who would rather hire more police than the liberal bourgeois who are amenable to minimal sharing, hoping that this will keep the working class from looking more deeply into the question of social relations i.e. Capital. Your argument assumes that class conscious workers can be bought off and that the worse things get for workers, the more likely they are to see the logic in the SPGB's position about abolishing wage labour. I disagree. If this were so, the most miserable amongst the world's working class would be clamouring for an end to wage labour. They are not.

matthew culbert said...

"Your argument assumes that class conscious workers can be bought off and that the worse things get for workers, the more likely they are to see the logic in the SPGB's position about abolishing wage labour. I disagree."

Another assumption you state, which I do not have.You are confusing the manipulative tactics of the so called Left, here with us.I state, "reformism is still an argument for the retention of capitalism".

If workers continue to support reform parties of capitalism, you may include 'Left' parties here, they will continue to have capitalism.

"You can support the diversion of the wealth we produce as a class away from the possession of the capitalist class and towards the needs of the working class."

A real difference between supporting by advocating a reformed capitalism, via a capitalist potential government party 'over' the people' in waiting, e.g.' Liberal, Labour, Green, Conservative, etc. which will run capitalism, and union activity which holds governments to account.

You seem to detect differences between the political parties .

What is the problem here? None.We have trade unions do we not? Capitalism will grant reforms. It is a negotiated position and dependent upon prevailing and potential future economic and political conditions. If workers are more and more revolutionary, they will throw reforms at them, if workers are reformist they will drip feed them, in order to win their votes.

What you won't get is a gradual movement into socialism, the deluded conceit of Labour party lefties. Socialism will be the conscious act of an immense majority who have spurned their reformist blandishments.

Mike Ballard said...

Comrade, the class struggle is over the wealth we produce for wages. That'll be so until we abolish the wage system. Every leftist reform is a victory in the battle over the surplus value we produce. I don't see abstention from the class struggle as an option for workers. I think I can keep the abolition of wage labour in my mind at the same time as I can see a left reform like free medical care or shortening of the work week as a step toward more freedom for my class.

I don't think most Labour Party lefties get the connection between the abolition of wage labour and socialism. The point is that the workers already know how to produce the wealth that exists and if that wealth were shared equally amongst the world's population it would amount to something like $50,000 per person. If we changed the mode of producing wealth we could produce just as much wealth as we do now. The capitalists and landlords don't produce wealth. That's what the workers are employed to do. The means of producing wealth would not change other than by democratic classless society's direction. The argument for changing the mode of producing wealth to socialism should not be considered too advanced for any part of the planet now as long as communism is understood by those establishing it that it actually means changing the mode of production from exchange-value dominated commodity production to use-value dominated production of what is needed.

matthew culbert said...

Mike Ballard wrote:
> Comrade, the class struggle is over the wealth we produce for wages. That'll be so until we abolish the wage system. Every leftist reform is a victory in the battle over the surplus value we produce. I don't see abstention from the class struggle as an option for workers. I think I can keep the abolition of wage labour in my mind at the same time as I can see a left reform like free medical care or shortening of the work week as a step toward more freedom for my class.
======================================================
The class struggle takes different manifestations. Conscious and subconscious. Evidence of it abounds even in sometimes criminal behaviour against private property. Workers can't abstain from the class struggle even if they want to. It is the daily struggle for survival against the restrictions upon access to wealth.

The difference between workers organised in their unions to secure better wages and conditions, is still an unconscious acceptance of the system where rationed access is the norm,as opposed to the to conscious rejection of capitalism and the political avocation of its replacement by a post-capitalist society.

The left is not advocating socialism, as it seeks to become the new governing class, through manipulation and management of reformist demands.
==============================
> I don't think most Labour Party lefties get the connection between the abolition of wage labour and socialism.
=============================
All the more reason for socialists to give the lie to 'Reformism' as being somehow a 'socialistic' endeavour.
---------------------
> The point is that the workers already know how to produce the wealth that exists and if that wealth were shared equally amongst the world's population it would amount to something like $50,000 per person.
=====================
Impossible.We are not advocating this. We are advocating equal access.We are advocating the removal of prices.
-----------------
> If we changed the mode of producing wealth we could produce just as much wealth as we do now.
====================
We will have production for use in a commonly owned world of free access and voluntary work Even more production is possible a relative superabundance of wealth..
------------------
> The capitalists and landlords don't produce wealth. That's what the workers are employed to do. The means of producing wealth would not change other than by democratic classless society's direction. The argument for changing the mode of producing wealth to socialism should not be considered too advanced for any part of the planet now as long as communism is understood by those establishing it that it actually means changing the mode of production from exchange-value dominated commodity production to use-value dominated production of what is needed.
=======================
It involves removing value altogether as it is understood today expressed in prices.Replacing it with calculation in units or kind.

All the more reason for us to reject supporting parties demanding reforms as a panacea, there are plenty doing so already and focusing on education as part of our contribution to enabling workers to arrive at the conscious decision to as Marx put it,"...to emancipate themselves and" and yet you seemed to take issue with this.