Centralisation
- This topic has 23 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 2 days, 5 hours ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hello all, this is my first post on this forum, and may I first state I am glad to find a platform like this on the internet free from large social media influence which only serves the needs of capitalism and its agents.
I was pondering the question, in a socialist system to what degree of society should be centralised, for example road works and schools which are often considered to be local issues. On the flip side how much autonomy should a truly socialist society give to these social institutions.
Thank you.
Waiting your thoughts…Hi McDonald, welcome to the forum. I hope you become a regular contributor.
My view on this is that in a Socialist Society, issues such as big v small (which is effectively what you are asking about) will probably have some of the same debate that Capitalist society. That is to say there will be an ongoing debate between different view points about what decisions were made.
Taking the example you have been used, there will be some members of society that highlight the large strategic advantages of bigger road planning, and that others will see more localised planning as being the most important thing. Administrative structures will move and change to adapt to different majority view and that they will then change as different systems are used and are found wanting. I have no doubt there will be high levels of “heat” in the debate, just as there are now.
The big difference will be that the decisions and the planning will not be influenced and distorted by the current system on vested interests. Democratic changes will be made about how we organise our lives, I hope that we will acknowledge that mistakes can be made and that the system of democratic planning is a multifaceted thing.
In the current society, if you have wealth and own the means of production, you have far more influence that those who don’t. So for example, Elon Musk’s view on what is appropriate regarding mineral extraction in Greenland, is far more influential than some poor bugger that lives next to the proposed Greenlandic mineral mine
It may be that in the debate distinct parties will form where individual groups join together to support a particular view point or strategy. For example some citizens might be more environmentally inclined, whilst other groups may have slightly more varying viewpoints. I would imagine that these groupings would be much more issue by issue based, that the current political party system which has its basis on sectional class issues. Perhaps they would be loose confederations a bit like the parliamentary parties that emerged in the late 18 and early 19th Centuries (without the vested interests)
I have often thought that the way the Socialist Party organises our party is an example of how democracy would act in a socialist society. I have seen over many years the ways in which we organise ourselves change and adapt democratically. We might not agree with each other, however we recognise that all members (even though they have different views in terms of what might be best) are taking the best view of what they think will create the most effective outcome.
None of us are trying to manipulate the organisation to get the best outcomes for ourselves, or to foster our own career pathways, as is the case in other Party Organisations. As we have no leaders we effectively have a collective leadership of all members. None has more power that the other. In some circumstances individuals have more knowledge of a particular issue than others. So if our Head Office needs a new central heating system, the views of a member who was a central heating engineer might have more influence around the decisions than members who didn’t have that knowledge, but that position of influence is transient and specific.
As the way we work is completely open to examination (all of our executive committees are open to observation to anyone who cares to watch the meeting or read our minutes) nothing generally secret (there are one or two occasions where personal information about party members, etc, which we do keep things confidential), debate is open, democratic and task focused.
Thank you for your response, I think you have cleared my mind on some of the issues I was having with the organisation of power in a socialist society. I love the idea of a meritocratic socialist party and state, so I would have to agree with your points. The debates I was having with others was the efficiency of central control over the effectiveness of local governance, I ignored the fact that individuals have any agency on the situation. You have opened my eyes to a democratic system which adapts per issue and per population. Thanks once again, but as a follow up question, what systems would protect a meritocratic system from being reorganised to fit the needs of powerful individuals such as Stalin after the death of Lenin (and the murder of Trotsky) in the USSR.
The soviet dictatorship did not start with Joseph Stalin; it started during the time of Lenin and Trotsky, and Stalin is a continuation of that process. The difference between Stalin and Trotsky was based on the management style, there were no essential differences. Even more, Stalin had a clear understanding of what socialism means
To establish that system, a ruling class was needed, and socialism/communism is going to be a classless and stateless society based on the democratic possession of the means of production, democratically administered by the world working class
McDonald wrote: “efficiency … over … effectiveness”
Both of these concepts are socially (and therefore politically) constructed entities.
Especially, given our current scientific ideology regarding the mathematisation of physics, ‘efficiency’ is not a number, or a process ‘in-itself’, that can be simply ‘read’ as a ‘truth’ by an elite minority, but something of which we must ask ‘efficient for whom?’.
Only democratic debate can determine what is ‘efficient for whom’. Ditto for ‘effective for whom’.
No group of elite physicists can determine these issues for us.
Socialism/Communism means the democratic production of our world, of a ‘world for us’.
I understand that Marxist-Leninism was built around a dictatorship model. But it is my own personal understand that this was a nasality for Russia at this time to establish a communist society because of the model of there own society under the Tsar (so I agree with you on that point). As Leninism states that once the systems of a communist society are in place that there would be a processes of handing over to the proletariat. But for myself Stalin was not a true communist, he was a puppeteer of the USSR for his own self interest. This is not unfounded, an example of Stalin’s disregard for equality can be seen in education. Lenin introduced mixed sex schooling bridging what was a massive gender gap for the Russian education system. Stalin on the other hand reintroduced gendered schooling. That it the most basic of Stalin’s own disregard for a free society with the means of production in the hands of the working classes e.g. Command Economy.
I would have to disagree, efficiency does not equal effective, even placed under the idea of a democratic socialist state. We must ask the question who is this going to effect and what impact are the actions that we take.
You can make a system that is every efficient but actually is not very effective for the working class population and society. It all depends on how you measure it. I am not disagreeing the current elite methods of measurement are bias towards capitalism.
But its not Ditto for effective for whom as it is an important question to ask how is this going to effect society on a macro and a micro level. I am interested to hear your response to such matters.
Lenin was not a communist.
Leninism is not a communist trend
Marxism-Leninism is an incompatible hybrid created by Joseph Stalin.
The only Russian leader who had a real conception of socialism/communism was Julius Martov.
The soviet leaders never claimed that they were building a communist society.
The whole period of more than 75 years they were developing state capitalism.
The whole history of the USRR as a socialist society it is just a lie
I think that we actually agree, McDonald, rather than disagree.
That is, we DEFINE ‘effective’ to mean ‘effective for the working class population and society’.
Ditto for ‘efficient’.
There is no elite minority who can determine ‘effective for us’ or ‘efficient for us’.
We are the democratic determiners.
This is as true in politics as in physics.
I think there is a bit of a difference between what you view as Socialism/Communism and what we view those terms as meaning. It seems that you think that state ownership of the means of production is what defines a socialist/communist society, we don’t.
Our aim is to achieve a society based on common ownership, which necessarily means that there will be free access to all goods and services, the abolition of the wages system and the end of the capitalist state. Engels said:
“The society which organizes production anew on the basis of free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machinery where it will then belong—into the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze axe.”
You might find the following website useful in understanding our case for a classless society based on common ownership:
https://www.worldsocialist.org/?mtm_campaign=forum
Hope this helps
May I first say, I am not in support of state centralisation of the means of production. Because the only thing that achieves is a new bourgeoise to overcome and as you have rightly stated state capitalism. My conversation was more around general governance on the means of production, not control of it.
Marxism-Leninism is an incompatible hybrid created by Joseph Stalin.
Marxist-Leninism, was not created by Stalin, however Stalin did use Marxist-Leninism as a spring board for his own totalitarian ideology Marxist-Leninist-Stalinism. I am very aware that the USSR did not develop a Communist state, but what I am doing is acknowledging the struggles of establishing a socialist state. All though the USSR was failure, we as socialist can learn from that failure and prevent a similar situations from emerging in are modern time.
Everything is written in this book:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/. Foundations of Leninism by Joseph StalinProbably, Vladimir Lenin wouldn’t have created a concept known as Marxism-Leninism; he did not want to be mummified either; he wanted to be placed next to his mother. In some way, Lenin sincerely recognized some of his mistakes, he also recognized that the vanguard party was just a temporary measure applicable to Russia, and he was not going to edit and publish again What is to be done?
Without the Soviet Union, socialism/communism would have been in a much better state in our time. The concept of socialism/communism was distorted by them and by the Western capitalists; any reformer is called socialist or communist, any third-world dictator, guerrilla fighter, or terrorist is called communist. With the emergence of right-wing populists, the situation is even worseGoing back to your original question, my view is that some things need to be administered centrally, even on a global level, for instance, movement of some foodstuffs, some energy production, long distance travel, and other areas. Other decisions will be better suited to more local solutions, be they continental, “national”, regional, district or even street and neighborhood level.
I think that that perfect way of dividing between what is decided within which spheres will, under a socialist system, be part of the ongoing democratic debate. I doubt a perfect way of dividing things up administratively could be achieved, and even if it was, changes in on going life style, production methods, the way we live our life, etc. will mean that any perfect way, would be transient.
The point, however would be that it would be done through democratic decision making processes. The kinds of processes that take place all over the world in different ways, expanded to meet the expanded nature of democracy.
For instance I am a member of a local bridge club, there are no leaders within the club, we elect committee members to sort out premises issues, who is on the tea rota, when there are bridge nights, what level of bridge will be played during different sessions and another myriad of administrative tasks. Believe me, the club is not in any way formed by ardent communists, but they all manage to work along democratically. Committee secretaries are not set up as leaders or decision makers, just administrators for decisions. Do they sometimes, fall out? Yes. Do trivial matters get heated? On occasion. Has the perfect form of organising a bridge club been created? definitely no. However, everything seems to go along ok, and the club has been running since 1932.
This is similar to a whole load of mutual organisations throughout the world, local sporting clubs, allotment societies, agricultural shows, brass band clubs, community centre organisations, etc, etc.
Take this up to a “national” or even global level, democratic decision making can be scaled up. I very much doubt that there will be complete agreement about the whole way that a commonly owned society. I am also pretty sure that someone will become self important and think that they shit chocolate truffles and piss champagne, the democratic process will put them back in their box.
Also in terms of decision making, I can’t see people who are not involved in a situation local to the decision, troubling themselves about the decisions being made in that area. I would not trouble myself in getting involved about what colour the railings in a South African Kindergarten are painted, any more than someone from Johannesburg is going to be interested where a railway station is sited in Northumberland.
It is important to remember that the small number Socialists who are currently arguing for a Socialist society will necessarily become a minority if socialism becomes a majority view.
How the specific ways in which that society, based on common ownership and democratic control, decide upon the “administration of things”, to quote Engels, will be decided by that majority, not us. We can make suggestions about how it might work, talk about the possibilities and when the number of socialists rises closer to a majority, we can put in place more developed plans, however we are not a vanguard, not a set of leaders and the final decisions will be made by the majority.
And then, we would be able to talk about democracy and socialism What we know now is a distortion of both conception
I think there had been a miscommunication problem, I myself am not a Marxist-Leninist. I personally just wanting to talk about the structures of power under a socialist state. The usage of the USSR was just to highlight highly centralised ‘socialist’ systems under Stalin as it is the best example for this question. Comparing them to polices under Lenin such as the Decree on Land which were localised to the peasant soviets. I do agree that the USSR did also damage how people view socialism, but I think a large majority of that is thanks to the ISA anyway turning communist into a fowl word. I agree with the viewpoint of democracy, but my main fear is that the majority through what remains of the capitalist system (through democratic means) will return back to a capitalist society. For example, if we create one single socialist country it is inevitable that the capitalist nations will attack that nation ideologically, politically and economically. As well because of globalisation we as socialist are under greater threat of our ideology being under threat through digital forces such as social media which is used by the capitalist to keep social control and indoctrination of the masses.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.