Cooking the Books: Never Been Tried
- This topic has 140 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
moderator1 wrote:My two cents is the associated voluntary producers, composed of the generalists and the specialists are a logical part of the decision making process.
[my bold]I take it that the democratic principle of 'one person, one vote' will apply?Or, do you have in mind a 'decision-making process' like that of '60s Unionist-dominated Northern Ireland, that had a 'Business Premises Qualification' that allowed each 'specialist' business-owner 6 votes, whilst only allowing 1 vote for a working class 'generalist' family of, perhaps 6 adults.
mod1 wrote:The "political control" is embedded in the actual process where a systematic project management approach enables the panel to scrutinise, evaluate and assess the proposal in front of it. So it can reach a conclusion and outcome based on the satisfaction of human needs.[my bold]Is your 'systematic project management approach' similar to the current bourgeois business 'systematic project management approach', where the bosses have a say, but not the workers – or is your 'approach' a democratic one?Plus, in your 'approach', who determines 'human needs', and how do they do so, if not by democratic means?
Young Master Smeet wrote:We've covered this before: learned societies would be free associations, organised democratically by their members, within a framework set by the whole of society (e.g. forbidding racism, unemocratic structures, sexual segragation, etc.) Recommendations could either stem from the sociees (plural) themselves, or from members of the wappentake who are already aware of a particular viewpoint and want it to be heard out.[my bold]So, to be clear, society would democratically control its 'learned societies'?
Society would have no means of coercing learned societies, it would, though, set the framework for their free associations to operate in, and owuld be able to provide resources: however, it would be unable to prevent the flat earth society from existing, if only a list of names in someone's bedroom. the Swedenborg society would still have a free existence, and even the Hornsey Road Spiritualist Church would have a continued right to exist. They'd just be a long way down the queue for resources.
What's the political difference, YMS, between your uses of 'set' and 'coerce'?What would it mean politically if 'society set a framework', but had no means of 'coercing' (I'd say 'enforcing') its democratically decided 'framework'?How can society 'forbid racism', but not be able to politically enforce its democratic forbidding?
Well, the central point is the absence of an armed and organised body of men in the form of a police or army to do any coercing, and the other point is the freedom of association implies freedom of dissacoiation: the point is, though, that disputes should be resolved through dialogue, without resort to force. The debate should never end, no vote is definitive.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Well, the central point is the absence of an armed and organised body of men in the form of a police or army to do any coercing, and the other point is the freedom of association implies freedom of dissacoiation:…How do you know that there will be no 'armed and organised' force within socialism?Surely society will have a means of enforcing its democratic decisions? Otherwise, who stops, to give your example, 'racism'? Or FGM?Democratic Communists argue that the only 'social force' must be 'democratic social force' – they don't argue that 'social force' will not exist. Only those adhering to the myth of bourgeois individualism believe that 'social force' will cease to exist, and all 7 billion individuals will do as each wants to do, on their own individual say-so.As I've said before YMS, your political and ideological views are nothing to do with 'democratic socialism'.
YMS wrote:… the point is, though, that disputes should be resolved through dialogue, without resort to force.I agree entirely.But if 'dialogue' doesn't work, then 'democratic social force' will resolve the dispute. To pretend otherwise, is to lie to workers asking about socialism, and how serious disputes would be resolved. If a minority can't be reasoned with peacefully, through dialogue, then the majority must impose its democratic views.
YMS wrote:The debate should never end, no vote is definitive.Again, I agree – no vote is definitive within socialism. But the 'vote' to introduce socialism by the destruction of the exploiting class is definitive. The revolution has to be a democratic revolution.Once again, YMS, I think that our differences are political differences – I believe in 'social force' controlled by a democratic vote. You only recognise 'individual force' – the right of the individual, over 'society'.
LBird wrote:How do you know that there will be no 'armed and organised' force within socialism?But if 'dialogue' doesn't work, then 'democratic social force' will resolve the dispute. To pretend otherwise, is to lie to workers asking about socialism, and how serious disputes would be resolved. If a minority can't be reasoned with peacefully, through dialogue, then the majority must impose its democratic views.So in 'democratic communism' decisions made by the world wide 'producers' will be forced on ALL individuals and communities by an "armed and organised" force'? Can you give a theoretical example?
Vin wrote:So in 'democratic communism' decisions made by the world wide 'producers' will be forced on ALL individuals and communities by an "armed and organised" force'? Can you give a theoretical example?Yes, I already have, Vin.I'm quite happy to claim that FGM will be suppressed by democratic 'armed and organised force'.If someone wishes to claim that 'individuals' choosing to inflict FGM can ignore our democratic wishes to suppress FGM, or that 'democratic wishes' will play no part in 'socialism', then I will disagree with them.I quite clearly argue for 'democratic controls' within socialism. If someone disagrees, it's up to them to explain just what their version of 'socialism' will be, if not 'democratic'.Then, all workers looking for 'socialist' ideas, will be able to choose, whether they want their 'socialism' to be 'democratic socialism', as I do, or some other version.
I would still appreciate more clarification of the 'armed and organised' force. Worldwide? Locally organised armed force?
Vin wrote:I would still appreciate more clarification of the 'armed and organised' force. Worldwide? Locally organised armed force?You're asking for 'more clarification' than Marx could give, and I'm no different.The point is a political one about social power.We can either argue that:'society won't exist under socialism', and so no 'social force' is required;or, 'society will exist', and an elite should control its 'social force';or, 'society will exist', and its 'social force' must be our own democratic 'social force'.Individualists will pick the first, Leninists will pick the second, and Marxists will pick the third.
LBird wrote:moderator1 wrote:My two cents is the associated voluntary producers, composed of the generalists and the specialists are a logical part of the decision making process.[my bold]I take it that the democratic principle of 'one person, one vote' will apply?Or, do you have in mind a 'decision-making process' like that of '60s Unionist-dominated Northern Ireland, that had a 'Business Premises Qualification' that allowed each 'specialist' business-owner 6 votes, whilst only allowing 1 vote for a working class 'generalist' family of, perhaps 6 adults.
mod1 wrote:The "political control" is embedded in the actual process where a systematic project management approach enables the panel to scrutinise, evaluate and assess the proposal in front of it. So it can reach a conclusion and outcome based on the satisfaction of human needs.[my bold]Is your 'systematic project management approach' similar to the current bourgeois business 'systematic project management approach', where the bosses have a say, but not the workers – or is your 'approach' a democratic one?Plus, in your 'approach', who determines 'human needs', and how do they do so, if not by democratic means?
Yes of course the principle of 'one person one vote' will apply. And yes the 'systematic project management approach' I'm advocating is by default a democratic one e.g. "So it can reach a conclusion and outcome based on the satisfaction of human needs". If that's not democracy wtf is?Such a question makes me suspect you are either failing to understand what I've written, or even worst you have little idea on the implications and consequences of democratic socialism under the framework of Direct/Delgated Participatory Democracy. In this regard the determination of 'human needs' is arrived at through the agreed democratic process of the application for systematic project management. Hence, its not so much as the 'who' but how the community arrives at a democratic conclusion and outcome.
moderator1 wrote:Yes of course the principle of 'one person one vote' will apply. And yes the 'systematic project management approach' I'm advocating is by default a democratic one e.g. "So it can reach a conclusion and outcome based on the satisfaction of human needs". If that's not democracy wtf is?[my bold]So, you agree that 'truth' will be produced by 'one person, one vote', and not by an elite?
mod1 wrote:Such a question makes me suspect you are either failing to understand what I've written, or even worst you have little idea on the implications and consequences of democratic socialism under the framework of Direct/Delgated Participatory Democracy. In this regard the determination of 'human needs' is arrived at through the agreed democratic process of the application for systematic project management. Hence, its not so much as the 'who' but how the community arrives at a democratic conclusion and outcome.[my bold]So, the 'community' is 'society', and not an elite?That is, the 'who' is 'society' and the 'how' is 'democracy'?If it isn't 'society' and it isn't 'democracy', you should be open and tell us both the 'who' and the 'how'.Or do you mean a democratic vote within an elite?I'm just trying to cover all the bases of what you might mean.I simply say that socialism will be the democratic control of production by the social producers. That, of necessity, includes any 'truths' that are produced.
Quote:Hence, its not so much as the 'who' but how the community arrives at a democratic conclusion and outcome.And i don't think we can state a priori how every society will determine those means. We can generalise and perhaps speak for ourselves but other places and regions possess different cultures and traditions on how decision-making is accomplished. In the UK, FGM will be regarded as child abuse and sanctions will be taken against it by local communities. In what way, i am prepared to leave it to those who possess the first-hand experience – not necessary solely experts and professionals but including some such as school and medical staff. The problem arises in parts of the world where it is prevalent. I can only conjecture that the current methods of education and offering sanctuary for those victims trying to escape it will continue. If armed force is used to impose the end of FGM it will be viewed as an "alien culture" and resisted leading to a conflict where the cure will be worse than the problem, driving it underground. We have to accept as we do with religious ideas, some traditions will die out gradually of their own accord and cannot be simply "abolished". The revolutionary process will be slower (or quicker) in different places.We have not got all the answers before us, just the draft of them that will be amended and adjusted and adapted by practice. The cliche that we use that socialism is not the panacea for everything that is wrong with society is nevertheless true.
ALB wrote:If it comes to elections I can think of a number of reasons for voting for somebody other than that they are an "expert" of some sort, e.g. sensible, level-headed, able to understand a problem, etc.Let's say we elect people to a council that is supposed to manage nuclear waste or something (just an example). Doesn't "understanding the problem" mean that these people must have "great skill or knowledge" about nuclear waste? Meaning that they are experts?
It is coincidental but i think the lead news story is pretty relevant to this debate on experts and controlhttp://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-40108558Was part of the problem the fact that he was not in a big NHS hospital with a separate bureaucracy and admin management but a small, private hospital?But i am always wary of two professions…doctors and lawyers…they deal with people's lives and are taught to be detached from personal emotion and involvement. It is why many become politicians
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.