On Marx's Definition of Economics.
- This topic has 88 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote: ““[robbo203 wrote:] In this, as in other matters, there is always a “Golden Mean” ”
New to the expression. I assume it is related to the Buddhist “Middle Way” ”
That’s about the long and short of it, alan. A return to god or ‘The Absolute’, a final arbiter, a supreme authority, which is outside of the political control of humanity.
Of course, we both know that there is no ‘Golden Mean’, it’s a invention of humans, and those humans intend to be the ones to ‘interpret’ just what the ‘Golden Mean’ says.
The political outcome, as usual, will be robbo and his political supporters insisting that they, and they alone, have access to the ‘Golden Mean’, and that the vast majority of humanity will have to simply bow down to the authority of the ‘Golden Mean’. robbo will simply return like Moses with these ‘rules’ from the ‘Golden Mean’, and will thus have to enforce them, over and above the wishes of the vast majority, because otherwise the vast majority would simply override what robbo alleges that the ‘Golden Mean’ has said.
Only a society in which we, humanity, democratically determine what ‘The Golden Mean Says’, will equate to ‘democratic socialism’.
robbo simply wants an elite in political control of the vast majority. No doubt, they’ll be called ‘The Specialists’. And they’ll have ‘Special Needs’. The need for armed ‘Specialists’, to enforce The Word of the majesty, ‘Golden Mean’.
Only a society in which we, humanity, democratically determine what ‘The Golden Mean Says’, will equate to ‘democratic socialism’.
robbo simply wants an elite in political control of the vast majority. No doubt, they’ll be called ‘The Specialists’. And they’ll have ‘Special Needs’. The need for armed ‘Specialists’, to enforce The Word of the majesty, ‘Golden Mean’.This is nonsense LBird. I was very clear in stipulating what I meant by the “Golden Mean” (a term which, BTW Alan, I think goes back to the Ancient Greeks) in the context of this discussion. I meant having a degree of democratic decision-making that falls somewhere in between “too much” and “too little”. That’s all.
You LBird apparently want a world in which the totality of production decisions will be made by the total population of “social producers”. That’s obviously absurd and completely unworkable. There are billions of decisions that need to be made each and every day and there is clearly no way in which these could be handled except through disaggregation, delegation and devolution. That is, by setting up a polycentric system of decision-making which enables , for example, local communities and individuals to make the great bulk of those billions of daily decisions that need to be made in any kind of advanced social system.
That is the only realistic and practical option on the table. Yet you seem to be opposed to the very principle of polycentric decision-making which by implication means you seem to support the principle of unicentric planning instead (I say “seem to” because I honestly dont think you understand the implicaions of what you are saying at all). In apparently supporting the idea of society-wide central planning – one single centre and one single giant plan for the whole of society – you are actually supporting something that will absolutely crush and destroy any vestige of democracy whatsoever
The great irony is that the very thing you advocate – society wide planning – will absolutely ensure the emergence of an “elite in political control of the vast majority” . The logistical impossibility of securing the democratic participation of everyone in the BILLIONS of daily decisions that need to be made will inescapably mean an elite taking over and making the decisions “on behalf of the social producers”. There is no way round this.
I find it a little strange then that you should say, “Robbo simply wants an elite in political control of the vast majority” when, for example I have been vociferously supporting the right of the individual in socialism to freely chose , as Marx recommended, what work they did whereas you by implication want to deny that individual the right to make any such choice and impose a compulsory division of labour on him or her from above in accordance with the single giant plan. Similarly you are the one who talked about “disbanding” local communities and negating their ablity to make local decisions in the face of some vague totalitarian notion of “democracy” which obliterates any opposition to the supposed “will of the people”.
That’s not democracy LBrd. That is the very opposite of democracy that you are espousing but frustratingly you can’t seem to see this!
robbo203 wrote: “…I have been vociferously supporting the right of the individual…“. [my bold]
Indeed, you have, robbo.
That’s what I’ve always accused you of doing.
Whereas, I have been vociferously supporting the right of social individuals.
Which, politically, equates to democracy.
You’re a Liberal, defending the rights of ‘the individual’, to ignore the rights of the productive collective of which you are inescapably a part.
I’m a Democratic Communist, defending the rights of the social producers, to democratically override the isolated wishes of ‘the individual’ (which is a bourgeois concepts of ‘rights’).
If you want your ‘individual wishes’ acted upon, robbo, you’ll have to convince your collective to agree. If the social producers (of which you’ll be one) disagree with your interpretation of your wishes/interests/needs/purposes/aims, then the democratic majority will prevail.
I can’t say this enough, but I regard ‘socialism’ as a form of society in which social production is democratically controlled. ‘Democratic Socialism’ isn’t the realisation of the bourgeois myth of ‘Individual Freedom’.
The sooner your party clarifies these issues of ‘power’, the sooner you’ll all be clearer about the political answers you should give, when asked these political questions.
Indeed, you have, robbo.
That’s what I’ve always accused you of doing.
Whereas, I have been vociferously supporting the right of social individuals.LOL LBird So Marx too must count as a bourgeois individualist, according to you. I quote again from that famous passage in the German Ideology:
For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”
Marx is very clearly advocating that INDIVIDUALS should be able to chose what sort of contribution they make to a socialist society. That in your book makes him a bourgeois individualist too. Which shows you dont understand what “bourgeois individualism” means. Being able, or wanting, to choose does not make you a bourgeois individualist. Individuality is not the same thing as individualism and there is always a two way interrelationship between the individual and society which pristine bourgeois individualist theory denies (hence the 17th/18th myth of the “social contract”). Holism which is effectively what you advocate (there is no such thing as individuals) is just as suspect as individualism (there is no such thing as society)
The fact is you dont seem to want anyone or any entity smaller than the totality of human society – the-social-producers-in-general , nearly 8 billion of them – to be able to make any decisions of their own accord. Every one and every entity must subordinate themselves to, and subsume themselves within, the General Will, according to you. You want to eliminate the very thing that makes democracy possible and necessary – differences of opinion
Not only is this utterly impossible – it is clearest definition of insanity to suggest that nearly 8 billion inhabitants should democratically participate in making the billions of decisions that need to be made every day to run a modern system of production – but even if we went only a quarter way down that road to utter madness, the outcome would be the most complete expression of a system of totalitarian fascism I can think of
I still dont seriously believe that you actually believe the nonsense that you are spouting LBird. You have never once attempted to grasp the insuperable practical problems that the concept of society wide planning would actually entail even if in theory it could be implemented. You forever skirt around the issue and, that in itself is vey revealing.
I think you are basically just clinging to a form of words, a mode of expression that appears to come across as “Marxist” because that fits in with your prejudices (“Im a democratic communist” is your constant refrain). But you dont seem willing to go beyond the words to look at the actual arguments. Pity.
robbo203 wrote: “I still dont seriously believe that you actually believe the nonsense that you are spouting LBird.”
Why is it that almost everyone in the SPGB, and its supporters, seem incapable of having a political discussion, without resorting to personal abuse?
In the past, I’ve made the error of replying in kind (wrongly assuming that, by my ‘experience’, the SPGB allows that sort of debate), but I’ve learned that the SPGB moderators will discipline me, alone, and that the SPGB originators of the personal abuse are not subject to the same sanctions.
So, I can’t use the same political and ideological methods that are employed by the SPGB, when their party is subjected to political criticism. I have to remain quite.
Perhaps it gives us all a taste of robbo’s real political methods, which would be employed in his version of ‘Individualist Socialism’.
You still haven’t explained how this ‘Golden Mean’ would ‘speak’ to the associated social producers, without your active participation in explaining ‘what the Golden Mean says’.
I openly say that the ‘Golden Mean’ within democratic socialism, will be freely determined by the social producers, after discussion and debate, and a democratic vote. And I predict, just as Marx warned, that your elite would claim that the ‘Golden Mean’ speaks only to you, and that you are merely passively repeating what ‘it’ says. Marx warned this will split society into two parts, with the smaller part claiming power.
You daren’t say that about ‘Democratic Golden Mean’, because it would place ‘power’ into the hands of the vast majority within democratic socialism, and you constantly deny that democratic methods would be employed in your version of ‘social production’.
Please try to be civil, robbo, in your answers, this is a site open to other socialists and interested workers. The SPGB aspires to influence workers, not to denigrate them, both personally and politically.
Marx, as quoted by robbo203:
“…society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me…”
Society ‘makes possibilities’ for all individuals.
Democratic control of social production will produce our possibilities.
A member of the Socialist Party makes a question about Marx’s definition of Economics, and right away it became a cocks fights, instead of helping the members to clarify his doubts. That is one of the reasons why so many peoples do not participate in this forum. Many Marxist-Leninist Parties help their members to educate themselves on Economics, Political science and Philosophy, and they have study group, they don’t have cocks fights
“Why is it that almost everyone in the SPGB, and its supporters, seem incapable of having a political discussion, without resorting to personal abuse?”
Are you including my good self in that charge, LBird? 😈
But you do realise that this exchange has been going on and on in numerous threads and countless posts for now…oh, how many years is it now…
Frustration does sometimes get the better of individuals when they believe they are hitting their head against a brick wall.
There must be a time to agree to disagree and shift the exchanges to topics where we do hold consensus views.
This discussion sounds like a broken record, the same thing has been repeated for many years, and every thread takes a different course. Personally, I am tired of this shit already, The future society is not going to be decided by Marx, Engels, Luxembourg, or whatever, or any guru, or even the SPGB, it is going to be decided by the world working class, and we do not know what form it is going to be adopted, they only ones who have made a blueprint of the future society were the Bolsheviks and everything fell apart. We do not need any a Marx or an Engels, we need a coherent socialist theory of real liberation. Like a person that I knew many years ago used to say: When they move ( the working class ) they move, the question is: Are you going to be ready when they move ? ( I have been ready for many years ) The socialist revolution is going to find many theoreticians seating in a rocking chair or under a bed. We only have two solutions: The ballot or the bullet
alanjjohnstone wrote: ”
[LBird wrote: ]“Why is it that almost everyone in the SPGB, and its supporters, seem incapable of having a political discussion, without resorting to personal abuse?”
Are you including my good self in that charge, LBird? 😈”
Funnily enough, alan, I did think of specifically excluding you from my condemnation, but I think even you, too, have succumbed to this frustration. So, I left it at ‘almost’. 🙂
alanjjohnstone wrote: “There must be a time to agree to disagree and shift the exchanges to topics where we do hold consensus views.”
The problem here, alan, is that I’d assume that ‘democratic socialism‘ is the very basis of a ‘consensus view’ in the SPGB.
But, it seems that, literally, I’m the only one who defends ‘democracy’ – and I consciously include you as one who, like the rest, defends ‘science’, or ‘specialists’, or ‘matter’, or ‘reality’, or ‘material conditions’… almost everything except ‘democracy’.
That is, in terms of defending the organised power of the associated social producers (what I’d call, within capitalism, the ‘proletariat’ or the ‘working class’), and Marx’s commitment to the self-emancipation of that class by democratic methods, I’m defending what most democratic socialist thinkers for the last 150 years would call a ‘consensus view’.
Why do you think I’m the one who appears to be out of step with the current SPGB? What’s the political, philosophical, ideological difference between us?
Marquito wrote “The future society is not going to be decided by Marx, Engels, Luxembourg, or whatever, or any guru, or even the SPGB, it is going to be decided by the world working class…”
But that’s precisely what I keep arguing, Marquito.
But most others here keep insisting it’s going to be decided by … ‘material conditions’, or ‘specialists’, or ‘science’… and I think you’ve defended these too, in preference to ‘the world working class’.
Furthermore, I also insist (and I believe that I’m following Marx here) that ‘the world working class’ must politically organise on a democratic basis, and that by their own self-emancipation, they themselves will determine ‘material conditions’, ‘specialists’, ‘science’… and all other social products, like physics, maths, logic, truth, etc.
Furthermore, I also insist (and I believe that I’m following Marx here) that ‘the world working class’ must politically organise on a democratic basis, and that by their own self-emancipation, they themselves will determine ‘material conditions’, ‘specialists’, ‘science’… and all other social products, like physics, maths, logic, truth, etc.
This is not the issue LBird. The SPGB fully accepts the need for the world’s working class to politically organise on a democratic basis and in doing so, democratically lay the foundations of a post capitalist world. The argument is rather about the nature of the post capitalist world they will set up
On the face of it, you seem to be arguing that, in this post capitalist world, all decisions relating to production will be channelled through one single global organ of decision-making. Local communities and individuals will NOT be able to make decisions on their own. You, for example, as a individual will not be able to decide what kind of work you wanted to do. You would be told what to do in accordance with Society’s Grand Plan and assigned a particular task and hours of work, which “society” has seen fit to assign you after “democratically” consulting everyone (nearly 8 billion people)
I’m sorry if you take offence at me dismissing this is idea as utter nonsense. But that is what it is, I’m afraid. This is not intended as a personal insult so please dont take it the wrong way….
Even if the world’s working class wanted to introduce this particular model of planning – unicentric as opposed to polycentric planning – and democratically voted for it, it would not be able to. Its on a par with democratically voting to abolish the law of gravity, frankly.
The frustrating thing about you, LBird, is that every time I press you to clarify whether or not you actually endorse this particular model of literal society wide planning, you equivocate and revert back to vague references to Marx about “social production” as if this settles the matter. But I’m afraid it does not settle the matter. In any case this appeal to the authority cuts no ice with me. If Marx did actually advocate society wide planning along the above lines then I would say without hesitation, that he was talking complete bunkum. Marx is not some sort of god whose every word we must hang on to out of some kind of religious awe. He made mistakes like everyone else
As a matter of fact I dont think Marx did advocate society wide planning and particularly after the Paris Commune he more explicitly identified with a decentralised model of socialist society, as do I . His views on the division of labour clearly demonstrate , as I pointed out, that he fundamentally favoured the idea of individual choice as integral to the very nature of a socialist society itself. The freedom to choice what kind of work you do goes hand in hand with the voluntaristic nature of labour under socialism. Its got sod all to do with “bourgeois individualism”
So I ask you one more time – do you favour a polycentric system of planning for socialism or a unicentric system. Could you please answer this question directly and without equivocation so we can draw a line and move on to a more productive discussion about the nature of democracy in socialism
This forum has over 2000 topics…(probably 1999 begun by myself, but I jest).
Do I believe in a division of labour? Yes. Do I accept the authority of specialists. Yes.
After all isn’t it Greta Thunberg who is just through telling elected politicians to accept the scientist’s findings and produce policies that produce their recommendations.
‘I don’t want you to listen to me, I want you to listen to the scientists,’ she said at a House hearing last Wednesday, ‘I want you to then unite behind the science – and then I want you to take real action.’
But does that mean I accept the tyranny of the technocrats? Of course not and I think such is a false dichotomy.
I acknowledge Bakunin’s contribution on this issue.
“A scientific body to which had been confided the government of society would soon end by devoting itself no longer to science at all, but to quite another affair; and that affair, as in the case of all established powers, would be its own eternal perpetuation by rendering the society confided to its care ever more stupid and consequently more in need of its government and direction…
…Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognise no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.”
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/authrty.htm
Similarly when it comes to Engels On Authority he refers to a ship’s captain,
“But the necessity of authority, and of imperious authority at that, will nowhere be found more evident than on board a ship on the high seas. There, in time of danger, the lives of all depend on the instantaneous and absolute obedience of all to the will of one.”
I am very much reminded of the pirates creed to how a captain is elected. I refer you to one of my Socialist Standard articles.
But just as apt is how a war chief of the American Indian is deposed. They stop following him and go home. But for you such a vote by the feet is
“alanjjohnstone wrote: “The freedom will be that the student can stop attending the lessons and lectures…”
Ah, the old bourgeois myth about ‘individual freedom’!”Marx himself recognized the need for a unifying specialist – the orchestra conductor.
“…A single violin player is his own conductor; an orchestra requires a separate one….”
I’ve tried to argue that there is no one-size-fit-all in the way we will administer socialist society. The world has too many diverse expressions of the popular will to declare one version the template for all. Workers councils was one version in one period of time in one particular region. Syndicalists and Industrial Unionists develop their own forms of industrial democracy. I actually believe that when the social revolution springs forth, social democracy will be exercised by the letting a thousand flowers bloom and we will choose the best suited for whatever situation or circumstance we are seeking to administer. Some choices will be mistakes and require rectifying. Some options will need adapted and adjusted a bit more. Who will decide those. The people it directly affects – the people actually on the ground.
As Robbo pointed out in reply to me, I ambiguously presented society in the abstract. I actually seek to think in more concrete specific concepts. Just as I have often referred you to the practice of democracy inherent within the SPGB and how it expresses itself on this forum. We have a party poll to control and instruct the Party, but we delegate certain functions such as a forum moderator to carry out the will of the Party. We can remove him or her at any time of our choosing. Equally he can resign the duty whenever he or she wishes to.
robbo203 wrote: “On the face of it, you seem to be arguing that, in this post capitalist world, all decisions relating to production will be channelled through one single global organ of decision-making. Local communities and individuals will NOT be able to make decisions on their own.”
robbo, over the years, I’ve answered this, time and time again. So much so, that I’ve been ignoring your ‘on the face of it’ personal political and ideological interpretation of ‘what LBird says’. I’ve long ago tired of trying to correct you, and have changed tack to simply say what I say, and leave it to other posters to ask questions/ for clarification, etc.
But since we seem to be going through (what for this site is) a relatively grown-up period, I’ll try again. Here goes.
This is a political, philosophical and ideological issue. It relates to ‘power’ within ‘democratic socialism’, and thus, I would argue, to the political process of building for socialism within our present society. I believe that the political (etc.) basis that we employ now, will be the same in any future society. That is, if undemocratic methods are used (say, like the Leninists employed in Tsarist Russia), then clearly those same methods would be employed in any society that emerges from that process (that is, Soviet Russia).
So, all social production must be democratic. I’ll say that again: ALL SOCIAL PRODUCTION MUST BE DEMOCRATIC.
Clearly, democracy works on all levels, and in all areas/disciplines.
If, for example, the inhabitants of a street decide to paint all of their houses with white paint, and this decision is democratic, then the houses all get painted with white paint.
But… what if a single household, within the collective, disagrees, and wants a green house? Or, if the district within which the street is located, traditionally paint the whole district blue?
These objections, both from within/below the body and without/above the body, must be resolved by a body that encompasses all the disputants. But this might be a regional body, and another region objects to that region’s decision. On so on, wider and wider.
Of course, the vast majority of decisions will be taken at an appropriate circle without any problems, but any questions as to the ‘appropriateness’ of any given circle, from within or without, would be referred to a wider circle.
Clearly, in political terms, there has to be a ‘final authority’, and that ‘supreme appeal’ can only be to humanity itself. There can’t be any ‘elites’ within social production who allocate to themselves an authority to override the democratically expressed wishes/interests/needs/aims/purposes of the circle (production unit) within which they sit.
This, of course, is a political declaration that can be adopted during the building of democratic socialism. Equally, it can be argued with, and ‘elites’ will be allowed to determine for themselves, outside of the democratic determination of the associated producers. But I would argue that would go against Marx’s argument that the emancipation of the proletariat must be the conscious act of themselves, not any ‘elite’. This issue clearly must be discussed. If there are those who argue for ‘elite determination’, then they should say that that is their aim, and not ‘democratic determination’.
So, ‘decentralisation? Fine. ‘Localism’ Fine. ‘Individual Choice’? Fine. ‘Polycentres’? Fine.
But ‘decentral’, ‘local’, ‘individual choice’ and ‘polycentres’ don’t have the final say. Humanity does. And its political method is democracy.
This is a question of ‘power’, and ‘who wields it?’. Since ‘socialism’ will still be a mode of social production, ‘power’ will still exist. I’m not an ‘anarchist’, but a ‘democrat’.
If you disagree with me, robbo, all fine and good. But you must explain your view of ‘power’ within ‘democratic socialism’. If you think that socialism will involve 7 billion sovereign bodies (ie. each individual, doing their ‘own thing’, without ‘the nanny state’ (as individualists characterise any ‘social authority’), untrammelled ‘freedom’), I respectfully disagree. I think that there will still be a ‘social authority’, which will determine ‘social production’. We have to all be a part of that social authority.
How will we resolve such disagreements during the building of democratic socialism?
alanjjohnstone wrote: “…we delegate…”.
My entire political point, alan.
WE delegate. And WE undelegate.
WE need an ‘orchestra conductor’? Pilot? Advisor? Fine – we delegate.
But… does the ‘orchestra conductor’ determine which music we must listen to, because, well, they’re the conductor?
Does the pilot determine the destination of our flight, so, even though we wish to holiday in Venice, the pilot prefers a beach, so ‘we fly’ to the Spanish coast?
Does the advisor determine the correctness of their advice, Or do we?
My political problem, alan, is those who argue that the ‘delegate’ should be a ‘representative’, and that the ‘representative’, being an ‘expert’, should have the final say.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.