Why capture political power, and what that involves?

[Young Master Smeet]

I may have to change my handle to Aunt Sally, but, I admit defeat, I cannot argue against the positions you have made up for me.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I may have to change my handle to Aunt Sally, but, I admit defeat, I cannot argue against the positions you have made up for me.

They're your words, YMS – you just don't seem to like what they imply being made plain.You want experts to make decisions, in both science and politics.I don't – I want workers to make democratic decisions, in both science and politics.That's a political difference between us. We should try to be clear about differences, rather than pretend that they don't exist.

[Young Master Smeet]

It seems, no matter how many times I say that I want the mass self-organised working class to take control of state institutions and run them through direct democracy, you still insist that secretly I'm planning for the technocratic élite under King Smeet.  You keep knocking down Aunt Sallies, it's a really effective way of persuading people to change their minds…

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

It seems, no matter how many times I say that I want the mass self-organised working class to take control of state institutions and run them through direct democracy, you still insist that secretly I'm planning for the technocratic élite under King Smeet.  You keep knocking down Aunt Sallies, it's a really effective way of persuading people to change their minds…

But as long as you refrain from saying openly that you want workers to democratically control physics and politics, and 'elect' the 'truth', then I suspect that either you're not being open with workers (and so that you do 'plan for a technocratic élite') or with yourself (and so that you are ignorant of the problems with the social production of knowledge, and their political implications).At least my clarity gives 'people' a chance to either agree or disagree with my views, but your lack of clarity about the extent of 'democratic control' leaves 'people' like me unsure of your politics.You say the words, but when pressed, refuse to confirm.

[Young Master Smeet]

I argue for the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.  I don't feel I need to be any clearer than that.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

I argue for the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.  I don't feel I need to be any clearer than that.

[my bold]So, you won't confirm that 'wealth' includes 'knowledge'?I have to conclude, then, that you do indeed want a 'technocratic élite' to control physics.

YMS wrote:

You keep knocking down Aunt Sallies, it's a really effective way of persuading people to change their minds…

If you say that my characterisation of you as wanting a "technocratic élite to control physics" is an Aunt Sally, but you 'don't feel the need to be any clearer', what am I supposed to conclude?I think you want to change the signs outside both the ministries and the research facilities, and leave the 'technocratic élite' to get on with their expert politics and physics, unmolested by workers and their democratic demands.At least robbo203 is open about their refusal to countenance 'democracy in truth production'. Why not be open, too?These are issues of political power, and I sense that, when push comes to shove, that those who look to 'experts' and denigrate workers' democracy, will take the side of an elite.

[SocialistPunk]

If we look at the discussion to date we see myself, YMS, LBird and Alan, still slogging it out, with three of us coming to similar conclusions regarding "the state" and its role in society.We still seem to have difficulty pinning down what "the state" is. So once more, from a socialist view we have the following. From the publication "An A to Z of Marxism".

Quote:

The state is essentially a coercive machine (police, judiciary, armed forces, schools, etc.) for conserving the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers in a geographical area. This puts us at odds with the views of the ‘pluralists’ who argue that power is (or should be) diffused throughout a plurality of institutions in society (trade unions, pressure groups, etc.) and that the state is neutral in relation to the class struggle. However, history shows how the state evolved:‘The ancient state was, above all, the state of the slave owners for holding down the slaves, just as the feudal state was the organ of the nobility for holding down the peasant serfs and bondsmen, and the modern representative state is an instrument for exploiting wage labour by capital’ (Engels, Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, 1884).Moreover, the state and its machinery of government will have no place in a socialist society:‘The society that organises production anew on the basis of the free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machine where it will then belong: in the museum of antiquities side by side with the spinning wheel and the bronze axe’ (Engels, Anti-Duhring, 1878).

Pretty straight forward then. Not really, as this snippet from the SPGB Declaration of Principles, number 6 suggests.

Quote:

 the working class must organize consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation,

So we're back where we started, with some believing an undemocratic system of coercion can be tamed and transformed into "the agent of emancipation" and others, myself included, believing that the agent of emancipation is the revolutionary working class itself, ie people. And that social organisation in a socialist society needs no state machinery to function.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

…and others, myself included, believing that the agent of emancipation is the revolutionary working class itself, ie people. And that social organisation in a socialist society needs no state machinery to function.

This is my position, too.But… I am aware that the "social organisation in a socialist society" must be democratic, and thus must have some coercive powers which might be used against those deemed opposed to democratic controls (property owners, individualists, criminals, the insane, etc.).These 'powers' of a democratic structure cause that structure to be defined as a 'state' by at least some anarchists.We shouldn't shrink from being open about the necessity for 'coercive authority' existing for every society, and that is the reason that we stress 'democracy', rather than 'individualism'.All must have a say in the decisions of their society – but the notion of 'complete freedom' from social controls is a bourgeois myth. We are social animals, and our freedom is a social freedom to participate in society's decisions, not an individual freedom to ignore society.Production is social, not individual. And the 'revolutionary working class' is the agent (singular), and not 7 billion individual agents.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

…and others, myself included, believing that the agent of emancipation is the revolutionary working class itself, ie people. And that social organisation in a socialist society needs no state machinery to function.

This is my position, too.But… I am aware that the "social organisation in a socialist society" must be democratic, and thus must have some coercive powers which might be used against those deemed opposed to democratic controls (property owners, individualists, criminals, the insane, etc.).These 'powers' of a democratic structure cause that structure to be defined as a 'state' by at least some anarchists.We shouldn't shrink from being open about the necessity for 'coercive authority' existing for every society, and that is the reason that we stress 'democracy', rather than 'individualism'.All must have a say in the decisions of their society – but the notion of 'complete freedom' from social controls is a bourgeois myth. We are social animals, and our freedom is a social freedom to participate in society's decisions, not an individual freedom to ignore society.Production is social, not individual. And the 'revolutionary working class' is the agent (singular), and not 7 billion individual agents.

This is an interesting point for it introduces a very interelated subject, namely:  how does a DPD enforce its democratic authority onto a minority?  If the power of persuasion fails to bring a violent recalcitrant minority into line we'll have no alternative other than to take measures against them.  And we have never shrinked from saying that we are opposed to the view adopted by some anarchists that an individual is above what a majority in a socialist society decide. Nevertheless, when asked what these 'measures' will amount too in practice, we have always responded that will be up to socialist society.  And to go any further than that is pure speculation.  Yes LBird you are in agreement with us, in that there will never ever be 'complete freedom' from the authority of society.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

This is an interesting point for it introduces a very interelated subject, namely:  how does a DPD enforce its democratic authority onto a minority?  If the power of persuasion fails to bring a violent recalcitrant minority into line we'll have no alternative other than to take measures against them.  And we have never shrinked from saying that we are opposed to the view adopted by some anarchists that an individual is above what a majority in a socialist society decide. Nevertheless, when asked what these 'measures' will amount too in practice, we have always responded that will be up to socialist society.  And to go any further than that is pure speculation.  Yes LBird you are in agreement with us, in that there will never ever be 'complete freedom' from the authority of society.

[my bold]It's nice to have some point of agreement with the party, for a change!I'll bask in it, whilst it lasts……… All we have to agree to next is that no 'individual' elite, expert scientist will be allowed to dictate 'truth' to us, eh? And claim that they have a special, politically-neutral method that is not amenable to democracy – usually because they claim that 'the rocks talk to them'.As you say, 'there will never be 'complete freedom' for physics from the authority of society'. '[hu]Man[ity] is the measure of all things'.

[SocialistPunk]

Well LBird, it looks as though no members of the SPGB here want to discuss the points raised by either of us regarding the transformation or abolition of "the state", in the event of a successful socialist.Oh well, such a shame, especially as some bright spark stated that my points would be destroyed by the collective "we", as if I were an enemy. When in fact I'm here to learn.Anyway, I agree that there would need to be some democratic "authority" under socialism. How else would society be able to protect itself from rapists, paedos and the like. I'm not some idealist who thinks a socialist revolution would bring about a perfect society of love and harmony.I followed the previous discussions of yours regarding democracy and how far it should extend. So seeing as it is a related topic, I was hoping you could put some meat on the bones regarding how you see such extensive democracy functioning? 

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Anyway, I agree that there would need to be some democratic "authority" under socialism. … I followed the previous discussions of yours regarding democracy and how far it should extend. So seeing as it is a related topic, I was hoping you could put some meat on the bones regarding how you see such extensive democracy functioning?

I regard 'democracy' as the eternal search for a new minority opinion to oppose the old majority opinion.The cultivation and stimulation of the new is the basis of advance in science and politics, in opposition to those who think science produces 'The Truth', a 'mirror image' of 'reality', or that elite politicians 'know better' than the majority which is the seedbed of the minority.That is the death of both science and democracy.I'm not sure if this counts as 'meat on the bones', but I can't think of anything more of an 'extensive democracy' than 'electing the truth'.Whilst workers refuse to 'elect the truth', they'll be in the hands of an elite minority.And the 'materialists' have ensured that workers don't believe that the proletariat has the potential to 'elect the truth'.'Matter' can't be elected; but 'knowledge of matter' can.I'm aware that this response is a bit philosophical, but unless we get the 'theory' sorted out, we can't even imagine moving onto the 'practice' of proletarian democracy.

[DJP]

SocialistPunk wrote:

So we're back where we started, with some believing an undemocratic system of coercion can be tamed and transformed into "the agent of emancipation" and others, myself included, believing that the agent of emancipation is the revolutionary working class itself, ie people. And that social organisation in a socialist society needs no state machinery to function.

I don't think there's much to discuss since the DOP states ""That this emancipation must be the work of the working class itself". So we all agree that the agent is the working class.You just seem to be confusing yourself by muddling 'agents' with 'structures'. Yes their will be no 'state machinery' in socialism (that is there will be no body that exists as a structure seperate to and above the whole of society) but there will still be a need for some kind of structure so that the democratic co-ordination of production and consumption can happen. Otherwise it will not be socialism.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

…that is there will be no body that exists as a structure seperate to and above the whole of society…

Of course, for you, there will be.You consider 'matter' (or, 'the physical') to be outside of democratic control, because you believe that 'scientists' have an access to 'matter' that is individual and expert, and that can't be voted upon, or understood by the majority.Therefore, you do want a "body that exists as a structure separate to and above the whole of society": you won't have knowledge produced by a body of physicists 'connected to and under' the democratic control of 'the whole of society'.You have your faith in the Latin-Priests and Maths-Physicists.Revolution must be based upon the translation of the bible into English and the breaking of the political power of priests, and the translation of maths-physics into English and the breaking of the political power of physicists.[Hu]Man[ity] is the measure of all things. In a socialist society, humanity's measuring must be democratic. Not the 'measuring' by an expert elite.Marx warns against this in his Theses on Feuerbach.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

DJP wrote:

…that is there will be no body that exists as a structure seperate to and above the whole of society…

Of course, for you, there will be.

You're confusing me with comrade Strawman again. But like I said a while back 'discussing' with you is a waste of my time.

[Author]

Posts