[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

I keep telling you the answer to this question, alan:  the revolutionary, class conscious, democratic, proletariat.  This is Marx's view, too.

I'm sorry but you have offered no answer.I have proposed a few tentative suggestions on how this would be done in my replies, advancing actual proposals of how current decision-making can be further developed and widened to advance the will of the People.If you don't like the term "the People", because you see a nationalist connotation,  substitute humanity or humankind…but i recall these do not meet with your satisfaction, either. "to make way for the real will of the cooperative." I'm happy with Marx using cooperative so we can use it, if you so will insted of "social producers" which i also have no objection to, even if i have said it too is not perfect as it makes out that non-producers – young and old and sick – are excluded. (I note that has been repeated by another contributor, independently, just as we independently began to focus on your unique use of words and language to bolster your case) Proletariat (working class) defines a social relationship within capitalism. There is no red herring. Classes disappears inside socialism. For someone who insists upon using Marxian concepts correctly, you project that a proletariat will remain post-capitalism. Once more i quote this same article i have already cited from

Quote:

It can however only use such economic means as abolish its own character as salariat, hence as class. With its complete victory its own rule thus also ends, as its class character has disappeared…the class rule of the workers over the strata of the old world whom they have been fighting can only exist as long as the economic basis of class existence is not destroyed.

It's not Vin writing but Marx.As for my lack of insight into the more philosophical aspects of the discussion, it is neither here or there. To use that hackneyed phrase, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.". Perhaps the Socialist Party is wrong in its means and methods but nevertheless, the very obvious remains – it has a means and methods, a political strategy, for fellow-workers to examine and judge – you have not offered any route for change to take place. You remain a philosopher, not an agent or actor in the revolutionary process – another reason to describe you as conservatively-minded. 

[alanjjohnstone]

In the context of existing socialism, are you telling us that certain forms of what is deemed "democracy" will be imposed across the board upon everybody equally. If so who by? By what authority or body? If that is "politics", who is contesting who for what?Once more you seek to define language solely on your terms."Self-determined" in my usage is that people themselves will determine the means of how. The sentence can stand alone without the use of self-determined "Democracy will not be imposed but will be the result of the … will of those in socialism." if that is more to your liking. But perhaps it might be a bad choice of word since it echoes of national self-determination and we all know how pejorative terms can be when it comes to Marxist discussionAre you confusing the revolutionary period where the struggle for class power is still in progress?Whereas i am discussing an already established socialist society? Once socialism is up and running there is no proletariat as has been pointed out to you, there is no politics of any resemblance to how we use the concept today.I fear it is you yourself who cannot understand the extent of change in ideas and social practice that will take place. It isn't me who is guilty of believing  'things will remain much the same as now' but yourself.But you still haven't  indicate where in those posts (or the subsequent ones), i am adopting and applying Engels materialism to my views of what socialism will be.

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

The bit where you missed out that only the social producers can determine their product, and that the only acceptable political method for that determination is democracy.

I'm guilty of being an anti-socialist, not of what i said but what i never said.So let's see what i did say in these four messages.

Quote:

Democracy will be whatever it will be when it begins to be put into practice and it will express itself in a variety of manifestations of what is fit for purpose. Who knows how the will of people ends up being conducted and applied. It cannot be one size fits all.

Democracy will not be imposed but will be the result of the self-determined will of those in socialism. 

Quote:

Socialism will be pluralist and we will all be wearing different hats at different times. We possess the technological means to achieve this. And yes, a billion, 10 billion, can all vote on issues they consider of importance. And i'm not going to decide what they might consider of import or not. And just as a billion can vote, a billion can choose not to if they are not affected by the outcothere is no political parties and no classes in conflict for domination of society, i don't consider this to be politics.me of any decision…people in socialism will decide for themselves in whatever way they wish /quote] (my emphasis)That is the only acceptable political method of determining what is democracy. I maintained politics will come to an end with socialism.

Quote:

there is no political parties and no classes in conflict for domination of society, i don't consider this to be politics./quote] and i cited the authority of Marx for positing this.

Quote:

The character of the election does not depend on this name, but on the economic foundation, the economic situation of the voters, and as soon as the functions have ceased to be political ones, there exists 1) no government function, 2) the distribution of the general functions has become a business matter, that gives no one domination, 3) election has nothing of its present political character…

Not me but you had to back-track and correct yourself, widening the definition of politics

Quote:

 If 'politics' is defined as 'parliamentary' (or 'class') politics, then there is 'an end to politics'. If 'politics' is more widely defined as the social reconciling of 'disagreements, arguments, disputes', then there will be politics. You 'just don't consider this to be politics'. Fine by me. Change the name of 'politics' to 'reasoning it all out' or 'acceptable resolution', and the problem still remains. Who determines 'reason' and 'acceptable', and how?

 I was using the Marxian concept of politics, you were not and i clarified this with the additional remark 

Quote:

I think we can safely say that by "politics", i was not applying the term , for instance, to the phenomenon of "office politics".

You were using the term in such a way by confusing politics with "a business matter".I am accused of excusing myself with a ' i don't know" when asked who and how make decisions. Yet i answered the best anyone can do at this moment in time. I specuated that embryonic forms of democracy will be the basis and provided the example of this very political party. I also used another instance where i even acknowledged your own early contribution.

Quote:

How was a  planet defined and Pluto classified and then re-classified, for instance? By a vote. So scientific facts can be changed by what people vote upon as you originally said all those years ago. But not of the entire world but by the International Astronomical Union.

(my emphasis)I did add a caveat in that not just anybody got the vote, just as no-body can walk in off the street and take part in the deliberations of how work should be organised at a workers council meeting (BTW, as the chair of Conference, i once did just that, let some stranger who simply walked off the street to address the conference!) I cited Marx as supporting the view of democracy being relative and limited regards the conductor of an orchestra.Once more in #83 i emphasised that the actors in the workers' movement will determine its course.  

Quote:

People make history, not me, not you, other than being small elements of the general movement

It goes out of the way to dismiss an individualist interpretation of how history is made and remind us that it is a social movement, but i did later mention caveats.I may not have used your own favoured expressions but i explained where ideas came from

Quote:

Ideas come from society and its members and society develops from the mode of production – social production – if you like, but with important caveats. I see no conflict in what i wrote except in that you wish to make one, i simply argue that ideas simply don't fall from the sky but come "from somewhere", they arise from social relations and those are born of – primarily – the need to provide for society.

I did not say you claimed ideas fell from the sky but relating it to your accusation that i was inferring ideas came from matter. …no,  the rocks never told me about socialism, i directly said it was society and ideas in societies do not arise in a vacuum, they come from somewhere…from interaction. 

Quote:

they arise from social relations and those are born of – primarily – the need to provide for society.

So you say social producers, and i said social providers..tomaytoes and tomahtoes.Now where is my Engelsian materialism i am so guilty of, and where am i not qualified to style mysef as a socialist

[alanjjohnstone]

No. I won't let you steer this exchange to suit your agenda. I have posted 4 message in recent days. I want you to tell me in each and everyone where they were wrong, in the sense of being anti-socialist. Where in the text of what i actually posted were they presenting a fundamentally anti-socialist case? 

[alanjjohnstone]

Goldman Sachs's $128 billion in overall depositsJPMorgan with $1.4 trillion in deposits.Goldman hopes increasing its deposit base will help it boost profits if it can find ways to lend them profitably. The bank is looking to make further inroads into lending broadly across wealth management and investment banking, as businesses like trading struggle to generate the type of returns they once did.http://www.reuters.com/article/us-goldman-sachs-rates-idUSKBN18Y09Y

[alanjjohnstone]

Please indicate to me where i have been mistaken in what i have written, and show the evidence of the materialism i am being accused of perpetuating from these posts #67, #75, #81 and #83.    

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

Just to quote again from that article.Quote:'scientific socialism'……was only used in opposition to utopian socialism, which wants to attach the people to new delusions, instead of limiting its science to the knowledge of the social movement made by the people itself…….We've done this discussion to death elsewhere, alan, about Engels' false contrast of 'scientific' versus 'utopian'. It's nothing to do with Marx.

Quote:

If it has nothing to do with Marx, why did Marx write it?Ideas come from society and its members and society develops from the mode of production – social production – if you like, but with important caveats. I see no conflict in what i wrote except in that you wish to make one, i simply argue that ideas simply don't fall from the sky but come "from somewhere", they arise from social relations and those are born of – primarily – the need to provide for society. 

[alanjjohnstone]

I will happily accept the description, "i don't know" but i do make educated guesses but that is all they are. I am not advocating any pre-determined course for the future. People make history, not me, not you, other than being small elements of the general movement and as you know, from that famous Marx quote, we do so only within certain prescribed conditions.Others though have been more detailed. The IWW made a gallant attempt at proposing a new economic democracy with industrial unions and Fathers Haggerty Wheel. Is it applicable today? I think it has been supplanted or complemented but it makes a basis for discussion and debate. Something that may well be built upon…or simply passed over, due to events and expectations. (Parecon and Zeitgeist to a certain degree also share this non-historical approach)I certainly have not said "things will remain much the same as now" Nor have i inferred it. That is something you insist upon reading into what i am saying.What i am actually arguuing is that things will build upon and develop from what we do have now, and i think that is the Marxist analysis, that we are not system-model builders.  We accept what is socially useful within capitalism,eg its technology and we reject and discard what is not ie its power structure. We adapt and amend and adjust. Socialism is the next stage in humanity's evolution of society. It is not something invented anew. We transcend and we transform. This is not accepting things will be much the same as now. Simply acknowledging ideas come from somewhere.Just to quote again from that article.

Quote:

'scientific socialism'……was only used in opposition to utopian socialism, which wants to attach the people to new delusions, instead of limiting its science to the knowledge of the social movement made by the people itself.

[alanjjohnstone]

i should have known my reading of Marx wouldn't have been the same as yours, LBird. Nor Vin's other source.After all, i referred to this difficulty of agreeing meanings on this thread in message # 67. I think we can safely say that by "politics", i was not applying the term , for instance, to the phenomenon of "office politics". As for your question, who and how, i have answered this more than once. Not you or me but the future generation living and working inside socialism.And lacking the power of prophecy, i have only the barest speculation of which i have more than once said will vary according to circumstance, geography and tradition. I can only generalise with the broadest of brush-strokes. Despite its warts, the SPGB endeavour to reflect the best it can a structure and process of administration which we would expect to find being practiced in socialism – horizontal is the popular word, these days, bit more descriptive than democratic but entails being leader-free, but using delegation and all-member votes. And for many members, it is also random and a lottery in their choices, not being the most informed voters on every issue bu nevertheless holding that power of a jury…Even within our industrial developed countries, the production process differs from enterprise to enterprise so i doubt very much if the same structure of workers' council/committee will be identical from one industry to another. The size and scope of community administration means that they will be built differently to suit the needs of the community. We often discussed the role of the specialist and the professional and just how do they go around settling their debates. By conferences and seminars and conventions congresses where participants and anatagonists present papers until they reach a consensus.How was a  planet defined and Pluto classified and then re-classified, for instance? By a vote. So scientific facts can be changed by what people vote upon as you originally said all those years ago. But not of the entire world but by the International Astronomical Union. Many such bodies exist across every disciple, and there is no automatic democratic inclusion of anybody in them — you become a fellow or whatever and those excluded understand and accept the criteria of their non-membership and non-involvement. Discipline, strange word but i think it highlights the fact that there is no "anarchy" in knowledge and infers Marx's  and Engels' social status of authority figures the orchestra conductor and ship's captain or in my quoted extract, the factory manager/supervisor. They are endowed with the power of discipline !!!! 

[alanjjohnstone]

LBird you say

Quote:

Of course, 'politics' won't 'end when capitalism ends'. Politics has always existed, and will always exist, because power is a social phenomenon, and we have to learn to deal with social power.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm

Quote:

The character of the election does not depend on this name, but on the economic foundation, the economic situation of the voters, and as soon as the functions have ceased to be political ones, there exists 1) no government function, 2) the distribution of the general functions has become a business matter, that gives no one domination, 3) election has nothing of its present political character….the proletariat still acts, during the period of struggle for the overthrow of the old society, on the basis of that old society, and hence also still moves within political forms which more or less belong to it, it has not yet, during this period of struggle, attained its final constitution, and employs means for its liberation which after this liberation fall aside.

Isn't Marx saying here that this is the end of politics?I didn't say there would be an end to disagreements and an end of arguments. And no doubt proponents of a position will come together in organisations, as will their adversaries and they'll reason it all out among themselves.  These disputes will have to be resolved in a process acceptable to all. As there is no political parties and no classes in conflict for domination of society, i don't consider this to be politics.

[alanjjohnstone]

Ouch….touchy…Stop being so paranoid…If i was pointing the finger, it would be at the lot of you.I've said it repeatedly, no one is coming out of these exchanges with any credit and it's no longer constructive. It's trench warfare and you all keep digging yourself deeper. As for "debate", it has been going on for three fucking years…and only once or twice in that eternity has there been anything near a convergence of views. You can't even agree to disagree because you refuse to acknowledge what each-other are saying.For all the claims and counter-claims, i'm not sure anybody actually comprehends the others' position. Words don't seem to have any meaning for any of you.Democracy will be whatever it will be when it begins to be put into practice and it will express itself in a variety of manifestations of what is fit for purpose. Who knows how the will of people ends up being conducted and applied. It cannot be one size fits all.Nor will it be politics. Politics ends when capitalism ends. YMS reflects my own view. Socialism will be pluralist and we will all be wearing different hats at different times. We possess the technological means to achieve this. And yes, a billion, 10 billion, can all vote on issues they consider of importance. And i'm not going to decide what they might consider of import or not. And just as a billion can vote, a billion can choose not to if they are not affected by the outcome of any decision.My position is simple…people in socialism will decide for themselves in whatever way they wish and the SPGB won't be around to give or hold back its stamp of approval.The SPGB will be transformed long before socialism is achieved as we turn our rulebook and procedures into something appropriate for a mass class-wide socialist party when the political fuses with the economic. And when socialism is established and the threat of a recalcitrant capitalist reaction disappears, the working class disappears and so does the SPGB or whatever it has evolved into. People – or as Marx keeps reminding us- individuals become a free association, not a class.  

[alanjjohnstone]

I really thought we were reaching an agreement, even if there might have been a difference of emphasis…more fool me.And by no means am i apportioning blame on a particular person. It just depresses me that this discussion and debate isn't being fruitful. It's leading no-where. Cue for Song :- He's a real nowhere manSitting in his nowhere landMaking all his nowhere plans for nobodyDoesn't have a point of viewKnows not where he's going toIsn't he a bit like you and me?Nowhere Man, please listenYou don't know what you're missingNowhere Man, the world is at your commandHe's as blind as he can beJust sees what he wants to seeNowhere Man can you see me at all?Nowhere Man, don't worryTake your time, don't hurryLeave it all till somebody else lends you a handDoesn't have a point of viewKnows not where he's going toIsn't he a bit like you and me?Nowhere Man, please listenYou don't know what you're missingNowhere Man, the world is at your commandHe's a real Nowhere ManSitting in his nowhere landMaking all his nowhere plans for nobody

[alanjjohnstone]

The Banksters support Labour and Corbynhttp://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/jp-morgan-says-strong-labour-showing-in-vote-could-support-sterling-1.3107591

Quote:

 JP Morgan is suggesting a stronger Labour showing could, contrary to the prevailing market view, help support sterling. The rationale being that a centre-left coalition of Labour, the Scottish Nationalists and the Liberal Democrats would push Britain towards a softer Brexit, a better scenario for the UK economy in the bank’s view. JP Morgan strategists believe a Tory win, whatever the size, will see the country leave the single market and the customs’ union with negative consequences for UK trade.

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

The fact that even a few of our own members are questioning this is a sign of a change in the mood of critics of capitalism.

I misinterpreted the intent of your comment, ALB.If members have been taken in with the rhetoric and the new "possiblism" of a Corbyn left-wing government, there has indeed been a sea-change in the quality of the socialist understanding. It won't be a Party-wide discussion that is required but some basic classes in socialist politics needed

[alanjjohnstone]

Then i think we should offer our opinion in a constructive manner. Feed-back is important. A good idea but not very well executed when it comes to using shadows. But shows a promise of imagination for the future.Who is Peter Joseph could be one of my initial questions? …Is he that well-known to feature on the cover? He looks a bit like a religious leader…the name tag being mistaken for a crucifix…and all in black with that name…Is he a Jesuit 

[Author]

Posts