alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGtO60EzC6QA very effective video in my very humble opinion and i imagine not too difficult to make with the right computer software. Probably quite easy in fact. We could do extracts from Marx, Engel, Morris or whoever, suitable short extract of their more flowery speeches or writings But better still, even long dead and gone SPGBers if we have adequate pictures to animate. Fitzgerald and Anderson and the likes alive once more, giving the socialist case. Truly re-animated. We could even improve on the video example by using a few different pictures. Just require someone with a clear narrator's voice and accent no problem if we know how they sounded. Anderson was a Scot, wasn't he? Surely no copyright issues Maybe even trying matching existing audio tape of late members to their photos. Resurrecting the dead, so to speak. I know i won't follow it up…i know nobody else will…just an idea that will not be acted upon and not even discussed by those with the resources to organise it. I'm sure there are folk who know the ideal articles to narrate…or the exact excerpt from a tape we could re-use…
I genuinely not at all sure of this post. For sure it provides a one-sided account of the right-wing nationalist backlash against a problem that capitalism inadvertently created when they didn't appreciate fully the unintended consequences of their geo-political military interventions in. I don't succumb to the conspiracy theory the neo-cons of the Illuminati were planning all this to happen…They just lost control.Yes if there is to be humanitarian aid it has to be on the scale of Marshall Aid and the UN and all the NGOs keep calling for such a global response as a solution. The only thing stopping it is the political will. It is a perfectly manageable crisis. It is not some insurmountable challenge, not an impossible task. It has been done before. A million Pied-Noir from Algeria arriving in France, for example.Within days/weeks Hungarians fleeing the Russian tanks in 1956 and in the 70s Vietnamese boat people were farmed out to scores of countries by the receiving nations. With German unification, the Ossies migrating to what was West Germany was coped with, an insignificant and barely noticeable small tax created to pay for it.Much of your article concentrates on the religious aspects of the migration. Again UK have had Pakistanis and Bangladesh muslims for decades and now generations. Never perceived as a threat or a problem until the Middle East wars sparked off militant islam and then islamophobia …previously the xenophobia against UK immigration was simply racism against brown skins, i doubt religion ever featured much.
My take on the issue is what the media do not wish to discuss particularly deeply – is what is a political party in relation to parliamentary democracy.Unable to challenge Corbyn's credentials as a democrat within the Labour Party,(even if some failed attempts were made to raise the spectre of Trot entryism) they now say that a Labour Party MPs does not need to have the loyalty to the organisation that they joined and got them elected but their loyalty is to all their constituents, not even their voters, which raises the question why did the voters vote for them – personal attributes or because they were members of the Labour Party and that who they vote for – the party and not the person.I know library shelves have been written about this paradox. But the media seem very reluctant to debate and discuss it. I think from fear of just exactly where the arguments and conclusions will lead to. If the Labour MPs are not prepared to accept that they are the instruments of the party then they should be made to do the honourable thing – apply for the Chiltern Hundreds and stand as independents and, of course, without the wherewithal and resources of an organised political party, we all know what the likely outcome at the ballot box will be for 99% of them.I know members of our party have democracy and parliamentary procedure as their personal hobby-horse and are much more well-read and well-informed than myself but as we have done to a certain degree we should be pushing very strongly this aspect of the Labour party dilemma – it is a real question of Parliament, Democracy and Politics.
Out of the mouths of babes, as they sayBut let's be brutal.The media picked up the story for sentimental circulation reasons…it will have no political importance, whatsoever. It will go the way of the photo of dead Alan Kurdi – forgotten when the media moves on to its next feel-good story to pull the heart-strings.
Sorry, LBird but i have to persist. Who is the elite – the producers who claim control over the widgets or society who likewise insist upon control? Is this simply about confusion over definitions? "I argue that only the producers can decide about 'widget production'."Producers are everybody and not simply the widget-producers? Can we then narrow the decision making down a little more to now producers meaning those who make them but also those who will consume/use of the widgets. And do we agree that democracy is not always going to be everybody voting but that we do have delegate forms of decision-making, that we have fairly reliable polls which can determine support or not for a proposal, that we could simply have a jury system of randomly selected individuals to make decisions. As for pre-revolution, pre-socialist times, yes we do discuss class/class struggle/class war .And we recognise conflict can only be resolved by class victory in the political arena (primarily) but also equally important the economic organisation. And we don't mean nose-counting majority but an effective political majority when we say it has to be democratic.
Quote:Well, alan, if you can't tell the difference between power in the hands of the producers, and power in the hands of an elite, there's nothing further I can say that will convince you.I'm not really sure you have addressed my points, LBirdAre you saying the SPGB has it wrong when we argue against syndicalist/workers control/cooperatives/industrial unionism/nationalisation/municipalisation forms of ownership, LBird? Just what is common/collective/social ownership?Marx talks of association of producers…i think the emphasis is on the plural, not only of individual producers but more importantly of producing units. I'm arguing that production becomes the actual property of society – not merely of those that engage in the production. I know i am preaching to the converted but the position is that goods and services are socially produced and result from a world-wide division of labour. Production today is a complex social process. Even the simplest item like a pencil requires the direct and indirect labour of thousands of workers. Production today is a tremendously complicated social process: the production of any one item is intricately bound up with the production of all other items. An autonomous production unit is impossible. Socialism is a non-property system, and systems which accept and reject property cannot co-exist. Let us remind ourselves that socialism aims not to establish "workers power" but the abolition of all classes including the working class. In a socialist society, there would simply be people, free and equal men and women forming a classless community. That is the goal. Do the producers possess property rights over their means of production? Does their control over-rule everybody else's.Our goal is what some have called the “community of goods”; everything is to be made common property, everything will be everyone’s. “The association of free men who work with the means of production and who employ, following a concerted plan, their numerous individual forces as a single force of social labor … the work of freely associated men who act consciously and are masters of their own social activity”; “free and equal association of the producers”. You avoided my claim that the producers if they claim the sole right to control over production, they have usurped the democracy of the majority and have become an elite.I think what is crucial isn’t who is nominally in control, but whether the whole of society has control over the complete process of production and that involves the scientific and technocratic aspects of R and D and the study of the “pure” abstract science which often underlies it that I suggested with an earlier mention of the utility of CERN.I'm not really interested and i have said it numerous times of the abstract debate on whether people believe it is the sun revolves around the earth. It is when belief systems start interfering in people's lives that that makes some truths important. If the majority of people believe in supernatural powers and start burning witches for employing these powers, i begin to challenge that belief system by denying its truth. If you think that problem has disappeared, you havn't been reading about the murders of albinos for magical powers. Or even in this country when social services were stealing children from their parents because of satan worship. … I'm not going to sit back and accept the majority vote on what is real or not when it begins to encroach upon other peoples lives…Every election people vote for capitalism…TINA…i don't accept the "truth" of that – neither do you.
I really don't see any real big difference of viewpoint here and we all these years been arguing about angels dancing on a pinhead. Any bafflement, LBird, i think has been the avoidance of clear questions and clear answers.
Quote:We might all want to vote on the production of every last widget in every last factory – though I can't imagine 'why' we'd want to do so, but its not my individual decision, and in fact I'd argue against such time-consuming activity. If society determines that every last muscle movement in every individual shall be determined by a vote, then it will be. I'm a democrat, and so can't give any other answer, if I'm asked that question. A democratic society might decide to appoint a sub-committee to supervise widget production, but the members of that s-c would be delegates, and would have to report back to their appointers. I'm inclined to think that production would be subject to some division of labour (by choices, abilities and interests of the producers individually), by specialists (educated and elected by society), by delegates (controlled by mandates), by sub-committees (appointed from above), etc. Democracy in action.The above patching of your answer is i think will find little contention from the SPGBHowever these two statements will need elaborating upon
Quote:I argue that only the producers can decide about 'widget production' There can't be an elite who determine widget production, against the interests and purposes of society as a whole.You have to clarify those two contradictory statements.The SPGB long ago decided that one of syndicalism's (and cooperatives) failing was that it was not common ownership and collective control but sectional ownership and sectional control. "ONLY the PRODUCERS" excludes the community and society as a whole. It isn't social ownership, nor social control.What about pollution of the environment by a production unit. See my earlier post on contamination via GM as a highlight of the consequences of decision-making and how it may still result in undemocratic as seen by the out-voted. Isn't it going to be the wider community out-with the producers who determine how much to produce, when and where to send it. But even how to produce (my GM argument again on inadvertent "pollution")Regards your following statement – isn't the producers themselves functioning as an elite against society as a whole if they claim ownership of the production and of the production process. No SPGBer will ever disagree when you say “…I can't give details of how the democratic control of, say, widget production, will work in practice”…Apart from offering some generalisations as you have done.Nor when you say the interests and purposes of the delegates: “…if they differ from those of their appointers, would be over-ridden. That's political power, and it must be in the hands of the appointers, not the delegates…although we expect the appointees to possess a mandate from its constituents whatever that might be… clearly, its society that decides if their shall be a division of labour ('matter' doesn't decide for us), or specialists (they don't select and educate themselves as an elite), or delegates (they'll do what we tell them to do) or sub-committees (they won't form themselves, outside of our social power)…”Isn’t this something the debate we are already currently and perhaps a bit clumsily having within the forum on moderation and which as a non-member you are seeing develop and evolve into some sort of consensus?“…Clearly, if you had a different conception, and you and others outvoted me, your definition of 'democracy' would prevail…” The SPGB has said that there are around the world different versions of democratic structures already exist based on local traditions and history, so perhaps, there will be many times that you and ourselves will get out-voted on the form, but not the essence, of democracy.When we separate the wheat from the chaff, LBird, all this global voting for every scientific law or hypotheses that you are being accused of promoting, isn't what you really expect to happen and if it was suggested you would argue against it in practice as wasteful energy…
LBird, in the past you have described yourself as a proponent of workers councils. Usually, they have been or are advocated as a delegated structure from shop-floor to all-factory to local then regional and eventually global decision-making congresses for a particular industry and related industries, taking its instructions and receiving its mandate not just from its individual members but from the authority of the the rest of society.Surely, i am not expected to vote upon each and every aspect of the production and allocation of window-panes – that will be the responsibility of the glass manufacturers and the construction industry complying with society's request for new houses, with various designs asked for by different communities so not just quantity but quality is a requirement for this assortment of window-panes. There will be technological and building standards to comply with again i am not expected to vote on those but to delegate that responsibility to those with "insider" knowledge. I'm not going to quiz the science involved in the production of the different window-panes but simply expect them to match my needs and of course society's broader expectations on a few essentials…insulation for winter and heat-reflecting for the summer, for example…Those with the direct responsibility will be the architects and then the builders then the local housing association who ordered and set the initial criteria for the house and its windows. I'm not going to vote, am i ? Unless something goes wrong and the window glass technology is faulty and i begin to complain and join with others to strengthen the complaints to discover who is culpable…but even then a vote might not be required …Again i am not very good at analogies but what i am saying is that democracy doesn't require voting and i refer you to Robbo's article on allocation and Mises where there can a self-monitoring, a self-reporting, self-adjusting system of supply and demand.I don't vote on the number of cans of beans for my commune…nor do the food cooperative vote on how much to produce and send us but the bar-codes on the shelves will give that information. If the beans are too sweet or watery a sauce regular periodical consumer research survey of just a section of the bean eaters determines this and the need to change the recipe. Not everybody will vote on it. Anyways, i suggest that voting is not necessary the only way to apply the democratic principle. Deciding scientific "fact" "reality" "truth" will make use of these non-voting processes. I don't need to be involved as a person, i delegate to others the responsibility such as the surgeon who will remove my appendix, i won't resort to demanding a vote on the medical procedure but will be assured that his workers council (the Royal College of Surgeons) have reached a conclusion on the correct manner of the operation and that the other workers council the hospital board have kept the theatre clean having been supplied by the commune's public health committee's recommendations …so on so on so on…but it will be fully integrated and interlinked and connected in a clearer and simpler network…But again, LBird…are you saying i vote at every level, at every stage, on every point and that everybody else has to, as well…i don't think so…Even with computers, life is too complicated for that. Life is also too important to spend our time voting all the time on non-essential topics. I want the world to run with the minimum of direction …a little bit like my hopes for this forum as a moderator …
“And no I don't think he is demanding only the "right" to democratically decide such issues. How would such a right be activated anyway? Would it require a petition with a minimum number of signatures and who decides what is the minimum in a population of 7 billion people? Its all too silly for words.”This is indeed an important issue. How do we decide issues that may have global impacts.Right now, apart from climate change, there is GM food. (I don’t want to get into a debate on if or not it is harmful but purely on the hypothetical question on how do we decide if it is or not and whether as a technology it should be applied.)Who decides? And how do we decide. And how many of us decide. As Robbo suggests it is daunting task to ask every single person on the planet, especially when many won’t know the arguments or the implications for either choice. LBird is cautious about offering the technocrats the power to decide, even though they may well be the only ones who do understand the science behind GM, both for and against.How do scientists decide things, by discussion and debate, face-to-face meeting at symposiums and conferences with Q and A, placing papers for peer review and responding to counter-arguments. They do within their field democratically as workers, and normally reach a recommendation by majority opinion but usually almost unanimously. It is then presented to politicians as a recommendation and then politicians have the task of implementing those as a policy. How different under socialism? Firstly, we should be able to trust the research from the scientists much more once the monetary rewards are removed from the vested interest influences. The politicians are replaced by the global industrial/social forums of the union of workers councils and the federated communes. If they agree to the science then their task is to educate and convince the regional and local elected/delegated bodies.If the majority go with the anti-GM no serious issues arise. It is simply not used and an alternative method of growing plants is taken up, a second-best substituteBut if the agreed decision is pro-GM, we have now the problem of the minority who oppose it but unable to stop the effects of the majority’s choice. GM will be in the food and will trespass on non-GM crops.What I am asking is where does local/regional/worldwide voting extend to and stop at? Who does possess the mandate of democratic decisions inside socialism.Even with a plebiscite, we cannot have total democracy, can we? This why I found this Pathfinders article of interesthttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2005/no-1210-june-2005/pathfinders
Quote:“Collaborative filtering (CF) software technology is currently used on the internet where a crisis of choice already exists. Faced with a superabundance of products and services, CF helps consumers choose what to buy and navigate the huge numbers of options. It starts off by collecting data on an individual's preferences, extrapolates patterns from this and then produces recommendations based on that person's likes and dislikes. With suitable modification, this technology could be of use to socialism – not to help people decide what to consume, but which matters of policy to get involved in. A person's tastes, interests, skills, and academic achievements, rather than their shopping traits, could be put through the CF process and matched to appropriate areas of policy in the resulting list of recommendations. A farmer, for example, may be recommended to vote upon matters which affect him/her, and members of the local community, directly, or of which s/he is likely to have some knowledge, such as increasing yields of a particular crop, the use of GM technology, or the responsible use of land by ramblers. The technology would also put them in touch with other people of similar interests so that issues can be thrashed out more fully, and may even inform them that 'People who voted on this issue also voted on…' The question is, would a person be free to ignore the recommendations and vote on matters s/he has little knowledge of, or indeed not vote at all? Technology cannot resolve issues of responsibility, but any system, computer software or not, which helps reduce the potential burden of decision making to manageable levels would… capitalism’s drive to make its democratic forms look more participatory may be doing socialism’s work for it, so that in the future the technology to debate, dispute, appeal, complain, conference and vote will all be in place – at the touch of a phone button.”Anyways, a practical question to be posed to this thread
Quote:LBird wants to global population of a future communist to hold tens of thousands of plebiscites on the truth value of each and every new scientific theory that comes on stream.I don't want to put words into anybody's mouth but isn't his demand for only the right to democratically decide such issues.This is already being done obliquely today, of course, when you consider climate change and folk voting for political candidates and their policies that either endorse or deny the science behind it.In future won't there also be indirectly votes taking on the validity of science.Would we democratically decide the creation of the CERN project and devote so much resources to it …wouldn't there first be a debate on the social need for that science before going ahead with it? Would a peasant in India really say, okay according to Maslow's hierachy of priorities i wish to sacrifice my organic digesting energy producing toilet for something that will determine if faster than light neutrinos exist?Some will decide if actually finding or refuting a "scientific" fact is all rather irrelevant to actual….dare i say it..the reality of real life, here and now on the planet and what we are experiencing in this world, not in some other multiple universe if these exist…A bit like the argument about a non-intervention God…if he isn't making a presence felt — so what if there i one or not?Anyways, i return to what i always say…people will vote on science with their feet..so to speak…no-one will challenge the effects of gravity by leaping off from the top of a high building…when lots of people do and begin flying…i suggest that is a vote in favour of abolishing the law of gravity…. and those who are against abolishing may well point to the jumpers use of parachutes or gliders…Ridiculous analogy, re-reading that, but my point is that surely we do and must have the right of voting on science claims, despite if a the law of physics decides if it is valid or not…Surely we as people decide, not a laboratory experiment. Not exactly denying the actual science but simply being able to say…who cares. I know someone will claim the importance of abstract research which may very well produce some future concrete benefits or eventual implications for the "real" world that cannot be determined in advance…But do we really actually care a toot. We already have voted …by abstention = apathy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_mathematics
hmmmm…??Members of the Jehovah Witnesses – 8 millionWSM members – 500What do they say about the devil always has the best songs…and perhaps the better campaigning message?We could try the SPGB loves you approach
Reminds me very much of Richard Montague's story "The General Immunity Serum"Which can be read here. http://mailstrom.blogspot.com/2015/02/general-immunity-serum-short-story.htmlAnd, of course, Pieter Lawrence's book the Final Conflict with its tale of power-politics, economics and earth-colliding comets.Another spoof leaflet can be made of that book.."The end of the world is nigh.".."we are all doomed" …unless we are saved by socialism…the SPGB as the saviours of the planet…the Elected of the world, so to speak..Is there an argument for recruiting on the case similar to the JW and early christian eschatology and the coming apocalyse? Richard's book https://www.amazon.com/Within-System-Richard-Montague/dp/1412011191Pieters book https://www.amazon.com/Last-Conflict-Pieter-Lawrence/dp/1419647970
mcolome,you are perfectly right and i hold out the same invitation to contribute to the SOYMB blog to Robbo.
Lbird, you may be interest in this article – the medicalisation of racism.http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/37681-the-dangers-of-medicalizing-racism
Quote:racism is viewed as a matter of faulty wiring that can simply be corrected with medical intervention…Medicalizing racism has the added consequence of silencing cries for social justice. The message is clear: racism is to be fought at the psychiatrist's office, not in the streets. However, we do not need racism recovery, we need revolution. The prescription we need is for radical social change.
