[ALB]

Of course in socialism power will be in the hands of the people. I am just saying that, inevitably given the number of people involved and the large number of decisions to be made, some of this will have to be delegated to elected, accountable and recallable delegates. That's still democratic control. It is just inconceivable that most decisions could be made by direct democracy (whether a general assembly or internet voting). So there will have to be elected councils including regional (ex-national) ones.I don't care where the regional council for the British Isles (which, presumably, will form a regional unit of world socialism if only because all its inhabitants will be English-speakers) meets. It wouldn't have to meet in one place but could rotate between different places. I don't care either what it's called. The basic point that I'm trying to make is that there will have to be such a council, whether directly elected or composed of delegates from councils covering smaller regions within the British Isles.When we had a debate with some anti-parliamentary socialists (insofar as they too stand for a classless, stateless, moneyless world) in Birmingham last year, they argued that even local councils should be dissolved and replaced by "workers councils" that would spring up in the course of the socialist revolution. That's a possibility but I don't see why this has necessarily to be the case.The establishment of socialism/communism is not the implementation of some ideal scheme to reconstruct society from scratch. Quite apart from the fact that that's not how history happens, there is bound to be some institutional continuity between capitalism and socialism, especially in the early days. So some institutions which existed under capitalism will continue into socialism, though obviously in a modified form. I suggest that, unless the revolution is completely chaotic, local councils could be one of these.I think the idea of replacing every existing institution under capitalism by something new arises from the experience of what happened in Russia in 1917. The workers did have to create makeshift local decision-making bodies then (as they had done too in 1905) because Tsarism had been an autocracy which didn't allow the existence of more or less democratically-elected local councils. But we are not in this position today and probably won't be in the future. The Russian revolution of nearly a hundred years ago has never been a useful model for a real socialist revolution. Anyway, one of the demands of the Russian revolutionaries was for the election of a country-wide Constituent Assembly (is that any good for a new name!)

[ALB]

Don't panic. It's not going to happen. Anyway, if the trade unions representing a lower level of class consciousness are not going to break up into two "national" sections, why should we as a socialist party do so? A single organisation covering two states would be making a point in itself.

[ALB]

William Morris wrote:

We came presently into a large open space, sloping somewhat toward the south, the sunny site of which had been taken advantage of for planting an orchard, mainly, as I could see, of apricot trees, in the midst of which was a pretty gay little structure of wood, painted and gilded that looked like a refreshment-stall. From the southern side of the said orchard ran a long road chequered over with the shadow of tall old pear trees, at the end of which showed the high tower of the Parliament House, or Dung Market.

Quote:

"Now," said I, "I have come to the point of asking questions which I suppose will be dry for you to answer and difficult for you to explain; but I have foreseen for some time past that I must ask them, will I 'nill I. What kind of a government have you? Has republicanism finally triumphed? or have you come to a mere dictatorship, which some persons in the nineteenth century used to prophesy as the ultimate outcome of democracy? Indeed, this last question does not seem so very unreasonable, since you have turned your Parliament House into a dung-market. Or where do you house your present Parliament?"The old man answered my smile with a hearty laugh, and said: "Well, well, dung is not the worst kind of corruption; fertility may come of that, whereas mere dearth came from the other kind, of which those walls once held the great supporters. Now, dear guest, let me tell you that our present parliament would be hard to house in one place, because the whole people is our parliament."

[ALB]

We had already concluded that he didn't think there was much chance of his tax reforms being adopted.

[ALB]

I don't agree. Direct democracy, whether through referendums (non-electronic as well as electronic) or town meetings,  has its place which will no doubt be much larger in socialism than under capitalism but it is only suitable for simple yes/no decisions (as for instance the currenrt referendum in Scotland). But there will still be a place for committees of elected delegates to examine and decide more complicated issues.Of c ourse, these delegates (and they would be delegates not "representatives" with a free hand as todays MPs see themselves) can be subject to much more democratic accountability than are today's so-called "representatives", as by short terms, restrictions on re-election, recall provisions, regular report-back meetings, etc.  One of these would be a "national, i.e large regional, one whatever its name — whether House of Communes, House of Delegates, Chamber of Deputies, even Supreme Soviet (on second thoughts, perhaps not that one).And why couldn't local councils continue to exist? We'll still need rubbish collection, street-lighting, even housing allocation. Would everybody really need to vote on these electronically?So, let's be practical and talk of a combination of direct democracy and delegate democracy in socialism.

[ALB]

I know some members talk of abolishing parliament because it's part of the capitalist state but, frankly, it makes me wince as it suggests that socialists will abolish democracy as many have been taught socialists want and have done. It's to play into the hands of our opponents.In any event, why can't parliament, made more democratic, as an elected central decision-making body survive into socialism? There will have to be such a body anyway, so why not democratise parliament rather than create such a body from scratch? Which was my original point.

[ALB]

I didn't mean to suggest that parliament and its associated political structure was workable in its present form, but only that it could be made workable, so that there was no need to construct another structure to completely replace it. So let me correct myself on this.The basic position is that the working class needs to first win control of political power before attempting to change the basis of society and that elections and parliament are a means to do this. Because we advocate using these does mean that we accept "parliamentary democracy". Obviously the present state, including parliament, is not something that can be used in its present form to change society. As we say in our pamphlet What's Wrong with Using Parliament? (worth a read if you want to familiarise yourself more with our position):

Quote:

The state is an instrument of coercion, but it has assumed social functions that have to exist in any society and which have nothing to do with its coercive nature: it has taken over the role of being society’s central organ of administration and co-ordination. Gaining control of the state will at the same time give control of this social organ which can be used to co-ordinate the changeover from capitalism to socialism. Of course, it couldn’t be used in the form inherited from capitalism; it would have to be reorganised on a thoroughly democratic basis, with mandated and recallable delegates and popular participation replacing the unaccountable professional politicians and unelected top civil servants of today.

I think this puts it clearly enough: the present structure of political power cannot be retained unchanged. It has first to be democratised (including the armed forces, though not necessarily in the way you speculate, until they are finally disbanded once the potential threat of any pro-capitalist armed resistance has disappeared) before it can be used for socialist purposes.The pamphlet also says:

Quote:

The socialist political party (of which we are just a potential embryo) will not be something separate from the socialist majority. It will be the socialist majority self-organised politically, an instrument they have formed to use to achieve a socialist society. The structure of the future mass socialist party will have to reflect – to prefigure – the democratic nature of the society it is seeking to establish. It must be democratic, without leaders, with major decisions made by conferences of mandated and recallable delegates or by referendum, and other decisions made by accountable individuals and committees. It won’t have a leadership with the power to make decisions and tell the general membership what to do. In other words, it will be quite different both from the parties of professional politicians that stand for election today and from the vanguard parties of the Leninists. This is not to say that the socialist majority only needs to organise itself politically. It does need to organise politically so as to be able to win control of political power. But it also needs to organise economically to take over and keep production going immediately after the winning of political control. We can’t anticipate how such socialist workplace organisations will emerge, whether from the reform of the existing trade unions, from breakaways from them or from the formation of completely new organisations. All we can say now is that such workplace organisations will arise and that they too, like the socialist political party, will have to organise themselves on a democratic basis, with mandated delegates instead of leaders.

So perhaps your initial understanding of what we advocate was not so far wide of the mark after all. Though, once again, it's a question of how to express this. I'd prefer to talk of "dismantling the state" rather than "dismantling parliament". And, as you say, there's no reason why the building in Wesminster could not continue as the seat of what you call "a higher level commune" (after all, the House of Commons was originally the House of Communes, and still is in French as "la Chambre des communes"). Also, should the future administrative and decision-making structure be based on the places where people work rather that on where they live? Discuss.If a democratised political structure has already been created why not use it rather than construct another out of something else? That was the point I was trying to make.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

When the SPGB gain a majority in parliament, they are going to disband parliament and hand 'legitimacy' over to the parallel Workers' Councils, to legitimise "Workers' Power", aren't they? So that all the current state organs obey orders given by the Councils?

This could be interpreted as seeing the socialist party (which may or may not be a mass SPGB) that wins a majority in parliament would be something different from the working class organised politically and democratically for socialism. Whether or not the workers organised in the socialist (small s) party will want to disband parliament and hand over "legitimacy" to parallel "workers councils" (which will surely exist in some form) is a policy decision they will have to decide at the time.It is not evident that this would be necessary.Why create another wheel when a workable one already exists? In any event, any socialist majority in parliament would reflect a socialist majority outside of parliament and a socialist majority outside of parliament can and no doubt would decide democratically what it considered the best course of action to take in the light of the exact circumstances of the time which we today can't predict and would be silly (and arrogant) to try to.

[ALB]

That didn't take long to agree on then. At least on the basic principle if not on how to express it. I don't think it helps to get our idea across by talking of "brainwashing" and telling people "what to do and think".  That's not honesty but shooting yourself in the foot by putting people off straightaway or having to explain what you don't mean. Much better to talk of "socialisation" and the encouragement of certain values and codes of conduct.Then there is still the extent to which socialist society should allow individuals to decide for themselves and also on what decisions should be subject to a democratic decision-making (quite apart from how this might be done, e.g by direct democracy or delegate democracy). Of course that's not for us to decide here (it's for the people around at the time). We can only speculate and discuss. Hopefully, we will be able to discuss and disagree on this without those who see the extent of democratic decision-making as being less than others being accused of being "anti-democratic" or "afraid of the masses".

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

What this thread is aimed at discussing is how far would/should democratic control extent in a socialist society and would there be any limits to it. You seem to be arguing that there won't be any. That's a position, the opposite of the individualist anarchist one which says that there should be no democratic control but only "individuals" free to do what they want. I can't see people in future socialist society accepting (democratically of course) either of these extreme positions, though I would imagine that what they decide will be nearer your end than the anarchists'.

Yeah, as long as it's 'what they decide', and not a minority or an individual, I regard that as democratic control.Those who argue that there will be 'limits on democratic control' must specify who determines this argument. I think that it's those with a 'fear of the mob'. They don't really believe that the vast majority of our society can really be trusted to make decisions that affect them as individuals.If the majority don't set these 'limits' (which they themselves can do, because if they can impose them, they can lift them, too), who is the minority or individual outside of any democratic controls whatsoever?

So you are saying that in socialism/communism literally everything (including for instance what people should eat and what they should wear) will in principle be subject to democratic social control and that only a democratic social decision can make exceptions to this?So the sort of "basic law" of society would be: the individual is only free to decide individually what society decides they can. In other words, society decides to grant certain "rights" to individuals rather than the classic Liberal position that it is individuals who grant certain rights ro society (the social contract myth)..The end result would be the same of course: that in practice democratic control would not be applied to everything (eg not to what people should eat or wear), i.e would be widespread not total. There will be limits but they would be self-imposed.

[ALB]

Of course education and child-rearing policy would be subject to democratic decision-making and control in a socialist society. And there will no doubt be things that people will be told they cannot do. But what you said was that people could be told what to think. That's a different matter altogether.If all you are saying that people in a socialist society will be brought up and taught to respect certain values and codes of behaviour, fair enough, of course. But in the context in which it was uttered (a vote on some scientific question) you gave the impression that people would be obliged to think the majority position. That wouldn't be possible anyway. You can't stop people thinking what they think. All you can do is get them to keep silent about it and pay lipservice to the majority view.What this thread is aimed at discussing is how far would/should democratic control extent in a socialist society and would there be any limits to it. You seem to be arguing that there won't be any. That's a position, the opposite of the individualist anarchist one which says that there should be no democratic control but only "individuals" free to do what they want. I can't see people in future socialist society accepting (democratically of course) either of these extreme positions, though I would imagine that what they decide will be nearer your end than the anarchists'.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

We in the Socialist Party have tended to steer a middle course with decisions concerning a community as a whole to be taken democratically by them, either directly in a general meeting or a referendum or by elected committees. A vast extension of democratic control compared to today, particularly with regard to the use of means of production, but not embracing every single decision.

This is a statement of 'democracy' that I can agree with.That is, "decisions concerning a community", in which I would characterise 'concerns' as those relating to 'power', 'authority' and 'legitimacy'.So, if any issue involves those 'concerns', I think it should be 'decided by the community', collectively and democratically.This, clearly, doesn't involve 'what people consume, wear, or how they lay out their front gardens'.

In view of what you've just said, why doesn't it?

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

There seems to be a widespread fear of the 'masses' on this site, and I find it very unhealthy. I must say, given the SPGB's propaganda line, I'm very surprised.When the SPGB gain a majority in parliament, they are going to disband parliament and hand 'legitimacy' over to the parallel Workers' Councils, to legitimise "Workers' Power", aren't they? So that all the current state organs obey orders given by the Councils?I really am beginning to wonder about the seriousness that posters here place upon Workers (the proletariat) actually running everything. There is an undercurrent of elitism, which is most noticeable in YMS's posts, with his focus on mathematics, etc.Ask YMS who's going to tell him what to do and think under Communism.I'll answer 'My Commune'. I'll bet YMS doesn't – or a few others here.

{My bold]Are you really suggesting that in socialism people will be told "what to think" by a vote in their local area?Socialism is based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production but that doesn't mean that democratic control will extend to what people should think.Socialism will involve widespread democracy, but it won't be the "totalitarian democracy" your form of words above seems to be suggesting.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

I'm a Marxist and a Communist, YMS, stop prevaricating and playing silly. If you're not, I'm not interested on this thread in discussing these thinkers with you. Start a new thread called 'Science for bourgeois liberals', or some such.And indeed, take your hatred of democracy somewhere else.

This is another typical of your outrageous distortions of those who disagree with you.YMS does not "hate" democracy. He's just making the point that it is pointless as a means of settling matters of opinion (such as scientific theories). It's essential of course for deciding important matters requiring action but that goes without saying as socialism/communism is based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production by and in the interest of society as a whole.If there's a vote on whether or not the Earth is flat, no doubt the view that it is not would be carried overwhelmingly, but that wouldn't change the minds of those who think it is flat. So what would the vote achieve? It would only be an expression of opinion since those who don't agree won't be prevented from still expressing their opinion (would they?). Might as well leave people doing research in a particular field argue and settle things amongst themselves (if necessary even by a vote as the one a couple of years ago amongst astronomers on whether or not Pluto should still be regarded as a planet).I too don't see the point of voting on the "truth" of scientific theories (as opposed to research programmes and the running of research institutes). That doesn't make me an anti-democrat but just a democrat who accepts that a vote is not necessarily the way to settle matters of opinion. Anyway, see the separate thread you asked for on the extent and limits of democracy.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

I still think that "materialism", even "physicalism", is not incompatible with a "monist" view which gives equal status to physical and non-physical stuff as long as it is considered one theory of the relationship between the physical and the non-physical parts of this "monist" world.

I don't agree, ALB.To me, the simple test is to ask any random physicalist if the material can supervene on the ideal.For us, given the ontological identity of 'material' and 'ideal', we would answer 'yes'.

As so often, we are talking at cross purposes. I'm not talking about the content of a theory but about its status. No doubt some of those who call themselves "materialists" or "physicalists" do think that the physical does "supervene" on the non-physical in "reality" (and so are "dualists"). But It's a theory and, as we are agreed (or at least I am), theories are descriptions of phenomena that are either useful or not useful in terms of predicting the future course of phenomena, useful or not useful that is for human survival and its improvement.As such a description "physicalism" may or may not be useful. It could well be, since this would explain why it can be said that the physical preceded in time the non-physical and why it cannot be said that the mind can exist separate from the body. In fact, I would say it's got a lot going for it as a useful description (even though I don't like the word).In other words, "physicalism" is one among other theories describing the passing world of phenomena. It's not a theory of the nature of reality or, if someone of its adherents say it is, they are mistaken (now that we can use this word).

[Author]

Posts