ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Here's the names of those on our list in the North East for the 1999 European elections: J. Bissett, S. Colborn, S. Davison, A Pitts.I remember that election campaign and going right up to the border to Berwick to leaflet and crossing over to Jedburg (just to see a bit of Scotland) and was struck by the fact that the notices on park benches there were in English and Gaelic. Ridiculous. They won't have ever spoken Gaelic in this part of the world. Before the "English" came (and Lowland Scots which Robbie Burns wrote in is a dialect of English) the language people would have spoken there would have been more akin to Welsh than Gaelic (which came from Ireland much later).Gaelic is not going to become one of two official languages if Scotland votes yes, is it? Or is it? You never can tell how silly nationalists can be.
LBird wrote:ALB wrote:In any event, once there's a socialist majority outside parliament the game is up for the capitalist class…[my bold]Doesn't this statement rather undermine the SPGB strategy?That is, if a 'socialist majority' comes into existence within society whilst socialists are still a minority in parliament (for example, workers don't follow the SPGB strategy of 'electing MPs', but concentrate on building extra-parliamentary Councils), the 'game is up' anyway.
That's what I meant to say and, no, it doesn't. Yes, as you repeat, the existence of a socialist majority outside parliament would mean that the game is up for the capitalist class. But that doesn't undermine "the SPGB strategy". Assuming that more or less fair elections are possible, a socialist majority outside parliament would reflect itself as a socialist majority inside parliament. So why not go for it? Why take the longer and more risky route of trying to ignore or by-pass parliament and so lose the "legitimacy" aspect you emphasised?Not that I think that, when there is a socialist majority outside parliament, the dogmatic anti-parliamentarists would get much of a following. As James Connolly put it, when in 1908 he left the DeLeonist SLP to join the IWW and
Quote:was asked if he approved of its repudiating the principle of political action. He laughed, "It will be impossible to prevent the workers taking it." (G. Desmond Greaves, The Life and Times of James Connolly, p. 228)That seems one reasonable strategy in the event of a pro-capitalist coup against the election of a socialist majority in parliament (though I think keeping parliament in being would help re-inforce the "legitimacy" of the revolution). In any event, something like that would have to happen.Here's how the Socialist Standard answered this precise question in November 1933 (see: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1930s/1933/no-351-november-1933/parliament-and-constitution):
Quote:"What would the SPGB do in the event of them obtaining a majority in Parliament and Parliament was suspended by Royal decree or some other such trick by the Capitalist class?"Our correspondent asks us to deal with the hypothetical situation of a capitalist minority attempting to suspend Parliament after they had allowed an election to be held in which Socialists obtained a majority of seats. If the capitalists were so obliging as to wait until after the election before making the attempt to suspend Parliament, they would, of course, be weakening their own position and strengthening that of the Socialist majority. In our reply we have assumed the less improbable situation of the capitalist minority making their attempt without waiting for elections to take place which would demonstrate their (the capitalists') minority position. If we assume the other hypothesis, then the position of the Socialist majority would be even stronger than we have stated it to be.This question has often been answered in the SOCIALIST STANDARD. In essence, it boils down to this: “Can a capitalist minority which happens to have control of the machinery of Government continue indefinitely to govern and make capitalism function, in the face of the organised opposition of a majority of Socialists?” If that were possible, then, it would be a sheer waste of time to consider Socialism at all or the method of achieving it.However, it is not possible for a minority to maintain its hold in those circumstances. Faced with the hostility of a majority of workers (including, of course, workers in the civil and armed forces, as well as workers in productive and distributive occupations), the capitalist minority would be unable, in the long run, to enforce its commands and the workers would be able to dislocate production and transport. In such circumstances the capitalists would themselves be divided. Not all of them would be disposed to provoke chaotic conditions in an heroic last-ditch struggle.A look at the way in which governments do behave in face of a hostile majority under existing conditions will show how impossible it is for any minority to retain cohesion and to act decisively when it is conscious of being actively opposed by the majority.A few years ago, for example, the King of Spain and his immediate supporters, in spite of having organised a so-called military dictatorship, lost their nerve and fled the country merely because some municipal elections had gone against their candidates.In Russia, in 1917, we saw Kerensky throw in the sponge as soon as he saw the Bolsheviks voted into control of the chief Soviets.We invite our correspondent to name a single instance of a capitalist minority managing to maintain its hold on the machinery of Government for any length of time in face of the organised and united opposition of a majority of the population. We know of no such instance.We would then ask him to consider how much more clear and certain the outcome would be if the organised and united opposition is composed of convinced Socialists who have gained their majority in face of a long drawn-out struggle with all the defenders of capitalism. So far, of course, such a majority of Socialists has not existed at any time or in any country.It remains to speculate how likely some such action by a recalcitrant pro-capitalist minority is likely to be. In any event, once there's a socialist majority outside parliament the game is up for the capitalist class whatever some of them might choose to do.
SocialistPunk wrote:Nothing wrong with what you've just stated Adam, I think your earlier reference to the continued use of "parliament" was like waving a red flag at a bull.I don't see why talking about retaining parliament in a thoroughly democratised form should have been a red rag to anybody here or at least not to anyone taking part of the discussion (it might be our dogmatically anti-parliamentary friends) since we are all agreed here that workers should organise to win control of "parliaments" through elections.What workers should do then will be up to them, but I would have thought the easiest option would be to retain parliament rather than set up some other elected central decision-making body. I know that the old DeLeonist SLP in America argued that congress, once there was socialist majority in it, should be dissolved and central decision-making power handed over to the central council of the "socialist industrial unions" they advocate. And that LBird is proposing something similar except that central decision-making power be handed over to a Central Workers Council. These are both possibilities of course but, to me anyway, seem like going the long way round.Actually, we have said something about how we think decision-making might be organised (might of course not will since the final decision is not ours) in chapter 3 of our pamphlet Socialism As a Practical Alternative. Here's a couple of extracts:
Quote:A democratic system of decision-making would require that the basic unit of social organisation would be the local community which could elect is delegates to a local council which could be given the responsibility for local administration. If, for example, local communities in socialism began by operating from the basis of the existing structure of district councils in England, this would give 332 local communities. This would be a democratic development of the existing procedures for electing local councils which could become the basic means for dealing with day-to-day local issues. Then, regional councils could provide organisation through which decisions affecting wider populations could be made at the regional level. Similarly, global decisions could be made by delegates elected to a world council.Quote:The procedures for electing delegates to the various councils could vary, but would include machinery whereby the councils could be instructed by majority poll. On an everyday basis, the responsibility for deciding upon routine matters could be delegated to such councils, and providing they had sufficient members, they would broadly reflect general opinion. But, in certain circumstances councils would want to ascertain the view of the whole community on specific questions. In these cases a majority poll could be carried out, and the same method could be used to challenge council decisions where this was thought necessary. With modern communications the means for carrying out majority polls would be straightforward and would present no difficulties. In their final detailed form, which would doubtless vary from region to region, the arrangements made for everyday decision making would be the outcome of the democratic wishes of the whole community. Society could delegate certain decisions to people who take on the responsibility for running particular parts of production or services. For example, in workplaces committees could be chosen to co-ordinate and organise production, subject to democratic control by all of those involved. Where the numbers of people are few, for example, in the running of small-scale services, no doubt work will be organised along more informal lines. But wherever responsibility has been delegated to an individual or group, this would only be with the consent of the whole community. Democratic checks on councils, committees, groups or individuals to whom responsibility has been delegated, would mean that ultimately control would still be exercised by the community as a whole. The important point to be made about an integrated world system of cooperative decision-making is that decisions would flow throughout the structure upwards from local communities. This would replace centralised control by governments Such a system would be adaptable, for any purpose, on any intermediate scale between the local and world levels.This of course is only a suggestion and reflects the time at which it was written, 1987, when the internet was not so widespread. It also doesn't say anything about whether the regional councils should be directly elected or be composed of delegates from local councils (though it does seem to imply the latter). But, then, do we need to?
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!)
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.
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."We had already concluded that he didn't think there was much chance of his tax reforms being adopted.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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'.
