[ALB]

To tell the truth, we don't seem to have written too much about this, perhaps because we think people at the time can work out the system of democratic decision-making which best suits them and which will probably differ from different part of the world to different part of the world in accordance with their traditions as well as preferences.But here's an article from 1978 (a bit dated now of course given the development of computers and means of communication):http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialism-or-your-money-back/turbulent-seventies/democracy-and-silicon-chipAnd here's what we say about this is chapter 3 on "Democratic decision-making" in our Socialism As A Practical Alternative pamphlet::http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/socialism-practical-alternative#ch3As this was written in 1987 it, too, needs updating. I think the Production for Use Committee is working on this.The form of democratic decision-making outlined there is not  "direct democracy" (which surely is only applicable at the very local level) but more akin to the "nest councils" proposed by Stephen Shalom in this article on "participatory politics":http://www.zcommunications.org/participatory-politics-by-stephen-shalomIt usefully sets out the pros and cons of the various schemes of "participatory politics" that have been proposed. Of course none of them would work properly under capitalism and could only work in socialism. I imagine a combination of direct democracy at local level, "nested councils" for decisions haveing a wider effect (up to world level), and referendums for points of principles. But who knows?

[ALB]

Ed wrote:

As it wholly depends on the circumstances at the time. If one were to presume, as they do that it will be after a gigantic and bloody civil war then of course it will take a little longer.

I'm not sure that is the explanation as to why they think their "semi-state" should last longer (decades) than our "democratised state" (a year or so). Given that the capitalist class only own and control the means of production because they control the state, once they lose control of the state (whether peaceably or violently) to a socialist-minded working class majority, capitalism can be abolished very quickly, almost literally at a strole and common ownership, democratic control and production directly for use (if not full free access) be introduced immediately. I don't see why, even assuming their civil war scenario, this couldn't be implemented straightaway in the "liberated" areas.I think there is another reason: that they don't think that the forces of production have yet developed a stage where they can provide plenty for all and that therefore a period of accumulation and restricted consumption for the producers is needed (I think that this is what they must mean by "workers self-exploitation"). This is because they are still tied to what happened in Russia. The Left Communists, from which they emerged were, proposing an alternative way forward for Russia in the 1920s which they thought could be implemented and, clearly, in the conditions of Russia of that time, plenty for all was far from possible.  Even In the 1930s the Council Communists were proposing a "labour-money" scheme which included a blueprint of how to integrate into the economy peasants owning their own land and animals and producing for sale.They need to get away from Russia Revolution and what happened after as a model for any future socialist revolution. To dump all that baggage and come into the 21st century.

[ALB]

I think you are becoming a bit hypersensitive . I am sure that all ALBuick meant by "revision" was something we've all already agreed on: that no scientific finding is final and absolute, but only tentative and partial in that, in the light of further evidence, research and theorising, it is liable to be changed ("revised") or even completely abandoned. That it meant that any scientific finding should have to go before some "revision board" is a mistaken reading of the passage.

[ALB]

Ed wrote:

I'd like to talk a little about the ICC's Semi-State. As I understand it this is the Dictatoriship of the proletariat a period where the proletariat have "smashed" (not siezed control of the existing one) the state and have proceeded to create a semi state which would then wither away in time. I got the impression that they see this political transition as lasting a little longer than we do

Much longer. In one of their early pamphlet they say it could be as long as the Israelites had to wander in the wilderness, i.e. 40 years. I don't know if they've modified this since. I think they call it a "semi-state" as their theory is an amalgam of Council Communist (who reject the idea of a state) and Bordigism (who embrace it). As far as we're concerned it would be a state but a democratised one controlled by the working class. Not quite sure if they agree with this second part since I think they still think "the party" will exist during this period and, as the quote in the opening item in this thread made clear, in their view this would be a highly centralized, top-down (not to say Leninist) organisation.

Ed wrote:

I put to them that Marx's and in fact most definitions of the state have one class exploiting another, in Marx's case for the purpose of extracting surplus value. I asked who would be the exploiting class in this scenario assuming that the bourgeouisie has been expropriated. The answer which seemed to be generally agreed was that the proletariat would exploit itself. I wonder what comrades think of the concept of the the proletariat exploiting themselves?

Not much, but did they really say that !The concept of "workers' self-exploitation" and rejection of it is a view which we probably pioneered in the 1960s in our criticism of various proposals for "workers control" of a market economy. For instance's here's an extract from an article from the Socialist Standard of February 1969 criticising the old Solidarity Group (from which, ironically, some of the founding members of the ICC group in Britain emerged when they realised this. Even more ironically this was written by David Ramsay Steele who later became a leading anarcho-capitalist)):

Quote:

"Capitalism without capitalists" could never in fact come about. Should the working-class reach a level of understanding where they could pressurize the ruling class out of existence, they would long since have passed the stage where they would have abolished the wages system and established Socialism. And there are several purely economic arguments why escalating differences in access to wealth would always result from a wages-profits system. But even if we suspend these judgments, and consider "Capitalism without capitalists" in our imaginations, we can see it would be no improvement on capitalism with capitalists. Workers collectively administering their own exploitation not a state of affairs which Socialist aim for.

I think the ICC member calling himself Alf is on this forum so perhaps he could clarify things.

[ALB]

Here's the results of a recent opinion poll on various conspiracy theories of 1247 US voters — for what it's worth (Do people really believe what they say? Do they reply what they think they are expected to reply? Do some of them take the piss?):http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/04/democrats-and-republicans-differ-on-conspiracy-theory-beliefs.htmlGood to see that only 6% think Bin Laden is not dead, only 4% (say they) believe in David Icke's shape-shifting reptiles.and only 5% in chem trails and only 7% that the moon landing was faked.  More worrying is that 21% (say they) believes in UFOs and 29% in aliens and 37% that global warming is a hoax.Of the issues that have come up here, 51% believe that a conspiracy was at work in Kennedy's assassination. More re-assuring only 11% believe that "the United States government knowingly allowed the attacks on September 11th, 2001, to happen."28% believe that

Quote:

a secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government, or New World Order.

[ALB]

Immigration officers told to go home:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pQ0_TFBVotsThe comments suggest, unfortunately, that the Tories could have judged well that their "(illegal) immigrants, go home" vans stunt will be a vote-winner.

[ALB]

Pannekoek was developing the ideas of Joseph Dietzgen and defending them against Lenin's charge of "idealism". Dietzgen has in fact always been held in high regard by the SPGB and by our comrades in North America. See (or listen to):http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/audio/dietzgen-and-dialectical-thoughtand this article:http://mailstrom.blogspot.co.uk/2007/04/joseph-dietzgen-workers-philosopher.html

[ALB]

This reminds me of an incident during one of our election campaigns when our candidate (Ralph Critchfield,  think) declared "yes, we have made some mistakes". When a member of the audience asked "what mistakes?" he couldn't answer..

[ALB]

But that's the programme of the Green Party ! See this. So why don't these Left Unifiers join them instead of splitting the anti-austerity, pro-welfare state, take-back-the-utilities into public ownership section of the population?

[ALB]

It's either me or you're not explaining yourself well. OK, so in your view, it's going to be put to a show of hands at a mass meeting? Or what exactly do you have in mind? What structure are you proposing for making in communism/socialism a popular democratic decision on whether a scientific finding is "true" or not?I was of course talking about socialist society, which implies that the population would no longer be a "mob" but informed members of society. There will of course be no proletariat in communism/socialism as the proletariat will have abolished itself.I'm not too keen on referendums myself, but wouldn't rule them out completely as part of the democratic decision-making structure of  socialist society.

[ALB]

Is this from today's papers the sort of scientific finding that you think should be put to a popular vote to decide whether or not it is "true"?

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Perhaps a snappier title would be 'The Mengele Commission', in honour of that other scientist who abhorred democratic interference in his 'scientific' endeavours.

Now you're just being silly.Of course scientific research will be subject to overall democratic control in a socialist society. I can see the priorities for research and the resources allocated for it being the subject of a democratic social decision. Also decisions such as whether or not to allow vivisection, etc. But I thought you were advocating more than this: that there should be a democratic vote on whether or not to accept the findings of scientific research. Of course there'd have to be a democratic decision to act on them if required, but I still don't understand what exactly it is you are proposing.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

And of course they'll need to be democratically self-organised.

As too will 'science'.When I argued this to the ICC, it seemed to go down like a lead balloon!

Was that because they don't like the word "democracy" at all and never use it in a positive sense?

LBird wrote:

In effect, I am arguing that 'scientific truth' must be a democratic decision, rather than the preserve of 'scientists', conceived as a separate social grouping from the proletariat. Marx warns about this, too, in his Theses."No omniscient 'Central Committes' in either politics or science", is my starting point. Democracy in science, as in the economy.

But of course there will no longer be a proletariat in socialism/communism only free and equal members of a classless community. Nor will any group — neither elected delegates nor scientists — be in any privileged position since everybody (to return to the original theme of this thread) will have free access on the same basis to what it has been decided should be produced.I don't understand what you are getting at. Obviously scientific and research establishment will be organised and run, like any other workplace, on a democratic basis, but you seem to be saying more: that the findings of such establishments should be subject to a democratic vote as to whether they are valid or not.Is that another lead balloon I can see about to crash to the ground?

[ALB]

Quote:

……a war that was summed up by a banner at Dublin's Liberty Hall (Irish Transport & General workers union and headquarters of the Irish Citizen Army)….."We serve neither King nor Kaiser, But an Irish Republic."

That slogan represented a derailment of the workers' movement in Ireland from the basic trade unionism expressed in resistance to the Dublin Lockout of 1913 into Irish nationalism, the "Irish Republic" in question being an independent Irish capitalist state.Now if the banner had proclaimed "We serve neither King nor Kaiser, But Internationalism Socialism" …. but it didn't.

[ALB]

That clears up that then. You are not a "Relativist", or idealist. I like your description of "Critical Realism", especially where you make it clear that the "subjective" element is "that the mind of the subject is not an individual mind, but the socially-created mind of a social individual", which wasn't entirely clear until now.As to "common sense", I wasn't defending it for everything, simply for "everyday living", e.g. eating, driving, repairing things, etc.  Given that we've already agreed that socialism/communism can only be established by a majority that wants and understands it, we should not place the bar too high in the degree of philosophical sophistication required by that majority.OK, today, when we're engaged in a battle of ideas with capitalist ideology, the minority of socialists/communists that we are do need a higher level of understanding, but I don't think that the majority that will establish socialism will have to be conscious "Critical Realists" or experts in Marxian Economics or the Materialist Conception of History or in fact even to have read a word of Marx.It will be enough that they understand that capitalism cannot be reformed to work in their interest and that the way-out is to make the means of production the common heritage of all under democratic control so that production can be carried on to directly satisfy human needs and (to return to Sotionov's question) that the aim will be to reach full free access to goods and services as soon as possible. And of course they'll need to be democratically self-organised.

[Author]

Posts