Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Alan
It’s not that anybody thinks the party is in a vibrant healthy place with growth all over the world and the prospect of a Socialist Society by a week next Wednesday. We have substantial difficulties, we need to adapt to a different way of political activity, however we are starting to make progress.
For instance the weekend at the Wigtown Book Festival appears to have gone very successfully (report by DC to follow) and some ideas for future events have been derived from it. I personally welcome your Eeyore like take on things and would miss the way you bring us all down to earth at times. I would also remind you that Eeyore and Tigger became great friends because they recognised each other’s flaws 😀
Alan wrote – “Wigtown book festival is an example where members from Home Counties will travel hundreds of miles to attend and no doubt indulge in the hospitality of the local licensed hostelries…”
I’m going and as far as I recall, Tyneside is not part of the home counties.
Great oaks, from little acorns, etc.
I know you get pessimistic at times, Alan, however it is not all doom and gloom. Ideas, such as the one I put forward are percolating within the party and I’m sure will result in positive activity. It is reported that attendance at Annual Conference was very healthy this year, the Summer School is well attended and very influential, I have seen a small but steady stream of new members arriving, some of whom have started using this forum, the mail outs of inserts has been productive and electoral activity, which was subject to regular hiatus, is now a programmed in regular and seemingly on going activity. I think that is very positive.
In addition the Standard is going out regularly and the layout and content is as good, if not better than ever.
This forum is not as lively as it was prior to the hacking of our sites, however activity is building up, with a slow growth in usage. As a positive, compared to the previous incarnation, at least the level of debate is far more friendly and productive that it had been, constant moderation disputes are a thing of the past. I think the other thing the forum does, which should not be underestimated, is that it keeps members in touch with each other, I have no regular face to face contact with party members, but I check on this site on a daily basis and the political debate (and to be honest the odd bit of laddish humour :-P) help keep morale up, etc.
So all in all, Alan, I would say that the glass is half full! 🙂
Alan – I’m glad your an admirer of Reich, I have a second hand Orgone Accumulator I can let you have at a very good price, for cash I could let you have it for maybe £1,500. I could have a few more available if I can get down to Office World and convert a few more large metal filing cabinets.
I think such an approach to human personality is fatally flawed by it’s reductive simplicity. It is similar to the way in which the snake oil salesmen of “Psychometric Testing” put forward the introvert extrovert spectrum as a particular trait, without taking into account a whole host of issues. For instance if I was at the opera with a whole bunch of opera buffs, I’d be fairly introvert (or more probably in the bar), whereas at a football match with my mates I’d probably be far more extrovert.
Similarly the idea that we would all fall into a servile or masterly personality type in all aspects of our interactions and behaviour is so unlikely as to be impossible. Some of us might be more servile in some situations and others more masterly in others (I’m using your descriptors at this point to keep to the original argument, not because I see them as valid personality descriptors), but people vary across a number of different settings. not only that your original question suggests there are only two approaches to human interaction, servile or master, what about people who are assertive, what about people who are passive aggressive, what about people who are openly aggressive, what about people who are sarcastic, etc. etc.
Without going too much into the theory of personality (which in itself has large holes in it) & essentially in answer to your what if, which states “What if there is a passive desire in some people to be servants, and a servile attitude dominates their unconscious, and also there are others who have a passive desire to be masters,” I don’t think it is worth worrying about because human personality doesn’t work like that, we are not two dimensional people and we don’t live two dimensional lives.
Although I agree with much of what you say, Robbo, I do not agree that global level decisions will constitute a very, very few issues.
In terms of practical issues such as power generation, building of infrastructure, food distribution, etc. I would think that only a global level of debate and decision making will be effective in this area.
To me part of the obvious logic of the Socialist case is that we can organise things on a global democratic level, where necessary.
We see from the current global climate crisis that small decisions have global impact and there is greater and greater understanding that we operate in a very complex and inter related eco-system and the small impacts the big in the same way that the big impacts the small.
Whilst I agree that many decisions will be made that do not involve dispute and that many disagreements will be localised matters sorted out at a local level, I think it is likely that decision making at a global level will be a very busy system.
L Bird – “My political problem, Alan, is those who argue that the ‘delegate’ should be a ‘representative’, and that the ‘representative’, being an ‘expert’, should have the final say.”
Well you shouldn’t have any problem with the SPGB, because in the 40 odd years I’ve been in contact with the Party, I have never ever heard anyone argue that experts should have the final say, furthermore, if you investigate the history of the Party, any example of that taking place. You will find examples of experts being listened to and where appropriate their advice being taken into account of before decisions are made, examples of this recently range from advice taken about a party wall at HO and advice being taken about IT systems, however the experts (both inside and outside the party) advise, they do not direct.
Perhaps the scars you have from time spent with the Leninists and the Trots have made you understandably sceptical about democracy within an organisation, I was in the Labour Party YS in my late teens and I know the ways that these fake democrats can twist and manipulate “democratic” processes for their own means, but I assure you that isn’t done and it isn’t possible with the SPGB, because all members are vigilant about the democracy of the party.
Again if you read the history of the party and the nature of it’s departure from the SDF, you can see why the party was set up to be ultra democratic and how this has continued to this day.
L Bird – “I believe that the political (etc.) basis that we employ now, will be the same in any future society. ”
Couldn’t agree more, I think the democratic structure of the World Socialist movement demonstrates this and the circles within circles approach you describe is reflected in the decision making process within the party, if an individual member decides to undertake work for the party then they get on and do it, unless there is an objection to this in which case, usually a branch and then ultimately the EC will make a decision about it, however if their is dispute about this it can be taken to a full party poll. Similarly branches or groups of members get on and do their stuff, unless their is an objection, in which case it is dealt with at whatever level is deemed appropriate.
I believe this bottom up democratic model is one which is likely to be the basis of any future Socialist Society, I can’t say it definitely will, as this I would only be one of those involved in making that decision, should I be lucky enough to be alive at that point in time.
I also believe that the process of refinement of a future democracy will take place in a similar way in which we carry out that task within the WSM. An example of this is conference, which used to make decisions based on mandated delegates, but which now reports the discussion back to the membership and all members are able to vote as they see things.
As to it operating in practice
L Bird “for example, the inhabitants of a street decide to paint all of their houses with white paint, and this decision is democratic, then the houses all get painted with white paint.
But… what if a single household, within the collective, disagrees, and wants a green house?”
I would argue that we then have one green painted house within the white painted houses and that it will actually look quite nice.
I take it from your use of the term least, you clearly understand that in many ways all careers involve conflict with the system and that in a sense, no matter what we do we are in conflict to some degree.
I have been a social worker, working mainly within children’s services for most of that time and although their are very obvious conflicts, the work I currently do, supporting and training foster carers does have some connectivity to some principles of socialism. That is that most foster carers do not do what they do for finance, they generally do it out of compassion for the children and young people they care for. The carers I have trained and supported over the years demonstrate to me on a almost daily basis the fact that human beings are more than capable of cooperating and working in the common interest of other.
Perhaps something in that line of work might be something you could consider.
BD – How many people does it take to decide to change a light bulb in L Bird’s concept of a Socialist Society?
L Bird – half the population of the entire world plus 1
L Bird- “You seem to be using the term ‘workers’ to mean ‘people who go to work’ as opposed to ‘people who don’t go to work’,”
No I’m not, I was just checking that you weren’t either, although by your definition, “by ‘workers’ a Marxist means an exploited class of proletarians” workers won’t exist in a socialist/communist society, unless you think that exploitation and class will continue in a socialist society.
I’d argue within any workers’ councils (should we ever see them!) – L Bird
You argue for world wide democracy, however you seem to be implying by the use of the terms workers’ councils that only workers would be involved in decision making, i.e. non workers would be excluded. Non workers could include students, the retired, the infirm or indeed the work shy(I’ll declare an interest here, as I have always been a bit of a lazy bastard). Apart from the obvious question of the utility of the term worker in a classless society, are you also arguing for democracy along the lines of the De Leonist model of decision making in workshop groupings?
It may be that you are using the terms in another way, but some clarification would be helpful.
To be fair, Brian, economising and economics, are two completely different things.
I agree with Adam, the phrase Political Economy most succinctly sums up Marx’s definition of the discipline he studied.
Whether the also rans that call themselves economists nowadays are worthy of that title, or are even have the intellectual integrity of the likes of Smith and Ricardo is a whole new different debate.
I am frequently amazed at the lack of basic understanding that the “economics experts” on TV display so regularly, with no sense of shame.
I heard one a few years ago who stated that the aim of economics was for all countries in the world to have a positive balance of trades, where they exported more than they imported, I mean, for crying out loud!!
It seems strange to me that for years I’ve been arguing that we should get professionals in to do the things we’re not particularly skilled at, or willing and able to do from within the membership, but the EC pick one thing that members are probably pretty reasonably skilled at and we have offers to do & then propose to get someone in and pay them?
To me we should set aside a weekend in January or February and ask if members want to come down/go up to HO and spend the weekend doing tasks identified by the premises committee, combined with perhaps a bit of political activity and definitely a piss up. To me this seems like a good way to promote comradeship, save the party a few bob and involve ourselves in positive socialist activity, to quote a phrase.
