LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Brian wrote:This is an interesting point for it introduces a very interelated subject, namely: how does a DPD enforce its democratic authority onto a minority? If the power of persuasion fails to bring a violent recalcitrant minority into line we'll have no alternative other than to take measures against them. And we have never shrinked from saying that we are opposed to the view adopted by some anarchists that an individual is above what a majority in a socialist society decide. Nevertheless, when asked what these 'measures' will amount too in practice, we have always responded that will be up to socialist society. And to go any further than that is pure speculation. Yes LBird you are in agreement with us, in that there will never ever be 'complete freedom' from the authority of society.
[my bold]It's nice to have some point of agreement with the party, for a change!I'll bask in it, whilst it lasts……… All we have to agree to next is that no 'individual' elite, expert scientist will be allowed to dictate 'truth' to us, eh? And claim that they have a special, politically-neutral method that is not amenable to democracy – usually because they claim that 'the rocks talk to them'.As you say, 'there will never be 'complete freedom' for physics from the authority of society'. '[hu]Man[ity] is the measure of all things'.
SocialistPunk wrote:…and others, myself included, believing that the agent of emancipation is the revolutionary working class itself, ie people. And that social organisation in a socialist society needs no state machinery to function.This is my position, too.But… I am aware that the "social organisation in a socialist society" must be democratic, and thus must have some coercive powers which might be used against those deemed opposed to democratic controls (property owners, individualists, criminals, the insane, etc.).These 'powers' of a democratic structure cause that structure to be defined as a 'state' by at least some anarchists.We shouldn't shrink from being open about the necessity for 'coercive authority' existing for every society, and that is the reason that we stress 'democracy', rather than 'individualism'.All must have a say in the decisions of their society – but the notion of 'complete freedom' from social controls is a bourgeois myth. We are social animals, and our freedom is a social freedom to participate in society's decisions, not an individual freedom to ignore society.Production is social, not individual. And the 'revolutionary working class' is the agent (singular), and not 7 billion individual agents.
YMS wrote:I argue for the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community. I don't feel I need to be any clearer than that.[my bold]So, you won't confirm that 'wealth' includes 'knowledge'?I have to conclude, then, that you do indeed want a 'technocratic élite' to control physics.
YMS wrote:You keep knocking down Aunt Sallies, it's a really effective way of persuading people to change their minds…If you say that my characterisation of you as wanting a "technocratic élite to control physics" is an Aunt Sally, but you 'don't feel the need to be any clearer', what am I supposed to conclude?I think you want to change the signs outside both the ministries and the research facilities, and leave the 'technocratic élite' to get on with their expert politics and physics, unmolested by workers and their democratic demands.At least robbo203 is open about their refusal to countenance 'democracy in truth production'. Why not be open, too?These are issues of political power, and I sense that, when push comes to shove, that those who look to 'experts' and denigrate workers' democracy, will take the side of an elite.
Young Master Smeet wrote:It seems, no matter how many times I say that I want the mass self-organised working class to take control of state institutions and run them through direct democracy, you still insist that secretly I'm planning for the technocratic élite under King Smeet. You keep knocking down Aunt Sallies, it's a really effective way of persuading people to change their minds…But as long as you refrain from saying openly that you want workers to democratically control physics and politics, and 'elect' the 'truth', then I suspect that either you're not being open with workers (and so that you do 'plan for a technocratic élite') or with yourself (and so that you are ignorant of the problems with the social production of knowledge, and their political implications).At least my clarity gives 'people' a chance to either agree or disagree with my views, but your lack of clarity about the extent of 'democratic control' leaves 'people' like me unsure of your politics.You say the words, but when pressed, refuse to confirm.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I may have to change my handle to Aunt Sally, but, I admit defeat, I cannot argue against the positions you have made up for me.They're your words, YMS – you just don't seem to like what they imply being made plain.You want experts to make decisions, in both science and politics.I don't – I want workers to make democratic decisions, in both science and politics.That's a political difference between us. We should try to be clear about differences, rather than pretend that they don't exist.
Young Master Smeet wrote:…opening up the decision making to public scrutiny would transform decision making radically.I'm inclined to think that the 'public' (ie. the organised proletariat) will be the ones doing the 'decision making', rather than merely 'scrutinising' those made by 'experts'.I regard participation in decisions as the key concept, not scrutiny post-decisions. The former is 'radical', not the latter.Once again, I think that your words about politics also reflect your views about science.This political attitude can be summed up as "Leave it to the experts – they know best!".As it is in physics, so it will be in politics.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Who cares where an institution emerged? The monarchy didn't emerge from the capitalist class but now serves their ends: our democratic self activity can take control of the physical structures and processes of state administration and transform them into the agency of emancipation.You say that as if "physical structures and processes of state administration" are neutral tools, simply there to be 'used' by a different 'user'.This all sounds very much like a continuation of the general attitude here to physics, scientists and knowledge.Once again, I don't get any sense of the huge changes that will take place in both social consciousness and social organisation, during a revolutionary process.It sounds to me that you think it'll just be a matter of changing the signs outside the various ministries.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Once we accept that we're going to lop off the coercive role, why object to taking over the administrative mechanisms that already exist?Because they're not democratically-organised 'administrative mechanisms'?Because they haven't emerged from the self-activity of the proletariat?And, fundamentally, 'administration' has an aspect of 'power', and so the notion of 'administration' as a politically-neutral activity, which we can simply leave to the experts, is a non-starter.I often get the feeling that many within the SPGB don't really subscribe to producers' democracy (ie., what everyone else calls workers' democracy, but I know even talking about 'workers' seems to be a bit too much, for some here), but that the capture of parliament and its administration will basically be a activity of a minority.I want to see Workers' Power, and the building of organs which rest upon proletarian democracy, not a 'takeover' of a structure left mostly untouched.As I've said many times, this applies to physics as much as administration.After all, we're talking about a revolution in which the majority come to consciousness of the own power to control their lives, in every aspect. I don't get that sense of massive revolutionary change from many posters here.
alanjjohnstone wrote:(Sorry LBird…in some cases i bow to the scientists democracy and not a supposed wider democracy)That 'faith' in 'scientists', in the light of what many scientists have been saying since Einstein, produces a situation as if the Catholic priesthood in 1600 had told the peasants that the Church didn't understand Latin either, and that the Church was going to publish the bible in English, so that all the peasantry could participate in debates about the bible.And the peasants protested, and they demanded that the bible be kept in Latin, themselves in ignorance, and that they still had faith in priests to tell the peasantry what the Latin bible said.'Scientists' Democracy' is the antithesis of proletarian class consciousness, alan.Put simply, you have a religious faith in science.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I accept SP point that the elements of the State machine is in many ways autonomous and its workers because of the rise in their own socialist consciousness will simply assume the responsibilities of the existing State (a process that is organic in the growth of socialist ideas among our fellow workers) without any need for the rubber-stamp approval of a socialist majority in parliamentThe only task for "a socialist majority in parliament" is to 'rubber-stamp' its dissolution. And that's for the benefit of those who will still look to the state for legitimacy (some military officers and state functionaries, etc.), to give them a way to support the revolution.The "organic … growth of socialist ideas among our fellow workers" will be the legitimate rubber-stamp for our class' actions. And they will be organised and expressed through democratic Workers' Councils.
Just to clarify SocialistPunk's words:
SP wrote:I'll have to add, before I'm misunderstood, that I accept the use of the likes of parliament as being the most effective method to gain "legitimate" control,…That is, 'legitimate control' in the eyes of state officials who wish to avoid a coup.For us, 'legitimacy' would lie in the organs of democratic workers' power, the Workers' Councils.
SP wrote:…along with it being a good indicator of how the mood for revolution is proceeding.Yes, 'parliamentary elections' as a barometer of our class consciousness, as long as workers are voting for 'Parliamentary Suicide' in conjunction with their activity in producing and developing Workers' Councils. Merely voting, for whatever candidate, SPGB included, would be entirely pointless.'Electoral activity' would be entirely secondary to political activity within class organs.
SP wrote:But another question then appears. How do we quantify the revolution a success?We have democratic control of the guns.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I don't recognise LBird's problem with the SPGB as a disagreement.I think that you underestimate greatly the differences between us, alan.I'd ask those on either side of this debate, the question: 'What will you do with a majority in parliament?'.I'd answer 'Abolish parliament'.I think the other side would answer 'Use parliament'.I've characterised my political strategy as 'Parliamentary Suicide'.I'd characterise the other side's as 'Parliamentary Metamorphosis'.I think that I'd place you and YMS as 'Metamorphosisers', and me and SP as 'Suiciders'.Furthermore, I think that the 'Metamorphosisers' are doing precisely what the anarchists and ICC accuse you of wanting to do: to run the state.In that light, I have more in common with the 'anti-parliamentary' strand of Communism, than with the SPGB strand (if the 'metas' are the heart of the party).Further discussion here is vital, to clarify just what is the 'SPGB strategy': Suicide or Metamorphosis?
SocialistPunk wrote:If workers will be organising outside "the state" in the run up to taking control, democratically, I seriously doubt if there will be a breakdown of society…new democratic structures will already be in the process of creation a the revolutionary workers organise and plan the logistics outside existing [bourgeois pretend] democratic structures.[my clarification]This seems to be the key difference between those, like SP and me, who think that proletarian structures external to bourgeois parliaments must come into existence during the 'run up to taking control', and those comrades who seem to envison parliament continuing to be the centre of power, albeit with workers' delegates, after 'taking control'.I think that the revolutionary process will involve a 'twin-track' approach, during which we workers will temporarily occupy the dying parliamentary structures to help 'legitimate' our proletarian democracy in the eyes of the (as yet) non-revolutionary state officials who cling to loyalty to their state, but we will also build 'new democratic structures', which I would call 'Workers' Councils'.The final and only act of the parliamentary majority (if it is allowed to come about), is to close down bourgeois parliament and 'legitimately' hand over any 'parliamentary powers' to our Workers' Councils.
Brian wrote:The theory of DPD in practice is not set in stone neither is it – like I point out – a one suit fit all model.[my bold]I'm not sure what alternative there is, Brian, to the theory and practice of DPD. There is no 'theory' without 'practice', for the proletariat. DPD isn't a 'theory' that might, or might not, be 'practised'. Any 'practice' is based upon 'theory', so if it isn't the 'theory of DPD', what (and whose) 'theory' is this 'practice' based upon?Perhaps I place more emphasis on the 'P' being as much 'proletarian' as 'participatory'.If not 'Direct', who is to 'indirectly' control; if not 'Proletarian Participation', who is the 'active agent'; if not 'Democracy', what is the 'political method'?No, you'll have to expand on your alternative(s) to DPD, to argue that it 'is not set in stone' for Communism, I think.
Brian wrote:DPD also takes into consideration the cultural aspects of a particular locality. Thus, its application in practice will depend on how much baggage of the past is still attached to those procedural issues which can in certain circumstances serve the interests of an elite.Surely the 'universal' class is the world proletariat, in opposition to 'localities'? That is, there will be, in effect at a final level, a World Commune, which will determine which 'local culture' is acceptable to humanity, and which 'local culture' is barbaric/elitist/bourgeois. Once again, DPD will be the determinant of acceptable 'particularities', not 'local elites', on any contentious issues?Won't the abolition of classes and private property, worldwide, remove any basis for 'particularism', 'localism' or 'elites', which runs counter to our world democratic wishes?
