[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Hud955 wrote:

Government machinery could be restructured to provide the administrative needs of a new society, though I suspect that would not be easy.  It might be just as easy to set up a new administrative system altogether. 

It might be theoretically possible but hardly "just as easy".  Just as easy, for example, to set up a system of local government from scratch than to take over and democratise and reform the existing structure? Just as easy to set up a new health service from scratch? "Pretty pointless" is the alternative description that comes to mind.

I think this post, containing Hud's and ALB's positions, is the most illustrative of the two stances being taken on this thread.I think that these can be summed up as "Workers' Councils" versus "Democratic Parliament".That is, an entirely new structure that has emerged from workers' self-activity and which is thus fundamentally democratic in its structures, roles, locations, ethos, etc., versus the re-using of an existing structure which emerged from very different socio-conditions and which has merely had the very top of the structure replaced.I think that my views are closer to the "Workers' Councils" position, than to that of the "Democratic Parliament".The only use that I can see for a "Democratic Parliament" is  self-abolition, and I think that those, like ALB, who regard the creating of new proletarian structures as "pretty pointless" are underestimating greatly the changes that will happen with a revolution.But then, I assume that all science (including physics), education, universities and 'truth production' itself will be changed massively by a class coming to consciousness of its own power, and thus wanting to destroy the old and create the new in all areas of social life.As I said to YMS earlier, I get the feel that the "DP" strand merely want to change the signs on the ministries, and that they think that most social practices, embodied in existing structures, will just continue, much as they are now.Put simply, it doesn't feel 'revolutionary', to me.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

LBird wrote:

Brian wrote:

…I suspect this thread is going to go completly off-topic with your invite to LBird to put some meat on the bones on his version of a functioning democracy.

You could always 'put some meat on the bones' on your 'version', Brian.For example, how would you see the education system being democratised, in a way which would increase the power of students and undermine the power of experts?

And provide you with an opportunity to go off-topic.  No thanks.

The topic is about politics, Brian. There is politics in education. Or is thinking about politics now off-topic in the SPGB? You seem to like the phrase off-topic. What are you hiding?

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

…I suspect this thread is going to go completly off-topic with your invite to LBird to put some meat on the bones on his version of a functioning democracy.

You could always 'put some meat on the bones' on your 'version', Brian.For example, how would you see the education system being democratised, in a way which would increase the power of students and undermine the power of experts?

[LBird]

Hud955 wrote:

As far as I understand it, the SPGB believes that workplace organisation by the working class is essential for a successful revolution.  That to me is a much more important part of the argument.  If the coercive forces of the state are on board with the revolution at that time, then taking control of parliament would seems perhaps useful, but inessential.  Government machinery could be restructured to provide the administrative needs of a new society, though I suspect that would not be easy.  It might be just as easy to set up a new administrative system altogether.     

You seem to be agreeing with what I said earlier, Hud, about the 'twin-track' approach, of a major track of Workers' Councils and a minor track of (what I've called) 'Parliamentary Suicide'. The latter is merely a way of 'legitimising' the revolutionary process in the eyes of state officials and those loyal to bourgeois democracy. Of course, our legitimacy comes from our own democratic theory and practice.'Useful, but inessential' just about covers the minor track. It can ease the way for those wanting to remain loyal to bourgeois forms and who are opposed to a military coup, but any coup which manifests will have to be put down by force of arms, hopefully with the help of those military officers who wish to remain democrats.And a 'new administration system', which has emerged from democratic activity by workers, would seem to be, not only easier, but preferable and better.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

you won't have the proletariat electing the truth, because you claim that you know the physical, and that you can know this without a vote.

So what makes the above statement true, in the abscence of a vote?

It isn't. It will only be true when the proletariat has developed its own consciousness of its own power, and takes the vote into its own hands. That's the role of socialists, to try to help build the confidence of the proletariat.You wouldn't know that, because your faith is placed in physicists and academics, whose authority you quote, in keeping democratic control out the hands of the organised working class, when dealing with knowledge production. You undermine workers' belief in their own abilities.

DJP wrote:

But we're digressing and we've been here a million times before… I'm out of here.

You, once again, argue that I'm 'strawmanning' you, and you've done worse before, in insults.But you won't discuss.Why not just admit your ignorance in these political issues about the social production of knowledge, and stop insulting me, and running away?Or give up trying to participate in discussions about 'power' and the politics of knowledge?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

DJP wrote:

…that is there will be no body that exists as a structure seperate to and above the whole of society…

Of course, for you, there will be.

You're confusing me with comrade Strawman again. But like I said a while back 'discussing' with you is a waste of my time.

It's not a strawman – you won't have the proletariat electing the truth, because you claim that you know the physical, and that you can know this without a vote.And you think scientists and academics are the only ones capable of this, but not society as a whole.Since you won't discuss this, because you fear the political results, you pretend my questions of you are 'a waste of time'.I'm wary of those who claim to want socialism, but won't allow physics to be under our control. What have the elitists, like you, got to hide from us?This is a question of power.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

…that is there will be no body that exists as a structure seperate to and above the whole of society…

Of course, for you, there will be.You consider 'matter' (or, 'the physical') to be outside of democratic control, because you believe that 'scientists' have an access to 'matter' that is individual and expert, and that can't be voted upon, or understood by the majority.Therefore, you do want a "body that exists as a structure separate to and above the whole of society": you won't have knowledge produced by a body of physicists 'connected to and under' the democratic control of 'the whole of society'.You have your faith in the Latin-Priests and Maths-Physicists.Revolution must be based upon the translation of the bible into English and the breaking of the political power of priests, and the translation of maths-physics into English and the breaking of the political power of physicists.[Hu]Man[ity] is the measure of all things. In a socialist society, humanity's measuring must be democratic. Not the 'measuring' by an expert elite.Marx warns against this in his Theses on Feuerbach.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Anyway, I agree that there would need to be some democratic "authority" under socialism. … I followed the previous discussions of yours regarding democracy and how far it should extend. So seeing as it is a related topic, I was hoping you could put some meat on the bones regarding how you see such extensive democracy functioning?

I regard 'democracy' as the eternal search for a new minority opinion to oppose the old majority opinion.The cultivation and stimulation of the new is the basis of advance in science and politics, in opposition to those who think science produces 'The Truth', a 'mirror image' of 'reality', or that elite politicians 'know better' than the majority which is the seedbed of the minority.That is the death of both science and democracy.I'm not sure if this counts as 'meat on the bones', but I can't think of anything more of an 'extensive democracy' than 'electing the truth'.Whilst workers refuse to 'elect the truth', they'll be in the hands of an elite minority.And the 'materialists' have ensured that workers don't believe that the proletariat has the potential to 'elect the truth'.'Matter' can't be elected; but 'knowledge of matter' can.I'm aware that this response is a bit philosophical, but unless we get the 'theory' sorted out, we can't even imagine moving onto the 'practice' of proletarian democracy.

[LBird]

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'.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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.

[Author]

Posts