[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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 parliament

The 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.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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?

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Erm, five paragraphs, and I can't see where you're disagreeing with me.

Yeah, you seem to always have this problem, YMS.Perhaps you're just naturally a conciliator.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

2) Why create new democratic structures when perfectly functional ones exist?  Local councils and parliamentary bodies exist and we will need something of their like …

I think that this is where we disagree, YMS.I don't regard 'local councils and parliamentary bodies' as 'perfectly functional' 'democratic structures'.I think that the root of this disagreement is in our views of the level of mass activity required to produce a proletarian revolution.I regard class consciousness as not merely the realisation that politics is important (and so one must actively discuss and vote on political issues, after which 'local councillors' and 'parliamentary candidates' will implement those decisions), but the realisation that politics, physics, culture, art, maths, etc., etc., are all important, and that we'll spend our lives actively participating in the production of knowledge in all these areas.That is the democratic control of the means of production.Not electing local councillors or parliamentary candidates.Now, not everybody as an individual will be entirely interested in every aspect of human affairs, but the vast majority must be interested in the vast majority of affairs, that affect them as humans.I don't mind anyone disagreeing with me, and then arguing that most people are not capable of this level of active engagement in their own lives…… but if someone does argue this, I don't see how that view is compatible with the notion of democratic control of the means of production. In fact, to me, that view is incompatible with Communism, as I understand it, and will lead to continued passivity in the majority and the emergence of a new, expert, elite, who rule by undemocratic political methods.I define Communism as massive active engagement by the vast majority in their socially productive lives.It's certainly not electing a councillor or candidate, and then lying in bed all day, or shopping, or eating fast food.Passivity, whilst it lasts, spells elite activity in all areas, including science.Consciousness means activity.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

In that there will be a growth in the principle of Direct Participartory Democracy (DPD) being adopted by all manner of social organisations.

Including the social organisation of all 'science', including physics.The social production of 'truth' must be by means of DPD.The only alternative is a pretence by an elite that they, and only they, have a politically neutral method which gives them, and only them, access to 'reality' as it is.That pretence is the basis of any ruling class' ruling ideas, whether priests, physicists or cadre.The religious, professors and Leninists all claim to have a 'knowledge' of 'reality' which we don't and can't have access to.They all deny democracy in their specialist spheres of influence.Physics is identical to economics in method, and deals with a similar 'reality': our knowledge of reality, rather than reality in itself.Knowledge is a product of society.If we are to have a democratic society, we must have democratic production of knowledge.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I found this of interest, an article by the political commentator Chris Hedges, on the oft-forgotten Blanqui and the quotes from Blanqui.http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/05/25/our-mania-hope-curseAnd perhaps to feed LBird's interest, Chrus Hedges on knowledge

Quote:

Knowledge does not lead to wisdom. Knowledge is more often a tool for repression. Knowledge, through the careful selection and manipulation of facts, gives a false unity to reality.

Chris Hedges wrote:

Wisdom is not knowledge. Knowledge deals with the particular and the actual. Knowledge is the domain of science and technology. Wisdom is about transcendence. Wisdom allows us to see and accept reality, no matter how bleak that reality may be. It is only through wisdom that we are able to cope with the messiness and absurdity of life. Wisdom is about detachment. Once wisdom is achieved, the idea of moral progress is obliterated. Wisdom throughout the ages is a constant. Did Shakespeare supersede Sophocles? Is Homer inferior to Dante? Does the Book of Ecclesiastes not have the same deep powers of observation about life that Samuel Beckett offers? Systems of power fear and seek to silence those who achieve wisdom, which is what the war by corporate forces against the humanities and art is about. Wisdom, because it sees through the facade, is a threat to power. It exposes the lies and ideologies that power uses to maintain its privilege and its warped ideology of progress.Knowledge does not lead to wisdom. Knowledge is more often a tool for repression. Knowledge, through the careful selection and manipulation of facts, gives a false unity to reality. It creates a fictitious collective memory and narrative. It manufactures abstract concepts of honor, glory, heroism, duty and destiny that buttress the power of the state, feed the disease of nationalism and call for blind obedience in the name of patriotism. It allows human beings to explain the advances and reverses in human achievement and morality, as well as the process of birth and decay in the natural world, as parts of a vast movement forward in time. The collective enthusiasm for manufactured national and personal narratives, which is a form of self-exaltation, blots out reality. The myths we create that foster a fictitious hope and false sense of superiority are celebrations of ourselves. They mock wisdom. And they keep us passive.Wisdom connects us with forces that cannot be measured empirically and that are outside the confines of the rational world. To be wise is to pay homage to beauty, truth, grief, the brevity of life, our own mortality, love and the absurdity and mystery of existence. It is, in short, to honor the sacred. Those who remain trapped in the dogmas perpetuated by technology and knowledge, who believe in the inevitability of human progress, are idiot savants.“Self-awareness is as much a disability as a power,” the philosopher John Gray writes. “The most accomplished pianist is not the one who is most aware of her movements when she plays. The best craftsman may not know how he works. Very often we are at our most skillful when we are least self-aware. That may be why many cultures have sought to disrupt or diminish self-conscious awareness. In Japan, archers are taught that they will hit the target only when they no longer think of it—or themselves.”Artists and philosophers, who expose the mercurial undercurrents of the subconscious, allow us to face an unvarnished truth. Works of art and philosophy informed by the intuitive, unarticulated meanderings of the human psyche transcend those constructed by the plodding conscious mind. The freeing potency of visceral memories does not arrive through the intellect. These memories are impervious to rational control. And they alone lead to wisdom.

Hedges contrasts his individualist and elite 'wisdom' with social 'knowledge'.We Communists, on the other hand, should contrast the historical and social class basis of science. That is, 'bourgeois science' versus 'proletarian science'.For the bourgeoisie, their science produces wise knowledge; for the proletariat, their science produces wise knowledge.'Wisdom' is always from a class perspective, not from individual intuition or elite revelation.Hedges is merely a religious bluffer. There is no 'unvarnished truth'.'Truth' is a social, and thus class, construction. And for the proletariat, 'truth' must be a democratic construction.Hedges has no more access to 'reality' than do the positivists. His 'transcendence' mirrors the positivists' mythical 'neutral method' of bourgeois science.Both are lying to us, for their own undemocratic purposes.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

Lbird, I am merely stating the position of the SPGB since 1904. Your post, I'm afraid is full of confusion. Chile has nothing to do with socialism. There will be and cannot be workers' councils in socialism. The means of production will be held in common by all.

It's not 'full of confusion', Vin, but an attempt to delineate a more complex analysis than your 'either/or' post earlier.You also don't seem to understand about the 'Chile' example. In Chile in 1973, during the military coup, many senior officers, including top generals, stayed loyal to the Allende government, because of the officer corps' sense of duty to the democratic state. This example is nothing whatsoever to do with 'socialism in Chile', but is to do with the need to strengthen our appeal to those state officials who wish to remain 'legitimate', in their own eyes, during the revolutionary process.Further, you have shown ceaselessly on other threads that you won't have the word 'Workers' associated with the post -revolutionary society, even though Marx used the term, too. OK, call them 'Producers' Councils', if you wish. The real point is, they are not 'parliament', which is the real issue being discussed, not your fetish for 'correctness'.So, 'Producers' Councils' (which everyone else refers to as 'Workers' Councils') will be the political form, not parliament. That is position 2, which I outlined above. You don't share it, and remain wedded to position 1.That's what separates us, politically, not some difference in the use of a word.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

I believe the SPGB's position is that the state is converted from an instrument of oppression into an agent of emancipation. the immediate abolition of the state is an anarchist position…

I think that the issue is a bit more complex, Vin.I would argue that Marxists who look to Council Communism would 'immediately abolish the state' by ensuring that political power is transferred to Workers' Councils.But this political form of democratic workers' power is regarded by anarchists as just another name for a 'state', because they correctly see that 'individuals' will be still under some form of democratic compulsion.So, the three positions might be regarded as:1. Convert the state (still a state, but used by workers, perhaps 'temporarily');2. Destroy the state (and replace it with Workers' Councils, which can democratically compel 'individuals'). Destroy the state (and replace it with 'Free Association' for individuals, who can ignore democratic controls).On these threads, perhaps Vin argues for option 1, I argue for option 2, and robbo203 argues for 3.FWIW, I think that there is confusion within the SPGB between options 1 and 2.I have before characterised my position as 'Parliamentary Suicide', where the whole purpose of parliamentary activity (ie., getting votes in elections) is to display a legitimate claim, to those in our society who remain wedded to bourgeois forms (like many state officials, police and military officers), that the handover to Workers' Councils is 'legitimate' even in their terms.Of course, many will attempt a coup, but many will be loyal to their parliamentary ideals, as Chile in 1973 perhaps showed. We should attempt to strengthen the numbers of the 'loyal idealists' who come over to our side, because they value democracy over military rule.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

Brand is now calling on all his 'followers' on twitter to vote labour, …This has probably been planned all along

So, Brand is now calling for austerity to be continued?I don't think that it's 'been planned all along', Vin. I think that it just shows that Brand knows nothing about politics or economics. Those who look to him will be disappointed, whether now (comrades here) or later (workers who vote Labour will find austerity continuing).I place him alongside Piketty, in his influence and longevity. Shallow and short-term.Capitalism marches on, discarding academics and comedians.The solution really is in our own hands.Final warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.This user is suspended for an indefinite period.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Paddy Shannon  on this aspect influenced me (Lbird, Paddy rarely visits this forum)

 I wish someone would tell me who Paddy Shannon is. I have heard him mentioned with  reverence a few times. Is he famous?If he is, he is not as famous as our LBird 

Surely you mean 'infamous', as a troublemaker, Vin?That leads directly to…Infamy, Infamy! … They've all got it in for me!

[Author]

Posts