[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird, I am not sure what you mean by 'workers democracy'. Can you explain it more fully. Are you saying that 'workers' refers to everyone? If so, why refer only to 'workers'? Why not just democratic control of society? 

By 'workers', Vin, I mean the 'producers' of the means of production.In this capitalist society, 'producers' are 'workers' (as an exploited class).In a future socialist society, 'producers' will still be 'working' (but as a world community of producers, not a 'class').As robbo has shown on the other thread, Marx seems at times to have used the term 'workers' interchangeably with a notion of 'universal producers', as an attempt to link us now with us then.This is inherently confusing, for those who don't have any knowledge of 'class struggle' or 'socialism', but the use of the term 'workers' on a socialist site, as a shorthand for 'class-conscious-workers-in-this-bourgeois-society-building-for-socialism' and also as shorthand for 'producers-in-a-future-socialist-society', because we are talking essentially about the same social group ('producers'), and that the theory and practice of the former is to prefigure that of the latter, seems to me to be eminently sensible.So, by 'workers', I mean the both of the terms above, which I consider to be the same social group.By 'democracy', I mean the 'power' of the 'self-constituted social group' (from the Greek 'demos' (a self-constituted social group) and 'kratos' (power).Since socialism will require the proletariat now to have both theoretically have constituted itself as the 'demos' and to have practically have taken 'power', I regard 'socialism' as synonynmous with "workers' power", or "workers' democracy".So, in a socialist society, 'just democratic control of society' would be "workers' power".I keep asking those who disagree with me to tell me who, if not the 'producers' (or, 'workers', as defined above), shall have political power.They seem to argue for either 'individuals' (alledgedly 'free'; often from robbo203) or an 'elite group' (of 'experts'; often from Young Master Smeet).I disagree, and argue that socialism equates to "workers' democracy", and that the 'means of production' clearly includes 'science' and the production of knowledge/truth, and that the means of production will be under the control of workers' democracy.Hope this all helps, Vin.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

…for clarification material of a criminally abusive nature does not come under the heading of "free speech"…

'Who determines' what is 'criminally abusive'?The problem is, when I ask 'who determines', if not "workers' democracy", those disagreeing with me about the right of workers to determine either 'No Platform' or 'No 'No Platform'', the question is never answered, and it is assumed that 'free speech', or 'free association' or 'criminally abusive' are in themselves entirely unproblematic concepts that are outside of the considerations of "workers' democracy".

SP wrote:

That could mean I wouldn't be allowed to set up a web site dedicated to the concept of a green cheese moon, because the sub-committee have decided on behalf of the majority that it is stupid, un-scientific, and therefore unnecessary.Such a body would in essence be an elite.

Not if the 'body' is under the control of "workers' democracy", because clearly any sub-committee is answerable to all of us, in the final analysis.If you're asking me that if workers decided democratically, after all the necessary appeals processes, to 'ban a web site', would I then support the ban, my answer is 'yes'. For this to happen, there must be a very good reason, and that reason will have been discussed, debated and voted on, so the necessity of the ban must have been clearly understood.The alternative is for individuals (or elite groups outside of our social control) to have the right to set up any website that they liked, no matter how harmful to other individuals or groups, and how causing of great concern to the rest of us.

SP wrote:

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, LBird.

About "workers' democracy"? Yes, it seems so.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

He goes further than this in fact and says that the majority can and should also decide what is scientifically true or not, but that's another argument which I think we've exhausted on other threads…

If fact, we haven't exhausted this, because neither you, nor any other poster, nor the SPGB officially, has told us 'who determines' what is 'scientifically true'.We know from scientists that they don't have a method for determining 'truth' outside of society, and so we must say, to workers who are looking to socialists for answers to their questions about political control, legitimacy and authority, who shall determine 'truth' in a socialist society.To me, as a Democratic Communist, that only acceptable answer is "workers' democracy" shall determine 'truth'.After that axiomatic declaration, the only issue is 'how'.The details of 'how', though, are of course a matter for the class conscious proletariat, one of the many questions that workers are going to have to formulate, wrestle with, and answer, during the course of building towards socialism.The apparent insistence on this site that 'elite experts' shall be determining 'who' has power, 'who' tells us the truth, and from 'who' originates legitimacy and authority, is a denial of "workers' power".If workers are not to control 'the means of production', who is?Or by 'means of production' do you all mean 'factories', but not the important stuff, like the production of ideas?I sense the 'materialist' bluffers at work!Beware Workers of the World – the 'materialists' deny democracy!

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

 All I can think of for what he's advocating is "the dictatorship of the majority". The trouble is, though, that democracy does involve the majority having its way ("dictating", if you like) but not on everything, not in particular on what people can think and say.

[my bold]This is, of course. what I'm pointing out.But I'm consistent.For you ALB, who determines the 'not on everything'?You must be advocating a non-democratic decision: either individuals or an elite group, who are outside of democratic control.There are problems, and it's best to be open about them with workers, and prepare ourselves and other workers.Blathering on about 'free association' for individuals doesn't cut the political mustard, I'm afraid.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

But society cannot democratically do the censoring, since in order to vote on what information to suppress society would have to disseminate it, in which case, it's not suppressed. You'd need a technical elite to do the censoring.

Couldn't put it any better.

Disagree with you here, SP!YMS's argument amounts to:If you haven't been to the moon, you can't know that it's not made out of green cheeseOf course we can censor 'information' which we can know about, and think is socially dangerous/unethical/undesirable, without every individual having to experience it personally.A democratically-elected sub-committee can do the 'dirty work', not YMS's political dream of a self-selecting 'technical elite'.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I found that a number of SPGB members either denied censorship was being used or that a little was necessary for maintaining control.

This sums up my point, really.I think censorship is inescapable, and it's better to admit this, and state clearly who has the power to censor.Otherwise, it will just happen, and be denied, and it will be certain individuals or elite groups who censor, without the knowledge or permission of workers' organisations.To me, claiming there will be a regime of 'entirely free speech' in the future is misleading now, and in effect a lie, since those claiming that it will happen, surely can't be so naive as to believe that they're telling the truth. Or are they so naive about power?Mind you, if they can define 'democracy' as 'free association', anything's possible.'Democracy' means "workers' power", not 'free association'.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

Simply, all societies find something to be 'beyond the pale', and I'm sure that we can find things now that we'd prevent being published, and I think Communism will be no different.

I can't think of any view on how society should be organised or on what policies to adopt that should be banned under capitalism let alone in socialist/communist society. Maybe you can. If so, I'd be interested.

Well, under capitalism, slavery, eugenics, beating wives, breeding low IQ humans for hunting, torturing animals, etc., etc.Under socialism/communism, private property, wage labour, propagating nationalism…There's always the 'crowd-rousing' issue of paedophilia to be considered, of course. But I think paediatricians will be allowed…

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

The context was me saying that censorship was inescapable.

Apologies, but I don't think I've grasped your argument that censorship is inescapable. Can you go over it again?

Simply, all societies find something to be 'beyond the pale', and I'm sure that we can find things now that we'd prevent being published, and I think Communism will be no different.If you know of a society that had no restrictions whatsoever on what its members could say and do, I'd be pleased to hear about it.I regard the notion of a society where 'free thought' applies to 'anything whatsoever' as a bourgeois myth, a part of the ideological wishful thinking of capitalism, and its 'free' markets and 'free' individuals.Since I think it's a myth, I don't think socialists should propagate this myth, in an attempt to 'recruit' (for want of a better word, my apologies) those disaffected with capitalism because for them "it doesn't do what it says on the tin".I think that it's better to be as honest as possible, and wean these 'anti-capitalist individualists' (who want to appear as 'pro-socialist individualists', simply because they recognise from bitter experience the myth of 'individualism in capitalism') off 'individualism' entirely.I think 'individuals' can only be produced by a society dedicated to producing 'individuals', in the sense we usually mean, that of 'social-individuals', given the finest education and experience, and participation in their society and its democratic decision-making, and critical thinking towards 'what exists'.Bourgeois society doesn't produce 'individuals' in this sense; but only 'individuals' who seek to 'escape' from society and its compulsions, both natural and social.I regard 'censorship' as a 'social compulsion', and all societies must protect themselves from 'deviant' thought and behaviour, otherwise the society would perish. Of course what counts as 'deviant' is determined by a society.All this comes as a nasty shock to those seeking the 'realisation' of 'bourgeois myth' through socialism, and the 'freeing of the individual from society'.I regard it to be necessary to make workers as conscious as possible of the workings of society, so that they can take control of it. Bourgeois myths of 'complete untramelled freedom for every individual' just make our task that much more difficult.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Not at all. I thought you were proposing that socialist society self-deny censoring any opinion, i.e that while it might reserve the right to do so it never would. Isn't that what you meant? Seriously.

No, that's not what I said at all.The context was me saying that censorship was inescapable.How you then read my comment as 'it never would', which implies censorship is escapable, I don't know.A 'self-denying ordinance' is the choice to self-deny. I thought you of all on this thread would have recognised the historical allusion.A society can choose to censor, rather than just let it happen (which, I've argued, it will, because 'censorship is inescapable').And if it is possible to openly choose, I think that society should choose, and the method of choosing should be democracy.As I've said, to me, the alternative is censorship by some other means, by an elite (perhaps, initially, of one).Once again, the basis of my argument is "workers' democracy", but that assumption doesn't seem to find many friends, here.Seriously.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

Perhaps the notion of a 'self-denying ordinance' helps, here.

Good idea,

Is that a polite way to ask me to leave the site, ALB?If it was a joke, I'd've expected a smiley, to emphasise.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Lbird,the problem is, that your position is the elitist one here, since censorship requires a censor that hides information from the democratic polity.

Since all societies 'censor', the only issue is 'who' should do the censoring.Ignoring this issue, as our 'free thought' individualists do, simply means that the censor, of necessity with this pretence, is hidden and unacknowledged.If fact, we'll simply find an elite of experts doing the censoring, rather than our society, democratically.Perhaps the notion of a 'self-denying ordinance' helps, here.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

I'm just being realistic here.

Quite.As are all 'practical men'.For my part, I'm an 'unrealistic' revolutionary, who proceeds from criticism of 'what exists'.If you want to start from the political and ideological assumption that only a few can understand ''string theory", that's fine by me, but why not tell everyone what political ideology that position represents? Why are you reluctant to expose your ideology?Since I'm a Democratic Communist, and that means I assume that the vast majority of humans can understand their world, I don't share your version of 'being realistic'.From that Communist ideological position, the question is 'WHY don't many people in this society understand 'string theory?'.You no doubt, given your ideological elitism, will happily reply:'Because most people are thick, and the world is difficult to understand, only a few 'special individuals' have even the capacity to begin to understand!'.After all, you're just 'being realistic' – about this society.I would answer that question by saying:'Because scientific knowledge is restricted to an elite (our present society prevents all and any individual from having the freedom to study physics from kindergarten to post-PhD research) and that specially-chosen elite present their own findings in a special language (mathematics), the result is that few people in our present society understand 'string theory' '.After all, I'm just 'being realistic' – about a future Communist society.Not least of the differences between bourgeois science and proletarian science would be the imperative for a physics-worker to explain to a non-physics-worker what 'string theory' is, and this, all workers would agree, would be because the non-physics-workers would be deciding the merits of 'string theory'. If the physics-worker hasn't learned through their education the necessity for physics-workers to be able to explain what they are doing, and so can't explain, I think that other workers would be unlikely to allow the physics-worker to continue to be a physics-worker.It would be part of the definition of being a 'scientist' as being the ability to explain their work to other workers. The notion of 'priests speaking Latin to an uncomprehending laity, who must just accept that the priests know better', which is the scientific world we presently live in, would be ended.Of course, there will be resistance from the priests, who can see the end of their 'special status', if they are compelled to reveal their esoteric work, and their Bible is published in the language of the workers.How say you, Good Catholic Father Robbo?Beware the Bad Protestant Communist Revolutionaries!"The world turned upside down", indeed!

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

There should be no elites when it comes to decide what people should DO.

So, presumably, since you introduced the qualifier about elites, 'there should be elites when it comes to deciding what people should THINK'?And since, for Marxists, our method is 'theory and practice', and thus 'thinking precedes doing', 'doing is a product of thinking', really your slogan in fact becomes:'there should be elites when it comes to deciding what people should THINK and DO'.Of course, contrary to Marxists, for the specialists, blind 'doing', like the sort of work that the scruffs 'do', doesn't need 'elite' input, so that the elitist-loving 'individualists' can happily leave the workers to their inconsequential 'do-ings'.By christ, we can't let those workers get hold of the nuclear research industry – by 'means of production', we mean 'factories' that produce cardboard boxes, or sweets.Any worker who presumes (like LBird, guffaw!) to take the phrase 'the means of production' to mean the serious stuff, is going to get a shock.Hmmmm…. so we workers get to 'do stuff', whilst the special individuals, who comprise the expert elite, get to do the thinking and the interesting stuff…

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

It seems the only argument worth having now is where we actually place those limits.

[my bold]No, robbo, I'm afraid you still haven't 'got it'.The issue is 'who', not 'where'.I'll leave the rest of your 'individualist' rant for those who approve.BTW, say 'Hello!' to the 'hunter-gatherers' who've moved onto Mars, for me.At last, there, they'll be free from that nasty Earth Society and its inescapable social organisations.Perhaps 'Martian Individualism' is the more illustrating term for your version of 'Libertarian Communism'.

robbo203 wrote:

The ridiculous suggestions you have come up with in the past – like the idea of workers democratically "voting" to determine the "truth" of some scientific theory will hopefully now be abandoned by you as the complete nonsense it is.

Yeah, always the bottom line with the 'mob-hating' individualists: 'elite rule, expert knowledge, no workers' democracy'.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

L. Bird is arguing that a majority could in theory do this if it wanted to (even if he doesn't think they should do so in practice).

Yes, this sums up my position. That "workers' democracy", in the final analysis, trumps "individual/minority freedom".As ALB recognises, in practice I'd probably be as 'liberal' in my approach to 'freedom for minorities' as ALB or robbo (because we all agree that 'minority' opinions are the essence of democratic practice, and allow criticism of 'what exists', and have the ability to become a 'majority' opinion).But, the 'definition' of what democracy is, and how it works in practice, must be subject to workers' democracy.So, my baseline ideological position is "workers' democracy", and not "individual/minority freedom".If there is a clash between the two, I'd argue for the former. I think that this is entirely consistent with Communism and workers' control of the means of production.I think that the latter is a hangover from our bourgeois conditioning, where, at base, the 'free' individual has the 'right' to ignore their comrades (that is, their comrades' democratically expressed opinion).To me, this notion of 'free' as opposed to 'mass authority' is rooted in 'fear of the mob' and private property.And when it comes to 'matter', well… why should a vote tell us 'what matter is', when matter is perfectly able to speak for itself, to each and every individual… well, at least to 'special individuals' and to 'minorities of scientific experts'…There simply has to be a brake upon the power of workers to make decisions…No, workers' democracy is the last resort for decisions about how our society would be run, not ahistorical and asocial 'freedom' and 'individuals'.

[Author]

Posts