[LBird]

Vin wrote:

Thank you for your clarification, LBird in post #93. So 'workers' in capitalism means the working class and 'workers' in socialism mean everyone; scientists, road sweepers, disabled, the lazy Doctors, researcers Brain surgeons etc, etc,.?I still think that the term 'workers control' in socialism is easily misinterpreted and misunderstood. Surely democratic control by the community is less ambiguous.?

Thanks for your generous acceptance of my long-winded explanation, Vin!As to 'democratic control by the community', you might be correct.On my part, I think linking 'workers' now is important, because if we just use 'community', it lessens our emphasis in this society on 'class struggle'.'Bosses' won't get a vote now, (and won't exist in socialism) and if those who stress 'individuals' (which is a bourgeois concept, and ahistorical and asocial) don't realise that 'individual bosses' won't be getting a vote, then those thinkers are being mislead by those of us who stress 'class struggle'.As an aside, I'm not sure of your characterisation of 'lazy Doctors' – why would anyone want to be a 'doctor' if they're not enthusiastic about helping the sick and injured? I can't imagine a doctor in socialism being asked to help an injured child, and replying 'I just can't be arsed, at the moment, I'm watching telly…'.I'm sure that the doctor's community/commune would have something to say – after all, production is a social task, under democratic control, not the idling away of time by lazy individuals (who claim to be 'free' from society).

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

The whole community (including those not directly involved for one reason or another in production) should be involved in democratic decision making, in socialism.

We agree then, YMS, as long as you include 'scientific knowledge' and 'truth' as synonymous with 'production'.I agree that 'the whole community' (up to every individual on the planet, if necessary to resolve any issue by a vote), whether or not they are 'directly involved' in the production of 'truth', 'should be involved in democratic decision-making'.As you imply, those 'not directly involved' can expect those who are 'directly involved' to have the social responsibility to have to explain to those 'not'. There will be no 'truths' or 'scientific knowledge' only perceptible to an elite, who employ a modern version of the priesthood's Latin (that is, 'maths').The 'science' of a socialist society must be comprehensible to all, to allow all to vote on any contentious issues.We now know that scientists do not have a special elite method which allows them access to a 'truth' which can't be understood by 'the masses'.We've know this since Einstein, and the quote I give from Rovelli shows that at least some physicists are aware of the philosophical problems that this has engendered as the 20th century progressed.We have a chance to integrate this human knowledge into our project to build for socialism, and if we don't, we'll be left behind. Furthermore, with our rejection of 'private property' and introduction of Communism, we are the only ones suited to take this insight forward, that there can be no 'private knowledge' and that democracy must penetrate all and every area of human activity, including science and 'truth' production.

[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…

[Author]

Posts