[LBird]

It's revealing that you focus upon me as 'a very muddled individual'.I regard the social ideology that you have been persuaded of, to be the problem, in your case.But then, my ideology is social and historical at heart, whereas yours is about 'individuals'.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

I'm all for democratic restrictions on all sorts of things – that's the nature of 'power'. Rather than bluff other workers into believing that socialism will realise the bourgeois wet dream of 'free individuals', who will not be subject to any authority, I'd rather stimulate a discussion on the nature, extent and problems of "workers' power", ie. Communist Democracy.

 "In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."Communist Manifesto  chapter 2

I know, robbo, but why not just come out and say what your ideology is?Your essential focus is, as is Young Master Smeet's, 'free individuals', or 'Libertarian Communism'.Mine is "workers' power", or Democratic Communism.We've had this form of discussion during our 'science' debates: everyone quotes from Marx to support their own views, and Marx supplies a steady source of 'confirmatory quotes' for everyone. We all know he can be selected from, just like The Bible.The more interesting discussion would be to reveal our own ideological viewpoints, and take it from there.Experience leads me to say 'Fat Chance!', right now.Those brought up in bourgeois society apparently love the word 'free': I wonder why?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

What is a guide must be something beyond the mere word "Marxism", eg. what is in the interest of the working class and socialist movement. Better to say this directly and skip the appeal to Marx.

But, to determine just 'what is in the interest of the working class and socialist movement' requires "workers' power", not 'individual free speech'. This need for workers' power and democratic control is at the heart of Marx (the issue of 'all sorts of Leninists' leads us to discussion about the differences between Marx/1st International and Engels/2nd International, and neither of us wants to go there…).

ALB wrote:

Anyway, when "workers", or socialist-minded workers, have the power to restrict freedom of speech they won't need to because they will be in the majority and won't need to fear fellow workers being "misled" by hearing "wrong" views (a patronising and elitist view towards other workers anyway).

Yep, I agree. They won't need to, but they'll have the power to.

ALB wrote:

Or you're not advocating that non-socialist-minded workers should have the power to decide to restrict "any speech that they determine to be harmful" are you? Are you? You've got me worried now.

Well, since I always talk of 'Democratic Communism', I thought everyone realised that I'm talking about the class conscious proletariat.'Non-socialist-minded workers' don't have power to do anything now, and never have had, and never will. Whatever power they've supposedly had, has been in reality someone else's power.But, once again, it comes down to our definition of 'socialist-minded-workers'.To me, that is workers being conscious of their democratic power to determine their world, not workers falling for the bourgeois myths of individualism ('free' to do whatever they like, no authority, the pretence that 'individuals' are the primary source of their own thoughts, as opposed to society, etc.).I think Marx's works are a useful guide to these issues (even if clouded by his poor writing, and needing our critical thinking to interpret them).

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Actually, I don't think that "Marxism is a guide to action" or rather that this phrase means anything. I was just quoting it to bring out that your theory didn't seem to help in dealing with policy decisions confronting socialists, e,g whether or not to support a policy of "No Platform" for selected opponents.

I think that Marxism is a guide to action, but then that leads us to the interminable question about just what is 'Marxism'. At base, I regard it as a framework for "workers' power", rather than 'inalienable rights for individuals' (ie. 'free speech' for anyone, regardless of a workers' vote).As I've said, to me, if workers vote to not allow a platform to a 'speaker', that's fine by me, because it doesn't contradict my 'Marxism', my 'guide to action'. The asocial and ahistorical 'right to free speech' for any individual, regardless of specific circumstances, is, to me, a mythical bourgeois freedom. Your quoting of the US Constitution earlier, I put into this category, because we all well know that for most of the existence of that constitution many workers had no free speech whatsoever (and for 100 years didn't even have 'free hands'), and for all of its existence, the rich have been able to buy more 'free speech'.

ALB wrote:

The SWP wants "no platform for fascists" (who are not really a threat) but "a platform for islamists" (who are more of one).

Obviously, I'm as vehemently opposed to the SWP as you are – probably more, since I was once hoodwinked by them, to some extent, at least. But my essential problem with the SWP is its lack of democracy, not its specific policy of 'No Platform', which I would support if voted for by workers, in certain circumstances (perhaps if not in others, where I would be in a defeated minority, where I'd argued against 'No Platform' because it couldn't be implemented, and thus just showed up our class weakness).The key difference between us here, though, is the nature of the 'principle' at stake:'Individual freedom of speech' versus 'workers' democratic power to restrict any speech that they determine to be harmful'.I'm all for democratic restrictions on all sorts of things – that's the nature of 'power'. Rather than bluff other workers into believing that socialism will realise the bourgeois wet dream of 'free individuals', who will not be subject to any authority, I'd rather stimulate a discussion on the nature, extent and problems of "workers' power", ie. Communist Democracy.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

Nevertheless, I've tried to expose my underlying ideology, and where I think it takes me, on this and other issues.

I know what your theory is but it doesn't seem much of a guide to action like Marxist theory is supposed to be. By the time you've worked out what to do at a "No Platform" protest the action will be all over.

Spoken like the true 'practical men' of the bourgeoisie!The myth of a 'guide to action' merely covers the refusal to expose what 'theory' lies behind the 'guide', and the unspoken 'guide' simply justifies itself in 'action'.How can workers come to understand what's behind 'action', and thus control it, if they haven't realised that 'theory' is doing the guiding, or, indeed that those doing the 'guiding' won't reveal their 'theory', and thus expose it to a workers' vote, ie. democracy?Thus, we have the secret of the constant refusal to accept workers' power (ie. demos and kratos), and the looking to elites and experts to make decisions – as 'practical men' are wont to do, of course!And don't mention physicists, and their 'objective practice' of 'science'….

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I'm not advocating fighting the SWP to allow the National Front to speak !  Just opposing their undemocratic practice and saying they shouldn't do it (because it's not in the interest of the working class or socialist movement).

[my bold]I think we can agree on this, anyway!Nevertheless, I've tried to expose my underlying ideology, and where I think it takes me, on this and other issues.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

…but I still say that even if a group decides democratically to try to impose "No Platform" for some other group, that doesn't make it acceptable.

No, I agree.But the reverse is also true:"if a group decides democratically to try to impose 'No "No Platform" ' for some other group, that doesn't make it acceptable".Thus, in our scenario, it makes sense for the 'No Platform' group to attend the meeting to prevent the Fascist from speaking, and for the 'No 'No Platform' ' group to simply not attend the meeting, so they by omission don't prevent……and neither 'imposes' upon the other.The problem here is not one of 'internal democracy', but the lack of a higher body of workers, which both groups are a constituitive part of, which can determine, and can impose, because it has the democratic authority to do so.As I've said, I'm a Democratic Communist, and I do recognise a social and political authority outside of individuals (persons or groups).That's why I'm not an Anarchist or, from what I've read and tried to discuss on LibCom, a 'Libertarian' Communist. From what little response I got, their 'Libertarian' forms seem very similar to robbo203 and Young Master Smeet's ideological views.The best that I've come up with so far as a way of illustrating these divergent positions is the ask the questions:1. Are you an individual?; and2. After the revolution, who shall tell you what to do? (ie. who shall you obey?).My own answers to these ideologically-loaded questions are:1. No, I'm not an individual, I'm a worker (ie. I regard myself as a constituent part of a social structure); and2. The Democratic Commune of which I'm a voting member will tell me what to do (the Anarchists always seem to reply that, after the rev., no-one will tell them what to do, implying, to me, no society, no political structures, and no authority whatsoever, just 7 billion individuals).If I was pressed to give a short answer to the differences, I think one starts from 'society', and the other from the 'individual'.I start from society, and its history, as I think Marx does, too.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

But to descend from the realms of philosophy to everyday political life…

Well, this is what every individual does, don't they, they 'decend from the realms of [their] philosophy [theory] to everyday political life [practice]…I mean, that's precisely what we Communists argue, isn't it?The only difference is that I expose my 'theory' which guides my practice, whereas some either pretend that they don't have a philosophy or consciously hide it.I've got no problem with any comrades here arguing that their 'theory' isn't Democratic Communism, and is 'Individualism', but there seems to be some reluctance to accept that WE ALL descend.I suspect that a vital part of 'Individualism' is that one doesn't have a philosophy/ideology/theory, and that one just does practice, outside of that nasty consideration of 'society', that the Commies are always bangin' on about…

ALB wrote:

…what do you think of the "No Platform" policy, and attempt practice, of some groups aimed at any group or individual who are or who are deemed by them to be "fascist" or "racist"?

My real issue with the Leninist/Maoist sects is that they are not democratic, so they don't comply to my ideological view that workers must decide policy democratically.But if, as a group, they were run on the lines of workers' democracy, then I think they would be justified in voting for and implementing a policy of 'No Platform for Fascists'.The problem arises when another group following the same method voted against such a policy.Then we'd have the problem of the possibility of two groups of workers battling with each other, one to defend the Fascist's rights, outside of a venue at which a Fascist was speaking, like the two revolutionary groups attempting to kidnap Caesar's wife, in the Life of Brian, with the Fascist's supporters shaking their heads, like the Roman guards…I think there needs to be a proletarian movement, far wider than a political party (embryonic workers' councils?), to which the issue could be handed to, by the warring groups, for a decision.However, the decision would be a democratic one, not that of an isolated individual [group]…This doesn't really get us much further though does it?Furthermore, I've noticed, on the 'Science for Communist' thread and others, the same tendency as expressed on this one; that of 'turning to practical matters' and leaving 'the realms of philosophy' aside for now…I've said this before: this is the method of 'practice and theory' (or, even, 'practice' all alone!) which I've criticised as not being socialist or Marxist.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

To extend the concept of democracy to people's thoughts or modes of self expression implies the suppression of those very things that democracy is supposed to be about. This is not democracy, it is totalitarian thought control. It is fascism.  We are no longer allowed to think what we think.  We must toe the Party Line, embrace the Party Line, become the Party Line.  Sod that. I say.  Who wants such a Brave New World?

This just sounds like 'libertarianism' to me, robbo.Replace "people's thoughts" with "people's property", and I think you'll see what I'm driving at.

robbo203 wrote:

Of course we must respect and abide by majority decisions…

But this is inconsistent with your former rage against 'democracy' as 'thought control'…

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I just think that there are some fields where this should not apply, precisely over what ideas individuals hold and express…

[my bold]I agree with you, ALB, but the issue is 'who determines' the 'fields'?In any specific vote on an issue, we're likely to be identical in our opinion, I think.But I think the validity of which 'field' is decided, is by a vote, not by lone individuals.It's the majority that gives legitimacy, not the individual.

ALB wrote:

Anyway, supposing that a decision has been taken to try to prevent the expression of some point of view, what do you envisage should happen to those who persist in expressing it?

Simple. They should be prevented.I'm a Democratic Communist.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

What frightens me, rather, is a "totalitarian democracy" in which a majority vote can determine which views can be expressed and cannot be expressed.

But the reverse of this is just as 'frightening':

Quote:

What frightens me, rather, is a "individualist democracy" in which a minority of one vote can determine which views can be expressed and cannot be expressed.

We seem to agree about the latter:

ALB wrote:

I agree that no "lone individual" should have this right either…

But you go on to argue:

ALB wrote:

…nor should any private association like UAF or the SWP. Nobody or no body should. On the other hand,  "lone individuals" should be free to express their point of view without punishment or retribution.

I find it inconsistent. Why should a 'lone individual' decide for themself whether their 'view' is socially acceptable or not?What if the individual persuades another 'lone individual' of their 'view', and they both argue it?Do these two now constitute a 'private association' (in effect, a tiny UAF or SWP)?I can imagine an argument being put forward that, as long as the views are 'non-political', then they should be allowed to determine their freedom to hold (and thus speak them and thus propagate them) their 'own' views.But, once again, 'who determines' "non-political"?For example, during the 1970s, the organisation PIE was formed, from 'individuals' holding views that many think should be banned. They could argue that their views are 'personal views', and ask why shouldn't they be allowed to disseminate and persuade others of those views.Clearly, PIE is an emotive case, but it serves as an illustration of the need to address social and historical context when discussing 'No Platform' and 'No 'No Platform''.

ALB wrote:

I know you can come back and argue that a majority has first to determine that no decision can be taken "abridging the freedom of speech" and that it is by virtue of this decision that individuals can express themselves freely (as opposed to some inalienable right of individuals to free speech). I hope you do.

Yes, I agree that it is a decision of a majority to determine the extent of 'freedom of speech'.I'm in favour, as I'm sure you and all other comrades are, of as much freedom of speech as possible. But, also as you say, this is not on the basis of the bourgeois ideology of 'some inalienable right of individuals', but on the basis of a majority committed to a 'freedom of speech' which they determine the extent of and can limit.I think a social majority is a better judge of 'as possible', 'extents' and 'limits', than are 'lone individuals'.As I've said before, fear of 'democratic mandates' or 'majority backing' is rooted in our experience of bourgeois society, and its underlying ideology of 'the fear of the mob', itself rooted in the 'inalienable right to property'.This 'ideological fear' can only be overcome by the democratic practices of a class conscious proletariat as we develop ourselves, in the process of building towards socialism.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

Lbird. I appreciated you not raising the issue of which scientific method we should use to determine 'truth' as it may go off topic a bit.  

No problems! Have a happy thread!

[LBird]

Vin, I'd just like to say that I think you are posing some very important questions, about the nature of 'democracy', 'science' and 'experts'.I know you won't thank me for any contribution I make, so I'll leave this thread alone; but I can't avoid saying that I consider your questions to be vitally important for workers, aiming to build for socialism.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

It's about whether anyone should determine…

Well, if no social body 'determines', then each individual will 'determine'.To pretend 'whether anyone', is to answer 'each lone individual should'.I've long suspected that there is an undertone of 'liberal individualism' on this site, often made evident by posters opposed to my 'Democratic Science' views.Put simply, I think 'democracy' should determine, whereas you think 'individuals' should determine.There is no 'non-determination' for the social animals that we are.

[LBird]

Are there only two positions:1. No Platform; or2. No 'No Platform'.?Surely within any society there are always going to be some views that that society will insist has 'No Platform' within it?Isn't the real issue 'who determines' what counts as a view that should be given a platform, and one that shouldn't?That any view has historical and social roots, and that what is allowed a 'Platform' in one period, perhaps isn't in another, and vice versa?I'm in favour of neither 'No Platform' or 'No 'No Platform'' in the abstract; I can see grey areas and contexts, that need discussing, and voting upon.I can see why some societies would ban 'Mein Kampf', and why some wouldn't. I've read it, and regard it as laughable, but I can see why the symbolic importance of a ban of Nazi works could be justified, in a society which is coming under pressure from Nazis, who are organising and attacking working class people.To me, the real issue is 'who determines a ban?'. The problem with the 'No Platform' brigade is usually that they are not democrats, they are Leninists/Maoists etc.

[Author]

Posts