[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'.

[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.

[Author]

Posts