LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
gnome wrote:The reason why we say it is essential to win control of the machinery of government, which in countries such as the UK is parliament or its equivalent, is that the state is both the historically-evolved centre of social administration and, in class-divided societies like capitalism, the institution with the power to employ socially-sanctioned physical force. The state is an expression of and enforcer of class society. Intrinsically it is a coercive institution.
There is some analytical overlap here between 'parliament' and 'the state'.'Parliament' is only one aspect of 'the state', and whilst any parliament is the focus of legitimate decision-making in socially-peaceful times, in more revolutionary periods of increasing class warfare, there always seems to emerge a 'shadow' decision-making body which is ready to usurp 'the power to employ socially-sanctioned physical force', when the moment is right. This is most often some sort of 'junta', composed of other arms of the state, like the military generals, judiciary, top civil servants, chief police officers and heads of local councils. At the moment of the final triumph of 'democracy' (ie. an SPGB revolutionary majority), the shadow body will spring into action (during the '70s in the UK, perhaps Column 88 in the armed forces and 'Clockwork Orange' in NI are relevant historical pointers). At this point, 'parliament' becomes useless as a tool of 'power', and the junta then heads 'the state' and its coercive bodies.What parliament does retain, is democratic legitimacy, and this 'legitimacy' can act as a pole of attraction for those members of the state who wish to retain democracy, are already at least partially disposed to Communist ideas, have now had it proven to them by popular vote that Communism is what 'the people' want, and are opposed to military juntas.In line with this legitimacy, as parliament is held to be the supreme body in constitutional theory, then that body can dissolve itself and hand 'legitimacy' over to the parallel Workers' Councils, which necessarily will have developed during the period when the SPGB was also gaining more votes, ending in a parliamentary majority.Thus, those members of the armed forces, judicial machinery, police bodies and civil and local authority workers, who wish to adhere to 'democracy', 'legitimacy' and peaceful means, will have a route which allow them to follow their wishes.The alternative will be an undemocratic, unknown, constitutionally-illegitimate junta, which only has a violent coup as its means of political action.Our 'coercive institution' must be Workers' Councils, as the newly legitimate authority set above the other components of the state, and which will immediately proceed to democratise all power and authority within those bodies, so that any 'officer ranks' are elected and revokable. This will, of course, be the end process of the confidence building of the 'non-officers' within those state bodies of their own abilities to run those bodies. There will have been parallel development by all workers, both outside and inside of the state, and links would already exist between emergent Workers' Councils and Councils of soldiers, civil servants, judicial workers, and, even if perhaps a minority in this case, the police; the handing over of 'legitimacy' from parliament to Workers' Councils would already have been part of proletarian propaganda, and openly stated as the only aim of voting for the SPGB (or other proletarian parties), the strategy of 'Parliamentary Suicide'.This act of parliamentary self-destruction won't come as a surprise.The assumption by Workers' Councils of the legitimate control of state organs, with the aim of destroying any old elite power mechanisms within them too, and only retaining whatever functions we perhaps temporarily need (eg. police SPG/DSU disbanded, detective/forensic capabilities retained?), would be the ultimate symbol of the destruction of bourgeois rule.
Bertolt Brecht, The Solution, wrote:After the uprising of June 17thThe Secretary of the Authors' UnionHad leaflets distributed in the StalinalleeWhich said that the peopleHad forfeited the government's confidenceAnd could only win it backBy redoubled labour. Wouldn't itBe simpler in that case if the governmentDissolved the people andElected another?SocialistPunk wrote:I should point out that I understand and accept the idea of using existing democratic structures to get to socialism, but if democracy changes dramaticaly from what we see today, why would any socialist think the old structures would have a place in a socialist future?[my bold]Yeah, I can see the revolutionary logic of 'using existing democratic structures to get to socialism', as propounded by the SPGB, but I'd replace SP's 'if' with 'when'. To me, it's clear that 'parliament', and all its electoral and procedural 'old structures', will be useless for the proletariat.Once this route is accepted, the inevitable and necessary destruction of the bourgeois anti-democratic institution (in our socio-economic terms) should be stressed by the SPGB, to help undermine or even forestall entirely the criticisms made by other (sometimes broadly sympathetic) Communist groups, of the supposed 'SPGB parliamentary reformist route'.I'd recommend that the SPGB adopts a clear strategy of 'Parliamentary Suicide', and clearly states that "a vote for the SPGB is a vote to dismantle parliament".To me, this is the essence of 'using existing democratic structures to get to socialism'.Let's face it, if that strategy alienates our 'constituency', we'd be better (in the spirit of Brecht's view that the East German Stalinists should dismiss the people and elect a new one), to find a 'constituency' other than the proletariat, and, as SP joked, really ditch Marx!
Brian wrote:Do I have to keep on prompting you to use critical thinking?Sorry, I keep falling into SPGB mode.
ALB wrote:But there will still be a place for committees of elected delegates to examine and decide more complicated issues.[my bold]This, to me, is where I fundmentally disagree. I'd phrase it as:"But there will still be a place for committees of elected delegates to examine and make recommendations on more complicated issues"The 'deciding' will be done by the widest vote possible. The 'delegates' won't be doing any 'deciding', unless for a specific issue that they are given a mandate to decide. I would expect this 'mandate of decision' to be only given for very unimportant decisions (colour of toilet rolls at the Commune building?).But, you go on to say:
ALB wrote:Of course, these delegates (and they would be delegates not "representatives" with a free hand as todays MPs see themselves) can be subject to much more democratic accountability than are today's so-called "representatives", as by short terms, restrictions on re-election, recall provisions, regular report-back meetings, etc.This is far closer to my position, but is less precise, and leaves room for the 'delegates as pseudo-representatives' interpretation put on the SPGB's line by other organisations.Personally, I think it a mistake not to be brutally honest with any potential 'delegates', and better to tell them, from the start, they won't be making decisions.The proletariat will. (and, for the clowns who can't stop being childish, that means during the build-up to a revolution; afterwards, as we all know, there won't be a 'proletariat', but humanity).
ALB wrote:So, let's be practical and talk of a combination of direct democracy and delegate democracy in socialism.I'm not a 'practical' man, ALB. I'm an ideologist. And I always see talk of 'practicalities' as a mark of conservative thinking.I want 'direct democracy'.Too much talk of 'delegate democracy' will slide into 'representative democracy', which is precisely what other organisations criticise the SPGB for. I think that there are some in the SPGB who would very easily slip from direct, to delegate, to representative, to dictating. We've only got to look at our discussions about science to see that trend emerging.As long as we make it clear that the 'delegates' decide the toilet roll colours, and the proletariat directly decide the meaning of scientific research, I think we're on the right track.
ALB wrote:Why create another wheel when a workable one already exists?This is clarifying things for me, anyway.'Parliament' is not 'workable' for a class conscious proletariat, because power must reside in the political organs of the class.Of course, the physical buildings of The Houses of Parliament could be retained and used for a higher level commune within these islands, for example, but the political structures of the present 'parliamentary democracy' would be destroyed.I thought that the SPGB was arguing for 'Parliamentary Suicide'; that is, a vote for the SPGB was a vote to abolish parliament. This would legitimise the handing over of political control of the armed forces, police, civil service, etc. to the Workers' Councils, so that troops loyal to the proletariat, perhaps at the behest of revolutionary junior officers, could legitimately arrest any senior officers who had not yet declared for the new regime.That was my understanding of the SPGB strategy. It looks like I was wrong.
Brian wrote:What were the hurdles regarding the adoption of 'Critical Realism' you had to jump? Can you identify them and explain the reasons for their occurrance?One hurdle is 'physicalism'. This is a bourgeois ideological construct, which is based on tangibility and individuals being able to touch. It's merely another name for 'empiricism'.This 'occurs' because of the necessity for the bourgeoisie to make everyone believe that 'they are individuals' and their 'individual experience' of the 'world they can see in front of their own eyes' is the basis of 'science'.Our job is to explain that much of the world is not only unobservable to our individual senses, but only 'observable' in any way at all to a 'society' employing its own 'theories'.Physicalism is bourgeois brainwashing at its best, and I advise any comrades who aspire to understand these issues to compare my post outlining Critical Realism with DJP's model of Physicalism, and try to identify the differences for themselves.Top Tip: if anyone thinks that they are an 'individual', stick to Physicalism, and ignore my post.
Vin Maratty wrote:Absolute fantacy. Unsupported rantings and very typical of LBird.God knows how many of those points are down to you, Vin.
Brian wrote:This being the case, during this pause, it would be really helpful for us newbies if the main contributors post a list of what they think are the lessons they have drawn from this discussion so far.1. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.2. All the members on this site who've shown genuine interest in the subject, including asking for reading recommendations, are SPGB ex-members.3. I've got better things to do, than constantly repeat myself.4. Due to my continued reading (and I seem to be the only one doing any at all), my initial positions have been reinforced, and the contrary ones weakened further.5. The responses of SPGB members have displayed a shocking lack of open-mindedness and imagination, and have demonstrated an innate conservatism, also including 'fear of the mob' elitism.6. Any feelings of comradeship I might have felt towards the SPGB, when I started posting last year, have been largely dissipated.7. There aren't many radicals, never mind revolutionaries, in the SPGB.8. I've come to the conclusion that the SPGB's much-vaunted positive attitude to 'democratic socialism' is largely a sham. Whenever 'democracy' is mentioned, in any context (workers' power, parliament, science), members seem stunned at the very possibility that anyone is naive enough to take the argument seriously, that 'workers' will actually run anything (never mind everything).Is that enough to be going on with?
ALB wrote:So you are saying that in socialism/communism literally everything (including for instance what people should eat and what they should wear) will in principle be subject to democratic social control and that only a democratic social decision can make exceptions to this? So the sort of "basic law" of society would be: the individual is only free to decide individually what society decides they can. In other words, society decides to grant certain "rights" to individuals rather than the classic Liberal position that it is individuals who grant certain rights ro society (the social contract myth)..The end result would be the same of course: that in practice democratic control would not be applied to everything (eg not to what people should eat or wear), i.e would be widespread not total. There will be limits but they would be self-imposed.That just about sums it up, ALB.'Self-imposed'. Why lie to ourselves or to others looking to Communism? A political movement that is honest – that'd be a novel experience for workers! Humans inescapably live in society – and we should all control that society and its 'impositions'.The only alternative is that somebody else will do the 'imposing'.Of course, there's always the bourgeois myth of the 'free individual'. But I think we all know where that one goes…
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:I'm sure you're already aware of my opinion that Critical Realism seems to be the best candidate for this job.Unfortunately it seems no one else shares this opion.
No, they don't do they.Ah well, there you go.
steve colborn wrote:Wideranging and disparate discussion is, to my mind, a necessity if we are to come to any conclusions re, "Science for Communists".I couldn't agree more, steve. Eventually, all disciplines will have to be discussed.The only reason for my focus upon 'physics' is that in every discussion I've ever had about 'science', and I've mentioned chemistry, biology, sociology, psychology, history, etc. etc., as a source of explanations or analogies, the response from the bourgeois-brainwashed is always "Ah, but that's not real science!".For those brought up in this society, the only 'science' is 'physics', and they demand that all models or theories pass the test of 'physics', even when the models and theories are really for a different 'science'.So, if Communists are ever going to argue about science, they need to already be aware of this, and be able to tackle the issue head-on, and destroy the ideological notion that 'physics' is the only 'real' science.'Physics' is a human activity, just like 'sociology', which is why I've tried to take this discussion forward on the basis of Marx's desire for a 'unified method', which applies equally to physics and sociology.I'm sure you're already aware of my opinion that Critical Realism seems to be the best candidate for this job.But first, we've got to get past the 'physicalists' and naive realists, who reject democracy in science.Whilst science is still regarded as an activity not amenable to proletarian democratic control, we're lost. We'll be at the mercy of an elite, who'll pretend to have a 'neutral method'.
ALB wrote:And there will no doubt be things that people will be told they cannot do.As long as this is a democratic decision, that's the way things must be. It's the same for every society.
ALB wrote:But what you said was that people could be told what to think. That's a different matter altogether.But this is contradicted by:
ALB wrote:If all you are saying that people in a socialist society will be brought up and taught to respect certain values and codes of behaviour, fair enough, of course.To me, 'brought up and taught' 'values and behaviour' involves 'telling people what to think'. All societies do this, and I think we should be honest with ourselves (and to me our 'social consciousness' demands honesty, to be totally aware of what we are doing, when we necessarily brainwash our members), rather than pander to the 'individualists', and give them false hope of 'individual sovereignty'.I think we're either lying to others or unclear ourselves, if we don't make our aims for 'social consciousness' as clear as possible.
ALB wrote:But in the context in which it was uttered (a vote on some scientific question) you gave the impression that people would be obliged to think the majority position.Well, I've already made clear on the other thread about the necessity for diverse opinions, unlike, for example, Vin, who argued for Kuhn's 'single dominant paradigm' model, whereas I've argued for 'multiple, competing research programmes' from Lakatos' model. Why no outcry at Kuhn's (and thus Vin's) "totalitarianism"? Your use of that term regarding my views is entirely ideological, rather than merely your 'personal opinion'. You've been brainwashed your entire life (as we all have) to repeat ruling class modes of thought, like 'complete democracy is dangerous', and so you opt for the softer 'widespread democracy', so you don't frighten the 'individualist' horses in the party.To me, the Mengele crowd can 'think' all they want in private of their 'elitist fantasies' of 'human vivisection', but they won't be allowed to 'do it'. And if they even attempt to spread their 'fantasies', I'd argue that we prevent them, by armed means if necessary. So, I openly declare that some 'individuals' and 'their ideas' will be suppressed.
ALB wrote:You can't stop people thinking what they think. All you can do is get them to keep silent about it and pay lipservice to the majority view.That's right. The Mengele crowd will be 'kept silent and be compelled to 'pay lip service to the majority view', if only to demonstrate to them our power.
ALB wrote:What this thread is aimed at discussing is how far would/should democratic control extent in a socialist society and would there be any limits to it. You seem to be arguing that there won't be any. That's a position, the opposite of the individualist anarchist one which says that there should be no democratic control but only "individuals" free to do what they want. I can't see people in future socialist society accepting (democratically of course) either of these extreme positions, though I would imagine that what they decide will be nearer your end than the anarchists'.Yeah, as long as it's 'what they decide', and not a minority or an individual, I regard that as democratic control.Those who argue that there will be 'limits on democratic control' must specify who determines this argument. I think that it's those with a 'fear of the mob'. They don't really believe that the vast majority of our society can really be trusted to make decisions that affect them as individuals.If the majority don't set these 'limits' (which they themselves can do, because if they can impose them, they can lift them, too), who is the minority or individual outside of any democratic controls whatsoever?As I've said before, to me Communism isn't Liberalism. To me, Communism is the only way to get anywhere near the ideals of Liberalism. In effect, 'Liberalism' is actually 'Liberalism for the Few', whereas 'Communism' is 'Liberalism for the Many'. But we must build a society which produces critical social thinkers, rather than individual passive consumers (of both ideas and commodities).This is a collective social task, not an isolated individual task.Thus, democracy. Plain, unqualified 'democracy'. No 'if and buts' like 'widespread'.
ALB wrote:LBird wrote:ALB wrote:We in the Socialist Party have tended to steer a middle course with decisions concerning a community as a whole to be taken democratically by them, either directly in a general meeting or a referendum or by elected committees. A vast extension of democratic control compared to today, particularly with regard to the use of means of production, but not embracing every single decision.This is a statement of 'democracy' that I can agree with.That is, "decisions concerning a community", in which I would characterise 'concerns' as those relating to 'power', 'authority' and 'legitimacy'.So, if any issue involves those 'concerns', I think it should be 'decided by the community', collectively and democratically.This, clearly, doesn't involve 'what people consume, wear, or how they lay out their front gardens'.
In view of what you've just said, why doesn't it?
Because I didn't think that we'd want to tell each other what we consume, wear or how we garden.But that's only my off-the-top-off-my-head opinion, expressed in the context of your post.With further consideration, though, I can imagine all sorts of reasons why what we consume, wear or how we garden, would be interfered with by our community, local or world.Consuming humans (cannibalism), wearing nothing (street nudity in front of kids), or introducing plants which are damaging to the local environment (Japanese knotweed) could all be forbidden by a democratic vote.As I've said, I'm a 'totalitarian' when it comes to 'democratic controls'. My ideology is Communism, not Liberalism.Anyone who longs for 'individual freedom', should stick with capitalism, become a billionaire, and live the life of a 'free individual'. And bollocks to society and democracy, eh?The people for whom 'widespread democracy' is code for 'democracy, unless it involves me being told what to do'.
ALB wrote:Are you really suggesting that in socialism people will be told "what to think" by a vote in their local area?All societies brainwash their members.Sociologists like to call this 'socialisation', but we should be honest, and spell out what 'socialisation' really means. It means 'brainwashing'.We live in a society now in which the central idea of its brainwashing is 'individualism'.So, we have even Communists, when asked "Are you an 'individual'?", will reply "Yes".The answer for a Communist should be "No, I'm not an 'individual', I'm a 'worker'".A 'worker' is a position within an exploitative structural relationship; an 'individual' is someone repeating ruling class ideas.One of the key ideologies within science is 'physicalism', which is the match to 'individualism', because it essentially reduces to the lowest 'component'. The 'real' for this ideology is the component, upon which the structure sits. On the contrary, for those who reject 'componentism' in both science and society, the 'real' is the structures, both 'physical' and 'social'. Thus, 'worker' is a structural identity, whereas'individual' is a component identity. And focus on 'component' hides 'structure'.So, in all societies, "people are told what to think". Within this one, they are told to think "I'm an individual".In Communism, too, "people will be told what to think". That is the nature of human society.But, since we will be fully aware of this necessary brainwashing process, we will ensure that all members are fully aware of the relationship between themselves as a 'component' and their society as a 'structure'.The reconciliation of 'individual' and 'society' is, of course, democracy. That's why it is essential that any elitist, expert, academic, individualist, tendencies with the workers movement are ruthlessly exposed.
ALB wrote:Socialism is based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production but that doesn't mean that democratic control will extend to what people should think.Oh yes it will.This doesn't mean 'dictatorship', but a society composed of members conscious of this paradox, rather than a society composed of 'individuals', who really believe that they are individuals. That is the bourgeois wet-dream, not a class-conscious movement which insists on democratic controls by all over all.
ALB wrote:Socialism will involve widespread democracy, but it won't be the "totalitarian democracy" your form of words above seems to be suggesting.Once more, the backtracking from 'democracy' to only 'widespread democracy'. Not 'complete democracy', which means, to the 'individualist' mentality, a restriction of their 'freedom'.I've come to realise over the years that many so-called 'Communists/Socialists' are only so because they want to be 'free individuals', but recognise that that aim can't be realised within capitalism, and so turn to an ideology which they think will give them 'individual freedom'. This attitude is rife on LibCom, and seems to be so here, too.When confronted with the tenet:"From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs"they always counterpose the quote, as did YMS, about "free association".But, in a Communist society, 'abilities', 'needs' and so 'contribution' will be determined by our society, democratically, not by 'individuals', who can 'choose' to 'not contribute', or define their own 'ability' or 'need'.To an 'individualist', concerned with 'freedom of the individual', these 'impositions' (although they'll be a part of the 'impositioning structure' through democracy) will be regarded as "totalitarian".The phrase "totalitarian" is itself a product of liberal ideology (and US bourgeois views of society and relationships), but it no longer surprises me that a member of the SPGB should counterpose "totalitarian democracy" to "widespread democracy".Of course, on this issue, I'm a "totalitarian".Not through choice, but because the recognition that society will always 'brainwash' its members is actually a step on the road to individual enlightenment.'Individuals' are produced by society, and we have to ensure that we build a society of 'individuals'.That is, 'we' are compelled by 'us'. We have to define what 'we' want from our 'individuality'.But it's not the choice of 'isolated individuals', merely embracing 'bourgeois ideology', but the act of a society conscious of itself and controlling itself, by democratic means. Totally, not 'widespread'.
