[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

…the spirit of democracy…

Ahhh, yes, 'spirit', that ill-defined 'atmosphere' between comrades that always seems to be sadly lacking in all the 'materialist parties' of 'Scientific Socialism'.I presume that many members, given our discussion about science and the need for its democratic control, will take the 'materialist' line that 'rulebooks' are hard and touchable, unlike our 'idealistic' mutterings about 'spirit'! If the 'objective rules' are blindly followed, then that is 'democracy'.Shall we form an online 'Geist faction', SP?

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Well LBird, it would seem most party members here are quite happy with the way this looks. To us, it looks decisively anti democratic, for an EC decision pushed forward by an EC member with a conflict of interest, backed up by Branch colleagues that happened to be a majority on the EC that day.

[my initial bold]Yeah, SP, democracy is more than voting.I suppose my problem is the way that EC members regard their role, as it appears on this thread.I would think that, in a democratic party, the role of the 10 EC members is to try make decisions based upon their understanding of the party's wishes, rather than their own individual wishes. This would involve consultation, wherever possible.So, each EC member could be interrogated by any party member as to why the EC member voted as they did, and the EC member would have to account for their vote in terms of what they thought that the membership wanted (rather than in terms of their personal opinions/predilections/biases).If the EC member gave an answer to the legitimate demand from any party member for an account of the EC member's vote that was couched in 'individual opinion', I would expect party mechanisms to grind into gear to remove that EC member.Surely the duties of the EC towards the wider party are defined, explained and followed by the EC membership?

[LBird]

gnome wrote:

LBird wrote:

It's clear to outsiders, I think, that 'SPGB democracy' has been tarnished, by all the accounts of its methods on this thread, now including yours. Put simply, shouldn't the EC be composed from the widest range of branches, rather than one or a few, even if the members from the few branches disagree between themselves on an individual basis (as you say so do)?

You make it clear that you know little about SPGB democracy.  You could improve your knowledge by referring to the party's rulebook, of which, here, is the relevant extract from Rule 12 concerning the election of the Executive Committee:

relevant extract from Rule 12 wrote:

The Executive Committee shall consist of ten members, elected annually by vote of the Party. Nominations shall be made by the Branches.

It can be seen, therefore, that the onus is upon branches to make the nominations but for the membership to make their selection from those nominated.  It's difficult to see how this process could be made more democratic; perhaps you could offer suggestions?http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/party-rules-amended-conference-2009

[my bold]Wow! So, theoretically, all ten members could come from the same branch?Curiouser and curiouser. Clearly, I know little about SPGB 'democracy'.But, you seem happy…

[LBird]

ALB, thanks for your reply.I'll have to find out more about the constitution/structure/atmosphere of the party. The rules, bodies and received ideas of the elected members about their powers, duties and moral responsibilities, are all relevant, so perhaps it won't be as easy as just looking at published material.

[LBird]

gnome wrote:

Quote:

I don't know all the details, and I may have gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick about the complexion of the EC, but this thread puts the SPGB and its 'democracy' in a bad light.

You're right on this one at least; you don't know all the details about a dispute which has been dragging on now for at least eighteen months, not only on numerous threads on this forum but elsewhere too.  I recommend further investigation before making subsequent interventions.

Well, since my 'intervention' was about 'the bad light in which SPGB democracy now appears', rather than 'the details of the dispute', I'm not sure 'further investigation' of this case is required, gnome. It's clear to outsiders, I think, that 'SPGB democracy' has been tarnished, by all the accounts of its methods on this thread, now including yours. Put simply, shouldn't the EC be composed from the widest range of branches, rather than one or a few, even if the members from the few branches disagree between themselves on an individual basis (as you say so do)?Any 'further investigation' by me will be about 'party democracy', rather than 'Vin's specific case', but perhaps that requires a new thread, which would give party members a chance to outline the SPGB's political methods to 'interested outsiders', and perhaps to settle a few 'queasy stomachs'?

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

There is more to democracy than simply a voting majority.

I'm not a member, and I don't know personally anyone involved in this thread.I think that I've argued vehemently (about other issues) with both sides in this dispute, so have no particular 'friendly bias' towards either.I don't know whether the 'charges' against Vin are justified, or not.But SocialistPunk is correct, the 'political methods' exposed by this dispute don't do much for the party's 'democratic' credentials.

SP wrote:

Put it this way, what is more damaging to the SPGB, a bit of bad mouthing on another political forum about moderation issues, or a majority on the EC, that happen to be from the same branch with the motion tabled by a member personally involved with a dispute, voting to reject a Form A (from an ex member involved in said dispute) accepted by the MAC?

Do the EC have the power to interpret the rules to suit their own tastes? Especially when it appears that the EC was nearly inquorate, and is 'stacked' with members who are from the same branch?I don't know all the details, and I may have gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick about the complexion of the EC, but this thread puts the SPGB and its 'democracy' in a bad light.That, to my mind, is far more damaging than the 'content' of this dispute; that is, whether Vin is 'guilty or not' of homophobia and 'dissing' the party.I'm only an outsider looking in, but perhaps my opinions are worth something, as a comrade friendly to the SPGB.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Reviews of Piketty's (and Graeber's) book by Marxists that say "well, it's not Marx, is it?" are a bit depressing. If it was Marx, it wouldn't be worth reading, or writing, would it? Both Graeber's book on debt (which I've read) and Piketty's book (which I've started) are wonderful and informative and will be of profound help to anyone who wants to understand the modern world. 

It would be useful if someone (for us, necessarily a Communist, because there is no 'unbiased observation point' in science) who understood these issues could give an opening summary of the differing assumptions/axioms of Marx, Graeber and Piketty.I'm sure that this guidance would be helpful to all Communists who want to understand those three thinkers.Isn't there anybody in the SPGB, schooled in 'political economy', who could sum up their three 'pre-writing' idelogies? Their 'viewpoints' would tell us much about why the three focus on different 'facts' of the system, and allow us to assess the book's worth to us.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

"But 'capitalism' is a 'fact', to many… that 'capitalism' is a 'fellow that will not be overturned'"Not sure if i understand correctly.No-one denies that there exists a thing called capitalism…that is, indeed, a fact…but what we declare is that additional facts about capitalist system  provides the reasons why we wish to overthrow it…and those facts cannot be disputed…Part of our task is to present these facts…they aren't opinions or claims …but simple facts, …We factually describe features of capitalism (which cannot be changed without changing the fact it is no longer capitalism but something different) that are not for the benefit of people or the planet. You may well argue that what we wish to replace it with is not a fact but perhaps a presupposition. That is another debate. I think we should recognise that there is a difference from facts and as they say "lies, damned lies and statistics". I think we would agree a statistic is not a fact. ….i never joined the party because of its philosophical basis.  It's pretty much subsidiary importance to me and despite all the overly complicated exchanges on it no-one has made any advance on Marx's comment that the issue is not analysing the world but changing the world and none of the related threads gave me any particular insight into doing that. Not just your efforts Lbird, but all your protagonists, as well.Sorry comrades. 

I think that the simplest way of putting it is that a 'fact' is always enmeshed within a wider network of other 'facts', all based upon theories.If one accepts a 'fact' (ie. at face value), and doesn't confront the so-called fact's surrounding network (which can only be done by critical thinking, because the links between 'facts' are often not apparent), then one is unwittingly dragged into seeing the world from the point of view of existing 'facts'. Do I need to stress the essentially conservative method this approach leads to, of just 'dealing with the facts'? It always means what can be seen by the individual, ('it's obvious') rather than what can be explained by social theory (by criticism of 'the obvious').Whatever, I think the problem lies with those Communists who aren't explaining these crucial issues properly (including me in that number), than with you or others who can't grasp it, yet, ajj.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

LBird wrote:

'Fact, or data' will not solve this clash. We pick our ideology, and reap 'fact or data' to suit.

Hmm…i think to that,  Robert Burns replied "Facts are chiels that winna ding”  (facts are fellows that will not be overturned,  cannot be disputed) but he was just a womanising drunken poet so what would he know.  

But 'capitalism' is a 'fact', to many…It's not Burns' womanising, drinking or poetry that's the problem, ajj, but that he lived before Einstein and didn't read 20th century philosophy of science.I find it more and more difficult to understand how memebers of the SPGB think 'facts' are sacred. It's not a good sign for the philosophical basis of the party.Is it really acceptable to argue that 'capitalism' is a 'fellow that will not be overturned'?

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Fact, or data, begs explanation…

It's more accurate to say that 'explanation reaps facts'.

twc wrote:

…it is not its own ineffable explanation.

Quite.No one, not even Piketty, is an 'empirical scientist'. That is a myth of 'bourgeois science'.Piketty, like every scientist, starts from assumptions. From these (often unspoken or even unconscious) assumptions and axioms are generated hypotheses (or tentative explanations). If these assumption-based hypotheses seem to reap 'empirical facts', then they are deemed to be an 'explanation'.We Communists start from different assumptions, so our explanations will not only be different from those of Piketty and other pro-capitalist thinkers, but both sets of 'explanations' will be intolerable to each other.We laugh at Piketty's childish attempts; Piketty mocks our infantile explanations.'Fact, or data' will not solve this clash. We pick our ideology, and reap 'fact or data' to suit. That is the nature of science. Knowledge of the economy is a social construction. Different classes will 'explain' the 'facts' differently. There is no 'objective truth' to the 'facts or data'. As you say, they are 'ineffable' without human creativity.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

This is not going to happen of course even if theoretically it could. But even if it did there would still be capitalism and the exploitation of wage-labour as this is the source of capital incomes. And it's this that we are against not the way its proceeds are distributed, isn't it?

Yeah, our issue as Communists is ‘production’, but for most workers the issue is ‘distribution’.The overwhelming majority of workers on this planet are not opposed to ‘capitalism’ (as a system of production and exploitation), but are opposed to the current distribution of wealth.

ALB wrote:

In other words, we are against the fact of there being income from capital rather than how this income is distributed.

Again, workers are not against there being ‘income from capital’, but are against the proportion going to the capitalists. And Piketty’s data seems to prove that, by some method, whether by the human agency of reformism or the ‘objective’ movement of ‘economic conditions’, that the proportion being distributed to workers can grow, and the proportion being distributed to capital can fall, without the need for socialism, that is, changing the system of production.

ALB wrote:

Graeber wrote:

Piketty, in contrast, begins his book by denouncing "the lazy rhetoric of anti-capitalism". He has nothing against capitalism itself – or even, for that matter, inequality. He just wishes to provide a check on capitalism's tendency to create a useless class of parasitical rentiers. As a result, he argues that the left should focus on electing governments dedicated to creating international mechanisms to tax and regulate concentrated wealth. Some of his suggestions – an 80% income tax! – may seem radical, but we are still talking about a man who, having demonstrated capitalism is a gigantic vacuum cleaner sucking wealth into the hands of a tiny elite, insists that we do not simply unplug the machine, but try to build a slightly smaller vacuum cleaner sucking in the opposite direction.

Similarly, most workers have nothing against ‘inequality’; they’re quite happy with the ‘vacuum cleaner’ model of wealth suction, and just want a portion diverted to them. They fear that, without the ‘vacuum cleaner’, they’ll have to go back to ‘brush and shovel’.I don’t think that there is necessarily anything within the ‘vacuum cleaner’ method that will make workers reject its method of operation. In fact, the 20th century proves that they’ll do anything to maintain its working.To me, the ‘questioning’ of the system has to come from outside the working of the system; that is, it’s an issue of ‘human agency’ rather than ‘economic conditions’. Workers must want more than a greater ‘distribution’ for themselves; they must want to question the ‘vacuum cleaner’. If they don’t, all the ‘vacuum cleaning’ in the world won’t make them critical. Whilst the only alternative they can picture is ‘brush and shovel’, then Piketty and the reformists will hold sway.Since I think that the only way forward is for workers who are already Communists to persuade other workers that Communism is possible, and since that is a task of education and propaganda, I think that we are failing to explain our ideas to workers. To me, the history of the socialist movement is the failure to explain to workers in terms that they themselves can understand. I’m still yet to hear a good explanation of Capital, for example, as opposed to simply regurgitating Marx’s mysterious words. Only with understanding can come the confidence to act for oneself. Acting for others (employment within capitalism) will not in itself produce enlightenment about one’s actions. There has to be a ‘critical break’ by each worker, as an individual. We’re not helping to develop this ‘critical break’, which can only come about with thought, and not through day-to-day life, of mere experience of ‘economic conditions’.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

… Piketty can logically argue that it can happen again?Can reforms once again reduce the 'top 10% wealth share' to '60%'?If not, why not?

That begs the question. Was it reforms that affected the distribution of wealth, or something else i.e economic conditions?

Well, if it wasn't 'reforms' (by active human actions, however defined, even 'warfare' and 'welfare'), then was it the 'economic conditions' that reduced the share of the ruling class from 90% to 50%?If so, why shouldn't the 'economic conditions' be able to either move the share back up to 90% or even down further to, say, 40%, at some point in the future?Is the secret of 'reformism' to just await the economic flood tide, and then claim agency? Canute in reverse?

[LBird]

Ozymandias wrote:

What a shame that his book has been a best seller yet his conclusions are pathetic reformism.

But surely, if this has happened once…

Piketty wrote:

Namely, wealth inequality was extremely high and rising in European countries during the 19th century and up until World War 1 (with a top 10% wealth share around 90% of total wealth in 1910), then declined until the 1960s-1970s (down to about 50 -60% for the top 10% wealth share);…

… Piketty can logically argue that it can happen again?Can reforms once again reduce the 'top 10% wealth share' to '60%'?If not, why not?

[LBird]

james19 wrote:

Am I the only one who doesn't dislike Tony Blair?

You've forgotten to quote his popularly-bestowed full title, james.That is, The War Criminal Tony Blair.Perhaps that will give you a clue as to why you're in a minority of one.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people”“The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.”

Yeah, I agree with you and Marx on this quote, Vin.Unfortunately, I also think that it applies just as well to so-called 'Scientific Socialism'.It's an 'opium', giving 'illusory happiness' to its adherents.'Real happiness' is the democratic control of production, science, truth and ethics. Not some blather about 'materialism' telling us what these should consist of.

[Author]

Posts