[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

What is needed is a shift of consiousness and understanding, followed by democratic organisation.

This just about sums up my personal belief of what the proletariat's strategy to produce a successful revolution has to be, Vin.The proletariat has to wake up (and to some extent this has to be a personal, individual awakening by workers who are sick of their experience of capitalism) and start asking questions, and following on from this there has to be democratic organisation by workers themselves.To my mind, all that any socialist/communist party can do is to promote the 'wakening-up' and to provide some questions to provoke workers' thought. The proletariat itself has to begin to form its own discussion groups, which will provide the model, method and ideology for democratic workers' organisations.Whilst any form of Leninist ideology has a hold on workers, we're all wasting our time.But the first step is a re-awakening in workers – and we can't make workers do that. We can't even make a worker do that. There has to be something in the experience of capitalism that causes initially some, and then eventually mass, critical thought to emerge, or Marx was wrong.

[LBird]

Ozymandias wrote:

Yes I know all this mate but what of the problem of a "reactionary lumpenproletariat"? You don't think this could pose a grave danger at all? I just think the whole thing could be fraught with danger. As you have probably deduced I have very little faith in the working class. Very little faith indeed.

[my bold]Ozymandias, if there is a problem with the 'lumpenproletariat', why should this cause you to have little faith in the 'proletariat'?I know that I've replaced your term 'working class' with 'proletariat', but for us these should be interchangable. If you accept this, then you have to treat the 'lumpen' as a separate class.If you think that it is invalid to replace w.c. with p., could you give your definition of 'working class', especially with reference to  'a reactionary lumpenproletariat'? I suspect that you're using 'working class' as a descriptive category, and also employ 'middle class' in a similar way.For Marxists, many of the so-called 'middle class' are actually proletarians. If this is accepted, why should you not have 'faith' in university-educated workers because thieves and drug-dealers (for example) are a social problem in capitalist society? What is the connection with the lumpen elements that causes you to have 'very little faith indeed' in the best educated, most travelled, least racist, proletariat ever?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

"when I say that no worker could possibly understand DM, I do not intend to demean them, since I also claim that no one could possibly understand this theory " Phewwww… am i pleased to read that bit by Rosa. I always thought myself as an ignoramus when dialects is raised…

ajj, all you need to know about 'dialectics' is that it comes from the Ancient Greek 'dia-lego', which literally means 'through-talk' (or 'talk through', or discuss).There can't be a 'dialectic in nature' because the only part of nature that talks and discusses is humanity.Dialectic can only refer to conscious human activity: rocks don't talk, nature 'tells' us nothing unbidden.As to whether it's useful to discuss whether a 'dialectical method' exists which can be used to try to understand nature, I'm not sure. Every time I've tried to get someone to describe this epistemological method to me, they seem to lose their temper because I'm apparently thick or something. It seems to me to have a bit of a religious overtone to it, in that one must have faith in what one is being told, and not ask critical questions (ironically, given 'dia-lego'!) of either the method or the person describing it.Perhaps Rosa can contribute here; they, too, seem to have taken a lot of stick from the 'dialecticians'. I'm not sure if Rosa thinks that there is anything to 'dialectics' in the sense of 'human discussion'.

[LBird]

LBird wrote:

The 'negation of the negation' was described to me by an unconscious rock, so it must be objectively true, since I'm conscious and we come from rocks.

ALB wrote:

That's actually one of the approaches we used to adopt when speaking at Speakers Corner in Hyde Park on a Sunday.

Errr…. I might have uncovered one of the reasons for the slowness in growth of the SPGB!

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

So, I ask, if democracy is so good within 'politics', why not extend it to 'economics'? 

 This is actually  a good way to introduce the idea of  socialism. It is simple and easily understood; and difficult to argue against.I would accept that in many cases it is simply a matter of semantics.

Don't forget the other half of the couplet, though!If I was a Leninist Dialectical Materialist, I'd simply stress the the 'removal of democracy from politics' is the correct dialectical answer.What with the initial intricacies of 'interpenetrating opposites' and the development of 'quantities into qualities', 'democracy' is the succeeding negation of 'economics and politics', so that it's negation means 'Party Rule' and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.The 'negation of the negation' was described to me by an unconscious rock, so it must be objectively true, since I'm conscious and we come from rocks.Simples!

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

 I think the word we are both struggling towards is valid.

Yeah, and 'validity' is a social judgement, and doesn't simply actively emerge from rocks, if we are passive enough and listen carefully.The notion of 'dialectics in nature', as I'm sure you'll agree, is nonsense.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet, in reply to Rosa L, wrote:

I note, though, that you don't provide any refutation for the dialectical method of two people disagreeing based on experience reconciling their knowledge through discussion.

Well, it could be argued that that isn't the 'dialectical method'.  It could be argued that it should read:"the dialectical method of two people disagreeing based on theory reconciling their knowledge through experience (ie. practice)".

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Theories or propositions can be refuted (since they are both capable of being true), but a method can't (since methods can't be true or false, only useful or useless, practical or impractical.

I don't agree with you here, Rosa. Any method implies a theory behind it, so a method can be refuted, through its theoretical underpinnings.And since theories contain assumptions and axioms, the simple useful/useless or practical/impractical dichotomy would be better expressed as less/more useful or less/more practical. That is, a spectrum which requires judgement after discussion, rather than any obvious acceptance/rejection.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

This, of course, is not what you mean, so there's no need to fall out over this (we know what we mean because we've defined our terms). It's others who might be misled.Better, then, to speak of socialism/communism as "the democratic control of the production and distribution of wealth" or simply "the democratic control of production".

Of course, the problem of workers 'being misled' is the central problem, because the ruling class constantly 'misleads' them with ruling class ideas. Personally, I'm always in favour of trying to present Communist ideas, which oppose ruling class ideas, in as simple and immediately accessible way as possible (you'll remember my attempts on the Pannekoek thread to illustrate the scientific method by reference to 'a baker making pies', etc.). This isn't to argue that workers can't understand or shouldn't proceed to read and discuss Communist ideas in a more sophisticated form, but that, given that Communists are in a tiny weak minority, as are their ideas, we should present anti-ruling class ideas in as simple a form as possible. Once workers begin to even see that there are oppositional ideas to those that they've been force-fed all their lives, only then is the beginnings of a conversation even possible between Communist workers and non-Communist workers.So, since most workers already 'know' that 'economics is not politics', to me it makes sense to try to stress the similarities within the bounds of their existing 'knowledge'. Thus the formulation…

LBird wrote:

Capitalism in politics is 'one person, one vote', but in economics is 'one pound, one vote'.Communism in both politics and economics will be 'one person, one vote'

…in my opinion lends itself to an easily understood starting point for further discussion, because it begs as many questions as it answers, and also falls within the experience and current understanding of workers who are not yet Communists, but are already asking questions in search of answers different from those they've been given so far in their lives.I'm not of the 'Read Capital, read Hegel, now!' school of tactics, when someone in the pub asks me about capitalism.So, I ask, if democracy is so good within 'politics', why not extend it to 'economics'? Or if democracy shouldn't be extended to 'economics', why not remove it from 'politics', too. The contradiction is exposed, as most workers in bourgeois society are totally in favour of democracy, but have never been led to ask the questions above. Discussion will follow.As you say, none of this tactical opinion of mine leads to any disagreement whatsoever about our longer-term strategy: the end of the market and money, and free access for all.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

As for political democracy? Socialism will abolish politics.

I've come across this formulation before from Anarchists. It seems to see 'politics' as synonymous with 'parliamentary politics', and see political sovereignty as residing in the 'individual'. Under Communism, political sovereignty will reside in the commune, and democracy is the method to ensure that all the members of the commune determine collectively and equally the policies of the commune.Personally, I don't understand how 'politics' can be 'abolished'. There will always be disagreements within society, which have to be dealt with. I think that a better way of conceiving this issue is to regard Communism as 'the democratic control of the economy'.Or,Capitalism in politics is 'one person, one vote', but in economics is 'one pound, one vote'.Communism in both politics and economics will be 'one person, one vote'

[LBird]

Ed wrote:

I think it's a very interesting question LBird.

Yeah, isn't it just!

Ed wrote:

The party should merely be a tool of the working class as a whole.

Once again, I could intepret 'the working class as a whole' to mean Workers' Councils, because 'as a whole' suggests a 'structure', rather than an aggregate of individuals lumped together, who vote as individuals in parliamentary elections, as we have now.

Ed wrote:

If we were elected with an overwhelming majority then that would be our mandate as directed by the class, who would also be formed into workers councils. So I have always seen the relationship between party and class as more symbiotic than with either being dominant.

The term 'symbiosis' in politics usually merely gives ideological cover to the side that is doing the 'exploitation'. Power is a one-way street.Dracula to victim: 'Of course, we're in a symbiotic relationship, aren't we, friend? I need blood, and you need the attentions of the count to validate your miserable existence, so, really, we need each other!'Yeah, an interesting question…

[LBird]

Dave wrote:

Workers council does not automatically lead to a succesful reolution after all look at Germany in 1919 where workers councils existed and they were dominated by the SPD the German versionof the Labour Party.

I've used that very argument myself, Dave, in a debate with the ICC about the need for mass class consciousness prior to the revolution.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

At this moment in time, how can we envisage arming workers for revolution when they wont even vote for it?

This might be accidentally very revealing, Vin!From my perspective, I envisage 'workers arming themselves for revolution', rather than a separate 'we' providing permission!

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

LBird i think you are expecting too much of the SPGB “to fill in the blanks” by speculating about the future and circumstances we actually have no idea that may exist. We have formulated our objectives on the conditions that prevail today and have clearly said what we believe the situation is “That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working class must organize consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic.”

I don't think that i'm expecting anyone to outline the detailed structure of workers' militia, just to outline 'who' or 'what body' will have the political control of arms.As it stands, I can agree with your statement above, and define "the working class must organize consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local" to mean 'Workers' Councils'.All I'm asking is 'Is that assumption of mine a valid one, in the eyes of the SPGB?'.If not, I'm happy that you define it as 'Westminster and 'county halls', and then I'll know that I disagree with the SPGB.If you don't mind either structure, I'll still know I disagree.You might define to be something else, which hasn't been mentioned yet, and obviously I can't form an opinion on that, yet.

ajj wrote:

Workers Councils do not presently exist, nor is there a guarantee that they will indeed be the organs of working class rule although many think it is likely yet others will argue that workers councils would be sectional while neighbourhood assemblies would be more communal and inclusive so it is possible that power-sharing will be at least three-way.

Or Workers' Councils could be defined to encompass workplaces and neighbourhoods on a geographical basis; I agree that this is all very unclear.But 'three-way power sharing'? That seems a bit too woolly to my mind. There will have to be a pinnacle to a structure (a federation?) which has the final say on questions that relate to the proletariat on a world scale.I'd rather be open about political power and discuss it, rather than leave everything to 'assumptions' by individuals and groups. It's better we have disputes about 'authority' now, when the outcomes will be no more than bruised egos and changed minds.I suspect 'three way power sharing' will be settled by arms. I'd rather avoid that.

ajj wrote:

I’m always surprised as some criticisms of the SPGB when we are often accused of not basing our policy on real existing social realities and when we do, we are damned for not proposing alternatives that are just conjecture about the future.

Well, I'm not 'criticising' the SPGB (yet!), just asking questions, to try to locate your politics, and see if either they agree with my current ones, or if I can have my mind changed to come to an agreement with the SPGB. Who knows?

ajj wrote:

You also know enough about our case to understand that the Socialist Party has no intention of attempting to raise itself up new saviors or imposing a few intellectuals upon the workers or our organisation as leaders. If the working class choose one means over another and it remains democratic so be it – we will be there, involved and participating.

Again, this is acceptable to me, because, in effect, the answer to my question about arms is 'if they exist, Workers' Councils will control them'.If that's 'filling in a blank' unacceptably, I'd rather be told, now.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Personally I don't like the phrase "the parliamentary road to socialism" (although we have occasionally used it). I prefer "the political road to socialism" which will involve using elections and parliament. We have in fact never been committed to a purely political road but have always held that the working class need to be organised outside parliament too, to control any elected MPs and councillors but also at work to take over production and kee it going.

But ‘using elections and parliament’ is ‘the parliamentary road’; the ‘political road’ is an as yet undefined ‘road’, because ‘political’ just means ‘power’. Clearly, the road to power is always a political road, ipso facto.My understanding of the content of ‘political’ in proletarian terms is ‘Workers’ Councils’, the self-organisation of the working class, rather than ‘parliamentary’ which to me means a bourgeois-organisational method.Given that assumption of mine, I’m happy with a twin-track approach of employing parliament both to give us an indication and confirmation of our growing strength through the existing bourgeois electoral system, and to ‘legitimise’ our control of the state and armed forces in the eyes of the members of the state and armed forces, so that any waverers are drawn to obey our ‘legitimate’ parliamentary actions. But… the other ‘track’ is the question of ‘workers’ power’. As you say, that is “the working class … organised outside parliament … to control any elected MPs and councillors”. This, to me, means that power and legitimacy reside outside of parliament, which can only mean within the Workers’ Councils (or soviets, although I know why you avoid that term).

ALB wrote:

The armed forces are part of the state and whoever controls the state will control them. This will apply to a socialist=controlled parliament, so why should the question arise of handing over control to some other body.

Simply, because parliament isn’t a body for workers’ control. It’s at best a propaganda body and legitimising tool for the proletariat, in the eyes of the state employees.

ALB wrote:

Presumably you are thinking of some central council of "workers' councils", but would be the point of setting up such a parallel organisation?

Well, it won’t be a ‘parallel’ organisation, but ‘the’ organisation. Parliament will be a glove puppet to fool the state employees, and we should be open about this. It’s presently a glove puppet for the bourgeoisie, because that ‘puppetness’ is in its very nature. Parliament is structurally a class tool, not a neutral tool; our class tool is Workers’ Councils, which encompass economic, social, political and military control. We can’t have a situation of ‘dual power’, where an instrument built by the bourgeoisie for their purposes is allowed to remain sovereign. In my opinion, that would be playing with fire.

ALB wrote:

The armed forces are part of the state and whoever controls the state will control them.

Yes, Workers’ Councils, the democratic organs of the self-organised proletariat will control (and thus choose which bits to dismantle or temporarily preserve) the state and its armed forces. No ‘parallel’ parliament, just a body subordinate to Workers’ Councils.

ALB wrote:

And it wouldn't be an "SPGB dominated parliament" but a socialist-minded working class dominated parliament.

I take your point, here. I’m using SPGB as shorthand only. The real issue is ‘parliament’ and its structural relationship to socio-economics, not the ‘membership’, working class dominated or not.

ALB wrote:

In a sense this is speculation, but the important factor before socialism can be established is to have a democratically-organised majority in favour of it using democratic methods. In the political conditions that exist today one of the means that can be (and we say should be) used is elections and parliament.

See, I can agree with this statement, simply because it can be interpreted to agree with my views, both that ‘today’ (pre-revolution) it can be used, and that ‘socialism requires a democratically-organised majority’, but it omits ‘tomorrow’ (ie. post revolution) and so leaves open the very issue I’m asking about.That is, who will control the weapons?

Whats wrong with using parliament? wrote:

It will be the socialist majority self-organised politically, an instrument they have formed to use to achieve a socialist society. The structure of the future mass socialist party will have to reflect – to prefigure – the democratic nature of the society it is seeking to establish. It must be democratic, without leaders, with major decisions made by conferences of mandated and recallable delegates or by referendum, and other decisions made by accountable individuals and committees. It won’t have a leadership with the power to make decisions and tell the general membership what to do. In other words, it will be quite different both from the parties of professional politicians that stand for election today and from the vanguard parties of the Leninists.

“An instrument they have formed”? This must refer to Workers’ Councils, because workers haven’t ‘formed parliament’ or, as it says, ‘vanguard parties’.

Whats wrong with using parliament? wrote:

This is not to say that the socialist majority only needs to organise itself politically. It does need to organise politically so as to be able to win control of political power. But it also needs to organise economically to take over and keep production going immediately after the winning of political control. We can’t anticipate how such socialist workplace organisations will emerge, whether from the reform of the existing trade unions, from breakaways from them or from the formation of completely new organisations. All we can say now is that such workplace organisations will arise and that they too, like the socialist political party, will have to organise themselves on a democratic basis, with mandated delegates instead of leaders.

[my bold]Doesn’t this formulation presume the separation, still, of political and economic power? Isn’t this ‘separation of powers’ a bourgeois conception of power? Surely Workers’ Councils will embody the reunification of socio-economic and political power?Perhaps I’m misreading the words, or missing the real meaning, or making some assumptions that the SPGB doesn’t share, so I’m still open to explanation and clarification.But I would like an answer to my initial question, ‘who will control the arms?’. ‘Parliament dominated by the working class’, ‘SPGB’, ‘socialist political party’, ‘workplace organisations’, whatever.But, I must admit, I’m expecting the answer ‘Workers’ Councils’, the political expression of the self-organised proletariat employing democratic means (delegates, recall, mandates, etc.) to control all aspects of power.Including ‘weapons’.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

I am willing to debate if you are willing to stop 'filling in the blanks'. You not only filled in the blanks you complety negated what I actually said.  What I am unwilling to do is defend myself agains remarks I did not make and which you invented. This would be a complete waste of my time. If you reread my post and ask me a 'reasonable political question' on it, then I will answer you.

I'm afraid I decide what I consider to be 'blanks' in answer to my questions, comrade, and am well able to formulate my own questions, and decide upon their reasonableness.You'll be glad, though, that I actually agree with you!It would be 'a complete waste of your time', to continue without engaging with my questions, rather than expecting me to ask questions of your devising or to your liking.Sorry, comrade, and thanks for your efforts.Well, since Vin has said that they're not an SPGB member, is there anyone from the SPGB who could answer my questions, and perhaps alter my views?

[Author]

Posts