LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Marquito wrote: “...going deeper to the origin of Leninism and Bolshevism“.
The deepest political and philosophical root is ‘materialism’, which insists that there is a ‘something’ that humans did not socially produce.
Since this is a political lie, and ‘materialists’ claim to know this ‘something’, to the exclusion of the majority of humans, and so the ‘materialists’, as Marx argued, have to divide society into two parts, the smaller part being in control of the larger part.
‘Materialism’ is the root of Lenin’s organisational theory, his correspondence theory of truth (a theory of truth which denies human production), and his notion of a ‘special party consciousness’.
robbo203 wrote: “…though such bodies would doubtless be subject to democratic scrutiny, this is not the same thing as direct democracy…”
robbo, I must admit that I see this statement as a ‘rowing-back’ on your earlier post.
What, to you, is the political difference between ‘democratic scrutiny‘ and ‘direct democracy’?
The juxtaposition of the two seems to suggest that ‘scrutiny’ is done by others than all those affected.
If you say that ‘scrutiny’ is delegated, all well and good, because the scrutineers can be recalled and replaced by ‘direct democracy’, and so power remains with the majority.
Is your ‘scrutiny’ mandated and revocable, or an elite final opinion?
Bijou Drains wrote: “Perhaps the scars you have from time spent with the Leninists and the Trots have made you understandably sceptical about democracy within an organisation...”
It’s worse than that, mate. đ
I’ve come to the conclusion that ‘materialism’ was the root of Leninist/Trotskyist power over me and all the other workers who followed their lead.
So, to me, any ‘Socialists’ who argue in favour of ‘materialism’ are part of a political organisation that is not serious about workers’ democracy, the self-emancipation of the proletariat, or Marx’s political and philosophical views, and intends to usurp power from workers.
The views expressed on here about ‘Specialists’ only confirms my beliefs.
But, I’m prepared to discuss it with any worker, because once I didn’t understand either. And was fooled.
I’d like to openly thank Bijou Drains, alanjjohnstone and robbo203 for their very comradely responses, and say that we seem to be on the same page politically.
Perhaps this next question will spoil all this new-found comradeship, but, hey, ever the heretic…
…and if youse all disagree, then we can simply agree to disagree. đ
Who (or what) determines reality/truth/matter/nature/material/universe?
Because I agree with Marx’s philosophy, and this is based upon my prior political commitment to democratic social production, I would answer ‘active humanity’. That is, humans are the creators of their universe, and thus they can change it. ‘Knowledge and reality’ are intertwined, and can’t be separated into ‘consciousness’ and ‘nature’, and the separation of ‘mind/matter’, ‘ideal/material’, ‘consciousness/being’, ‘art/science’, opinion/fact’ was a socio-historic act by the ruling class. This was intended to ensure that they could change all of these things (and so have power), but pretend that they were not changing these things (and so ward off from the start any claims for democracy from the exploited class, within any changes being made). History since Marx has confirmed his view, and they have changed physics, maths, logic, matter, etc.
I find that ‘materialists’ disagree with this political and philosophical position, and argue that the ‘material’ precedes ‘consciousness’, and thus the ‘material’ is not a social product, and thus the ‘material’ cannot be changed.
I’d just note that Lenin was a most vociferous defender of ‘materialism’, because, if what I’ve just written is true, this would give his ruling class the same power as any other ruling class.
This is a genuine political/philosophical question, and I’m almost sorry to raise it again, in the present happy circumstances. But, if what you’ve all said about the SPGB is true, how can it espouse ‘materialism’? I find this contradictory, which is the fundamental root of my disagreement.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “…we delegate…”.
My entire political point, alan.
WE delegate. And WE undelegate.
WE need an ‘orchestra conductor’? Pilot? Advisor? Fine – we delegate.
But… does the ‘orchestra conductor’ determine which music we must listen to, because, well, they’re the conductor?
Does the pilot determine the destination of our flight, so, even though we wish to holiday in Venice, the pilot prefers a beach, so ‘we fly’ to the Spanish coast?
Does the advisor determine the correctness of their advice, Or do we?
My political problem, alan, is those who argue that the ‘delegate’ should be a ‘representative’, and that the ‘representative’, being an ‘expert’, should have the final say.
robbo203 wrote: “On the face of it, you seem to be arguing that, in this post capitalist world, all decisions relating to production will be channelled through one single global organ of decision-making. Local communities and individuals will NOT be able to make decisions on their own.”
robbo, over the years, I’ve answered this, time and time again. So much so, that I’ve been ignoring your ‘on the face of it’ personal political and ideological interpretation of ‘what LBird says’. I’ve long ago tired of trying to correct you, and have changed tack to simply say what I say, and leave it to other posters to ask questions/ for clarification, etc.
But since we seem to be going through (what for this site is) a relatively grown-up period, I’ll try again. Here goes.
This is a political, philosophical and ideological issue. It relates to ‘power’ within ‘democratic socialism’, and thus, I would argue, to the political process of building for socialism within our present society. I believe that the political (etc.) basis that we employ now, will be the same in any future society. That is, if undemocratic methods are used (say, like the Leninists employed in Tsarist Russia), then clearly those same methods would be employed in any society that emerges from that process (that is, Soviet Russia).
So, all social production must be democratic. I’ll say that again: ALL SOCIAL PRODUCTION MUST BE DEMOCRATIC.
Clearly, democracy works on all levels, and in all areas/disciplines.
If, for example, the inhabitants of a street decide to paint all of their houses with white paint, and this decision is democratic, then the houses all get painted with white paint.
But… what if a single household, within the collective, disagrees, and wants a green house? Or, if the district within which the street is located, traditionally paint the whole district blue?
These objections, both from within/below the body and without/above the body, must be resolved by a body that encompasses all the disputants. But this might be a regional body, and another region objects to that region’s decision. On so on, wider and wider.
Of course, the vast majority of decisions will be taken at an appropriate circle without any problems, but any questions as to the ‘appropriateness’ of any given circle, from within or without, would be referred to a wider circle.
Clearly, in political terms, there has to be a ‘final authority’, and that ‘supreme appeal’ can only be to humanity itself. There can’t be any ‘elites’ within social production who allocate to themselves an authority to override the democratically expressed wishes/interests/needs/aims/purposes of the circle (production unit) within which they sit.
This, of course, is a political declaration that can be adopted during the building of democratic socialism. Equally, it can be argued with, and ‘elites’ will be allowed to determine for themselves, outside of the democratic determination of the associated producers. But I would argue that would go against Marx’s argument that the emancipation of the proletariat must be the conscious act of themselves, not any ‘elite’. This issue clearly must be discussed. If there are those who argue for ‘elite determination’, then they should say that that is their aim, and not ‘democratic determination’.
So, ‘decentralisation? Fine. ‘Localism’ Fine. ‘Individual Choice’? Fine. ‘Polycentres’? Fine.
But ‘decentral’, ‘local’, ‘individual choice’ and ‘polycentres’ don’t have the final say. Humanity does. And its political method is democracy.
This is a question of ‘power’, and ‘who wields it?’. Since ‘socialism’ will still be a mode of social production, ‘power’ will still exist. I’m not an ‘anarchist’, but a ‘democrat’.
If you disagree with me, robbo, all fine and good. But you must explain your view of ‘power’ within ‘democratic socialism’. If you think that socialism will involve 7 billion sovereign bodies (ie. each individual, doing their ‘own thing’, without ‘the nanny state’ (as individualists characterise any ‘social authority’), untrammelled ‘freedom’), I respectfully disagree. I think that there will still be a ‘social authority’, which will determine ‘social production’. We have to all be a part of that social authority.
How will we resolve such disagreements during the building of democratic socialism?
Marquito wrote “The future society is not  going to be decided by Marx, Engels, Luxembourg, or whatever, or any guru,  or even the SPGB, it is going to be decided by the world working class…”
But that’s precisely what I keep arguing, Marquito.
But most others here keep insisting it’s going to be decided by … ‘material conditions’, or ‘specialists’, or ‘science’… and I think you’ve defended these too, in preference to ‘the world working class’.
Furthermore, I also insist (and I believe that I’m following Marx here) that ‘the world working class’ must politically organise on a democratic basis, and that by their own self-emancipation, they themselves will determine ‘material conditions’, ‘specialists’, ‘science’… and all other social products, like physics, maths, logic, truth, etc.
alanjjohnstone wrote: ”
[LBird wrote: ]âWhy is it that almost everyone in the SPGB, and its supporters, seem incapable of having a political discussion, without resorting to personal abuse?â
Are you including my good self in that charge, LBird?  đ”
Funnily enough, alan, I did think of specifically excluding you from my condemnation, but I think even you, too, have succumbed to this frustration. So, I left it at ‘almost’. đ
alanjjohnstone wrote: “There must be a time to agree to disagree and shift the exchanges to topics where we do hold consensus views.”
The problem here, alan, is that I’d assume that ‘democratic socialism‘ is the very basis of a ‘consensus view’ in the SPGB.
But, it seems that, literally, I’m the only one who defends ‘democracy’ – and I consciously include you as one who, like the rest, defends ‘science’, or ‘specialists’, or ‘matter’, or ‘reality’, or ‘material conditions’… almost everything except ‘democracy’.
That is, in terms of defending the organised power of the associated social producers (what I’d call, within capitalism, the ‘proletariat’ or the ‘working class’), and Marx’s commitment to the self-emancipation of that class by democratic methods, I’m defending what most democratic socialist thinkers for the last 150 years would call a ‘consensus view’.
Why do you think I’m the one who appears to be out of step with the current SPGB? What’s the political, philosophical, ideological difference between us?
Marx, as quoted by robbo203:
“…society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me…”
Society ‘makes possibilities’ for all individuals.
Democratic control of social production will produce our possibilities.
robbo203 wrote: “I still dont seriously believe that you actually believe the nonsense that you are spouting LBird.”
Why is it that almost everyone in the SPGB, and its supporters, seem incapable of having a political discussion, without resorting to personal abuse?
In the past, I’ve made the error of replying in kind (wrongly assuming that, by my ‘experience’, the SPGB allows that sort of debate), but I’ve learned that the SPGB moderators will discipline me, alone, and that the SPGB originators of the personal abuse are not subject to the same sanctions.
So, I can’t use the same political and ideological methods that are employed by the SPGB, when their party is subjected to political criticism. I have to remain quite.
Perhaps it gives us all a taste of robbo’s real political methods, which would be employed in his version of ‘Individualist Socialism’.
You still haven’t explained how this ‘Golden Mean’ would ‘speak’ to the associated social producers, without your active participation in explaining ‘what the Golden Mean says’.
I openly say that the ‘Golden Mean’ within democratic socialism, will be freely determined by the social producers, after discussion and debate, and a democratic vote. And I predict, just as Marx warned, that your elite would claim that the ‘Golden Mean’ speaks only to you, and that you are merely passively repeating what ‘it’ says. Marx warned this will split society into two parts, with the smaller part claiming power.
You daren’t say that about ‘Democratic Golden Mean’, because it would place ‘power’ into the hands of the vast majority within democratic socialism, and you constantly deny that democratic methods would be employed in your version of ‘social production’.
Please try to be civil, robbo, in your answers, this is a site open to other socialists and interested workers. The SPGB aspires to influence workers, not to denigrate them, both personally and politically.
robbo203 wrote: “…I have been vociferously supporting the right of the individual…“. [my bold]
Indeed, you have, robbo.
That’s what I’ve always accused you of doing.
Whereas, I have been vociferously supporting the right of social individuals.
Which, politically, equates to democracy.
You’re a Liberal, defending the rights of ‘the individual’, to ignore the rights of the productive collective of which you are inescapably a part.
I’m a Democratic Communist, defending the rights of the social producers, to democratically override the isolated wishes of ‘the individual’ (which is a bourgeois concepts of ‘rights’).
If you want your ‘individual wishes’ acted upon, robbo, you’ll have to convince your collective to agree. If the social producers (of which you’ll be one) disagree with your interpretation of your wishes/interests/needs/purposes/aims, then the democratic majority will prevail.
I can’t say this enough, but I regard ‘socialism’ as a form of society in which social production is democratically controlled. ‘Democratic Socialism’ isn’t the realisation of the bourgeois myth of ‘Individual Freedom’.
The sooner your party clarifies these issues of ‘power’, the sooner you’ll all be clearer about the political answers you should give, when asked these political questions.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “â[robbo203 wrote:] In this, as in other matters, there is always a âGolden Meanâ â
New to the expression. I assume it is related to the Buddhist âMiddle Wayâ ”
That’s about the long and short of it, alan. A return to god or ‘The Absolute’, a final arbiter, a supreme authority, which is outside of the political control of humanity.
Of course, we both know that there is no ‘Golden Mean’, it’s a invention of humans, and those humans intend to be the ones to ‘interpret’ just what the ‘Golden Mean’ says.
The political outcome, as usual, will be robbo and his political supporters insisting that they, and they alone, have access to the ‘Golden Mean’, and that the vast majority of humanity will have to simply bow down to the authority of the ‘Golden Mean’. robbo will simply return like Moses with these ‘rules’ from the ‘Golden Mean’, and will thus have to enforce them, over and above the wishes of the vast majority, because otherwise the vast majority would simply override what robbo alleges that the ‘Golden Mean’ has said.
Only a society in which we, humanity, democratically determine what ‘The Golden Mean Says’, will equate to ‘democratic socialism’.
robbo simply wants an elite in political control of the vast majority. No doubt, they’ll be called ‘The Specialists’. And they’ll have ‘Special Needs’. The need for armed ‘Specialists’, to enforce The Word of the majesty, ‘Golden Mean’.
robbo203 wrote: “…the need to place limits on democracy…”
I suppose this is the closest that I’ll get, to an answer to my political question! đ
But if we were in a debate being listened to by interested workers, who wanted to know if they would have power within the two versions of ‘democratic socialism’ which the pair of us were alternatively putting forward, I’d point out that my debating partner is arguing for a ‘limiter’ of them, who (or what)Â they themselves don’t control.
I’m sure they’ll be keen to hear more from you about this supreme ruler, the ‘Golden Mean’.
‘Limits on democracy’, eh?
You’d be more accurate to name your version ‘Limited Democratic Socialism’, robbo, and I’ll stick with ‘Democratic Socialism’, and mean it.
robbo, I’ve been trying to give this answer some thought, so that I can illustrate what I consider to be the political problem at issue here.
Perhaps this formulation will help to capture the issue of power within democratic socialism (and I’ve tried to find as many examples as you’ve given in this thread of political bodies that you say will wield power without the oversight/authority of what I argue is the supreme power within democratic socialism, the democratic social producers).
If there is any dispute between “local communities/individuals/particular spatial levels of decision making/polycentric [bodies]/decentralised [bodies]”, who will have the power to override either/both/all the disputants, and, if necessary, disband a disputant?
Unless you can come up with an answer to this vital political question now, when, in the future, the need arises within democratic socialism to solve any political disputes, it will not be clear just where supreme political power resides – that is, where the buck stops for political decision making.
I think that for Marx, who argued for both democracy and for the control of social production by the associated producers themselves, that the only answer to this question of ‘supreme power’ must be ‘the social producers themselves, employing democracy’.
That is, if disbandment of any lower body of power is deemed necessary by this supreme power, the lower body is disbanded.
None of your “local communities/individuals/particular spatial levels of decision making/polycentric [bodies]/decentralised [bodies]” will have the final say on the issue of their existence.
If you disagree with me, and argue that there will be no ‘final authority of appeal’, that’s a political answer that I would disagree with.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “I thought I was discussing the situation in socialism, not what we have today, or the means to achieve it. I was speculating on future society, LBird”
Yeah, I thought so, too, alan! đ
But… whereas I seem to think the educational structures within socialism will be different to those in universities now – revolutionary different – you seem to think they’ll be very similar, if not even identical. I doubt that.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “And in socialism there will not be the removal of position for teaching âheresiesâ or a minority opinion because they might be unpopular as signaled by some sort of vote by the students.”
Of course there will! That’s what power is all about.
Otherwise, who will have the power, to remove, reinstate or retain ‘teachers’?
The ‘teachers’ themselves?
Once again, I find the political awareness of ‘power’, both now and in the future, to be very naive, on this site.
Whenever I ask political questions about ‘power’, there seems to be a general assumption that not very much will change. That is, there’s going to be a revolution, in which ‘the world will be turned upside down’, that will involve much sacrifice (almost certainly including torture and death for some), and yet things will carry on in much the same old way afterwards.
This is all very different from ‘heresies’ (not least because I’m the heretic here!), or unpopularity, or difference, or disagreement, or debate, or opinion, etc.
The point is, who’s to decide if any given ‘teaching’ is inimical to our collective interests as humans?
If you can’t tell the difference between ‘difference’ and ‘danger’, I’m sure that the democratic producers will be able to.
Indeed, if I didn’t believe this – that the majority can come to consciously know their own interests and needs – I wouldn’t be a democratic socialist. And when there’s any issue about what’s ‘heresy’ and what’s ‘dangerous’, only the democratic social producers can decide. All social production – science, education, physics, mathematics, logic, etc. – is done by us, collectively, and only we can determine our social product.
To argue otherwise, is to argue for an elite, and to denigrate, from the outset, the potential of humanity as a collective force.
