LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote: “But I know from experience that their usage immediately puts the listener off.”
Yeah, you’re right, alan.
‘Experience’ during a retreat from class politics (such as the last 40 years) provides such a lesson.
But, we’re Marxists, who always place ‘experience’ within socio-historic contexts, and know that, as the context changes, ‘usages’ produce different ‘experiences’.
My advice, alan, is to go back to ‘proletariat/bourgeoisie’, which so clearly exposes the exploitative class nature of our current society, and as the new audience for class politics emerges amongst the young, your ‘experience’ will change. đ
alanjjohnstone wrote:Â “The freedom will be that the student can stop attending the lessons and lectures…”
Ah, the old bourgeois myth about ‘individual freedom’!
Just like when one doesn’t like one’s pay being too low, simply ‘stop attending’ that workplace!
No, alan, collective, conscious, political action to change the structure we find ourselves in.
As for workplaces, so for universities.
We are having some revealing political statements today, aren’t we?!
alanjjohnstone wrote: “No, not at all. Just which body would have the authority to do so?”
The body elected by the students.
To argue otherwise, is to argue that ‘teachers’ have the authority.
Simple political question – who has power, and how is it wielded?
My answer – the majority, and democratically. That’s the political basis of socialism.
robbo203 wrote: “LBird â again all I want to know from you is 1) what is your proposed structure of democratic decision-making in socialism and 2) what is the scope of this democratic decision-making.”
Well, since even Marx didn’t venture to describe any ‘proposed structure’ for socialism, I think that you’re asking too much of any socialist now to make such a proposal. I think that the only answer to this quite reasonable political question is to say, like Marx, that any ‘structures’ will emerge from the building process by the proletariat itself, as it becomes self-conscious of its own power.
But, as to the scope, then I think we can say that it will be all-embracing. That is, that all social production within socialism will be democratically controlled. If we don’t argue that, now, during our building of socialism, then it will leave open the political option for some minority to argue that they, and they alone, should politically control some (or even all) of social production within socialism.
There is a long, well-established, history within the workers’ movement of minorities claiming that that particular minority ‘know better’ than the majority of workers, and that that minority should have (supposedly ‘temporary’) political control of the construction process, because the majority are not capable, for themselves, of planning, directing and doing the building of socialism.
At least these ‘elites’ in the past have had the political sense to claim that their political control was to be temporary (even though that’s a lie), but I’m not too sure about the political acumen of those who tell workers, that they, the majority, the social producers, having built socialism, employing democratic methods, will, after the ‘glorious day’, simply hand over this hard-won political control to an unelected minority.
It doesn’t seem to me to be a ‘winning formula’ when it’s explained to workers, and, not surprisingly, workers in the past have told those saying this (that the workers will do the hard and dangerous work of building socialism, but then won’t control socialism) to, ahem, ‘Go Away!’.
There has never yet been a successful case of this political strategy working with workers, and though it’s possible to argue that workers simply can’t become self-conscious, I’m inclined to think that workers soon suss out this nonsensical political strategy, and so it always fails, and always will.
I’m convinced that, like Marx, it’s better to argue for ‘democratic control of social production’ – all social production – and make that the basis of ‘democratic communism’.
Bijou, you (and Vin) especially seem to have a problem with me using the terms ‘proletariat’Â or ‘workers’ to describe the ‘social producers’ in this society, and that the ‘proletariat’ or ‘workers’ form the heart of the future ‘social producers’ within ‘socialism’.
The difference between capitalism and socialism, is that within capitalism the majority of the ‘social producers’ don’t democratically control ‘social production’, whereas within socialism the majority of the ‘social producers’ will democratically control ‘social production’.
Furthermore, the building for socialism within this society will be consciously done by the ‘proletariat’ or ‘workers’, and since they (ie. the majority) have built socialism, they (ie. the majority) will have the political control of what they (ie. the majority) have built.
Clearly, the majority won’t be exploited within socialism, because the exploiting minority won’t exist. But the ‘social producers’, of course, will still exist.
So, if we’re talking about the majority of social producers within capitalism, we can call them the ‘proletariat’ or ‘workers’, but we wouldn’t call the majority of social producers within socialism the ‘proletariat’ or ‘workers’, because those classes won’t exist.
If we refuse to use the terms ‘proletariat’ or ‘workers’ within this society, then we lose sight of the exploitative nature of our class society. But clearly the ‘proletariat’ or ‘workers’ literally forms the basis of the ‘social producers’ within socialism. The ‘proletariat’ or ‘workers’ are the creators of ‘democratic socialism’.
I’m not really sure why this causes so much difficulty with you, Vin, or anyone else.
robbo203 wrote: “So just to be clear here LBird â are you saying that humanity in its entirety should democratically determine the entire output of global production…”
Well, since Marx argued that humanity creates its own ‘entire output of global production’, the most fundamental political question is ‘who should control that output?’.
It seems to me that Marx also argued for ‘democracy’ within our ‘social production’, and that particular political mode of social production would be called ‘communism’.
I openly state that I’m a Democratic Communist, influenced by Marx, so I have to admit that I think that ‘socialism’ means the ‘democratic control of social production’.
Of course, you might disagree with Marx (about his view that humans collectively create their world, and that this production should be democratic), and so you’d disagree with me, but if so, you’d have to explain, in your political view, ‘who’ would control ‘social production’, and ‘how’.
To put this in your terms, if humanity doesn’t democratically control the entirety of its production, who does? You must have in mind a subset of humanity (ie. some sort of an elite) and a political system which is thus not democratic (otherwise, your ‘elite’ could be outvoted).
You seem to be exasperated by my views, which I think are completely consistent with both ‘democratic communism’ and Marx’s political and philosophical views, but you never say what you think (in opposition to my constantly reiterated open clear view that the subject is ‘democratic humanity’), but merely appear incredulous that someone should argue for ‘democratic production’.
What’s more, in many ways, during our longstanding debates, you’ve seemed very close to many of the things that I’ve argued would be necessary for such a social system as ‘democratic socialism’, for example, a democratic education system. But when I point out that any power within socialism would be under the control of the associated producers, you seem to divide power into two. Again, for example, to me, democratic education would mean the election of ‘teachers’, so if the ‘students’ disagreed with their ‘teacher’, the ‘teacher’ would/could be removed. This political method would apply just as much to ‘science’ – if the ‘student’ majority disagree with the ‘physics’ being taught by the ‘physicist’, then the ‘physicist’ would/could be removed.
The only other political method would be to argue that something is outside of the productive control of the majority, and this something determines ‘Truth’, and that a special minority ‘know’ this ‘something’ (and the majority either can’t ‘know’ or are stupid enough to ignore this ‘Truth’), and so, in the final analysis, the majority simply can’t be allowed to take political control and enforce their democratic wishes within social production. ‘Something’ is ‘out there’ which isn’t ‘socially produced’, and the elite ‘know’ this ‘something’.
This belief in a non-socially-produced ‘something’ is not Marx’s view, and it isn’t mine. If it is yours, you should tell us what ‘it’ is.
Bijou, I’m a Marxist, and surely you know by now that by ‘workers’ a Marxist means an exploited class of proletarians. In our present capitalist society, this is the vast majority of humans on this planet.
You seem to be using the term ‘workers’ to mean ‘people who go to work’ as opposed to ‘people who don’t go to work’, the ’employed’ versus the ‘unemployed’ (or, ‘unemployable’). If you’ve been using this ideology to try to understand what I’ve been arguing, it’s not wonder that you’ve been misunderstanding my political arguments.
Perhaps it’s my fault for assuming that on a political site dedicated to democratic socialism, the other posters would be more familiar with Marx.
robbo203 wrote: “I am actually in favour of democratic planning…”
We seem to agree then, mate…
…but I can sense a ‘but’ coming…
robbo203 wrote: “…but in the context of polycentric and largely decentralised model of planning”
So, ‘who’ (ie. which political authority) determines and ‘how’ (ie. which political method) is it determined – the ‘polycentric’ powers (as opposed to legitimate authority), the ‘largely’ (as opposed to those few not), the ‘decentralised’ (as opposed to any ‘centralised’), the ‘models’ (as opposed to forbidden ‘models’, like those of, for example, ‘eugenics’), and ‘planning’ (as opposed to simple, spontaneous, individual choices)?
I’d give the political answer that ‘humanity’ is the ‘who’, and that ‘democracy’ is the ‘how’. That’s what I mean by ‘democratic communism’ – the democratic control of social production. Furthermore, I’d argue within any workers’ councils (should we ever see them!), that anyone who introduces a ‘but’ into ‘democratic planning’ has a concealed political agenda (whether they themselves are aware of that or not). I’d argue that unless this political agenda is unveiled and discussed openly in the present, that it will come back to haunt us in the future, because it is a question of political power and authority, which all societies have to determine the basis of, for that society.
The ‘political authority’ is the ‘social producers’, and the ‘political method’ is ‘democracy’.
You might disagree with me, robbo, but you should give a political answer to this political question.
On a philosophical level, the ‘social producers’ are the ‘subject’, that creates its ‘object’. And this act of ‘creation’, by the active, conscious, subject, is ‘labour’. This is Marx’s view, and mine, too. That’s why we humans can change our reality. We create ‘reality-for-us’.
We’re just going to have to agree to disagree, robbo.
You define ‘wide’ as ‘central’, whereas I define ‘wide’ as ‘democratic’.
So, to me, ‘wider’ involvement means greater democratic participation, whereas, to you, ‘wider’ means less democratic participation.
Though I might be wrong, I suspect your usage follows from your equation of ‘democracy’ with ‘more individual control’, whereas I equate ‘democracy’ with ‘more social control’. Once again, I think that this is about ‘definitions’.
I define ‘democracy’ as ‘people power’ (demos, kratos), (what the bourgeoisie call ‘mob rule’), whereas I think you define ‘democracy’ as ‘individual freedom’ (which I regard as a liberal, not a communist, definition).
So, to be frank, I want to see ‘mob rule’, and I define ‘democratic socialism’ as ‘mob rule’ (in the terms of bourgeois individualism).
Ochlocracy, to keep the Greek ruling class theme going.
robbo203 wrote: “I will argue to the contrary that socialist society will not and cannot decide what is produced overall because that implies centralised âsociety wideâ planning and a single gigantic plan…”
I don’t want to go over old ground, robbo, but it’s clear we have a different political viewpoint/ideology about ‘democracy’.
I don’t regard ‘democratic’ as meaning ‘centralised’.
To me, a democratic communist, if ‘produced overall’ and ‘society wide planning’ are democratic, then they are not ‘centralised’.
You are, in effect, defining any ‘democratic’ decision that clashes with, and overrides, an individual’s opinion, as ‘centralised’ and ‘single’.
We’re going to have to disagree on this issue, and simply allow any developing workers’ movement to determine whether it can have its democratically expressed wishes (which might involve ‘centralisation’, or ‘a single gigantic plan’, regarding some profound issue facing humanity) overridden by ‘individuals’, who claim that their own interests/purposes/needs/plans necessarily precede and trump those of the majority, and that those individuals are the ones to determine this, outside of any democratic political controls.
Suffice to say, this is not my view of ‘democratic socialism’.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “But look through forum archives when the definition we sometimes use âaccording to self-defined needsâ was challenged on the grounds that it will be society as a whole and not individuals which will decide free access.”
Yeah, ‘self’ refers to the ‘subject’ that creates, and the creating subject for Marx was humanity (ie. ‘social individuals’, not ‘biological individuals’ as for bourgeois ideology), and any ‘defining’ by the creating subject must be democratic.
Within democratic communism, ‘self-defined needs’ will be determined democratically.
Anyone who wants ‘individuals’ defining their own isolated needs for themselves, should stick to the system of ‘social production’ most suited to that ideology, ie. capitalism.
‘Freedom’ in any sphere is a social, not an individual, definition. And all definitions are always social, because definitions are a social product.
ALB wrote: “Yes, and what they mean by scarcity isnât the normal meaning, i.e a shortage of something, but the non-existence of âsheer abundanceâ (of everything growing on trees). So, for them, âscarcityâ will always exist with some form of market system the best way to deal with it.”
This is quite possibly the single most important ideological lesson for democratic communists to take note of – the meaning of ‘scarcity’.
The critical challenge to this ‘normal meaning’ is a lesson in challenging other ‘normal meanings’ throughout any discussions with bourgeois ideologists, including within physics, maths or logic, and not just ‘economics’.
‘Definitions’ are a critical battleground, prior to the content of any discussion.
David David wrote: “In Short, what is definition of economics by Karl Marx?”
I think that the shortest and most accurate answer is ‘social production’.
But this covers much more than the narrow bourgeois discipline of ‘economics’, or ‘the market’, and involves ‘social production’ in its widest meaning, covering both ‘stuff’ and ideas, and being inherently political, involving democracy if we are talking about ‘social production’ within communism (unlike ‘economics’, which pretends to be ‘non-political’ and ‘non-ideological’).
Matthew Culbert earlier wrote: “Your fear of technocratic, scientific or bureaucratic specialists forming into âelitesâ is way off the mark, as specialists will be themselves part of society, not some privileged section,but also subject to recallable delegation, in such cases say, where they move from local into regional bodies.”
Matthew Culbert later wrote: “He seems to have a problem accepting, just because it is a <b>classless, commonly owned</b> society, that there are <b>no elite</b> interests will form <b>over</b> the people.”
Perhaps it’s better for me to clarify what I regard as the problem, because I think Matthew is missing my political point.
Both of your statements are focused on a socialist society that’s come into existence, and as far as that goes, I agree, rather than disagree (as you seem to be suggesting) with the points you’re making.
My criticism involves the social process of building that socialist society – that is, the process of production (by us now) rather than the product as an ideal.
Because I agree with Marx’s method of ‘theory and practice’, I think that if we have a theory, which we put into practice, then the product will be shaped by the theory which is put into practice.
To get to my key political point, if the theory that we espouse, now, in our efforts to build for a democratic socialism (of the sort embodied in your statements above), does not contain the theoretical seeds of democratic socialism, then we are going to find it impossible to build a democratic socialism. The society we build will reflect the theory we base our efforts upon.
It’s my political, philosophical and ideological opinion that ‘materialism’ (of the sort put forward by Engels, and taken forward by Kautsky, Plekhanov and Lenin) does not contain the seeds of your socialism outlined in your quotes, above.
As an example, your political characterisation of ‘specialists’ as ‘recallable delegates’ (which I agree with politically) would mean that the ‘specialists’ would do as they are told by their democratic delegators (which I would charaterise as the SPGB’s notion of ‘generalists’). That is, it’s the generalists who would be giving the specialists the aims, purposes, interests, theories, concepts, and methods of the generalists. There would not be (and could not be) specialists who themselves tell the rest of us what aims, purposes, interests, theories, concepts and methods are suitable for building our ‘better world’.
This political power, though, goes against everything that the bourgeois have said about their ‘science’ for 300 years, and their ideological argument that ‘The World’, ‘The Universe’, ‘Real Reality’, etc. already exists, and so can’t be changed. The prizefighters of the bourgeoisie (economists, physicists, mathematicians, etc.) insist that they are all simply dealing with ‘reality’, which ‘exists’ and can’t be changed, and simply ‘discovering’ ‘what exists’, already. And they claim to have a politically-neutral ‘scientific’ method, which, if it does exist, can clearly be employed by ‘specialists’, an elite, outside of the social control of the masses, the ‘generalists’.
Our political problem is that ‘materialism’ is precisely an ideology required to maintain these political beliefs in a disinterested, non-ideological, politically-neutral body of ‘specialists’, who themselves determine their aims, purposes, …etc, and it argues that to do otherwise (ie, what you and I are suggesting, ‘recallable delegates’ in all academic fields) would be to destroy the very foundations of science.
I can sum all of this up by saying that, unless our ‘theory’ is from the start conducive to our hoped-for practice and product, then the outcome, socialism, will not be of the sort that is outlined in your political statements, which I agree with.
‘Materialism’ is not that ‘theory’. Our ‘theory’ must be democratic from the outset.
Matthew Culbert wrote: “Of course truth will exist, but it would be in context of its being a live changing one, subject to interrogation and reinterpretation, in light of new knowledge and challenging of its veracity and not some absolute entity, which is impossible in any case.
Your fear of technocratic, scientific or bureaucratic specialists forming into âelitesâ is way off the mark, as specialists will be themselves part of society, not some privileged section,but also subject to recallable delegation, in such cases say, where they move from local into regional bodies.
I think there will be much more educated interrogation of any findings and resource allocation will be a democratic process which will be surely allowing for some degree of ephemeral or speculative or research largesse on the part of allocations.”
It’s a shame that you haven’t been party to these discussions regularly over the past few years, Matthew, because there’s little to politically disagree with, in your post, (other than your characterisation of my personal ‘fear’, but we can let that lie, because the political content of the post).
Certainly, your post provides an excellent basis for further political discussion, if you’ve a mind to continue. I must say, a breath of fresh air! đ
