LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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 “society wide” 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 “according to self-defined needs” 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 isn’t the normal meaning, i.e a shortage of something, but the non-existence of “sheer abundance” (of everything growing on trees). So, for them, “scarcity” 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 ‘elites’ 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 ‘elites’ 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! 🙂
Matthew Culbert wrote: “who will control truth production within socialism?‘.
No one and everyone. ‘Truth’ production is only a part of a manufacturing process in a class society surely?”
Thanks for your straightforward answer, Matthew.
I partially agree, in that ‘everyone’ will control truth production within socialism – but… how could ‘no one’ control truth production? This would suggest that ‘truth’ produces itself, if there is no active human agent involved in the process. You would have to give a political explanation of ‘what’ and ‘how’ this ‘non-one produced truth’ emerges for humans, and why humanity must remain passive in this process.
Your latter statement seems to suggest that ‘truth’ is only manufactured within class society – but wouldn’t ‘truth’ exist within socialism? Surely we’d democratically manufacture ‘truth’ to our interests, aims, and purposes, using our democratic science?
The real political problem underlying the ideology that ‘truth’ produces itself, or that ‘truth’ won’t exist in the future, is that that would leave the field of ‘truth production’ (because it must be socially produced) open to an elite – who’ll surely claim, of course, that they aren’t actively doing this, but simply ‘discovering’ it, which will mean that their elite interests will be served by their political control of the process.
Marx’s emphasis was upon social production, by an active humanity, by democratic methods, that can change its products. This political and ideological stance, which I agree with, would be undone by an ideology that suggested ‘truth’ simply sits outside of humanity (which would thus remain passive), or that an elite, according to its own interests, using undemocratic methods, is the part of society to do this social production. Plus, any change in ‘truth’ would not be under our political control. I’m sure that none of these political beliefs would have satisfied Marx, and they certainly don’t satisfy me.
If I’ve misunderstood your post, please correct me.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “And we will continue to let you ask and pose those questions and to say we have never engaged…just how many members and how many times have we answered…you may disregard what we say, but don’t say we have never engaged with you in discussion.”
Well, I’d be obliged, alan, if you could point me to the political answer to the political question ‘who will control truth production within socialism?‘.
No-one has ever engaged, no-one has ever answered…
As you say, I can continue to ask, and the SPGB can continue to ignore, but I think that I’m justified in saying that youse have never engaged in a political discussion.
Abuse, ignorance and quips, maybe, but never political answers.
Bijou Drains wrote: “I think you’ll find that that’s your perception of the truth.”
No, mate, it’s not ‘my’ anything.
I’m asking a political question about ‘truth’. This is what I keep trying to explain (and I’ve said this dozens of times), but for some reason I’m failing to persuade youse to engage in a political discussion about ‘power’ and who determines what is ‘truth’, and how.
Why a political discussion on the site of a political party (and one that claims to be interested in socialism) turns to considerations of ‘individual perception’, rather than about ‘politics’ (social power and social ideologies), mystifies me. Well, it did originally, but I’ve come to realise that ‘individualism’ seems to be dominant here.
These are ontological and epistemological questions, about ‘who determines’ what ‘truth’ means (and thus, who will determine this within any democratic socialist society of the future). There must be a better ‘official’ party answer, than blaming ‘individuals’, or even turning to the bible for succour. There are a number of theories of truth, and as a democratic I’m interested whether the SPGB espouses a ‘democratic theory of truth production’ – apparently not.
I can’t make any of youse give a political answer to these political questions, but it makes one wonder what’s the point of the party having a site online, but not engaging in critical political discussion.
What’s more, your last quip, I entirely agree with – ‘dialectics’ is simple ‘bullshit baffles brains’ – an old army saying! 😛
ALB wrote: “There is an amusing story in the christian part of the bible. Jesus is brought before the Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate, and tells him “I am the truth”. Pilate replies “What is the truth?” and asks the crowd outside to vote on it. They decide that the truth is that Jesus is not the truth. Which actually happened to be true, though not because they voted that it was.”
So the SPGB is quoting the bible, in response to political questions about democracy within socialism?
This just gets better! 😛
Brian wrote: “…he’s concluded the specialists by definition constitute an elite.”
Well, in political terms, Brian, ‘an elite’ is precisely what ‘specialists’ are.
Unless you are prepared to state that the decisions of the ‘specialists’ will be subject to the democratic control of ‘generalists’ – that is, that ‘generalists’ as a political force know better about any ‘specialism’ than do the ‘specialists’. This means that the assumptions, aims, theories, methods and practices of the ‘specialists’ will be dictated by the ‘generalists’.
If you disagree with this democratic belief in the power of the ‘generalists’, all well and good – but then announce that clearly, that there will be an elite within your version of ‘socialism’ that will be outside of our democratic control.
It’s odd that the SPGB has come out in force to defend, not ‘democracy’, not ‘socialism’, not ‘producers’, but… ‘Science’, and its elite.
I suspect that it’s the ‘Science’ in the non-Marxist term ‘Scientific Socialism’ that attracts the sort of thinkers who join the SPGB. If there’s a clash between ‘socialism’ and ‘science’, it’s the ‘science’ that takes precedence.
It’s clear from any attempt to argue for Marx’s ‘democratic socialism’ (because in any contest between a supposedly ahistoric, asocial ‘science’ and ‘democracy’, Marx’s ideas favour the ‘democracy’) that it is always met by Engelsist ‘materialists’ who regard this ‘social productionism’ as ‘post-modernism’.
The SPGB is defending elite bourgeois science, not democratic socialism.
This should give the membership pause for thought… that you’re not defending ‘democracy’… but it seems that your ideology is preventing you from seeing the political problems that you cannot answer, never mind solve.
Bijou Drains wrote: “Ironic thing is that L Bird proposes this system where the whole would vote on what is truth…”
The real irony is that Bijou considers himself to be democrat, but won’t tell us which elite would produce truth, and how they would do it within socialism, without the participation of the democratic producers.
No-one in the SPGB seems prepared to answer this question. Again, ironic, for a party with a reputation for democracy.
And, it’s a answer that would differentiate the SPGB from the Leninists – if it were different to Lenin’s, that is.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “The material conditions and situation will eventually determine the actual practice of any idea or theory.”
This is where we all came in, mate! 😛
You still can’t explain how ‘material conditions’ determine human ideas or theories.
Because you can’t explain this (and it is not possible to, because it’s not true), so your belief is based upon faith, not any current ‘science’.
Two things, really:
- Bourgeois ‘science’ has moved on since the 18th century heyday of ‘matter determining humans’, which meant that humans were clockwork.
- Marx clearly believed that ‘social production’ was at the heart of what determines any human ‘idea and theory’, not ‘matter’. If ‘matter determines’, we couldn’t change whatever matter determined, and Marx put ‘change’ at the heart of his philosophy.
No-one who examines these issues any more, looks to ‘materialism’ – even the bourgeoisie have replaced that dead ideology. The supposed ‘socialists’ who adhere to Engels’ ‘materialism’ are dying out, because it’s been thoroughly discredited in the eyes of anyone who takes an interest in these issues. Of course, those who either don’t or can’t (allegedly) take an interest in philosophy, will be left to live out their lives, left behind by the developments of the 20th century (never mind the 21st!).
Don’t you think that your party’s inability to engage with me in a political and philosophical discussion tells you something about why your party is dying out? I, for one, take no pleasure in saying this – the SPGB’s emphasis on ‘democratic’ methods, as opposed to Leninist Central Committee diktats, should be a breath of fresh air, to new, young, workers trying to find out about socialism. Unfortunately, as I’ve discovered, your ‘democracy’ doesn’t extend any further than that of Lenin’s Materialism and Empirio-Criticism of 1908, because you’d agree with every word of that completely anti-democratic, elite philosophy. And any worker who wants democracy to be at the heart of any politics that they get involved in, will be repulsed by ‘materialism’, not least because the present education system is more critical than ‘materialists’ can handle, and workers having been educated since 1900 have access to books.
And don’t forget, I’m not opposed to you and the SPGB on principle – I’m a Democratic Communist and influenced by Marx, but the ‘Marx’ I read clearly isn’t the one that SPGB supporters read (if they do even read Marx and Engels, which sometimes, I very much doubt).
Whilst you’re waiting for ‘material conditions’ to ‘determine’ humanity’s ‘idea or theory’, the world will pass you by. As for your novel concept of ‘actual practice’… that must be opposed to ‘human practice’, because, as Marx argued, humans employ ‘theory and practice’ – that is, ‘actual theory and practice’, to use your bizarre formulation.
How did Marx’s ideas, about ‘active humanity’ socially producing its own ‘better world’, deteriorate into ‘matter determining’ a passive humanity faced by an unchangeable ‘real world in itself’?
I’ll let you guess just who started that bandwagon rolling – one clue: he had no idea what Marx’s unified ‘idealist-materialist’ philosophical views were, and his name begins with an ‘E’.
Well… a second – his method was ‘practice and theory’, which is yours too, alan. Apparently.
