[LBird]

If you can't read what you've written yourself, alan, and compare it with what Marx wrote (and contrast with Engels), then my pointing out what you've written won't convince you.Perhaps another tack might help.Where does 'thought' come from?A 'materialist' will say 'the brain', whereas a Marxist will say 'social production'.'Thought' isn't 'material', but 'social'. Or, to put it into 19th century terms, 'ideal-material', a practical product of social 'theory and practice'. Change the 'theory', and we change the 'product'. Engels didn't understand that.That's why 'specialists' can't know 'reality' before we've created it. 'Reality' is a social product, and within socialism we'll build our reality, and it won't be the reality built by bourgeois science.

[LBird]

But I haven't claimed that 'ideas fall from the sky'. That is what 'materialists' always accuse Marxists of saying.And once again, regarding the 'primary need' that you identify – 'who' determines it, and 'how'?The only answer acceptable to Marxists is: 'the social producers' and 'by democratic means'.'Materialists' claim that 'need' comes from 'matter', and that the 'materialists' can identify that 'need' without the active participation of the social producers. So, the 'materialists' claim that 'experts' can decide. Or, as the SPGB has it, the 'specialists'.It's nothing to do with World Socialism and the democratic control of production, alan.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Just to quote again from that article.

Quote:

'scientific socialism'……was only used in opposition to utopian socialism, which wants to attach the people to new delusions, instead of limiting its science to the knowledge of the social movement made by the people itself.

We've done this discussion to death elsewhere, alan, about Engels' false contrast of 'scientific' versus 'utopian'. It's nothing to do with Marx.

ajj wrote:

Simply acknowledging ideas come from somewhere.

Yeah, according to Marx, 'ideas' come from 'social production'.It's Engels who believed that 'ideas' came from 'material' (or, 'matter'). Which is what you apparently believe, too.To put it another way, for Marx, 'ideas' come from 'social theory and practice' (ie., in part, from 'ideas' ('theory')). The notion that 'matter' is the source of ideas actually denies the social producers the ability to consciously change themselves, because 'materialism' takes that ability and places it in 'matter'. And then, of course, as Marx warned, the 'materialists' will claim to know what 'ideas' 'matter' is 'producing', and present the workers with this accomplished fact.And whilst so-called "workers' parties" keep spouting this 'materialist' nonsense, there will be no development amongst workers who look to those parties. Like you, alan.

[LBird]

alan, your reply seems to consist of 'I don't know' and 'things will remain much the same as now'.It's fair enough if this is the politics you wish to propagate, and you reflect a consensus within the SPGB, but to me it's all a long way from Marx, revolution, class struggle, workers' power, democratic control of social production, fundamental socio-historic changes, etc.From the answers given here, by you and others, it seems that the SPGB is essentially an individualist and reformist organisation – I even hesitate to say 'party', which suggests organisation, conscious ideology, and politics.And the terms 'Marxism' and 'World Socialism' seem to be just a figleaf for pretty bog-standard, mainstream, ruling class ideas, within the SPGB.Whatever, my political beliefs, historical outlook, and hopes for the future, seem to be a long way from yours.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Isn't Marx saying here that this is the end of politics?

No, he isn't.

ajj wrote:

I didn't say there would be an end to disagreements and an end of arguments. And no doubt proponents of a position will come together in organisations, as will their adversaries and they'll reason it all out among themselves.  These disputes will have to be resolved in a process acceptable to all. As there is no political parties and no classes in conflict for domination of society, i don't consider this to be politics.

So, you agree with me and Marx, then.If 'politics' is defined as 'parliamentary' (or 'class') politics, then there is 'an end to politics'.If 'politics' is more widely defined as the social reconciling of 'disagreements, arguments, disputes', then there will be politics. You 'just don't consider this to be politics'. Fine by me. Change the name of 'politics' to 'reasoning it all out' or 'acceptable resolution', and the problem still remains. Who determines 'reason' and 'acceptable', and how?

[LBird]

As usual, YMS, you're contradicting yourself, because you haven't thought through the politics of it.

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I agree, there would have to be a single world authority… Moreover, there is no necessary reason why that singular entity should always have the final say…

Either there's a 'single authority' which does 'always have the final say'……or there's a diffusion of 'authority' which competes for political power, when one or another 'temporarily supercedes the world authority'.Just who makes this political decision to 'supercede' World Socialism, you never tell us. A 'Specialist' in 'politics', perhaps?It's a recipe for political confusion, and a denial of the democratic authority of the social producers. But then, you don't recognise the legitimacy of 'democratic authority', do you?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Nor will it be politics. Politics ends when capitalism ends. YMS reflects my own view.   

This is the nub of the issue, alan.For 'individualists' like YMS (and, apparently, you, too) 'society' and its nasty manifestation of 'politics' which interferes with 'individual freedom' will disappear with the end of capitalism.This ideological belief is nothing to do with Marx's 'social productionism', which recognises 'society' as the fundamental category of 'production'. Different societies, throughout history, have produced different 'individuals' (the term itself is a social product, and would not be recognised by other societies prior to capitalism).Of course, 'politics' won't 'end when capitalism ends'. Politics has always existed, and will always exist, because power is a social phenomenon, and we have to learn to deal with social power.Otherwise, why would Marx be so focussed upon 'democracy' within the  workers' movement?This openness of yours – that you believe in 'the end of politics' – throws much light on just why the SPGB can't deal with political questions in the present. You have an ideolological belief in something other than 'politics' and humans – and I already know that this belief is in 'Matter', an ahistorical, asocial, non-political 'Truth'.I've recently said that I find the SPGB's attitude to 'power' to be strange for a political party – but perhaps the reason is emerging more clearly, now.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

The substantive point is, there won't be one way of making decisions, but thousands, where useful, algorithmic decision making can be applied, sometimes, raw voting, sometimes weighted scoring by technical experts, each organisation, community and region will be different: single non-transferable voting, single transferable voting, condorcet pairwise voting, condorcet pairwise voting with AV track back, block vote, limited vote, d'Hondt, droop.  I won't be voting on the colour of the bus stops in Dorset, nor about the street names in Aberdeen.  I might have a vote for the world forestry commission, etc.

So, you've listed at least a dozen 'ways' – so, who (or what) determines which 'way' applies to any given political situation?You won't answer this political question, YMS.

YMS wrote:

In Socialist as a Practical Alternative, we cite the Food and Agriculture Organisation as a potential precursor to a world agricultural plan, but I doubt the decision of what to do with that field just off Thames Road should be used for would be taken at their head office, though their advisors might visit the local authority, and advise them in the light of expertise and co-ordinating with the world food plan…. etc.  There would be many, varied and overlapping authorities involved in many decisions, not a single vote, and some decisions even might be made by consensus.

[my bold]This is your 'substantive point', YMS. It's a political argument for the liberal theory of the diffusion of 'powers', similar to legislature, executive, judiciary, etc.On the contrary, my 'substantive point' is that there will be a single world authority, which will have any necessary final say regarding any 'many, varied and overlapping [lower level] authorities'.This 'single world authority' is embodied in the political slogan 'World Socialism'.This 'World Socialism' will be built to the needs, interests and purposes of the revolutionary, class conscious, democratic proletariat.This is the key political difference between us, YMS. You are not a supporter of 'World Socialism', but, at best, of 'World Socialisms'. From my Democratic Communist perspective, you might as well be talking about 'National Socialisms', a particularistic, divided, unco-ordinated, even anarchistic, politics.And behind all this, is your individualism, and 'fear of the mob' of "workers' democratic power".

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I really thought we were reaching an agreement, even if there might have been a difference of emphasis…more fool me.And by no means am i apportioning blame on a particular person. It just depresses me that this discussion and debate isn't being fruitful. It's leading no-where.

Not surprisingly, alan, I don't agree with you. It's a very fruitful debate, because it's exposing the SPGB's inability to discuss politics. This is, at root, because the SPGB embraces 'materialism', which Marx warns will lead to the separation of society into two parts, one superior to the other.The 'politics' involved are the politics of Specialism/Generalism, which seems to be the preferred expression with the SPGB for their elitism. That's why the SPGB can't support democracy where there is power: not in politics, nor science, nor maths, nor physics, nor logic… I'm sure you get the point.On a personal level, I'm baffled as to why this isn't apparent to you, and you still don't seem to understand that elitism in politics (ie. 'Specialism/Generalism') leads to, well, elitism in everything. It doesn't give me any confidence that the SPGB is able to even confront these political issues, because, aside from your 'neutral' bafflement, the other responses are personal attacks on me, rather than political responses to those who disagree with Engels' 'materialism'.So, it's leading to the SPGB's elitist politics being exposed, to class conscious, democratic workers, alan. This doesn't seem to bother the SPGB, probably because it's not interested in 'class', 'workers' or 'democracy'; just in 'Specialists' and 'individuals'.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

…I, I, I,… me, me, me,… mine, mine, mine,… my, my, my…

No mention of social production, or democratic controls, nor even the odd 'we', 'us', 'our'… as for Marx, Communism, society or history… well, we'll have a long wait before the ideological individualists here ever mention those.

[LBird]

From jondwhite's link to the SWP's Socialist Review:

Socialist Review wrote:

The argument is about whether Lenin and the Bolsheviks operated in the tradition set by the then largest socialist party, the German Social Democrats, or were a “party of the new type” — a more tightly knit organisation that brought together the most class conscious members of the working class…. Neil … provides no alternative way forward apart from the vague “Only the masses in struggle can create a party of revolution.” Hear, hear to that; but how many times have we seen the “masses in struggle” only for it to all end in tears, or seen left parties such as Syriza in Greece promise to challenge the tyranny of capitalism, only for it to end in disillusion. What has, time and again, been lacking is a revolutionary party “of the new type”, steeled in class struggle and able to point the way forward — just as Lenin and the Bolsheviks did at critical points.

This 'debate' is all guff – the pretence that there are two types of "workers' party".Both the SPD and the RSDLP (ie. both the 'reformists' and the 'revolutionaries') are Religious Materialists, following Engels, and both pay only lip service to the 'working class' – they both despair of "masses in struggle", who themselves consciously build themselves as a class force, and who themselves reject any so-called 'party' of 'specialists' who know better than the 'masses in struggle'.Of course, I put the SPGB in this 'specialist' category, too.'What has, time and again, been lacking' is not a 'party', but a self-developed 'mass in struggle'.No so-called "workers' party" has ever set out to do as the class tells it, and to regard the 'party' as the learner in this process, not the teacher.Whilst 'parties' believe that the 'party' builds 'reality', and so the party can claim to 'know reality' before the 'masses in struggle' have actually even begun to build their world, they will continue to disregard Marx on this issue, and so undermine any attempt to build class consciousness.

[LBird]

Sympo wrote:

If this is what you consider to be scenario C? Because this is how I more or less envisioned scenario A.

You might be forgetting that I'm a Democratic Communist and a Marxist, Sympo. I'm not sure what your political and ideological beliefs are, but if they differ from mine, you might misunderstand what I mean. I've used your terms, to try to clarify for you, the differences between your 'scenarios', but things are a little more complex.For example, where you use the term 'people', I would use the term 'the class conscious revolutionary proletariat', and so you might be missing the class, developmental and revolutionary content of my point about 'who controls power'.Furthermore, your distinction between 'the public' and 'the council' is related to current political arrangements, not those which will be produced by the class struggle for socialism – to put it simply, in your terms: 'councils' will do what the 'public' tell them to do, not the other way around.

[LBird]

Sympo wrote:

Not really relevant to the discussion YMS and others are having with LBird but what is the great difference between scenario A and scenario B?Scenario A: People democratically elect individuals who are experts on the subject to form a council where decisions are made about that particular subject.Scenario B: People democratically elect individuals who are not experts on the subject to form a council where decisions are made about that particular subject. The non-experts learn about the issue (unless we want them to screw up) and become more educated on the subject than those that elected them. They have, as I see it, basically become experts.Are any of the scenarios not examples of leaving decisions to elected experts? And are any of these scenarios undemocratic?

You've missed 'Scenario C', Sympo:Scenario C (to use your terms): People democratically elect individuals who are experts on the subject to form a council where explanations are formed about that particular subject. These explanations are then explained to people, and if the people accept the explanations, they make the decision to accept the explanation. If the explanation is unacceptable, new experts are elected by the people.Power always lies with the people, not the experts.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Quote:

Election is a political form present in the smallest Russian commune and artel. The character of the election does not depend on this name, but on the economic foundation, the economic situation of the voters, and as soon as the functions have ceased to be political ones, there exists 1) no government function, 2) the distribution of the general functions has become a business matter, that gives no one domination, 3) election has nothing of its present political character.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm(my bold)

Yeah, 'no-one' will have domination – the collective, democratic, social producers will 'dominate', through their own authority. That's what democracy is, YMS.And since you are an individualist, you'll fight tooth and nail to refuse democratic authority.You see 'socialism' as a free-for-all for 7 billion 'individuals', and ignore the whole Marxist concept of 'social production'.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

Power and socially organised violence is a product of the development of property and will not exist in socialism

You're not just a poor Marxist, Vin, but a poor historian, too.'Power and socially organised violence' is not a product of the development of property – the product of that development of property is 'the state'.'Power and socially organised violence' pre-existed 'the development of property' – any examination of pre-class societies shows these social traits.Except in the minds of 'individualists', for whom the pre-property world was a condition of hippyish love and peace, man.I've known for a long time that YMS and robbo were 'individualists' and not democratic socialists, but I didn't think that you too were infected with 'Anarchism', Vin.Put simply, 'society' is not a simple collection of 'individuals', but pre-exists any given 'individual'. I agree with Marx's concept of a 'social individual', which sees this category as a product of their particular, socio-historic, society. And I also agree with him that those 'social individuals', suitably politically organised in democratic organisations, can change their 'society', for the better. And only they can determine 'better-for-them'.

[Author]

Posts