[LBird]

A 'pointy stick' is still a 'means of violence', YMS.And if we're to remove all 'pointy sticks', we'll still collectively need 'pointy sticks' to enforce our democratic decision.Even if you reduce your argument to bare knuckle fighting (with no weapons at all), you are still avoiding the issue about 'who controls legitimate violence?'.Your argument only makes sense if you argue that there will be no 'legitimate violence'.But then you have the problem of how society enforces its democratic decisions, against those who reject democracy as a method of social production.Like all those who refuse 'democratic science', for example.Since 'truth' is a social product, not a 'faithful reflection' of 'out there', 'truth' can be elected – as it must be, within a democratic society like socialism.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

We need to abolish the means of violence, first and foremost, to make the resort to violence more difficult.

But now you're contradicting yourself, YMS.Either there is 'legitimate violence', or 'violence is abolished' (and so there is no 'legitimate violence' by definition).These are political issues, YMS, and can't be simply wished away. We're talking about socialism, not a hippy nirvana.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

But if 'dialogue' doesn't work, then 'democratic social force' will resolve the dispute. To pretend otherwise, is to lie to workers asking about socialism, and how serious disputes would be resolved. If a minority can't be reasoned with peacefully, through dialogue, then the majority must impose its democratic views.

The only legitimate use of violence would be for a majority to take up arms against a minority that tried to impose its will through violence, as collective and individual self defence.

[my bold]That's precisely what I'm arguing for – democratic control of violence.

YMS wrote:

The idea of Red Guards closing down opposition newspapers, and enforcing the democratically decided truth fills me with something of a chill.

Who's mentioned 'Red Guards'? Why bring this up, when we're discussing 'democratic force being used against a violent minority'?You can't have it both ways, YMS.Either there will be a 'democratic force' (which you apparently agree with, as you term it, 'legitimate use of violence') or there won't be.The fact that you constantly say one thing, and then deny it by reference to Bolshevism, shows that you haven't really thought through this political issue.It's about 'power'. All societies have 'power', they always have had, and they always will have, including within socialism.The only issue is 'who controls power' (including 'legitimate violence') – and the answers are either 'no-one', 'an elite', or 'society democratically'. Only the third answer can apply to a democratic society like socialism.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

And i don't think we can state a priori how every society will determine those means. We can generalise and perhaps speak for ourselves but other places and regions possess different cultures and traditions on how decision-making is accomplished. 

Whatever happened to the concept of 'World Socialism', alan?What are these different forms of 'every society' that you mention?By 'ourselves', I mean the class conscious revolutionary proletariat, a world-wide force, which will democratically determine whether any and all 'cultures and traditions' are in our interests, suit our needs, and develop our purposes.There will be no 'decision-making' other than by democratic means – there will be no other social forces with power, outside of us, the world-wide producers.Once again, if you disagree with my political views, you should make clear the official view of the SPGB regarding 'socialism', because I don't recognise your formulation above.The world is a commonwealth for all, not a series of separate (even opposed) resources, with no overall political control.

[LBird]

 Vin, who's 'name calling'? Who mentioned a 'state'? What is the 'strawman'?I'm discussing with you, trying to explore about 'power', and who we think should control 'power' in an socialist society. I thought that our exchange was going reasonably well.If you disagree with me, then fine, simply explain how you think 'social power' should be expressed within socialism.

[LBird]

moderator1 wrote:

Yes of course the principle of 'one person one vote' will apply. And yes the 'systematic project management approach' I'm advocating is by default a democratic one e.g. "So it can reach a conclusion and outcome based on the satisfaction of human needs".  If that's not democracy wtf is?

[my bold]So, you agree that 'truth' will be produced by 'one person, one vote', and not by an elite?

mod1 wrote:

Such a question makes me suspect you are either failing to understand what I've written, or even worst you have little idea on the implications and consequences of democratic socialism under the framework of Direct/Delgated Participatory Democracy.  In this regard the determination of 'human needs' is arrived at through the agreed democratic process of the application for systematic project management. Hence, its not so much as the 'who' but how the community arrives at a democratic conclusion and outcome.

[my bold]So, the 'community' is 'society', and not an elite?That is, the 'who' is 'society' and the 'how' is 'democracy'?If it isn't 'society' and it isn't 'democracy', you should be open and tell us both the 'who' and the 'how'.Or do you mean a democratic vote within an elite?I'm just trying to cover all the bases of what you might mean.I simply say that socialism will be the democratic control of production by the social producers. That, of necessity, includes any 'truths' that are produced.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

I would still appreciate more clarification of the 'armed and organised' force.  Worldwide? Locally organised armed force? 

You're asking for 'more clarification' than Marx could give, and I'm no different.The point is a political one about social power.We can either argue that:'society won't exist under socialism', and so no 'social force' is required;or, 'society will exist', and an elite should control its 'social force';or, 'society will exist', and its 'social force' must be our own democratic 'social force'.Individualists will pick the first, Leninists will pick the second, and Marxists will pick the third.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

So in 'democratic communism' decisions made by the world wide 'producers'  will be forced on ALL individuals and  communities by an "armed and organised" force'? Can you give a theoretical  example?

Yes, I already have, Vin.I'm quite happy to claim that FGM will be suppressed by democratic 'armed and organised force'.If someone wishes to claim that 'individuals' choosing to inflict FGM can ignore our democratic wishes to suppress FGM, or that 'democratic wishes' will play no part in 'socialism', then I will disagree with them.I quite clearly argue for 'democratic controls' within socialism. If someone disagrees, it's up to them to explain just what their version of 'socialism' will be, if not 'democratic'.Then, all workers looking for 'socialist' ideas, will be able to choose, whether they want their 'socialism' to be 'democratic socialism', as I do, or some other version.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

Scientist are workers with expert knowledge that  we can accept or not accept. They are not elites.  They will have the same vote as anyone else and the same access to knowledge and other resources as anyone else. You have already agreed on this in another thread. 

Yes, and I still agree with you, Vin.So, since all will have the 'same vote' and the 'same access to knowledge', then surely only all will produce their social knowledge?

Vin wrote:

You received cheers and applause. Are you now backtracking as usual.??

You don't seem to realise the political content of what you are arguing for, Vin. I'm not 'backtracking', I'm confirming 'no elites', 'same votes and knowledge', just as you argue for.

Vin wrote:

Are we back to ALL 'producers' being experts in ALL fields?

You're repeating robbo's 'What LBird says', here, Vin.You (and the others) simply must get used to reading what I write, and not taking robbo's version of 'What LBird says' for what I write.I've only ever said that all 'experts' must be able to explain their expertise to 'all', and that only 'all' can determine whether that explanation fits with the needs, interests and purposes of 'all'.If 'experts' either can't explain, or argue that we can't understand, then we must reject those 'experts'.There is no 'science' or 'knowledge' or 'Truth' that can exist without the active participation of the social producers.To argue otherwise, is to go against Marx, and to support an 'elite' with a supposed 'special consciousness' that they claim is not available to the masses.I've used the analogy of 'Latin, priests and peasants' to explain the current situation of bourgeois science's 'Maths, physicists and workers'. Once the myth, that only priests reading Latin could tell peasants what the Bible said, broke down, there was a revolution. The Bible in the vernacular, published by revolutionaries, provided the starting point.And once the myth, that only physicists reading Maths can tell workers what the World is, breaks down, there will be a revolution. Perhaps Marx in the vernacular…

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Well, the central point is the absence of an armed and organised body of men in the form of a police or army to do any coercing, and the other point is the freedom of association implies freedom of dissacoiation:…

How do you know that there will be no 'armed and organised' force within socialism?Surely society will have a means of enforcing its democratic decisions? Otherwise, who stops, to give your example, 'racism'? Or FGM?Democratic Communists argue that the only 'social force' must be 'democratic social force' – they don't argue that 'social force' will not exist. Only those adhering to the myth of bourgeois individualism believe that 'social force' will cease to exist, and all 7 billion individuals will do as each wants to do, on their own individual say-so.As I've said before YMS, your political and ideological views are nothing to do with 'democratic socialism'. 

YMS wrote:

… the point is, though, that disputes should be resolved through dialogue, without resort to force.

I agree entirely.But if 'dialogue' doesn't work, then 'democratic social force' will resolve the dispute. To pretend otherwise, is to lie to workers asking about socialism, and how serious disputes would be resolved. If a minority can't be reasoned with peacefully, through dialogue, then the majority must impose its democratic views.

YMS wrote:

 The debate should never end, no vote is definitive.

Again, I agree – no vote is definitive within socialism. But the 'vote' to introduce socialism by the destruction of the exploiting class is definitive. The revolution has to be a democratic revolution.Once again, YMS, I think that our differences are political differences – I believe in 'social force' controlled by a democratic vote. You only recognise 'individual force' – the right of the individual, over 'society'.

[LBird]

Isn't it surprising that twc should be so hostile to the democratic control of production?Of course, twc holds to the elitist ideology that 'science' is not a class-based activity, and that the world we live in has not been built to the needs, interests and purposes of the bourgeoisie.Apparently, to twc, 'scientists' are above politics, and if we workers try to take political control of science production, then the modern 'Western' world will collapse.'Western', obviously, is just a bourgeois ideological term for 'Bourgeois', which hides the real class content of 'Western' civilisation.Anyway, here's what Rovelli actually has to say about twc's wonderful 'scientific knowledge':

Rovelli, The First Scientist: Anaximander and his Legacy, wrote:

This reading of scientific thinking as subversive, visionary, and evolutionary is quite different from the way science was understood by the positivist philosophers… (p. xii)Facile nineteenth-century certainties about science— in particular the glorification of science understood as definitive knowledge of the world—have collapsed. One of the forces responsible for their dismissal has been the twentieth-century revolution in physics, which led to the discovery that Newtonian physics, despite its immense effectiveness, is actually wrong, in a precise sense. Much of the subsequent philosophy of science can be read as an attempt to come to grips with this disillusionment. What is scientific knowledge if it can be wrong even when it is extremely effective? (p. xv)But answers given by natural science are not credible because they are definitive; they are credible because they are the best we have now, at a given moment in the history of knowledge. (p. xvi)

http://www.amazon.com/The-First-Scientist-Anaximander-Legacy/dp/1594161313Only the democratic social producers can determine what is 'best', that is, 'best-for-us'.twc, however, thinks that only he and his 'scientific' elite 'know what's best' for the rest of us. Beware, as Marx warned, in his Theses on Feuerbach, of those, like twc, who would separate society into two parts, the smaller superior to the larger.

[LBird]

What's the political difference, YMS, between your uses of 'set' and 'coerce'?What would it mean politically if 'society set a framework', but had no means of 'coercing' (I'd say 'enforcing') its democratically decided 'framework'?How can society 'forbid racism', but not be able to politically enforce its democratic forbidding?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

We've covered this before: learned societies would be free associations, organised democratically by their members, within a framework set by the whole of society (e.g. forbidding racism, unemocratic structures, sexual segragation, etc.) Recommendations could either stem from the sociees (plural) themselves, or from members of the wappentake who are already aware of a particular viewpoint and want it to be heard out.

[my bold]So, to be clear, society would democratically control its 'learned societies'?

[LBird]

moderator1 wrote:

My two cents is the associated voluntary producers, composed of the generalists and the specialists are a logical part of the decision making process.  

[my bold]I take it that the democratic principle of 'one person, one vote' will apply?Or, do you have in mind a 'decision-making process' like that of '60s Unionist-dominated Northern Ireland, that had a 'Business Premises Qualification' that allowed each 'specialist' business-owner 6 votes, whilst only allowing 1 vote for a working class 'generalist' family of, perhaps 6 adults.

mod1 wrote:

The "political control" is embedded in the actual process where a systematic project management approach enables the panel to scrutinise, evaluate and assess the proposal in front of it. So it can reach a conclusion and outcome based on the satisfaction of human needs.

[my bold]Is your 'systematic project management approach' similar to the current bourgeois business 'systematic project management approach', where the bosses have a say, but not the workers – or is your 'approach' a democratic one?Plus, in your 'approach', who determines 'human needs', and how do they do so, if not by democratic means?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Well, to answer your questions:1) The expert could be ignored, or action taken that does not accord with the expert's advice.2) Sacking experts is poor form, just because on balance a group of people disagrees with them, they go back to their life, and can come back and give evidence again on another occaision.  It would be for learned societies/free associations of peers to pass further comment on their all round competence.  After all, the parliament/committee/meeting/Wappentake, etc. would call it's witnesses based on ecommendations.3) Democracy means the right of minorities to try and become majorities.

Once again, YMS, your views expressed here are very similar to mine.Perhaps I'd prod you further on just who politically controls 'learned societies' and 'recommendations'.You seem, to me, to be not taking your views to their logical political/social conclusions.

[Author]

Posts