[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'.

[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.

[Author]

Posts