[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

I'm always surprised that there is so much reticence for others to mention "workers' power", 'democratic production', 'social individuals', even Marx, when it comes to these discussions.Is your interpretation of 'socialism' widely held within the SPGB, even if it's not an officially declared position?

In your interpretation of  'communism' there will be workers. You are not a communist if you believe there will be a working class in communism. 

We've been over this dozens of times, Vin. Surely you haven't got that bad a memory? But if you have forgotten, you've only got to read what I replied to you last time.

[LBird]

Well, we differ about just what that famous statement of communism 'means', robbo.Anyway, I'm pretty clear about your personal views, but how far do they reflect the 'official' view of the SPGB?I'm always surprised that there is so much reticence for others to mention "workers' power", 'democratic production', 'social individuals', even Marx, when it comes to these discussions.Is your interpretation of 'socialism' widely held within the SPGB, even if it's not an officially declared position?

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

You see, to talk about individuals being able to freely take from the distribution stores according to their self determined needs and to freely and voluntarily contribute to the production of wealth according their abilities is  unspeakably INDIVIDUALIST, for heaven's sake. I mean, you can't really go about mouthing slogans like "from each according to ability to each according to need".  Where will it all end? Next, people will be calling this Marx's "higher stage of communism"!No, people need to be democratically instructed by the ..er .."democratic global community" concerning what work we shall each contribute  and what goods and services we shall each be allowed to consume.  All 7 billion plus of us,  Now thats "democratic communism", innit?

The saddest part of this, robbo, is that you're making quite clearly my (and Marx's) argument here, very well, but without realising it.You're contrasting your 'individualist consumptionism' with Marx's 'social productionism'.The former doesn't need 'democracy', whereas the latter does need 'democracy'.For the former, Engel's 'materialism' ('matter' being touched by 'passive biological individuals') is quite sufficient.But for the latter, some ideology of 'human creation' is required, where the 'subject' is a 'social' category, a subject that creatively produces its world.For the former, individuals contemplate their choices from the existing store; for the latter, society creates both its choices and its store.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

What i have is a problem of expecting everyone to know everything, LBird, and not respecting the knowledge acquired by others after much study and experience. Simple as that.  

As I said before, alan, you're going to have to discuss with me what I write, not with robbo's "What LBird Says". You really have to make that effort.

ajj wrote:

Will it be by voting and if so, my earlier question remains…who determines the constituency and who determines the competency of those involved in the decision-making.

[my bold]The simple answer, which I've given every time that you or anyone else has asked, to the question of 'who determines' is 'the democratic producers'.But, at no time at all, do you or the SPGB give your own answer.I've suggested you could answer 'an elite of Specialists', or 'Matter', or some variation upon those ('academics', 'physicists', 'the SPGB', 'True Reality', 'Eternal Knowledge', etc.). But you continue to hide your ideology.This answer of mine is in line with Marx's ideological views, that the social producers will create their world.I'm still not really sure what either your personal view is, or the official view of the SPGB.From what I can tell, the site seems to be populated by the 'ignorant and uninformed' mob, of your and robbo's ideological fear of "workers' democracy". Ironic, eh? From what you've written in the quote above, you still haven't figured out what Marx was talking about, and have been taken in by Engels' guff about 'Material/Matter'.Like the rest, alan, if you disagree with me, all good and fine, but you're going to have to read up on these issues. I'm only trying to help, and provide a bit of a shortcut. Why not read one of the books that I've recently recommended (Brzozowski, Miller, for eg.) or one that jondwhite has tried to discuss, GS Jones' Karl Marx: Greatness and Illusion ?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Would workers' democracy exclude the ignorant and uninformed, or do they have the same equa right of involvement in decision-making?

I think that the political answer to this, alan, is that all workers would be fully educated in any issue that they chose to vote upon.The very idea that there will be a large pool of 'ignorant and uninformed' humans, desperate to inflict their nihilistic anti-science views upon the 'decent, educated, thoughtful, minority', is really a central plank of bourgeois ideology.In some ways, it shows the still great power of 'ruling class ideas' upon our society, including over socialists like you.As a Democratic Communist, I would expect that the process of developing a revolutionary class consciousness amongst workers would remove the worry that you have expressed here.Unless you agree, with what I'm starting to suspect is widespread within the SPGB, that only 'an elite of the educated and informed' will make decisions for the dumb majority.It seems that my understanding of the revolutionary process to human emancipation is very different from the SPGB's – not least, over this issue of 'democracy'. If you've got a mental picture of the 'ignorant and uninformed' having to be 'excluded', christ knows what robbo's visions of the "hell of workers' democracy" look like.

[LBird]

moderator1 wrote:

LBird wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The issue of decision-making is an intriguing one. Robbo's local sewage plant may well be opposed by NIMBY localists against the proposals of LBird's bugbears, the technocrat elitists who have all manner of environmental reasons for the location's benefits.

You're really not reading what I write, alan, and have accepted robbo's version of 'What LBird says'.I have no problem whatsoever with 'technocratic elites' – they simply explain their views to us, and we vote on them.That is, we make the decision, not the 'technocratic elite'.If they claim either not to be able to explain, or that we can't understand, then we'll reject them and that ideology, and replace them with experts who can explain to everyone. The 'technocrats' will be elected, and removed if they don't serve our social needs, interests and purposes.That democratic method in science will be a feature of socialism.There are no needs, interests or purposes that are not amenable to democratic controls. To argue otherwise, is to sanction an elite within social production.That's not socialism, alan. Socialism is we determine our 'environmental reasons'.

This begs the question, if the technocratic elite only advise and do not decide what is the purpose of electing them?  

I'm always baffled as to why SPGB members (an organisation that claims to be democratic) have so much trouble with the notion that power must be under democratic control.It's as if the whole notion of 'power' causes a collective mystification, a party-wide shrugging of shouders, a sighing of incomprehension: 'Power? Power? What is LBird talking about? Why's he always banging on about power, politics, democracy? Why the hell does he come to this site, to constantly question us about who will have power in socialism?'I don't know, mod1. Perhaps it'll take a technocratic elite of eugenicists to advise that your reproductive organs be removed, because you don't match up to their advice on 'human normality', for you to start to wonder about just whose needs, interests and purposes are embodied in that advice, and why you're not allowed any say in the taking or not of the said 'expert advice'.It's as if the 20th century in science never happened for the 'materialists' – but then, being a 19th century ideology, I suppose that this socio-historical blindness is entirely to be expected. That's what comes from believing the bourgeois myth that 'scientists' are merely 'discovering' 'The Truth' of 'Reality', as embodied in 'Matter'.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The issue of decision-making is an intriguing one. Robbo's local sewage plant may well be opposed by NIMBY localists against the proposals of LBird's bugbears, the technocrat elitists who have all manner of environmental reasons for the location's benefits.

You're really not reading what I write, alan, and have accepted robbo's version of 'What LBird says'.I have no problem whatsoever with 'technocratic elites' – they simply explain their views to us, and we vote on them.That is, we make the decision, not the 'technocratic elite'.If they claim either not to be able to explain, or that we can't understand, then we'll reject them and that ideology, and replace them with experts who can explain to everyone. The 'technocrats' will be elected, and removed if they don't serve our social needs, interests and purposes.That democratic method in science will be a feature of socialism.There are no needs, interests or purposes that are not amenable to democratic controls. To argue otherwise, is to sanction an elite within social production.That's not socialism, alan. Socialism is we determine our 'environmental reasons'.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

Thanks for your very clear political reply, robbo.All democratic socialists should take note of it.

 Indeed.  And if you claim to be a democratic socialist do you also take note of it?  Do you concur with the statement I made or not.  Yes or no.   And if "no", in what way do you specifically disagree with it,  Spit it out LBIrd.  Lets hear you concrete objections to what was said in post 10 if you have any….

My 'concrete objection' is that I'm a Democratic Communist, and so insist that only workers' democracy can determine social production.I clearly state that the 'practical' can only be determined by social theory and practice, and that that method is a democratic one.My ideology is the same as Marx's. 'Theory and practice' are inescapably linked. There is no 'practice' which is outside of 'abstract theory'.Those who argue, like you do, for the precedence of 'practice', are individualists. They pretend to be outside of society and its consciousness, and pretend that 'biological sensation' gives individuals access to 'reality', without any need to address the social theory and practice behind the production of our social senses.You're simply tying yourself in knots, trying to preserve your right as an individual to ignore democracy.But 'socialism' means 'democracy', not 'individualism'.It's a 'definition', robbo (or, as you like to characterise it, an 'abstract theory').I'm a Democratic Communist, whose ideology defines 'socialism' as 'democratic socialism'.Your ideology clearly defines it as something else, so you should be open with us and openly declare your definition.You are apparently only happy with 'democracy' when it doesn't involve any power over you as an individual. And you'll reduce your parameters of the 'local' to yourself, to avoid any democratic controls over you.You'll ignore any social power that you don't agree with: world, regional, city, village, parish… by reverting to the ideology that only 'local practicalities' matter, and that only you can determine the 'local practicality'.You're an ideological individualist, robbo.

[LBird]

Again, what this all boils down to is whether 'democracy' is a core value, or just something employed when it's 'practical'.But, who (or what) determines the 'practical'?Democratic Communists would argue that only the producers can determine whether a political situation is to be based upon 'democratic' values, or upon the 'practice' of an elite.Religious Materialists argue that special elites (in their political/ideological terminology, 'locals') can operate outside of the democratic controls of society. They do this by arguing that 'knowledge' is 'local' to an 'elite' – that is, 'knowledge' is not a social product by society, but a product by a 'knowing elite'.The obvious 'local' elite in political history is the Party, then its cadre, then its central committee, then its leader.You can't get a more 'practical' and 'local' power than 'Uncle Joe'.

robbo203 wrote:

Democracy for me is about practical decisions not abstract theories…

[my bold]What about 'democracy for us', robbo?How do you know what is 'practical', in the absence of 'abstract theories'?Whatever happened to Marx's 'abstract theories' about 'social theory and practice' and 'democratic production'?It's simply an excuse to try to realise the bourgeois myth of 'Individual Freedom' – you're an ideological individualist, robbo.By 'local' you really mean 'yourself'.

[LBird]

Thanks for your very clear political reply, robbo.All democratic socialists should take note of it.

[LBird]

The key political issue here is the question of 'independent'.'Independent of individuals' does not mean 'independent of society'.So, we're faced with arguing either that nothing is independent of society (and so this can be voted upon) or that something is independent of society (and so can't be voted upon).The problem is, as Marx says, nothing is independent of society, and so those who argue that something is independent have to then surreptitiously put their own elite in control of this something (which isn't really independent of society as a whole).This is precisely what Vin, robbo, and the rest of the Religious Materialists do. They claim to be dealing with something independent of society ('nature', 'matter', 'Truth', 'externality', 'reality', etc. etc.), which can't be voted upon, but then claim that they themselves, as an elite, outside of the democratic control of the social producers, can determine this 'something'.Marx points out this political process involved in 'materialism', in his Theses on Feuerbach.'Materialism' is a 19th century ideology, and any party which builds its politics upon that elite bourgeois ideology, will deny workers' democracy, and keep power for its own preferred elite. This is what Lenin did, and it's apparently what the SPGB supporters who argue for 'Specialist' power over 'Generalists' want to do, too.None of this Religious Materialism has anything to do with Socialism (ie. the democratic control of social production). RM is an ideology suited to elite individuals, which is why robbo (especially, but there are others) argues for 'Individualism', and not for 'Democratic Communism'.The simple test of the political ideology involved is to ask 'Who or what will control truth production in socialism?'.Any answer other than 'society by democratic methods' will lead to the same results as Leninism – elitism.

[LBird]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

…as a democratic communist…

So you agree that we can elect truth then, robbo?If not, 'who' or 'what' produces 'truth'?

You don't have to answer that question publicly here, robbo, but, for your own development, try to work out for yourself what you think that the answer is, and then try to work out why you think that.That is, come up with a socio-historic answer of what you believe, where that originated, why that originated, and who benefits from your continuing to believe that answer.Of course, you can always refuse to do this historical analysis of a social product, and just continue to claim that, as an individual, you just know eternal truth (probably on the basis that 'reality' is 'obvious' to your biological senses).alanjjohnstone mentioned a history book on the other thread, and you could do worse than reading that, to help situate your political beliefs about 'nature' and 'science' in a socio-historic context of human production.That is, in a social context that we can change.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

…as a democratic communist…

So you agree that we can elect truth then, robbo?If not, 'who' or 'what' produces 'truth'?

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

“In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. "(my emphasis) Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy 

I know that you're not very good at this theoretical stuff, Vin, so I'll make it easy for you.'Relations of production' are socio-historical products of human activity.This doesn't mean that 'rocks talk to us', as Religious Materialists like you allege, Vin.No worker with half-a-brain listens to this 19th century guff any more, Vin, so you're wasting your time pretending to them that you have a 'special consciousness' and access to something that they don't have. If you agreed that they had the same access, you'd clearly agree that they could vote on this access, but you don't, so you have to deny democracy to those you pretend to able to persuade to give you power within socialism.Have a nice night, chatting to the rocks.

[LBird]

Wright wrote:

History really happens “behind the backs” of actors: it evolves “unconsciously,” so to speak, as Hegel understood. Social and institutional conflicts work themselves out, slowly, through the actions of large numbers of people who generally have little idea of the true historical significance of their acts.

It's just the usual 'elitist materialism', alan.Religious Materialists always have to posit an 'elite' who are 'conscious' – as opposed to 'large numbers of people who generally have little idea'. That is, 'academics like Wright' as opposed to 'us dumb workers'.Marx pointed this out – if you start with a 'non-consciousness' which is 'active', then you have to then find a 'consciousness' which knows this, and so is itself 'active'.The simple answer is conscious democracy, which is socialism.Bourgeois ideologists disagree with democracy, and look to elite, conscious, individuals (just like them, eh?).

[Author]

Posts