robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
On the question of whether socialism is inevitable or not. I don’t personally think it is – though I would like to imagine it was! There’s more to this than just the (remote) possibility that humanity might destroy itself first and thereby remove the prospect of socialism altogether. Adam makes the point that humans are problem solving animals and that, sooner or later, they will solve the problem that is capitalism by replacing it with socialism. Maybe. But there is a difference between individuals and humanity as a whole in this generalised sense. Socialism depends on increasing numbers of individual workers becoming socialists themselves – it’s not going to happen in one go – but one of the greatest obstacles in the way of this happening, if not the greatest, is that the very smallness of the socialist movement acts as a deterrent to people joining. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy that keeps the socialist movement small, unfortunately In other words, it is not that people are not problem solvers that is the problem – Adam is right, human beings are indeed problem solvers – but rather the problem we face as socialists is one of human irrationality, including our own. Human beings are irrational as well as rational, creatures. That is to say we are Janus-faced. It is our tendency to conform, to follow the herd – in a way an expression of our social nature – that ironically makes the assertion that “socialism is inevitable”, problematic. It is not inevitable as long as people conform to the mores and values of capitalism. There is no necessary reason why they should not continue to do so indefinitely (unfortunately) because the problem, as I say, is not really an intellectual one of rationality and “problem solving”. The problem is one values and working class self-belief, even self recognition, in the face of relentless capitalist propaganda Max Adler , an early Marxist once wrote of workers being “finally driven by formal-teleological causality” to establish socialism. This is what was meant by socialism being inevitable (“telos” being the Greek word for purpose or goal). Society was moving slowly but surely towards a preordained end. This sense of “inevitabilism” was rife among socialists in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Kautsky's contribution to the SDP’s Erfurt Programme of 1891, for example, openly talked of socialism as being not only desirable but "something inevitable". Marx and Engels likewise spoke in the language of inevitabilism on various occasions, In the Communist Manifesto, for example, they confidently claimed that the “development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable” https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm. Similarly in the Preface to Capital vol 1 we find these words: Intrinsically, it is not a question of the higher or lower degree of development of the social antagonisms that result from the natural laws of capitalist production. It is a question of these laws themselves, of these tendencies working with iron necessity towards inevitable results. The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future. (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p1.htm) However, I think theweight of evidence suggests that they did not, on the whole, endorse a teleological view of history. Teleological-type statements issuing from them asserting the inevitable victory of the proletariat and the like might be better seen as propagandistic exercises in morale boosting and wishful thinking, than considered theoretical positions. For instance, Marx welcomed Darwin's Origin of the Species precisely because "it deals a death blow to teleology in the natural sciences" (Marx's letter to Engels , January 16, 1861 Selected Correspondence Moscow 1975). In The German Ideology the notion that "later history is…the goal of earlier history" was dismissed as a "speculative distortion" (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm). This was a decisive rejection of Hegel's idealist teleology which posited the goal of history as the mind becoming completely aware of itself. Further evidence can be seen in the apparent willingness on their part to consider departures from the strict linear or progressivist model of social evolution usually associated with them long before this model came under sustained attack by the cultural relativists like Franz Boas in the early 20th century. At any rate it does seem to me that to an extent Marx and Engels did embrace an anti-teleological perspective and that to that extent you could argue that they did not envisage socialism as being inevitable. Meaning human creativity and human unpredictability also play a role in the way history turns out
ALB wrote:I don't know if this is true:https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ban-on-ladders-and-soapboxes-at-speakers-corner-80tk2nqw3But if so (it could be just another "health & safety" joke), it needs challenging. Anyone up for going along next Sunday or the Sunday after, with our platform, to see if it is? And, if so, to challenge it?Bloody nanny state "No Steps, No platforms , no chairs" indeed! Only allowed to stand on your own two feet, LOL. Its a pity they didnt apply this same faux concern over health and safety with respect to your height from ground level to the rather more pressing matter of putting workers in buildings twenty four floors high and clad in flammable material. I suppose extendable (or even non extendable) household ladders are next on the list of things the nanny state is going to ban and thereafer, whatever few opportunities for free speech that remain…
rodmanlewis wrote:robbo203 wrote:Really, what lies befind the controversy over free will is the theory of causation. The classical precept of mechanical philosophy was articulated by the philosopher David Hume – namely that causes always precede effects. Causation is thus unidirectional in this view of the universe. You strike one bar billard ball with a cue and the ball collides with another which then collides with another causing the last to sink into the pocket at the far end of the table. It is purely mechanical and in theory entirely predictableWe may think we have free will, but advertisers know better–they know what will pull at our heartstrings, tickle our fancy, make us desire things we thought we could do without, and leave us with the feeling that we have complete control over our decisions.We are either manipulated by agency, or by sometimes motiveless societal pressures. Capitalism doesn't function in the interests of society as a whole, but because there are so few of us who have considered a fundamental change, capitalism has to justify its continuation and is rationalised into staying put, regardless of the consequences.
Hmmmm. If advertisers "know" that we do not have free will , then why would they bother to advertise? They advertise in order to persuade or exhort us to buy their wares. That presupposes that we have a choice and are capable of choosing., Look, the concept of free will does NOT imply we are not influenced. That is a metaphysical version of the concept which I reject. I think it is this version that John has in mind which is why this debate is to some extent at cross purposes. I endorse a position known as soft determinism or compatabilism – that free will is compatible with determinism. I oppose hard determinism because hard determinsim presupposes everything in principle is totally predictable and also becuase its way of expliaining things is fundamentally reductionist and simplistic, Everything can be satisfactorily explained in physicalist terms since the physical world preceded and therefore gave rise to human conscousness which is seen as an effect rather than a cause in its own right. In other words hard determinism denies the possibility of "downward causation"http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/downward_causation.html Also I canot see the point of being a socialist or organising in a socialist party if you literally hold a hard determinist position, If the future is entirely predictable what is the purpose of trying to push for an alternative to capitalism? It will either happen or not happen as the case may be. Might as well grab some popcorn , put your feet up and watch the movie called Life being played out in front of you Marx argued that human beings make their own hstory but under circumstances not of their own choosing. The point os that he fully allowed for human agency and saw history as a creative process not a telelogical process. Marx was a soft determinist as am I and as I think every socialist should be
John Oswald wrote:Individuality is also the cherished illusion behind this clinging to free will. To our own eyes we are individuals. But we are each one of us walking societies of cellular individuals, all bound by the chain of causationNo John the very opposite is the case. Mechnical determinism which you espouse is a theory of one way causation. Society is the product of concrete individuals since causes must always precede effects. There can never be downward causation in your view of the world. Society is the product of individuals . Your theory of causation precludes the possibility of society shaping individuals, of two way interaction. This view is fully consistent with the early bourgeois philosophers like Locke and Hobbes who posited the idea of an isolated pre social individual who entered into a soial contract with other such indivduals to form a society for their mutual benefit. It is a complete myth of course.
John Oswald wrote:It should be the very realisation that the will is swayed and not free that makes socialists, or anyone for that matter, campaign. What would be the point of campaigning, speaking, publishing etc., if the will were immune to motive?This is a straw argument. No proponent of free will ever suggested will was immune to motive (with the exception of indeterminists that is). Soft determinists argue that will in only free in a relative sense. You need to address the argument from EMERGENCE THEORY which I presented in the preceding post. Its implications for the kind of mechanical theory of causation you espouse are highly significant, I think. It should be the very realisation that the will is swayed and not free that makes socialists, or anyone for that matter, campaign. What would be the point of campaigning, speaking, publishing etc., if the will were immune to motive? [/quote]
Hi Meel I think the problem of free will really boils down to a question of interpretation. Proponents of free will are NOT saying that our will is uncaused – apart from a few who subscribe to the theory of indeterminism. This is where the confusion arises. Opponents of free will seem to think this is what the proponents in general are saying but it is not the case. The case for free will does not depend on the idea of free will being free in some absolutist sense. Really, what lies befind the controversy over free will is the theory of causation. The classical precept of mechanical philosophy was articulated by the philosopher David Hume – namely that causes always precede effects. Causation is thus unidirectional in this view of the universe. You strike one bar billard ball with a cue and the ball collides with another which then collides with another causing the last to sink into the pocket at the far end of the table. It is purely mechanical and in theory entirely predictable Free will is also said to be entirely predictable in theory according the opponents of this idea and so is not really free will at all. Becuase causation according to mechanical philosopy is unidirectional any explanations for the decisions that we make as human agents are essentially physicalist explanations. This is becuase the physical world preceded human consciosuness in the same way that causes precede effects. The different levels of reality are built up, layer upon layer, such that each layer culimating in human conciousnesss can be completely satisfactorily or adequately explained by those layers beneath it. Note that what follows from this is that there can be no such thing as "downward causation". In other words, effects cannot exert an influence on what caused them. Effects can only be the medium through which more fundamental causes exert their influence on still higher levels of reality. So sociological explanations can be entirely reduced to phsychological explanations, psychological explanations to biological, biological to chemical, chemical to physical and so on. Ultimately what this means is that the reason why I mugged the old lady crossing the street for her purse can be entirely or satisfactorily put down to the behaviour of certain sub atomic particles of which my body is composed. It really had nothing to do with my upbringing or capitalism. This is the reductio ad absurdum that ultimately vindicates the concept of free will. It posits human consciousness as an emergent property that supervenes – is dependent on – the physical brain but is not reducible to the human brain in that mechanical sense. You cannot trace particular mental states to particular brain states, for example – the argument for "wild disjunction" as it is called – but very clearly you cannot have a mental state without a brain state. You cannot think without a brain. With emrgence theory the whole paradigm of mechanical philosophy and one-way causation breaks down – and therefore the argument against free will. If downward causation exists then so too must free will at least in a relative sense. This is called soft determinism – a view I endorse – as opposed to the hard determinism of mechanical philosophy There is also a third position – namely that of indeterminism which I touched upon. Though I am a soft determinist I also believe some things in the universe do not necessarily have to have a cause. Determinism can happily coexst with indeterminismhttps://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/theory-of-the-acausal/ If you think this is impossible ask yourself the question – what caused matter to come into existence? If everything must have a cause then matter too must have a cause. Logically, you are faced with just two options. Either there was a Final Cause – God – that brought matter into existence or whatever it was that brought matter into existence must itself have been caused and so on ad infinitum by a process of infinite regression. However the argument about infinite regression amounts to an argument in favour of acausailiy. If you reject the idea of a Final Cause then you must logically acept the theoretical possibility of indeterminism. It has to be one or the other. The really interesting philophical question to address I think is how, in that case, does causality coexist with acasuality. I really wouldnt have a clue about how to go about answering that question but it could have profound implications for the whole argument about free will
John Oswald wrote:Free will linked to human chauvinism: .Not necessarily. Maybe some other animal species, apart from human beings that is, exercise "free will" too. Check out this rather interesting linkhttp://www.sci-news.com/biology/chimpanzees-cumulative-culture-04914.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BreakingScienceNews+%28Breaking+Science+News%29
There are 3 basic positions we can take on this question of free will – the hard determinist postion that everything we do is determined or caused and therefore free will is an illusion- the indeterminist position that we have absolute free will to chose whatever we want- the soft determinist position that we have free will but it is constrained and limited by the circumstances we find ourselves in I will focus mainly on the first and third of these. Sam Harris in his book Free Will (Free Press New York 2012) advances the case for hard determinism The argument boils down to this: any event or action that happens must happen because of an antecedent cause of which it is an effect There can be no such thing as an event that happens for no reason at all. Therefore the proposition that we can somehow escape, or rise above, the nexus of causality through the exercise of "free will " is manifestly false. Even the very choices that we seemingly freely make are caused and so are not really free ar all. However, hard determinism possesses a soft underbelly that renders it vulnerable to attack. In the first place, the contention that no actions are free is an unfalsifiable proposition which admits no counterexample; it is not testable in terms of scientific methodology. Moreover it confuses coercion with causation. There is surely an important qualitative difference between having to do something when a gun is pointed at your head and doing it voluntarily. You may say both actions are caused in some sense but that in no way clinches the argument for hard determinism. John Horgan makes a rather telling point in this regard in his review of Harris' book, as follows: "But just because my choices are limited doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Just because I don’t have absolute freedom doesn’t mean I have no freedom at all. Saying that free will doesn’t exist because it isn’t absolutely free is like saying truth doesn’t exist because we can’t achieve absolute, perfect knowledge.Harris keeps insisting that because all our choices have prior causes, they are not free; they are determined. Of course all our choices are caused. No free-will proponent I know claims otherwise. The question is how are they caused? Harris seems to think that all causes are ultimately physical, and that to hold otherwise puts you in the company of believers in ghosts, souls, gods and other supernatural nonsense.But the strange and wonderful thing about all organisms, and especially our species, is that mechanistic physical processes somehow give rise to phenomena that are not reducible to or determined by those physical processes. Human brains, in particular, generate human minds, which while subject to physical laws are influenced by non-physical factors, including ideas produced by other minds. These ideas may cause us to change our minds and make decisions that alter the trajectory of our world."(http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2012/04/09/will-this-post-make-sam-harris-change-his-mind-about-free-will/) What Horgan is alluding to here is Emergence Theory. This is well explained by David Graeber in summing up the broad outlines of Roy Bhaskar's "critical realist" approach: Reality can be divided into emergent stratum: just as chemistry presupposes but cannot be reduced to physics so biology presupposes but cannot be reduced to chemistry, or the human sciences to biology. Different sorts of mechanisms are operating on each. Each, furthermore, achieves a certain autonomy from those below: it would be impossible to even talk about human freedom were this not the case, since our actions would simply be determined by chemical and biological processes….the higher the emergent strata one is dealing with, the less predictable things become, the involvement of human beings of course being the most unpredictable factor of all (Graeber D, 2001, Towards and Anthroplogical Theory of Value: The False Coin of Our Own Dreams, Palgrave p.52-53) The view that everything has a cause and, in that sense, is a necessary consequence of what preceded it is called "mechanical determinism" which is not the same thing as "teleological determinism". In the fomer case, it is what happened in the past that determines what is happening now as per David Hume's famous observation in his A Treatise of Human Nature (1739), that "The cause must be prior to the effect." With teleological determinism, by contrast, it is the future, in a manner of speaking – in the sense of a goal that we are striving towards – that explains what is happening now. A given effect is to be explained in terms of its final cause or purpose – its "telos". So for example , philosophers going all the way back to Aristotle have argued that the natural world around us shows clear signs of teleological or purposeful design and that this is proof positive of the immanence of "Gods will" (and hence, also, the existence of God). Mechanical determinism, by contrast, is not concerned with final causes at all but merely "efficient causes". Efficient causality which makes a given effect dependent on prior events is, of course, what interests science in its endeavour to understand phenomena. So rather than see the natural world as displaying signs of purposeful design , it sees it instead as the purposeless outcome of mechanical laws – natural selection However with the advent of quantum mechanics in the early 20th century this mechanistic view of the universe has been called into question. Concepts such as Heisenbergs uncertainty principle, the Observer Effect , the Butterfly Effect etc etc have enterered into modern scientific discourse. Have a look at this interesting little youtube presentationhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQKELOE9eY4 All this does not mean that mechanical determinism has now been "refuted" , only that it cannot in itself provide all the answers. What applies to the physical or natural sciences applies even more so to the social sciences, in my view It is significant that Marx welcomed Darwin's book as finally having put paid to teleological think in the natural sciences. But I dont think this amounts to a rejection of teleological thinking altogether. At the macro level of society in general we may very well question whether there is a some predetermined goal – for instance, socialism – towards which we are inevitably moving. (Paradoxically enough, "inevitablism" in this sense within the early socialist movement expressed by people like Karl Kautsky was a product of 19th century thinking when mechanical determinism was the reigning paradigm). However, at the micro level of individuals we are all of us clearly subject to teleological thinking – we have goals which determine our present actions – and this is very much tied up with the question of free will It seems to me that while Marx rejected teleological thinking in some respects, I dont think this can be interpreted as a wholesale endorsement of mechnical determinism either. He did allow room for the contingent and the unpredictable in his view of history. As he put it "individuals make their own history, but not of their own free will, not under circumstances they themselves have chosen but under the given and inherited circumstances with which they are directly confronted" (The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte 1852). What Marx seems to be rejecting here is not the idea – central to the notion of morality itself, incidentally – that humans can choose, can exercise free will, but rather that they are not at liberty to choose – or rather, to achieve – just whatever they want. They cannot; they are clearly constrained by material circumstances and it is in that sense, referring to the general pattern of history itself, that Marx is saying the outcome is not the result of their own free will. The same might be said of Marx's statement that “men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will” in the Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. It is not that "will" is being denied here; all that is being asserted is that the relations into which human beings enter are pre-constituted in the form of particular social institutions that predate our own existence and which, of necessity, we have to deal with as individuals I would say this makes Marx a "soft" determinist, rather than a "hard" determinist and therefore someone who did allow some scope for the exercise of free will
jondwhite wrote:Yep ISJ would be a model to borrow from. What is their specific schedule?1 April,1 July,1 October,1 January?Like SPGB Forum Journal (have you read this?), theory would certainly be discussed.I think even a half yearly theoretical journal would be a big improvemen but if you could go for a quarterly so much the better. The International Socialism journal is not too bad actually – to give credit where credit is due. Ive got a few hardcopies going back a few years and there are some interesting articles in them. I recall reading a quite a long article – possibly by Callinicos – on the development of "bourgeois economic theory".from Smith to the present Good stuff. This is the sort of thing the SPGB should be doing more of such as critically examing concepts such as Neoliberalism or Dependnecy theory from a socialist perspective.. Another example is the environment and environmental issues such as climate change. I just think having a more thorough and theoreticaly grounded approach to these issues would be beneficial as opposed to just having topical commentary on current affairs. The latter is important but the current approach is too lopsided and "bitty", in my view, if you know what I mean. I say this as someone who routinely refers people on other fora to this site. Sometimes I struggle to find an appropriate article to link to in the SS archives. Personally I would favour a particular theme for each issue. The list is endless.- from anthropology (the concept of primitive communism for example?) to global agriculture and bio-engineering. If the Party feels it hasn't got the expertise then invite someone who is sympathetic to contribute a guest article. Why not? Was there not a talk by Brian Morris that was published in the SS recently? Apart from the ISJ there is also the Jacobin magazine which is apparently doing quite well lately. Im sure there are many other journals that could also serve as examples or models
jondwhite wrote:The discussion journal committee made a report to EC in July 2006 including this conclusion;Quote:The evidence we gathered does not indicate that there is wide support for a formal dis- cussion journal, either printed or online. Only one Branch (Edinburgh) was in favour of such a journal; no other Branch contacted us regarding the matter, indicating that there may be a certain apathy regarding the idea. Furthermore, no Branch or mem- ber responded to our query about their willingness to contribute to or help produce such a journal. (The actual wording of the 2005 Conference resolution setting up this Committee was “to investigate the willingness of members to produce” the journal, and the circular we sent to Branches and to spintcom solicited feedback on this point.) We must conclude, then, that at this time there is an insufficient interest and prospect of article submissions to justify the work of setting up a new discussion journal editorial and production committee.That said, many members did express interest in seeing discussion carried out in the Socialist Standard. We therefore refer this matter to the Socialist Standard Production Committee and ask that they provide an assessment of the evidence we have gathered.Well thats a great pity if the Party took such a lacklustre unenthusiastic view of the whole matter back then. I still wonder though whether it might not be worth reviving the proposal as we are talking about more than ten years ago. I would add two comments 1) I There is a certain ambiguity about the word "discussion journal". Could it be that members were thinking in terms of something like an internal discussion journal like Forum? I was thinking of something quite different – something much more like the World Socialist journal which ran to only about 5 or 6 issues then mysteriously ceased publication, Other political parties like the SWP seem to manage OK with this two fold division between theoretical journal and topical journal. There is a need for the former in my view. I often engage in discussions with people over the internet and refer them to this site but not infrequently I find there is a paucity of appropriate "theoretical" material here that can specifically addresss the questions they are asking. The SPGB needs to build on its theoretical case not just comment on issues of the dayHave a look at this to get an idea of what Im talking about http://isj.org.uk/ 2) The report to the EC seems to have only solicited the views of SPGB branches. But what about companion parties? Some hardly exist or have no publication they can call their own. Having a WSM wide journal in which they too were involved would I imagine give them a bit of a boost in morale
jondwhite wrote:Thanks for your interest robbo. I don't think it is impossible to be a socialist without being a party member or that non-members have nothing to contribute. However, members-only-writers would make editorial more straightforward and hopefully be mutually beneficial in terms of boosting party membership and interesting existing members. Perhaps a balance could be struck with a letters page?Or even a guest column or debate platform or something like that…Not that I think non members contributing articles will necessarily make the work of the editors more onerous The main point though is that i think there is a need for a wsm-wide journal and one that offers a slightly more in depth theoretical approach than the SS. I dont know why the World Socialist journal project was ever abandoned
It seems now that Labour has overtaken the Tories in the popularity contest . Had the election been two weeks later we could be talking about PM Corbynhttp://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/labour-now-has-a-six-point-lead-over-the-tories-new-poll-finds/ar-BBCssDl?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartandhp
jondwhite wrote:Are any WSM members interested in contributing to a new quarterly journal if one was created? Contributions would be over 1,000 words and from WSM members only.Yes I have always thought the idea of a more theoretically slanted, WSM-wide quarterly journal would be a huge bonus. But why limit contributions to only those from WSM members? This seems unnecessarily restrictive and pointless. "Its the case not the face that matters" as the SPGB says in an electoral context and if the case is being articulated in a quarterly journal – which I am sure the Editorial Board will be able to properly determine – does it really matter that it is not a party member that is articulating the case? You dont surely believe that it is impossible to be a socialist while not being a party member? Non members can indeed constructively contribute to the growth of the Party and widen its appeal
LBird wrote:As anyone can read, in my post 114, I said that the proletariat won't exist within socialism.We're back to alan arguing with robbo's mythical 'What LBird said', as opposed to what I did say.If you now agree that the proletariat wont exist in socialism why did you say in post 114 that in socialism there would be a "revolutionary, class conscious, democratic, proletariat" ?. The obvious explanation is that you are in a muddle – no surprise there – and simply contradicted yourself but I dont expect you will be retracting your latter comment. Talking of muddleheadedness is it not time now that you come forward with some kind of defence of your Leninist perspective on communism as a unicentric system of society-wide global decisionmaking without any kind of local or regional democracy whatsoever?. According to you there will be only one single global authority and there will be "no limits" to democracy – as in for example, local democracy being "limited" to local populations. The logic of socialised production, according to you, demands total worldwide democratc decision-making. But it doesnt! This laptop I am typing these words on is a social product. Its components probably come from many different parts of the world but there is no need for me to be involved in any of the doubtless thousands of production decisions that result in this laptop having been manfactured. Nor would it be practical for me to do so in the slightest. Democracy should be about things that matter to me, that influence me and that I can influence, That means perforce being highly selective about what you want to focus your attention on in democratically deciding an outcome, There are only 24 hours in day. You seem to have no conception of the practical limits of decisionmaking and the need to prioritise but its not as if I havent given you opportunity after opportunity to try to think your way out of this muddleheaded concept of democracy that you hold
LBird wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:Proletariat (working class) defines a social relationship within capitalism. There is no red herring. Classes disappears inside socialism. For someone who insists upon using Marxian concepts correctly, you project that a proletariat will remain post-capitalism.I yet again answered this red herring from robbo, Vin, and now you (indeed, a lie, as I've never said that classes will exist within socialism) in my post 114, alan.Please refer, and get back when you can answer what I wrote there.
Rubbish. You are wriggling as per usual. You talked quite explicitly of there being a "revolutionary, class conscious, democratic, proletariat" in socialism . How can you have a class conscious proletariat without this presupposing the existence of classes??? BTW LBird when are you going to get round to defending your Leninist inspired vision of "communism" as a unicentric system of society wide planning in which there will be no kind of local democracy or even regional democracy, whatsoever – just 7 billion plus individuals spending all their time voting on millions and millions of decisions that will need to be made to operate a global system of communist production?
