robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“Bad Psychology: Why Climate Change Won’t Be Solved by Better Decisions at the Supermarket” https://areomagazine.com/2019/10/01/bad-psychology-why-climate-change-wont-be-solved-by-better-decisions-at-the-supermarket/
We have substantial difficulties, we need to adapt to a different way of political activity, however we are starting to make progress.
Yes indeed Bijou. It is my perception – right or wrong – that the SPGB is actually growing albeit at a snails pace. The challenge is how to adapt to the new circumstances we face , how to engage members in new forms of activity that transcend traditional branch-based activity. The internet is key to this since that is where the overwhelming majority of new members come into contact with us
Hi David
The Party raises money (which it has to since we live in a capitalist world) through a variety of methods – membership dues, donations, legacies and sales. Dues are voluntary and we try to keep the price of stuff we sell – literature and accessories – affordable as possible or to at least cover costs
Meetings are on principle free to all but some events such as the Summer School carry a charge because of the cost of accommodation and food. If you do get the opportunity to get to Summer School or weekend residential events such as that organised by Lancaster branch recently, it will be well worth going
If you have other ideas of raising money to carry out socialist activity then yes of course other members would be interested in hearing about this. You can bring up this ideas here or on SPINTCOM or by circulating branches (see contact details in the Socialist Standard).
To be honest though I dont think money is the big problem. The Party has quite a healthy bank balance at the moment to finance activity, mainly as a result of legacies. I think the big problem is how to encourage more members and sympathisers to become more ACTIVE.
There has been a marked shift in the way people join the SPGB and this has affected the pattern of party activity. Overwhelmingly now it is through the internet that people join. There has been a corresponding decline in physical branch activity.
In my opinion what the SPGB needs to do is two things
- encourage more internet-based activity by members from “reading classes” (there is a facility on this forum which is hardly used at all) through to publicity campaigns (like the “ten minutes a month for socialism” campaign). Everyone new member joining should be assigned a “buddy” to keep in touch with over the internet if not physically. A buddy system will break down the sense of isolation which is so corrosive of party activism.
- develop new innovative ways to encourage physical one to one interactions. Branch meetings, though necessary, are not enough. The Lancaster branch initiative referred to above points to one possible way ahead. Video conferencing is another
There is a lot more I can say on the subject but I would be interested to hear your views…
Its a relief to see support for the far right Vox party is dropping. The rise of this ultra right deeply racist organisation particularly in parts of Andalucía such as Almeria province where there are thousands of illegal migrants working in the greenhouses, was quite a disturbing development…
Yeah that about sums it up, Adam. This might be of interest….
https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/09/26/inenglish/1569505850_681434.html
Read this online pamphlet while I was away. It is very good. I know it is on the WSPUS site but we should consider promoting it too. In any event those here who haven’t read it yet should.
Absolutely agree with this. I have been linking to this pamphlet on various FB sites to which I belong. Other comrades should consider doing the same.
This has contributed to an increase in publicity contacts which the WSPUS is now enjoying out of which future applicants for membership may well materialise. It also benefits the SPGB because the American Party has prominently displayed on its website the offer of free literature, meaning the 3 month free subsription to the Socialist Standard
By each companion party helping each other, they also help themselves…
Apologies for being a doomsayer again But some things require said and we cannot go on acting under delusions that everything is alright. It is not just climate activists that are talking about a looming existential threat – we also face the same extinction risk.
I think I’ve said this before Alan but at the moment it seems the Party is actually growing albeit it at a snails pace – at least in the last few years. Somebody correct me if I am wrong. The problem is that there has been a decline in traditional party activity which is ongoing. The great majority of new members come via the internet and there is little actual face to face interaction within the membership as such.
I applaud the suggestions of Paddy and Bijou promoting an increase in face to face interactions. This is one prong of a strategy for future growth. The other prong is to seek ways to engage new members right from the very start in internet activity, the very activity through which they came into contact with the SPGB.
If we focus on these two prongs the future will be a lot brighter
And no more excuses for this apathy, please. Lets have suggestions instead of how to kick start members out of their malaise. Robbo’s suggestion of 10 minutes a month for action on the internet, has fallen on stony ground.
With absolutely minimal effort it is starting to yield decent results. In the case of the American Party, for example we are starting to get a flow of publicity contacts asking for free literature in response to publicity concerning the new pamphlet they have just brought out. It really doesn’t take a lot of effort. If even just 50 members got involved in this scheme on a regular basis – maybe 3 or 4 hours a month rather than just 10 minutes – it could transform the prospects of the Party. This is within our grasp but members dont seem to realise this. There is little or no sense of self belief in themselves and in what they can achieve. So we continue to achieve little. A vicious circle. Sad but true….
Sorry about the few grammar spelling mistakes in the above post. I see the edit facility has just recently disappeared. Any ideas why?
LBird I simply mean by “scrutiny” by answerable to some democratically elected body. As an analogy the SPGB has a democratically elected Executive Committee which is controlled by conference and party polls. There are also various sub Committees under the overall control of the EC whose members are nominated by branches
For example, I’m on one of these Committees – the Publications Committee, We operate within the broad terms of reference laid down for this Committee. Ultimately if we want to get a new pamphlet published we have to seek the permission of the EC for this and the final text also needs EC approval. But we also initiate a lot of things ourselves within these guidelines so that what you end up is a fairly productive and fruitful two way interaction between us and the EC and also with other comrades who we see to commission as writers of new pamhlets
I haven’t given much thought to the precise make up to the democratic structure of decision-making in socialism but I guess there would be the different spatial levels of decision-making referred to – local , regional and global – with corresponding bodies of delegated and recallable members charged with carrying out the wishes of their particular constituencies. In the case of the global body or parliament I imagine it would have a relationship towards specialist global organisations like the FAO, not unlike that of the SPGB EC to its subcommittees
Although I agree with much of what you say, Robbo, I do not agree that global level decisions will constitute a very, very few issues.
In terms of practical issues such as power generation, building of infrastructure, food distribution, etc. I would think that only a global level of debate and decision making will be effective in this area.Bijou
I was referring specifically to examples of “direct democracy”. Even a single global plebiscite is an absolutely monumental undertaking, when you think about it, given everything it entails in terms of expediting a result – formulating the resolution to be voted on, preparing the vote, disseminating the information and collating the results. Nearly 8 billion voters is an awful lot of voters!!!
It is for this reason that I think direct democracy at the global level will likely be reserved for only a tiny handful of globally significant decisions and there is also the question of the enforceability of such decisions to take into account. The time it takes to organise a global plebiscite is another factor, quite apart from the logistics. Many decisions particularly at the microlevel cant wait for months and months and so by their very nature exclude themselves from a global decision-making process. They have to be globally significant to truly qualify at all. A package of measures to combat climate change might be a good example.
I dont doubt that there would be decisions at the global level made by global bodies – I gave the example of the FAO – and though such bodies would doubtless be subject to democratic scrutiny, this is not the same thing as direct democracy which is what I was really talk about. Similarly with discussion being worldwide. To an extent this already happens via the social meida, newspapers , academic journals and so on
So, ‘decentralisation? Fine. ‘Localism’ Fine. ‘Individual Choice’? Fine. ‘Polycentres’? Fine.
But ‘decentral’, ‘local’, ‘individual choice’ and ‘polycentres’ don’t have the final say. Humanity does. And its political method is democracy.OK so FINALLY, FINALLY FINALLY and at long last I have got a clear statement from you acknowledging that socialism will be a polycentric system of planning!!!!! This is what I have been trying all this time to extract from you and now finally have you answered the question directly without resorting to vague references to the social nature of production (true but not relevant to the question asked) and the like. That’s all I wanted to hear from you and to be honest it has been like trying to extract blood from a stone, LBird. Despite what you say that over the years, I’ve answered this, time and time again, you haven’t actually – not explicitly. This is the very first time you’ve done so explicitly. Its a breakthrough!
Good. So having finally overcome this hurdle in our discussion, with this explicit acknowledgement of the necessarily polycentric nature of decision-making in socialism, a large chunk of my objections to what you have been saying , or rather appearing to have been saying all along, now falls away We can move on to finesse our understanding of the democratic process in socialism
Let me start by saying I do NOT think that
socialism will involve 7 billion sovereign bodies (ie. each individual, doing their ‘own thing’, without ‘the nanny state’ (as individualists characterise any ‘social authority’), untrammelled ‘freedom’).
Individuals doing their own thing is only ever a matter of degree in my book. There will be such thing as absolutely sovereign individuals able to do whatever they want. That is a caricature. The freedom to do what you want has to be balanced by democracy which as I have always said will be play a much large role in socialism than is possible under capitalism but which will itself confront its own outer limits. Needless that will not involve a state in socialism let alone a “nanny state”
I dont disagree with you observation:
These objections, both from within/below the body and without/above the body, must be resolved by a body that encompasses all the disputants. But this might be a regional body, and another region objects to that region’s decision. On so on, wider and wider.
In fact, this follows the same logic I outlined earlier – that the need for democracy or democratic decision-making ONLY arises in the context where there is dispute between individuals or social bodies. This is why I say the great bulk of “economic decisions” in socialism – such as what I consume or what work I chose to engage in – are not really “dispute related” and so do not need to invoke democratic decision making at all which would both pointless and bureaucratically wasteful
Where a dispute arises (typically in the case of joint decision-making) then yes as you rightly suggest the democratic resolution must be accomplished by a body that encompasses all the disputants. If there is a dispute within a local community over the proposed location of a community hall then this needs to be resolved by a democratic vote by all members of the local community. Similarly, if there is a dispute between two local communities over the proposed location of major piece of infrastructure such as a road or hydroelectric dam then this has ro be resolved democratically at the appropriate level encompassing all the disputants – the region in this case
All this is eminently sensible and in fact LBird is clearly outlined in the SPGB pamphlet Socialism as a Practical Alternative (in case you haven’t read it) which refers to a spatial hierarchy of decision-making – local, regional and global.
The ultimately port of call so to speak is global , humanity as a whole . As you say humanity has the “final say” in such matters. However, what I want you to recognise is that in practice there are very very few issues that will ever reach this global level of decision-making. Because the very nature of decision-making at this level is such a monumental undertaking, necessarily this would restrict the number of decisions that could be taken at this level to a tiny handful. Only very important, globally applicable, decisions, in other words
Of course you could have global bodies like the current FAO acting within a devolved framework and making decisions on behalf of humanity. Such bodies need to be subject to scrutiny and democratic control. But as far as direct democracy is concerned only a very small number of decisions could or need be resolved democratically at this level. For example, a global vote on package of measures to tackle climate change
However, as far as 99% plus of the decisions that need to be made in socialism are concerned, these will never, and cannot possibly ever, reach this global level of decision making. Nor is there any reason why they should. They can be democratically resolved at the lower levels of decision-making such as the region of the local community in the way you yourself suggest.
Furthermore, I also insist (and I believe that I’m following Marx here) that ‘the world working class’ must politically organise on a democratic basis, and that by their own self-emancipation, they themselves will determine ‘material conditions’, ‘specialists’, ‘science’… and all other social products, like physics, maths, logic, truth, etc.
This is not the issue LBird. The SPGB fully accepts the need for the world’s working class to politically organise on a democratic basis and in doing so, democratically lay the foundations of a post capitalist world. The argument is rather about the nature of the post capitalist world they will set up
On the face of it, you seem to be arguing that, in this post capitalist world, all decisions relating to production will be channelled through one single global organ of decision-making. Local communities and individuals will NOT be able to make decisions on their own. You, for example, as a individual will not be able to decide what kind of work you wanted to do. You would be told what to do in accordance with Society’s Grand Plan and assigned a particular task and hours of work, which “society” has seen fit to assign you after “democratically” consulting everyone (nearly 8 billion people)
I’m sorry if you take offence at me dismissing this is idea as utter nonsense. But that is what it is, I’m afraid. This is not intended as a personal insult so please dont take it the wrong way….
Even if the world’s working class wanted to introduce this particular model of planning – unicentric as opposed to polycentric planning – and democratically voted for it, it would not be able to. Its on a par with democratically voting to abolish the law of gravity, frankly.
The frustrating thing about you, LBird, is that every time I press you to clarify whether or not you actually endorse this particular model of literal society wide planning, you equivocate and revert back to vague references to Marx about “social production” as if this settles the matter. But I’m afraid it does not settle the matter. In any case this appeal to the authority cuts no ice with me. If Marx did actually advocate society wide planning along the above lines then I would say without hesitation, that he was talking complete bunkum. Marx is not some sort of god whose every word we must hang on to out of some kind of religious awe. He made mistakes like everyone else
As a matter of fact I dont think Marx did advocate society wide planning and particularly after the Paris Commune he more explicitly identified with a decentralised model of socialist society, as do I . His views on the division of labour clearly demonstrate , as I pointed out, that he fundamentally favoured the idea of individual choice as integral to the very nature of a socialist society itself. The freedom to choice what kind of work you do goes hand in hand with the voluntaristic nature of labour under socialism. Its got sod all to do with “bourgeois individualism”
So I ask you one more time – do you favour a polycentric system of planning for socialism or a unicentric system. Could you please answer this question directly and without equivocation so we can draw a line and move on to a more productive discussion about the nature of democracy in socialism
Indeed, you have, robbo.
That’s what I’ve always accused you of doing.
Whereas, I have been vociferously supporting the right of social individuals.LOL LBird So Marx too must count as a bourgeois individualist, according to you. I quote again from that famous passage in the German Ideology:
For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”
Marx is very clearly advocating that INDIVIDUALS should be able to chose what sort of contribution they make to a socialist society. That in your book makes him a bourgeois individualist too. Which shows you dont understand what “bourgeois individualism” means. Being able, or wanting, to choose does not make you a bourgeois individualist. Individuality is not the same thing as individualism and there is always a two way interrelationship between the individual and society which pristine bourgeois individualist theory denies (hence the 17th/18th myth of the “social contract”). Holism which is effectively what you advocate (there is no such thing as individuals) is just as suspect as individualism (there is no such thing as society)
The fact is you dont seem to want anyone or any entity smaller than the totality of human society – the-social-producers-in-general , nearly 8 billion of them – to be able to make any decisions of their own accord. Every one and every entity must subordinate themselves to, and subsume themselves within, the General Will, according to you. You want to eliminate the very thing that makes democracy possible and necessary – differences of opinion
Not only is this utterly impossible – it is clearest definition of insanity to suggest that nearly 8 billion inhabitants should democratically participate in making the billions of decisions that need to be made every day to run a modern system of production – but even if we went only a quarter way down that road to utter madness, the outcome would be the most complete expression of a system of totalitarian fascism I can think of
I still dont seriously believe that you actually believe the nonsense that you are spouting LBird. You have never once attempted to grasp the insuperable practical problems that the concept of society wide planning would actually entail even if in theory it could be implemented. You forever skirt around the issue and, that in itself is vey revealing.
I think you are basically just clinging to a form of words, a mode of expression that appears to come across as “Marxist” because that fits in with your prejudices (“Im a democratic communist” is your constant refrain). But you dont seem willing to go beyond the words to look at the actual arguments. Pity.
