Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Vin, or:
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)
We come back to Neurath's distinction of democracy between enemies and democracy among friends.When the bandits hold up the stage coach, it is rational for each side to count up how many guns the other has, and surrender if outgunned. That is democracy among enemies.When a group of friend want to go to the cinema, and the majority want to see horror, but a determined minority would rather not go than see a horror, the majority may concede, in order to all still go to the flicks together. That is democracy among friends.Propper democracy does not need violence, the threat of violence, or the implicit prospect of violence to back itself up.Ultimately, everyone and no-one should control legitimate violence. Sometimes, it is necessary, to preserve life, the point is to try and make it unnecessary.
We abolish the means of violence, the jet fighters, the guns, the battle ships, the missiles, all gone. If no one has them, then we're down to pointy sticks, if a minority decide to take up their pointy sticks, the majority may decide to take up their pointy sticks in response.Lets be clear, there can be no standing army, no standing organisation of violence (a people's militia or anything of the sort). No training nor preparation for war. There can be no ready to hand organisation of violence for the majority to lay claim to, other than the majority itself.instead, there would have to be widespread social practices that prevent and mitigate against even preliminary preparations for violence (and outbreaks of hierarchy).
LBird wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote: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.That's precisely what I'm arguing for – democratic control of violence.
No, you were talking about using violence for the majority to impose its will on the minority, not resorting to violence when a minority tries to use violence to impose its will on the majority. Even then, it is the facts of that situation, the well established principle of self defence, and the real balance of power that decides legtimacy, not democracy: when war starts, democracy ends.[/quote]Who's mentioned 'Red Guards'? Why bring this up, when we're discussing 'democratic force being used against a violent minority'?[/quote]Because you weren't discussing a violent minority, but any minority.
Lbird wrote: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.It's arguable that there was no 'power' in hunter gatherer societies. Society could be organised on an anti-power basis. Now, authority, that can exist without powerWe need to abolish the means of violence, first and foremost, to make the resort to violence more difficult.
LBird wrote:How do you know that there will be no 'armed and organised' force within socialism?Small matter of the withering away of the state, and its special bodies of armed people. A specially organised means of violence would divide society into two parts, the armed part and the unarmed part: the point of socialism is that we will have human freedom to develop without alien constraints, and where we will co-operate because it is in our interests to do so: the structure of socialism would be one that makes violence the unpreferred choice.
LBird wrote:Surely society will have a means of enforcing its democratic decisions? Otherwise, who stops, to give your example, 'racism'? Or FGM?well, rational debate, and freedom of association appply, people have to internalise and want to co-operate, no-one co-operates at gunpoint.
Lbird wrote: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.Violence is undemocratic, the aim is to structure a society in which subjective agency is the goal of human society and accords with collective goals.
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.The idea of Red Guards closing down opposition newspapers, and enforcing the democratically decided truth fills me with something of a chill.
I'm not the only person who has seen the possibility of the Progress MPs in Labour going into National Goivernment with the Tories to keep Corbyn out: the way they might swing that is one of them (Flint or Benn) gets PM, they claim a majority of the PLP, Corbyn remains an honoarary Labour Party leader, and they try and dare the left to split, whilst locking the unions and the party into supporting a Blairite like government. Might not end well, but it would see off Corbyn if they lasted five years.
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: the point is, though, that disputes should be resolved through dialogue, without resort to force. The debate should never end, no vote is definitive.
Society would have no means of coercing learned societies, it would, though, set the framework for their free associations to operate in, and owuld be able to provide resources: however, it would be unable to prevent the flat earth society from existing, if only a list of names in someone's bedroom. the Swedenborg society would still have a free existence, and even the Hornsey Road Spiritualist Church would have a continued right to exist. They'd just be a long way down the queue for resources.
LBird wrote: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.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.
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.
I remember some channel 4 show, many years ago: a mock Parliament. One episodes, the ordinary members of the public in the chamber started out overwhelmingly supporting the death penalty, they debated it a while, took evidence from expert witnesses, and by the end of the programme, had changed their minds, nad overwhelmingly voted it down. Part of the point of democracy is to force experts to explain their ideas to idots like me (hence why I opposed changes in the co-op to get rid of the lay board in favour of technical experts running the show).
Vin wrote:There's a short video doing the rounds on twitter clearly produced by the Green Party using snippets of May and Caroline Lucas in a mock debate. Wonder why the Greens are not worried about 'copyright' ? Why doesn't May sue?Are we missing great opportunities I also see that the Greens have produced Whiteboard AnimationsI suspect the greens could survive being askd to pay…
LBird wrote:Who controls the social production of truth?*sigh* everyone, and therefore no-one. The same answer as to who owns the means of production.
