Conversation between Mod1 and LBird

[my bold]Merrie Bergman (2008) An Introduction to Many-Valued and Fuzzy Logic Cambridge University Press

You're right, I don't accept 'this logic' of yours, which is an ideological logic, a political logic, which you (perhaps unknowingly) pretend comes from the Planet Logic, a supposedly 'Objective' source, which we humans can't argue with.That's what an open-minded worker argues to a closed-minded moderator.All 'logic' is a social and ideological product, which we can change. Just like maths and physics.

  Of course there are "limits to democracy" and anyone who thinks otherwise really hasn’t thought about it at all! It is quite consistent to say that socialism will witness a significant expansion in democratic decision-making but that this expansion will stop at the point in which these necessary limitations come into play.  If there really were “no limits” that means, quite literally, that any and every decision ever made will be subject to a democratic vote and since socialist society is a global society that means the entire global population will participate in all conceivable decisions to be made within this society,  That self-evidently is preposterous. What that means is that the individual in socialist society will have no choice as to what work to perform according to her ability – that will be decided by global society.  She will have no choice as to what to what to take according to her need from the distribution centres since that too will be decided by global society.  So already we see in this ridiculous concept of a "democracy without limits" a complete repudiation of the communist principle “from each according to ability to each according to need”. None of us in the imaginary society of “democracy without limits” would have any say over what we do as individuals, where we live or how we might live. It will all be decided for us…..by global society! And it doesn’t stop there. There can be no localised or even regionalised forms of democracy within a hypothetical society of “democracy without limits".  To even talk about local democracy is necessarily to place limits on democracy by restricting a class of decisions – essentially those of a local nature – to a subset of society – the local population – thereby excluding the non-local population. Moreover, I haven’t even begun to talk about the mechanics or logistics of such a proposal – how do you organise a global vote on even a single decision let alone billions of them? In fact, by its very nature this proposal2 amounts to the advocacy of a totally centralised totalitarian society which, by default if not by design, will concentrate all power in the hands of a tiny elite and signify paradoxically the total destruction of democracy Incidentally. Alan, yes it is hilarious that Capitalist Pig should sing the praises of LBird. Little does he realise that what LBird is calling for will signify the complete abolition of all those cherished "legal safeguards" he had been going on about to prevent a dictatorship of the majority from happening

Who (or what) determines 'important and unimportant', if not the democratic producers, in your version of 'socialism'?Your 'logic' is a political logic, within which the use of the concept of 'logic' is pretended to be a non-political, objective, asocial, ahistoric 'logic', which any individual (or an elite) can employ, outside of the interests, purposes and plans of the majority.Thus, from the perspective of Democratic Communism, it's your logic that is a 'logical fallacy'.Of course, also, from your elitist perspective of the political rule of the powerful specialists, the despised and powerless 'generalists' will have to bow down before the 'logical fallacy' of your own elite production.You pretend that 'logic' is outside of 'politics'.I don't. Only the democratic producers within socialism can determine their 'logic' and their 'fallacies'. There is no academic elite which has a 'special consciousness', which ensures that they, and they alone, have access to 'Logic'.'Logic' is a powerful social product, and must be under the political control of all society, within a democratic society like socialism.In fact, we could call your version of 'logic'… Leninist Logic.

Well, Capitalist Pig, it seems that I'm about to employ you as a sock-puppet-by-proxy. Since the rules don't allow sock-puppets, and yet when I keep answering certain posters who keep asking the same political questions, and yet I, and I alone, get banned, I'm forced to answer those political questions, but to pretend to address them to an entirely new poster, who is new to these debates, and thus it is legitimate for me to say the same thing for the thousandth time.So, CP, you're now my sock-puppet-by-proxy! I hope you'll accept your new critical role in the proceedings – if you don't, let me know, and I'll publicly apologise to you, and try to find a new technique to prevent my silencing.Here goes!CP, you'll notice a poster named robbo203, who pretends to be a democrat, but is actually an individualist. robbo wants 'socialism' to be the realisation of the bourgeois myth of 'free individuals', who will not be subject to any political control, which would obviously be the case with a society which insists upon democratic production.robbo's chosen political method to denigrate 'democracy' is to equate it with 'centralisation'. Thus:

[my bold]robbo pretends that 'democracy' leads to 'centralisation', by which he means 'totalitarian' (a concept employed by post-war Cold War warriors, but we'll let that pass).Any Democratic Communist would of course reply that 'democracy' does imply 'centralisation'. There has to be a central location, at which is based a central organisation that obeys the orders of the voters. The losing voters then obey the orders of the 'central' majority.We can see this in practice in the parish, village, town, city, regional and national elections of even bourgeois democracy.The 'parish' democracy is centralised upon the 'parish hall', at which a central bureaucracy counts the votes and announces the results of the democratic vote, taken by all the parish residents. Of course, the central parish bureaucracy is also elected using democratic methods. And so on, for all levels, from parish to national. The new feature of democratic World Socialism will be a central 'World Hall'.This, robbo insists, is 'totalitarian', and a blight upon the 'freedom of individuals' to insist that votes are 'decentralised'.In robbo's parish polity, each individual vote will be taken in an individual cottage, far away from the 'Totalitarian Parish Dictatorship', and each voter will announce their individual political decision, far away from the 'Totalitarian Parish Hall Bureacracy' (ie. the elected Mrs. Smith, Mr. Jones and Ms. Brzozowski – of course, known as the 'Evil Troika' in robbo's world).So, CP, you can now understand politically why robbo has to equate 'democracy' with 'totalitarian centralisation', to help protect and cover up his own bourgeois individualist politics, while still claiming to be a 'socialist'.I hope my hand up your metaphorical arse, as my sock-puppet-by-proxy, didn't hurt too much, CP! If it did, perhaps I can introduce you next time to the benefits of a little 'proletarian grease'?

   This is so way off the mark it is almost laughable.  It demonstrates that LBird seems wilfully intent on not understanding the argument which has been presented to him.  I am not trying to denigrate democracy by “equating with it with centralisation”.  What a silly claim. Actually the word I used was “ultra-centralised”. Does LBird know what this means? It means EXTREME centralisation. What I am actually saying is that democracy will be killed off by extreme centralisation. Yet this is precisely what  LBird advocates – extreme centralisation of decision-making – and that is why I oppose what Lbird stands for.  Because it will lead to a fundamentally anti-democratic outcome.   LBird is not a democrat but a naive Leninist who cloaks his Leninism in a mantle of democratic rhetoric.  He merely pays lip service to democratic values.  However, even if his absurd idea of a totalitarian society-wide system of decision-making operating out of a single global centre were remotely feasible, it could only really operate on the basis of a tiny technocratic elite arrogating to itself the power to make all decisions on society’s behalf.  There are billions of decisions to be made and there is no possibility of such decisions being made on any other basis given LBird’s Leninist model of decision-making. 

  This demonstrates once again how utterly confused LBird is on the matter.  Of course local democracy requires a local centre and regional democracy requires a regional centre and so forth.  Im not disputing that at all but this has got nothing to do with what I am taking about The point that I was trying to impress upon LBird is that since local democracy requires a local centre and since there are numerous local centres corresponding to numerous local communities what this means in effect is that you inevitably have a POLYCENTRIC system of democratic decisionmaking in socialism.  However this is not what LBird wants.  He has made it absolutely clear that he is calling instead for a UNICENTRIC models of decision-making – that is one in which in which ALL decisions relating to production and everything else throughout the entire world are ONLY to made from a single global centre – what he calls his central 'World Hall' – and that somehow ALL these decisions are to be made by the entire global population.  In other others, no other decisions can be permitted other than those that come out of his central World Hall.   If LBird protests that I am somehow misrepresenting him I would remind him of his own wprds. It was he who declared forthrightly that there are “no limits to democracy”.  Well in a polycentric model of decision-making there clearly are such limits.  If a local community makes a decision concerning a local matter than self-evidently this precludes another local community, or a regional community or the global community getting involved in making this local decision.  We respect the right of that community to make decisions that affect itself.  That is a limitation. LBird rejects any such limitations.  Consequently he is saying that the global community as a whole must decide on every conceivable decision impacting on everyone throughout the world. Of course that is not even worth thinking about  as serious proposal but the logic of what LBird is talking about is certainly worth thinking – and worrying –  about since it in effect argues for the concentration of all power in the hands of tiny elite and the complete destruction of any kind of democracy whatsoever

LBird wrote:

Capitalist Pig wrote:

hi Lbiiiiiiiird. you are awesome

Thanks for your appreciation, CP!Though, you should remember, that I'm criticising the SPGB from the political position of Democratic Communism, which is, I think, the opposite pole from your views.On the other threads, where you've challenged what the SPGB posters have been writing, on the whole I agree with them, and disagree with you.Most obviously, I'm not a supporter of 'bourgeois individualism', but of collective, democratic, social production, which includes the production of politics, laws, morals, laws of physics, logic, maths, truth and 'individuals'. These are all social products, and my political position is that Communism/Socialism equates to the democratic control of their production.Clearly, some here, claiming to be 'socialists', are actually politically closer to your 'individualism', than to my Democratic Communism.In fact, you're probably a better candidate for membership of the SPGB than I am!

fair enough