Blueprints and Projections

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

To avoid dismissing socialism as a distant future prospect, we must be prepared to think in terms of present institutions being immediately taken over for use by a socialist society. This includes present council and government offices and lines of communication, international bodies such as the United Nations, local community organisations such as housing co-operatives or even tenants' associations, and, perhaps most important of all, companies…Clearly, we must consider in greater detail how the transition can be made from the present dictatorship of the boardroom, to the democratic control of society.

http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2016/04/will-socialism-be-centralised-1983.html

Just when and in what form does this debate that Clifford suggests is essential take place. 

In all the environmental and public health questions, do we wait only until the day after the revolution to address them or is it valid to begin the debate now and offer the socialist solutions in advance of Day 1 of socialism.

Surely the more socialists there are and the more socialists inhabiting ever more of the spheres of society, they will be making the proposals and putting forward solutions in their unions, in their professional bodies. Building socialism starts before socialism arrives with actual plans and the networks that will carry it out

Isn't science about making hypotheses and over time amending and adjust those as more and more information becomes available. Nobody claims such things are definitive answers but merely they are the best educated guesses and predictions subject to further research and study. Things will be added and things will be dropped. 

What was the result of Bellamy's Looking Backwards?…a surge in interest in socialism and the inspiration for great numbers of reading groups to discuss it.

Zeitgeist has been a similar phenomena in recent times.Have they greatly suffered from the mistakes  of the technocracy movement of the 30s because invention and innovation didn't go the way it was assumed? 

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Building socialism starts before socialism arrives with actual plans and the networks that will carry it out

I agree with you about this, alan, which is why I disagree with Engelsists and Leninists, who argue that 'practice' precedes 'theory'.Marx argued for 'theory and practice': as you put it, 'actual plans', first, and then 'carry it out'.

ajj wrote:

Isn't science about making hypotheses and over time amending and adjust those as more and more information becomes available. Nobody claims such things are definitive answers but merely they are the best educated guesses and predictions subject to further research and study. Things will be added and things will be dropped. 

This is the 'scientific method' of Marx.'Bourgeois science', in opposition to this, argues that an 'elite expert' group have a 'politically neutral method' which gives them, and them alone (so, no 'democracy'), the ability to produce 'Objective Knowledge' of the world, 'out there', 'as it is'. It's easy to see that this bourgeois, elite science, suits the Leninists, who, too, argue that the elite party has a special consciousness which is not available to ordinary workers, and so can't allow the class to outvote the party, when it comes to 'political practice'.Of course, in a socialist society, based upon the democratic control of the means of production (which clearly includes 'ideas' or 'plans'), the 'hypotheses', 'adjustments', 'answers', 'guesses' and 'predictions', which you mention, can only be produced by democratic means. There can be no elite of physics or maths who tell us what 'reality is': if a scientist produces an idea, it is put to the vote, to see if we should try in practice to implement the hypothesis. And if we do attempt to put together 'theory and practice' in science, then we determine whether the results of this social theory and practice has produced 'truth' or 'knowledge'.The ideological belief, unfortunately embraced by Engels, influenced by 19th century 'successes', that 'reality' is sitting out there, waiting to be passively 'discovered' by an elite of physicists, is the opposite of Marx's method.Only the revolutionary proletariat, in the process of building its class consciousness, can determine democratically what the social and natural world 'is', because 'it' is our social product.Any other formulation will lead to an elite being allowed to dictate to us just what 'reality is'.We have to be the ones to democratically determine what 'things' are 'added' and what 'things' are 'dropped', alan.

[alanjjohnstone]

You know why i posted this topic, right,  – because of a comment on another thread.  It is posted to elicit observations from other membersSo i don't want to distact from it too much, being more interested in others views, but very briefly i will comment on one of your opinions and then offer no further discussion

Quote:

We have to be the ones to democratically determine what 'things' are 'added' and what 'things' are 'dropped', alan.

No ordinary mortal, Lbird, is capable of almost limitless knowledge. We can't know everything, nor do i think anybody really does aspire to that omnipotent state. What we are happy to do is delegate to others responsibilities to make various judgements and decisions on our behalf. We will only become involved when something amiss is brought to our attention.(In capitalism it is usually a tragic accident or a revelation from a whistleblower.) We then demand more information and further interpretations of the facts for us to determine our conclusions and our actions. Not everybody in the world is necessarily involved, only those affected, unless there is a global impact as in CO2 emission levels for instance. Most events and therefore decisions are actually going to be fairly localised and easily identified and tackled.In socialism I'm not placing blind trust in a scientist but trusting in the integrity of my fellow worker and neighbour. This is something we cannot do under capitalism with the bought and paid for by vested interest of research and experimentation.Perhaps as i suggest, we should now be proposing the procedures of checks and balances where science is placed under social control. The rudimentary networks have already appearedhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Society_for_Social_Responsibility_in_Sciencehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Network_of_Engineers_and_Scientists_for_Global_Responsibilityhttp://www.aaas.org/page/committee-scientific-freedom-and-responsibilityThese examoles are from a basic initial search on Google (a capitalist business biased source) citing real information sharing that will undoubtedly expand with socialism  with the end of intellectual property ownership – WikipediaDo i have and you have all the answers to your questions, not at all, but we do possess a willingness to begin the process of figuring out accountability when socialism is achieved.Let sit back and see if other forum contributors can add or subtract from the possibilities and potentialities that the Party could be the engine of. Let's hear from them nd not start another debate. 

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

No ordinary mortal, Lbird, is capable of almost limitless knowledge.

I agree, alan.And 'no ordinary elite', either. Notwithstanding what the elitists of the bourgeoisie, like physicists, mathematicians, and Leninists, say.Socialism is the democratic control of the means of production, which clearly includes 'scientific knowledge'.

ajj wrote:

We can't know everything, nor do i think anybody really does aspire to that omnipotent state.

You're quite wrong here, alan.The 'materialists' do 'aspire to that omnipotent state' – that's why they will deny a vote to the producers in deciding what 'reality is'.The 'materialists' really do believe that they, to the exclusion of the working class, can determine 'reality'.If they don't exclude democracy in scientific knowledge production, why can't 'truth' be put to a vote?

ajj wrote:

What we are happy to do is delegate to others responsibilities to make various judgements and decisions on our behalf. We will only become involved when something amiss is brought to our attention.

And who determines 'amiss', alan?The more I read your replies, the more I can see why you don't have any problem with what the 'materialists' claim, to the opposition of Marx's arguments.Marx argued, at the core of his ideas, that humans must become 'consciously active' in their production of their world.IMO, you hold to a far more passive approach, of an essentially passive majority, who will just meander along in life, not taking an active interest in the building of their world, and leave that task to a dynamic minority, who will apparently, 'when something is amiss, bring it to our attention'.I know that you're tired of these exchanges, alan, probably because you neither understand their political importance, nor really agree with Marx's views about Democratic Communism, but the unwillingness of even you (who has been probably the most forebearing of the SPGB members) to discuss these political issues, is not very re-assuring about the depth of the SPGB's politics.I think that initially I took the SPGB's protestations of 'democracy' at face value, and was clearly attracted to the party, after my experiences with various Leninist/Trotskyist parties, but I think that time has shown that, at its core, the SPGB is just as Engelsist and 'materialist' as those groups are.That is, "workers' democracy" is not what the SPGB means by 'socialism'. The SPGB wants an active elite to tell the passive masses when something 'goes amiss', and for the majority to simply trust to the 'experts', in science and politics. This also puts into sharp relief why so many members are attracted to 'parliament', rather than "workers' councils".'Science', eh?

[Brian]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

To avoid dismissing socialism as a distant future prospect, we must be prepared to think in terms of present institutions being immediately taken over for use by a socialist society. This includes present council and government offices and lines of communication, international bodies such as the United Nations, local community organisations such as housing co-operatives or even tenants' associations, and, perhaps most important of all, companies…Clearly, we must consider in greater detail how the transition can be made from the present dictatorship of the boardroom, to the democratic control of society.

http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2016/04/will-socialism-be-centralised-1983.htmlJust when and in what form does this debate that Clifford suggests is essential take place. In all the environmental and public health questions, do we wait only until the day after the revolution to address them or is it valid to begin the debate now and offer the socialist solutions in advance of Day 1 of socialism.Surely the more socialists there are and the more socialists inhabiting ever more of the spheres of society, they will be making the proposals and putting forward solutions in their unions, in their professional bodies. Building socialism starts before socialism arrives with actual plans and the networks that will carry it out 

Frankly Alan, and thankfully, due to the prominence of the contradictions within capitalism, debate and discussion on the form of future socialist society is taking place right now.   Admittedly this discourse is on a small scale and speculative but nevertheless encouraging in that its agreed the tools for a production for use and free access society are readily available within capitalism but require various tweeks so they become fit for purpose and illustrative of good practice in standards and performance for socialist society.One notable example of this occurring is in the social housing sector where the advent of Housing Quality Standards (HQS) has meant the introduction of Planned Maintenance Projects/Programes has made the industry heavily reliant on informatics and project management so the refurbishment is carried out on time and to specification.I'm talking here about huge investments in current social housing stock which in many instances are no longer attracting tenants due to the economic factors linked to: unemployment; lack of services; competition from the private sector; poor performing estates; and anti-social behaviour.  Obviously, the overall picture across the UK is patchy to say the least with some areas more affected than others.Nonetheless, these factors aside the HQS is illustrative of what is required to improve housing stock within capitalism.  When the profit motive is ditched a more sensible picture comes to light.  For instance: instead of tens of thousands of houses under the control of a local authority, or housing association; housing in socialism would be more manageable by restricting the number of houses to ten thousand in a designated area per housing association; and that particular housing association would be managed by local people.It also goes without saying the present HQS would be replaced by a criteria (SocialistHQS) where sub-standard work and materials is not on the agenda. 

[Author]

Posts