Cooking the Books: Never Been Tried

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

The point is a political one about social power.We can either argue that:'society won't exist under socialism', and so no 'social force' is required;or, 'society will exist', and an elite should control its 'social force';or, 'society will exist', and its 'social force' must be our own democratic 'social force'.Individualists will pick the first, Leninists will pick the second, and Marxists will pick the third.

STRAWMAN ALERT!!   I am a socialist  and therefor I believe that  we can have a society without an armed state. You obviously believe otherwiseYou are talking about ARMED AND ORGANISED force. . This is not about ME it is about YOU and your comments. Explain without  name calling and Strawmen.

[LBird]

 Vin, who's 'name calling'? Who mentioned a 'state'? What is the 'strawman'?I'm discussing with you, trying to explore about 'power', and who we think should control 'power' in an socialist society. I thought that our exchange was going reasonably well.If you disagree with me, then fine, simply explain how you think 'social power' should be expressed within socialism.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

And i don't think we can state a priori how every society will determine those means. We can generalise and perhaps speak for ourselves but other places and regions possess different cultures and traditions on how decision-making is accomplished. 

Whatever happened to the concept of 'World Socialism', alan?What are these different forms of 'every society' that you mention?By 'ourselves', I mean the class conscious revolutionary proletariat, a world-wide force, which will democratically determine whether any and all 'cultures and traditions' are in our interests, suit our needs, and develop our purposes.There will be no 'decision-making' other than by democratic means – there will be no other social forces with power, outside of us, the world-wide producers.Once again, if you disagree with my political views, you should make clear the official view of the SPGB regarding 'socialism', because I don't recognise your formulation above.The world is a commonwealth for all, not a series of separate (even opposed) resources, with no overall political control.

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

Yes of course the principle of 'one person one vote' will apply. And yes the 'systematic project management approach' I'm advocating is by default a democratic one e.g. "So it can reach a conclusion and outcome based on the satisfaction of human needs".  If that's not democracy wtf is?

[my bold]So, you agree that 'truth' will be produced by 'one person, one vote', and not by an elite?

mod1 wrote:

Such a question makes me suspect you are either failing to understand what I've written, or even worst you have little idea on the implications and consequences of democratic socialism under the framework of Direct/Delgated Participatory Democracy.  In this regard the determination of 'human needs' is arrived at through the agreed democratic process of the application for systematic project management. Hence, its not so much as the 'who' but how the community arrives at a democratic conclusion and outcome.

[my bold]So, the 'community' is 'society', and not an elite?That is, the 'who' is 'society' and the 'how' is 'democracy'?If it isn't 'society' and it isn't 'democracy', you should be open and tell us both the 'who' and the 'how'.Or do you mean a democratic vote within an elite?I'm just trying to cover all the bases of what you might mean.I simply say that socialism will be the democratic control of production by the social producers. That, of necessity, includes any 'truths' that are produced.

And I would simply say; that socialism will be the democratic control of production and distribution by the associated volunteer producers within the global community.  That includes any 'truths' or 'nontruths' conclusions reached or outcomes arrived at.  For its important that we acknowledge that in certain circumstances, democracy has been proven to be a double edged sword.A democratic vote within an elite is by definition an oxymoron.  So why have you yet again brought this up?

[alanjjohnstone]

I'm not one for one size fits all.Previously i referred to large swathes of Mexico that possess a democratic structure that remains informal in contrast to the formal one but reflects the will of its people more efficiently and would be a better tool for democracy. Bookchin argued for the town-hall assembly of New England but would that be appropriate for the metro sprawl of LA. As always, the emancipation of the working class will be the act of the working class themselves. Not every factory and industry will have a uniform workplace democracy but will be tailored differently to suit needs. Making things fit for purpose was the point of my post.I was trying to answer a specific question raised on the thread – the issue of practices such as FGM which require to end. I raised the issue that to forcibly end it would lead to many more problems. I cannot see the volunteers of MSF carrying guns to threaten parents, but perhaps they could use blackmail by withdrawing services but that i think won't be acceptable either. It will be education and assistance to the victimsI don't think one size fits all and i don't consider that socialist consciousness spreads overnight. There will be uneven development and as Marx said the muck of the old regime – the hang-overs from the past. Wishing them away won't work.Most of the world's population is fed by small farmers – peasants, if you like – will there be forced collectivisation to make their farms common property of all and the scales of economy forced upon them. Not likely, is it? There title deed – their private property – will be respected but undermined by other inducements, the benefits of coops, the offer of free machinery and technology, volunteer labour (seasonal workers for harvests), free access to the products from elsewhere. In time there attachment to outmoded ideas as being owners of their farms is superseded by social practice.Or is the cure going to better than the problem. Do we repeat the example of Russia's Red Army and deem them all Kulaks and risk the ensuing famines? Maybe in socialism, we could divert the produce of the prairies and the pampas and the steppes to off-set the folded arms of Africa's and Asia's small farmers. But is it a lasting solution? Socialism is going to be the organic growth of communal living and democratic decision-making, and it will mutate according to the condition of the soil. Where it is fertile there will be rapid growth and many branches and deep roots, but where the ground is more barren, it will take longer to sprout and blossom and may require some extra care and attention to encourage healthy growth. I think i made myself clearer now. 

[Young Master Smeet]

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.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

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.

[my bold]That's precisely what I'm arguing for – democratic control of violence.

YMS wrote:

The idea of Red Guards closing down opposition newspapers, and enforcing the democratically decided truth fills me with something of a chill.

Who's mentioned 'Red Guards'? Why bring this up, when we're discussing 'democratic force being used against a violent minority'?You can't have it both ways, YMS.Either there will be a 'democratic force' (which you apparently agree with, as you term it, 'legitimate use of violence') or there won't be.The fact that you constantly say one thing, and then deny it by reference to Bolshevism, shows that you haven't really thought through this political issue.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.

[Young Master Smeet]

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]

YMS wrote:

We need to abolish the means of violence, first and foremost, to make the resort to violence more difficult.

But now you're contradicting yourself, YMS.Either there is 'legitimate violence', or 'violence is abolished' (and so there is no 'legitimate violence' by definition).These are political issues, YMS, and can't be simply wished away. We're talking about socialism, not a hippy nirvana.

[Young Master Smeet]

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]

A 'pointy stick' is still a 'means of violence', YMS.And if we're to remove all 'pointy sticks', we'll still collectively need 'pointy sticks' to enforce our democratic decision.Even if you reduce your argument to bare knuckle fighting (with no weapons at all), you are still avoiding the issue about 'who controls legitimate violence?'.Your argument only makes sense if you argue that there will be no 'legitimate violence'.But then you have the problem of how society enforces its democratic decisions, against those who reject democracy as a method of social production.Like all those who refuse 'democratic science', for example.Since 'truth' is a social product, not a 'faithful reflection' of 'out there', 'truth' can be elected – as it must be, within a democratic society like socialism.

[Young Master Smeet]

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.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

That's precisely what I'm arguing for – democratic control of violence.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.

I challenged him years ago to define his terms but LBird does not like to define his 'democratic communism' –  – and now we see why.This is not marxism, but rather it is Leninism and BolshiVision.  Power and socially organised violence is a product of the development of property and will not exist in socialism"All forms of the state have democracy for their truth, and for that reason are false to the extent that they are not democracy."Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (1843)"The working class, in the course of its development, will substitute for the old civil society an association which will exclude classes and their antagonism, and there will be no more political power properly so-called, since political power is precisely the official expression of antagonism in civil society."Marx, Poverty of Philosophy (1847It is obvious that LBird  hasn't bothered to find out what we stand for. or he is incapable of comprehending the ideas of Marx and the SPGB.   

[Young Master Smeet]

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)

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

Power and socially organised violence is a product of the development of property and will not exist in socialism

You're not just a poor Marxist, Vin, but a poor historian, too.'Power and socially organised violence' is not a product of the development of property – the product of that development of property is 'the state'.'Power and socially organised violence' pre-existed 'the development of property' – any examination of pre-class societies shows these social traits.Except in the minds of 'individualists', for whom the pre-property world was a condition of hippyish love and peace, man.I've known for a long time that YMS and robbo were 'individualists' and not democratic socialists, but I didn't think that you too were infected with 'Anarchism', Vin.Put simply, 'society' is not a simple collection of 'individuals', but pre-exists any given 'individual'. I agree with Marx's concept of a 'social individual', which sees this category as a product of their particular, socio-historic, society. And I also agree with him that those 'social individuals', suitably politically organised in democratic organisations, can change their 'society', for the better. And only they can determine 'better-for-them'.

[Author]

Posts