Cooking the Books: Never Been Tried
- This topic has 140 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:…I, I, I,… me, me, me,… mine, mine, mine,… my, my, my…
No mention of social production, or democratic controls, nor even the odd 'we', 'us', 'our'… as for Marx, Communism, society or history… well, we'll have a long wait before the ideological individualists here ever mention those.
Apart from the fact that as usual he misquotes another user, LBird repeats ad nauseam"I'm a democratic communist me. I, me I am a democratic communist and a marxist I am, I ,I me ,me………………."No mention from LBird of we, us or our. He is an individualist, Leninist elitist.No wonder he has to repeat 'I am a democratic communist and marxist' over and over again, he doesn't believe it himself.
I really thought we were reaching an agreement, even if there might have been a difference of emphasis…more fool me.And by no means am i apportioning blame on a particular person. It just depresses me that this discussion and debate isn't being fruitful. It's leading no-where. Cue for Song :- He's a real nowhere manSitting in his nowhere landMaking all his nowhere plans for nobodyDoesn't have a point of viewKnows not where he's going toIsn't he a bit like you and me?Nowhere Man, please listenYou don't know what you're missingNowhere Man, the world is at your commandHe's as blind as he can beJust sees what he wants to seeNowhere Man can you see me at all?Nowhere Man, don't worryTake your time, don't hurryLeave it all till somebody else lends you a handDoesn't have a point of viewKnows not where he's going toIsn't he a bit like you and me?Nowhere Man, please listenYou don't know what you're missingNowhere Man, the world is at your commandHe's a real Nowhere ManSitting in his nowhere landMaking all his nowhere plans for nobody
alanjjohnstone wrote:I really thought we were reaching an agreement, even if there might have been a difference of emphasis…more fool me.And by no means am i apportioning blame on a particular person. It just depresses me that this discussion and debate isn't being fruitful. It's leading no-where.Not surprisingly, alan, I don't agree with you. It's a very fruitful debate, because it's exposing the SPGB's inability to discuss politics. This is, at root, because the SPGB embraces 'materialism', which Marx warns will lead to the separation of society into two parts, one superior to the other.The 'politics' involved are the politics of Specialism/Generalism, which seems to be the preferred expression with the SPGB for their elitism. That's why the SPGB can't support democracy where there is power: not in politics, nor science, nor maths, nor physics, nor logic… I'm sure you get the point.On a personal level, I'm baffled as to why this isn't apparent to you, and you still don't seem to understand that elitism in politics (ie. 'Specialism/Generalism') leads to, well, elitism in everything. It doesn't give me any confidence that the SPGB is able to even confront these political issues, because, aside from your 'neutral' bafflement, the other responses are personal attacks on me, rather than political responses to those who disagree with Engels' 'materialism'.So, it's leading to the SPGB's elitist politics being exposed, to class conscious, democratic workers, alan. This doesn't seem to bother the SPGB, probably because it's not interested in 'class', 'workers' or 'democracy'; just in 'Specialists' and 'individuals'.
The substantive point is, there won't be one way of making decisions, but thousands, where useful, algorithmic decision making can be applied, sometimes, raw voting, sometimes weighted scoring by technical experts, each organisation, community and region will be different: single non-transferable voting, single transferable voting, condorcet pairwise voting, condorcet pairwise voting with AV track back, block vote, limited vote, d'Hondt, droop. I won't be voting on the colour of the bus stops in Dorset, nor about the street names in Aberdeen. I might have a vote for the world forestry commission, etc.In Socialist as a Practical Alternative, we cite the Food and Agriculture Organisation as a potential precursor to a world agricultural plan, but I doubt the decision of what to do with that field just off Thames Road should be used for would be taken at their head office, though their advisors might visit the local authority, and advise them in the light of expertise and co-ordinating with the world food plan…. etc. There would be many, varied and overlapping authorities involved in many decisions, not a single vote, and some decisions even might be made by consensus.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I really thought we were reaching an agreement, even if there might have been a difference of emphasis…more fool me.And by no means am i apportioning blame on a particular person. It just depresses me that this discussion and debate isn't being fruitful. It's leading no-where. Cue for Song :-, Why not expand on that Instead of simply implying. Of course you are referring to me. And frankly I am sick and tired of your attacks on my intentions and integrityThere is no debate. Lbird makes the same accusations over and over again. You have admitted that you do not understand the debate. LBird's arguments are debunked over and over again by members on this forum who do understand the debate and his response is to insult members and move threads where he again sets up his strawmen and abuses and attacks members'eliist SPGB''Religious materialsct''Leninists''stalinist''Only me, LBird understands. You are all imbeciles''thick head''read some books''anti working class''SPGB doesn't believe in social production''your too stupid'He depends on his strawdogs and abuse but refuses to answer simple question that are put to him. I have shown that LBird does not know what socialism/communism is. If you prefer to support this opponent of the SPGB, feel free. When you were mod he was free to spout his anti SPGB rubbish while I was not allowed to reply. Perhaps you prefer that situation? Perhap develop the debate?I will take him serious when he answers the straight forward questions that we have put to him.
Young Master Smeet wrote:The substantive point is, there won't be one way of making decisions, but thousands, where useful, algorithmic decision making can be applied, sometimes, raw voting, sometimes weighted scoring by technical experts, each organisation, community and region will be different: single non-transferable voting, single transferable voting, condorcet pairwise voting, condorcet pairwise voting with AV track back, block vote, limited vote, d'Hondt, droop. I won't be voting on the colour of the bus stops in Dorset, nor about the street names in Aberdeen. I might have a vote for the world forestry commission, etc.So, you've listed at least a dozen 'ways' – so, who (or what) determines which 'way' applies to any given political situation?You won't answer this political question, YMS.
YMS wrote:In Socialist as a Practical Alternative, we cite the Food and Agriculture Organisation as a potential precursor to a world agricultural plan, but I doubt the decision of what to do with that field just off Thames Road should be used for would be taken at their head office, though their advisors might visit the local authority, and advise them in the light of expertise and co-ordinating with the world food plan…. etc. There would be many, varied and overlapping authorities involved in many decisions, not a single vote, and some decisions even might be made by consensus.[my bold]This is your 'substantive point', YMS. It's a political argument for the liberal theory of the diffusion of 'powers', similar to legislature, executive, judiciary, etc.On the contrary, my 'substantive point' is that there will be a single world authority, which will have any necessary final say regarding any 'many, varied and overlapping [lower level] authorities'.This 'single world authority' is embodied in the political slogan 'World Socialism'.This 'World Socialism' will be built to the needs, interests and purposes of the revolutionary, class conscious, democratic proletariat.This is the key political difference between us, YMS. You are not a supporter of 'World Socialism', but, at best, of 'World Socialisms'. From my Democratic Communist perspective, you might as well be talking about 'National Socialisms', a particularistic, divided, unco-ordinated, even anarchistic, politics.And behind all this, is your individualism, and 'fear of the mob' of "workers' democratic power".
Ouch….touchy…Stop being so paranoid…If i was pointing the finger, it would be at the lot of you.I've said it repeatedly, no one is coming out of these exchanges with any credit and it's no longer constructive. It's trench warfare and you all keep digging yourself deeper. As for "debate", it has been going on for three fucking years…and only once or twice in that eternity has there been anything near a convergence of views. You can't even agree to disagree because you refuse to acknowledge what each-other are saying.For all the claims and counter-claims, i'm not sure anybody actually comprehends the others' position. Words don't seem to have any meaning for any of you.Democracy will be whatever it will be when it begins to be put into practice and it will express itself in a variety of manifestations of what is fit for purpose. Who knows how the will of people ends up being conducted and applied. It cannot be one size fits all.Nor will it be politics. Politics ends when capitalism ends. YMS reflects my own view. Socialism will be pluralist and we will all be wearing different hats at different times. We possess the technological means to achieve this. And yes, a billion, 10 billion, can all vote on issues they consider of importance. And i'm not going to decide what they might consider of import or not. And just as a billion can vote, a billion can choose not to if they are not affected by the outcome of any decision.My position is simple…people in socialism will decide for themselves in whatever way they wish and the SPGB won't be around to give or hold back its stamp of approval.The SPGB will be transformed long before socialism is achieved as we turn our rulebook and procedures into something appropriate for a mass class-wide socialist party when the political fuses with the economic. And when socialism is established and the threat of a recalcitrant capitalist reaction disappears, the working class disappears and so does the SPGB or whatever it has evolved into. People – or as Marx keeps reminding us- individuals become a free association, not a class.
LBird wrote:This 'single world authority' is embodied in the political slogan 'World Socialism'.This 'World Socialism' will be built to the needs, interests and purposes of the revolutionary, class conscious, democratic proletariat.Democratically organised proletariat? Will this class continue into communism or will it not exist in communism? Just to clarify.By the way how would you define proletariat? What do you mean by the term?
alanjjohnstone wrote:Nor will it be politics. Politics ends when capitalism ends. YMS reflects my own view.This is the nub of the issue, alan.For 'individualists' like YMS (and, apparently, you, too) 'society' and its nasty manifestation of 'politics' which interferes with 'individual freedom' will disappear with the end of capitalism.This ideological belief is nothing to do with Marx's 'social productionism', which recognises 'society' as the fundamental category of 'production'. Different societies, throughout history, have produced different 'individuals' (the term itself is a social product, and would not be recognised by other societies prior to capitalism).Of course, 'politics' won't 'end when capitalism ends'. Politics has always existed, and will always exist, because power is a social phenomenon, and we have to learn to deal with social power.Otherwise, why would Marx be so focussed upon 'democracy' within the workers' movement?This openness of yours – that you believe in 'the end of politics' – throws much light on just why the SPGB can't deal with political questions in the present. You have an ideolological belief in something other than 'politics' and humans – and I already know that this belief is in 'Matter', an ahistorical, asocial, non-political 'Truth'.I've recently said that I find the SPGB's attitude to 'power' to be strange for a political party – but perhaps the reason is emerging more clearly, now.
LBird wrote:This is your 'substantive point', YMS. It's a political argument for the liberal theory of the diffusion of 'powers', similar to legislature, executive, judiciary, etc.Nothing of the sort, it is based on freedom of association, not separation of power The model is more cybernetic, thn liberal, with autonomous associations for specific functions forming vertical and horizontal connections, in particular circumstances.
LBird wrote:On the contrary, my 'substantive point' is that there will be a single world authority, which will have any necessary final say regarding any 'many, varied and overlapping [lower level] authorities'.I agree, there would have to be a single world authority, but the idea that it would have a direct line of command/control to Droitwich Rugby Club is absurd.Moreover, there is no necessary reason why that singular entity should always have the final say, it would be rational to have a world emergencies committee which might temporarilly supercede teh wrold authority, or there might be competing world authorities working in parrallel, for example a forld forestry commission, and a world agriculture administration, and no regular way to impose on either of them (except maybe through some sort of general, and rare, global plebiscite).Many authorities would have a competence competence, and many wouldn't, and would be subject to the competence of a higher body, the main point would be information and discussion first.
LBird wrote:I've recently said that I find the SPGB's attitude to 'power' to be strange for a political party – but perhaps the reason is emerging more clearly, now.We're just slavishly following Marx:
Quote: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.Electing the milkboard would be non-political, since there would be no class contest, and the question of 'who rules?' would be settled.
As usual, YMS, you're contradicting yourself, because you haven't thought through the politics of it.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I agree, there would have to be a single world authority… Moreover, there is no necessary reason why that singular entity should always have the final say…Either there's a 'single authority' which does 'always have the final say'……or there's a diffusion of 'authority' which competes for political power, when one or another 'temporarily supercedes the world authority'.Just who makes this political decision to 'supercede' World Socialism, you never tell us. A 'Specialist' in 'politics', perhaps?It's a recipe for political confusion, and a denial of the democratic authority of the social producers. But then, you don't recognise the legitimacy of 'democratic authority', do you?
The default is a single authority at any given time for any given topic, the membership of which might overlap, just as say, under the old English council system it was one council but with many sub-committees having the real say, or like the Paris Commune which worked in much the same way.
It is very difficult to discuss communism with someone who has yet to comprehend the implications of a classless society. I have asked a simple question 'Will the proletariat exist in democratic communism'. It is easily answered. 'yes' or 'no' without reference to'Religious materialist''elitist''idiot''you don't understand''your not a democrat''You will not discuss democratic control' etc Simple. Will the 'proletariat' exist in democratic communism?
LBird you say
Quote:Of course, 'politics' won't 'end when capitalism ends'. Politics has always existed, and will always exist, because power is a social phenomenon, and we have to learn to deal with social power.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm
Quote: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….the proletariat still acts, during the period of struggle for the overthrow of the old society, on the basis of that old society, and hence also still moves within political forms which more or less belong to it, it has not yet, during this period of struggle, attained its final constitution, and employs means for its liberation which after this liberation fall aside.Isn't Marx saying here that this is the end of politics?I didn't say there would be an end to disagreements and an end of arguments. And no doubt proponents of a position will come together in organisations, as will their adversaries and they'll reason it all out among themselves. These disputes will have to be resolved in a process acceptable to all. As there is no political parties and no classes in conflict for domination of society, i don't consider this to be politics.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.