Good article by the SPGB 1973 Brendan Mee

[moderator1]

Reminder:  Rule 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 So, your concerns are the 'limits' of, and 'counterbalances' for, democracy?It certainly is an important subject that deserves further discussion – and it would help if those who are to discuss it were actually in favour of democracy (never mind workers' democracy, the concern of socialists).That doesn't appear to be the SPGB, though, does it?I think that those with robbo's concerns, need only read the texts produced by bourgeois academics over the last three centuries, to ascertain some useful advice on 'limits and counterbalances' regarding democracy.This certainly is a 'surreal debate'.

 Yes of course there are limits to democratic decisionmaking.  For example, it is totally impractical to imagine that 7 billion people can vote on the "truth" of multiple thousands of scientific theories.  It is totally impractical and undesirable that "society" should democratically determine where we live, what work we should do, what clothes we should wear, what our tastes in music or food should be .  And so on and so forth. Whether or not some bourgeois academics agree with us democratic communists on the impracticality of these things is neither here nor there.  It does not make them any the less impractical – or undesirable. Freedom matters as much as democracy – in fact,one without the other will destroy both  – and though a leninist like LBird might sneer at the idea of freedom as "bourgeois" he would find his totalitarian centralist ideas strongly opposed by Marx.  Thus  :  "We are not among those communists who are out to destroy personal liberty, who wish to turn the world into one huge barrack or into a gigantic workhouse. There certainly are some communists who, with an easy conscience, refuse to countenance personal liberty and would like to shuffle it out of the world because they consider that it is a hindrance to complete harmony. But we have no desire to exchange freedom for equality. We are convinced that in no social order will freedom be assured as in a society based upon communal ownership.” (Marx, Engels, et al., Communist League, 1847).Finally yes  of course the SPGB clearly does favour democracy.  This is inscribed in its very object " The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community" That is an example of where democratic decisionmaking is both practical and desirable

[LBird]

moderator1 wrote:

Just out of interest this article might help to settle the democratic issues being deliberated here:  http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1986/no-987-november-1986/socialism-and-democracy

I just had a quick read of that article, mod1, and it seems to fit perfectly well with the points that I've been arguing (I could give some quotes, to illustrate this, if anyone is interested).Further, this article is from 1986, so it proves that the SPGB was still arguing for the democratic control of production by workers after 1973, the date of the SPGB article that I posted to form a basis for discussion on this thread.I'd be interested if you or any other member could find a matching article in the 1990s (or even 2000s), because we might be able to identify approximately when the SPGB stopped making these Marxist and democratic arguments, and moved to the (seemingly) present position, which is far closer to Lenin's views about 'matter', 'specialists', and 'problems' with democracy, to the exclusion of any mention of class consciousness or the proletariat, or the process of self-development of our class.

[Anonymous]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

As a strange hush decends on the city of Liverpool, the squawking of the L Bird is eerily absent, the only sound is the rythmic flapping of a crude, childish, ill educated magpie, which swoops to perch an the head of the world famous Liver Bird. The Liver Bird sits quietly as the crude, childish, ill educated magpie asks the Liver Bird a straight question, not once, not twice, but three times. After waiting patiently the chubby (but strangely good-looking) magpie gives up, defacates on the head of the Liver Bird and then flies back to his own "neck of the woods"

Thank you comrade. Pure poetry and it brightened up my day but I have to say magpies are usually found in pairs around my neck of the woods.   

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

.I'd be interested if you or any other member could find a matching article in the 1990s (or even 2000s), because we might be able to identify approximately when the SPGB stopped making these Marxist and democratic arguments, and moved to the (seemingly) present position, which is far closer to Lenin's views about 'matter', 'specialists', and 'problems' with democracy, to the exclusion of any mention of class consciousness or the proletariat, or the process of self-development of our class.

 LBird you are becoming a complete  bore now with this persistent, obsessive , deceitful and thoroughly evasive  mantra of yours. There is absolutely no evidence you can cite that anyone on this forum subscribes to this peculair definition of "materialism" you allude to – namely mechanical materialism –  which you atrribute to Lenin.  No one here that I know of subscribes to the fact-value distinction that is central to a positivisitic model of sceince.  If you have evdience to the contrary lets hear it.  Saying that matter exists is NOT tantamount to saying that " the rocks speaks to us" to use your choiuce phrase – a point you persistently fail to see As for your gibberish about "specialists" and the "problems with democracy" it is noteworthy  that you have singularly failed to address any of the questions that have been asked  of you:   On what grounds do you believe that socialist society – or any kind of modern advanced society  for that matter – can dispense with any kind of specialisation? On what grounds do you believe that it is remotely practical or even necessary  for billions of people to vote on tens of thousands of sceitnfic theories to determine their truth value in a socialist society? Until you begin to seriously attmept an answer to these and other questions or modify your you stance, you will continue to have absolutely zero creidbility on this forum

[ALB]

Robbo, now he's added insincerity as well as dishonesty to his repertoire as well as scoring a spectacular own goal. He should check who wrote that book review Mod 1 mentioned:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1986/no-987-november-1986/socialism-and-democracyFor the record, both the author and the reviewer of the book are still members of the Socialist Party and will still hold the same view, including the anti-Leninism.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1986/no-987-november-1986/socialism-and-democracyFor the record, both the author and the reviewer of the book are still members of the Socialist Party and will still hold the same view, including the anti-Leninism.

This is great news, ALB!If they are available, could you persuade the author and the reviewer to participate in this discussion?Since they wrote those words, I could quote their own words to them as an illustration of what Democratic Communists and Marxists argue, and ask them whether they still agree, or whether since that book and article were written, they've changed their minds, and now argue anti-democratic and anti-worker views, and support 'specialist power' and 'elite decision-making'.Of course, I'll argue to them that only the collective producers can determine their product, and all decision-making by the class conscious workers must be democratic. If they still stand by their book/article, I'm sure that they'll agree with me.If not, we can tease out the differences between what would have to be their now anti-worker and anti-democratic position, with what they wrote then, and try to clarify what's changed, both in their own views and in the wider SPGB, regarding workers' power, self-development of our class, and the need for democracy in all social production within a future socialist society.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1986/no-987-november-1986/socialism-and-democracyFor the record, both the author and the reviewer of the book are still members of the Socialist Party and will still hold the same view, including the anti-Leninism.

This is great news, ALB!If they are available, could you persuade the author and the reviewer to participate in this discussion?Since they wrote those words, I could quote their own words to them as an illustration of what Democratic Communists and Marxists argue, and ask them whether they still agree, or whether since that book and article were written, they've changed their minds, and now argue anti-democratic and anti-worker views, and support 'specialist power' and 'elite decision-making'.Of course, I'll argue to them that only the collective producers can determine their product, and all decision-making by the class conscious workers must be democratic. If they still stand by their book/article, I'm sure that they'll agree with me.If not, we can tease out the differences between what would have to be their now anti-worker and anti-democratic position, with what they wrote then, and try to clarify what's changed, both in their own views and in the wider SPGB, regarding workers' power, self-development of our class, and the need for democracy in all social production within a future socialist society.

What would be the point of that when you demonstrably refuse to answer straight questions?

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1986/no-987-november-1986/socialism-and-democracyFor the record, both the author and the reviewer of the book are still members of the Socialist Party and will still hold the same view, including the anti-Leninism.

This is great news, ALB!If they are available, could you persuade the author and the reviewer to participate in this discussion? 

For your information the reviewer of the book has been participating in this and the other discussions on the very same subject, since the beginning. Which is one of the reasons why I mentioned it. Nevertheless, you have refused to respond to any of his queries and challenges.By the way has it ever crossed your mind that the ultimate test on whether or not we are Leninsts is that I have the power to close/lock all the threads you have started, and I'm a well known generalist?  Yet I have not taken such action.  Why not, you may ask when it is so obvious you are intentionally seeking disagreement with us?The answer is that the SPGB has a tradition that our platform is open to all comers, whether or not they agree or disagree with us.  That said, the ultimate democratic test on whether or not your aguments stand up to assessment and examination will be when nobody responds to your posts.  Which effectively means like all workers from time to time we put on our clogs and vote with our feet!

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

 and support 'specialist power' and 'elite decision-making'.

Who has said this? Apart from yourself?

[LBird]

moderator1 wrote:

For your information the reviewer of the book has been participating in this and the other discussions on the very same subject, since the beginning. Which is one of the reasons why I mentioned it.

You don't say!I'd never have thought of that! Wow!You've got me there, mod1!Boy, are you boys bright! Tricky little Dickie! Sneaky little Beaky!But, to treat you like adults, it's apparent my strategem has failed, because the reviewer hasn't said why they argued one politics then, but another politics now, and allowed me to quote themselves in their previous political life, to themselves now.Still, whilst you are so childishly amused with yourself, the politics of the SPGB go unexamined by the membership, never mind any interested workers.Clogs on minds, rather than feet, I fear.Clip clop, mod1. Clip clop.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

 and support 'specialist power' and 'elite decision-making'.

Who has said this? Apart from yourself?

Those who argue that the producers can't vote on the issue of 'the existence of matter', which includes you Vin, must argue that this issue is then determined by 'elite specialists' with their own 'decision-making power'.So, amongst others, you've said this, Vin.

[Bijou Drains]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

 and support 'specialist power' and 'elite decision-making'.

Who has said this? Apart from yourself?

Did you not know Vin, we demonstrate this by the way we democratically elect fellow socialists into "specialist Power" and then give them "elite power making decisions".I'll give you an example of this, we elected the "Specialist" premises committee into "elite power" and then rather than democratically overseeing their every decision, we trusted them to get on with the job. In such a situation the "elitist, Leninist vanguardist premises committee" took their specialist elitism to the point of ordering a different type of soap for the toilets (Netties to you and me Marra). They took this decision without putting this to the wider party, by means of a party poll (a vanguardist move if every I saw one).What should have happened, if we were to bow down to the superior logic of our glorious leader Kim Jung Bird, is that we should have organised a party poll, with supportive statements for all of the possibilities, Lifeguard, Lux, Dove or my own preferred opition anti-imperialist Leather. Following the vote we would have come together and realised that the democratic will of the glorious leader (Kim Jung Bird) was correct after all and all agreed that the vote meant that reality had changed and that we all now follow the party line with regards to soap in the toilets.You may argue that this would be an extraordinary waste of time and resources, you may also argue that you don't give a flying fuck about which soap is in the toilets ('cos you don't wash your hands anyway you dirty mackem so and so), however to do so would be to expose the fact that you are a crude materialist and that you like talking to rocks.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

 Those who argue that the producers can't vote on the issue of 'the existence of matter', which includes you Vin, must argue that this issue is then determined by 'elite specialists' with their own 'decision-making power'.

That doesn't follow.  they could argue that the magic fire dragon makes the world: they could argue that there is no reality and each lives in a world of their own: they could argue that we are in a virtual environment, simulating existence and reality is determined by the programmers: they could argue that reality is unknowable: they could argue that reality is an ideal unfurling in the mind of god and each can know reality through faith alone: they could argue each person has access to direct experience of the world, but we live as we dream, alone: they could argue only non-producers can vote on reality: they could argue the vote has already been taken and can't be re-run.Sloppy argumentation.

[Bijou Drains]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

 Those who argue that the producers can't vote on the issue of 'the existence of matter', which includes you Vin, must argue that this issue is then determined by 'elite specialists' with their own 'decision-making power'.

That doesn't follow.  they could argue that the magic fire dragon makes the world: they could argue that there is no reality and each lives in a world of their own: they could argue that we are in a virtual environment, simulating existence and reality is determined by the programmers: they could argue that reality is unknowable: they could argue that reality is an ideal unfurling in the mind of god and each can know reality through faith alone: they could argue each person has access to direct experience of the world, but we live as we dream, alone: they could argue only non-producers can vote on reality: they could argue the vote has already been taken and can't be re-run.Sloppy argumentation.

They could also argue that the existance of matter should be decided by an interpretation of the entrails of a goaat cast down on a stone plinth.

[Author]

Posts