Marx and Lenin’s views contrasted
- This topic has 138 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
robbo, I’ve genuinely answered all the questions in your post, previously. You’re just ignoring what I say, so there doesn’t seem much point giving the same answers again.
No LBird there are loads of questions I asked which you haven’t answered at all
For example I asked you to give me a direct quote from Marx – since you are such a fan of him – to support your claim that he endorsed the idea of democratically controlling the process of scientific theorising. You declined to give an an answer
I asked you whether you endorsed the idea that local communities ought to be able to take decisions that affected them alone to the exclusion of other local communities since this directly calls into question your suggestion that the whole of society – meaning global society – should be involved in all decision making. Again you declined to give an answer
If you are able to provide a straight answer to even just these two questions (and there are more besides which you haven’t answered) we would be making progress
The difference between us seems to be a political one – I’m a democrat, who regards society as the active subject; you regard individuals as the active subject, and so you reject democratic controls.
That’s simply not true LBird and you know of it. I’ve made it clear many times that I fully support the idea of democratic controls being applied at different spatial levels of organisation in a socialist society – local , regional and global. And I fully support the democratic capture of political power by a socialist minded working class in order to get rid of capitalism and dismantle the state.
I just dont support the daft idea of applying democratic controls to the process of scientific theorising. Its pointless and totally impractical anyway
“I asked you whether you endorsed the idea that local communities ought to be able to take decisions that affected them alone to the exclusion of other local communities since this directly calls into question your suggestion that the whole of society – meaning global society – should be involved in all decision making.”
This is a question for all of us.
What extent should local democracy have over issues that have wider implications?
I’m referring to any veto that can be exercised by NIMBYism.
Also the issue raised by the so-called “national” (racist) anarchists who call for autonomous ethnic homogenous communities.
We take for granted that decisions that impact only locally are made locally but often the delineation can often be blurred. Once again it is a debate about the rights and welfare of minority against the will and well-being of the majority.
I’m confident that by the time we have set up a socialist society many of the problems of administration will be resolved but it would be Utopian not to expect any conflict in the practice of democratic decision-making.
Robbo,
I think we actually know very well what Charlie meant:
“All combined labour on a large scale requires, more or less, a directing authority, in order to secure the harmonious working of the individual activities, and to perform the general functions that have their origin in the action of the combined organism, as distinguished from the action of its separate organs. A single violin player is his own conductor; an orchestra requires a separate one.
“All labour in which many individuals co-operate necessarily requires a commanding will to co-ordinate and unify the process, and functions which apply not to partial operations but to the total activity of the workshop, much as that of an orchestra conductor. This is a productive job, which must be performed in every combined mode of production.”
So, specialised direction is a productive social function, and there will be individual activities within a collective process.
As an historical footnote to YMS, the supervisor has not necessarily been rewarded better.
On the large Roman estates that were worked by gangs of agricultural slaves under the lash of slave supervision, the means of subsistence were distributed appropriately to a slave mode of production — see Capital I, where Marx quotes Mommsen:
- Hence the Roman villicus, as overseer of the agricultural slaves, received “more meagre fare than working slaves, because his work was lighter.”
MS wrote: “I do not think that he said what you are saying. The SPGB/WSM has always supported the democratic possession of the means of production by the vast majority of the working class, if that is not a democracy, what can we call it?”
But I entirely agree with this political statement, MS.
But, given the arguments made here by the SPGB members and supporters, why don’t they class ‘physics’, for example (we could also ask about ‘maths’ or ‘chemistry’) as a part of ‘the means of production’?
It seems, as I’ve said before, that the SPGB thinks ‘democratic socialism’ will be the democratic producers (your ‘working class’) controlling ‘widget production in factories’, but not ‘ideas production in universities’.
Thus, the SPGB separates what Marx unites – ‘theory and practice’, ‘thinking and doing’. ‘Social production’ requires ideas and actions, it is conscious activity.
So, MS, I can support your politics, but the SPGB can’t.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “What extent should local democracy have over issues that have wider implications?”
That’s the key political point, alan.
There has to be a higher political authority than the ‘local’, to determine ‘extent’.
Within democratic socialism, I would call this higher political authority ‘democratic humanity’. It would be the highest court of humanity.
Any other ‘final court’, or ‘ultimate authority’, whether individual, elite or divine, would not be ‘democratic’.
What extent should local democracy have over issues that have wider implications?
I’m referring to any veto that can be exercised by NIMBYism.
Alan
A good point – although NIMBYism can apply at different scales of organisation. It depends very much on the nature of the decision to be made.
The construction of a hydroelectric project, for example, could have regional implications and involve multiple communities. The siting of such a project would be constrained by geological and topographical considerations and in a sense the appropriate decision might already be “objectively” apparent. But then again the local community most directly affected might very well object on all sorts of grounds, What to do about that, given the nature of a socialist society itself?
I think this example neatly illustrates the point that there will likely be a much stronger tendency towards consensual democratic decision-making in socialism than is the case today. This might involve a certain amount of horse trading and bringing into play the concept of “compensation”. So the local community might need to be compensated in some way for the loss of amenities and the destruction of habitat. This may be a necessary step to take in order to bring this local community on board.
I have long felt that this concept of “compensation” could play an important role in socialism – and in particular with respect to the rationing of those goods that might be scarce in relation to the demand for them. These goods would likely be located at the luxury end of the production spectrum since the tendency in socialism would surely be to allocate resources in a way that prioritises basic needs. So goods that satisfy basic needs will be made available on a free access basis while luxury goods would tend to be subject to rationing, The dividing line between what are rationed and non rationed (free access) goods will be dependent on many factors, social and technological
But how does one go about rationing? Here I think the concept of compensation can play a role with the quality of housing stock being the key variable
A socialist society will inherent huge disparities in the quality of housing stock which wont be swiftly overcome overnight. This could very well create social tensions and so a rationing system based on a rough grading of housing stock, by acknowledging these disparities , could help to diffuse such tensions with priority access being given to residents of poor quality housing. We already have such a grading system more or less in place in the UK inasmuch as houses fall under (6?) different bands for the purpose of local taxation .
But to go back to our hypothetical example of a hydroelectric scheme and the likely tendency in socialism towards consensual decision-making as opposed to the adversarial model of majorities overruling minorities to the chagrin of the latter – this will also probably influence the nature and direction of technological development itself in socialism, There has been a lot of debate about the pros and cons of mega projects like big dams with many critics arguing instead for a series of much smaller dams
The Three Gorges Dam Project in China is an example of such a mega project. Critics have pointed to the massive social an environmental costs it has entailed
I seriously doubt it would ever be possible to construct a project on this scale in a socialist society given its controversial nature. In capitalism it is money that speaks and those who are financially and politically empowered will get their way. In socialism, however it will only be flesh and blood human beings that will speak and collectively determine what happens.
This will inevitably require a much greater effort on the part of everyone to accommodate and overcome the divergent and even conflicting views within the population with significant implications for the nature of democracy, technology and economic development in a socialist society.
LBird,
I think what you’re finding is we do support the democraticisation of Maths, Physics, etc. but that many here we would vote against mandating any official “truth” save, maybe, the sort of vote the Astronomical Union held to remove planet status from Pluto.
That is, we’d mandate a diversity of views so as to better explore the possibilities we might find. The order to soldiers to “Fire at will (poor Will)” is still an order.
So, it’s up to you, now, to demonstrate why that cannot work and be compatible with democracy, and why your version of democracy (how do you define democracy?) is the only necessary model.
That is, we’d mandate a diversity of views so as to better explore the possibilities we might find. The order to soldiers to “Fire at will (poor Will)” is still an order.
Well said YMS!
Just a note on cognitive approaches in Social Science. Yes, LBird, humans do socially construct their societal/social formations… it is a branch of discursive psych/ and Soc. Sc… Social constructionism/constructivism states we think/cognise in diachronic or language which Lacan centred as the state of consciousness/unconsciousness.
So yes social productions are constructed by the mind/psycho-social and impact our concept of material in some ways, they are social constructs. The problem today, is that access to scientific discourse is hierarchical- in forms of who can say/ not say a scientific remark, which mainstream version is included/excluded from a act of speaking a remark in science… and yes it is still required to limit, close off and what can qualify as a remark having a scientific basis.
Giving knowledge of science to a vote, (and may the best remark trump) is harmful to the variation of postulations. Psychology and soc. sc. has many schools of thought and compliment often, and at times oppose. But it is through this that they do not remain static, but evolve. Hope your notion is not one that would have an apex, one solution only response- science should be accessible to all but should not be subject to a socially constructed ‘singular’ narrative.
And may YMS conclude my remark with a re-articulation of :
I think what you’re finding is we do support the democraticisation of Maths, Physics, etc. but that many here we would vote against mandating any official “truth” save, maybe, the sort of vote the Astronomical Union held to remove planet status from Pluto.
Never liked Pluto- more like a rock that can’t even repel smaller rocks out of its way- now that is based on democratic sentiment for my view of Pluto. Good job I did not attempt to pass this off as a scientific postulation in astro-physics.
We need to democratize science yes, but we need the technical knowledge to shape it, a learnt remark.
YMS wrote: “That is, we’d mandate a diversity of views…“.
I entirely agree with you, YMS, as I said earlier.
‘We’ being ‘democratic humanity’, of course, not an elite.
L.B. Neill wrote: “I think what you’re finding is we do support the democraticisation of Maths, Physics, etc.”
Yes, I really am beginning to think that there’s been a sea-change in political thinking on the part of some posters here.
It remains to be seen, however, just how widespread this conversion is. I’ll be very happy if the SPGB put out an ‘official’ statement about this. After due democratic consideration, of course!
Correction
“I think what you’re finding is we do support the democraticisation of Maths, Physics, etc.”
The above is not authored by me, but quoted by me, it is from the fine pen hand/keyboard of YMS. Observation is fundamental to all sciences… LBird, I agree with some of your points on human cognitions, some merit to it- in my technical community. But democracy in science still requires learning the concepts of a scientific framework.
My apologies to YMS for creating a little confusion about authorship!
LBird, I see democracy in science as making its study accessible to all who wish to do it, not sure it be based on uninformed opinion- after all Pluto is still a contention… sentimental voting on it won’t make its mass or density increase.
Giving knowledge of science to a vote, (and may the best remark trump) is harmful to the variation of postulations. Psychology and soc. sc. has many schools of thought and compliment often, and at times oppose.
Yes L B Neill,
The fact that knowledge is a social construction does NOT to mean it ought to be subject a democratic vote. An absurd idea anyway since it is totally impractical and more akin to a religious dogmatic approach to the “Truth”
“YMS wrote: “That is, we’d mandate a diversity of views…“.
I entirely agree with you, YMS, as I said earlier.”
I don’t see how you can agree with me, I was saying we’d give a free hand and a positive instruction to have differing opinions, you’ve said that we’ll “democratically” mandate theories and what they will be. So maybe one or other of us is misunderstanding the other.
The fact that knowledge is a social construction does NOT to mean it ought to be subject a democratic vote. An absurd idea anyway since it is totally impractical and more akin to a religious dogmatic approach to the “Truth”
He has been told this innumerable times.That socialism will be an advanced , democratic, post-capitalist society, run by us all, locally, regionally, globally, in administration over resources and not a government over people.
Where we delegate specialisms, scientific, technical, or other responsibilities within particlar bodies they will be subject to instant recall, they will not govern and in any case the people who make the revolution will set the modus operandi.
Where we delegate specialisms, scientific, technical, or other responsibilities within particlar bodies they will be subject to instant recall, they will not govern and in any case the people who make the revolution will set the modus operandi.
Matthew,
And that encourages me. I have always countered the arguments from opponents of socialism who think Socialism will lead to non learned scientific remarks and participation in it without technical knowledge. ‘instant recall’ by specialist bodies is so crucial. Putting science to the vote by polling on opinion rather than specialization just propagates the ideological misinformation of capitalism.
Your statement sums it nicely for me.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.