On Marx's Definition of Economics.
- This topic has 88 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I don’t regard ‘democratic’ as meaning ‘centralised’.
To me, a democratic communist, if ‘produced overall’ and ‘society wide planning’ are democratic, then they are not ‘centralised’.Sorry but this makes no sense. Society wide planning is by definition centralised. It means the elimination of polycentric planning and its replacement by unicentric planning in which society “as a whole” gets to plan production “as a whole”. That means a single planning body and a single plan issuing from this body to determine the overall shape or pattern of production. Of course, the idea is an abstraction or ideal type which is never going to be realised for practical reasons but that is besides the point. This discussion is about what constitutes society wide planning. You cant have “society wide planning” and also have, for example, numerous planning bodies each formulating their own plans, such as local communities. Because in this case it is not “society” that is doing the planning by which I take to mean global socialist society but rather the various local communities referred to. Meaning it is a polycentric model of planning with a plurality of plans that spontaneously interact and mesh with each other in much the same way that a market economy operates except that in socialism there will be no market whatsoever.
You are, in effect, defining any ‘democratic’ decision that clashes with, and overrides, an individual’s opinion, as ‘centralised’ and ‘single’.
No absolutely not, LBird. That is not what I am saying at all. I am referring quite specifically to the ideal type that is called “society wide planning”. I am definitely not referring to a polycentric model of planning which I and indeed the SPGB supports. (See our pamphlet, Socialism as a practical alternative). Of course there will be occasions when democratic decisions will (quite rightly) override the views of individuals. The decision will be centralised only in relation to the body making the decision itself which may very well just be the local community but this is nothing to do with the concept of society wide planning as defined above. Moreover a lot of decisions dont need to be subjected to democratic decision-making at all – you wouldn’t want “society” or even your local community to vote on what you should eat for breakfast or what clothes you should wear today, would you? The need for democracy arises only in the context of joint decision-making where these is a potential conflict of opinion or interest involved
We’re just going to have to agree to disagree, robbo.
You define ‘wide’ as ‘central’, whereas I define ‘wide’ as ‘democratic’.
So, to me, ‘wider’ involvement means greater democratic participation, whereas, to you, ‘wider’ means less democratic participation.
Though I might be wrong, I suspect your usage follows from your equation of ‘democracy’ with ‘more individual control’, whereas I equate ‘democracy’ with ‘more social control’. Once again, I think that this is about ‘definitions’.
I define ‘democracy’ as ‘people power’ (demos, kratos), (what the bourgeoisie call ‘mob rule’), whereas I think you define ‘democracy’ as ‘individual freedom’ (which I regard as a liberal, not a communist, definition).
So, to be frank, I want to see ‘mob rule’, and I define ‘democratic socialism’ as ‘mob rule’ (in the terms of bourgeois individualism).
Ochlocracy, to keep the Greek ruling class theme going.
You define ‘wide’ as ‘central’, whereas I define ‘wide’ as ‘democratic’.
I dont follow your reasoning at all, LBird
I have given you a clear definition of what I mean by society wide planning. I am talking about a very particular concept where society as a whole or its representatives determines the total pattern of output via a single gigantic plan covering all the inputs and outputs of the economy. This is what I am opposing not democratic planning per se. I am actually in favour of democratic planning but in the context of polycentric and largely decentralised model of planning.
To compound matters you earlier said “I don’t regard ‘democratic’ as meaning ‘centralised’”. Indeed – my very point! Society wide centralised planning in the above sense could not be democratic in the least let along practical
robbo203 wrote: “I am actually in favour of democratic planning…”
We seem to agree then, mate…
…but I can sense a ‘but’ coming…
robbo203 wrote: “…but in the context of polycentric and largely decentralised model of planning”
So, ‘who’ (ie. which political authority) determines and ‘how’ (ie. which political method) is it determined – the ‘polycentric’ powers (as opposed to legitimate authority), the ‘largely’ (as opposed to those few not), the ‘decentralised’ (as opposed to any ‘centralised’), the ‘models’ (as opposed to forbidden ‘models’, like those of, for example, ‘eugenics’), and ‘planning’ (as opposed to simple, spontaneous, individual choices)?
I’d give the political answer that ‘humanity’ is the ‘who’, and that ‘democracy’ is the ‘how’. That’s what I mean by ‘democratic communism’ – the democratic control of social production. Furthermore, I’d argue within any workers’ councils (should we ever see them!), that anyone who introduces a ‘but’ into ‘democratic planning’ has a concealed political agenda (whether they themselves are aware of that or not). I’d argue that unless this political agenda is unveiled and discussed openly in the present, that it will come back to haunt us in the future, because it is a question of political power and authority, which all societies have to determine the basis of, for that society.
The ‘political authority’ is the ‘social producers’, and the ‘political method’ is ‘democracy’.
You might disagree with me, robbo, but you should give a political answer to this political question.
On a philosophical level, the ‘social producers’ are the ‘subject’, that creates its ‘object’. And this act of ‘creation’, by the active, conscious, subject, is ‘labour’. This is Marx’s view, and mine, too. That’s why we humans can change our reality. We create ‘reality-for-us’.
I’d argue within any workers’ councils (should we ever see them!) – L Bird
You argue for world wide democracy, however you seem to be implying by the use of the terms workers’ councils that only workers would be involved in decision making, i.e. non workers would be excluded. Non workers could include students, the retired, the infirm or indeed the work shy(I’ll declare an interest here, as I have always been a bit of a lazy bastard). Apart from the obvious question of the utility of the term worker in a classless society, are you also arguing for democracy along the lines of the De Leonist model of decision making in workshop groupings?
It may be that you are using the terms in another way, but some clarification would be helpful.
I’d give the political answer that ‘humanity’ is the ‘who’, and that ‘democracy’ is the ‘how’.
So just to be clear here LBird – are you saying that humanity in its entirety should democratically determine the entire output of global production – that is, all the inputs and outputs that make up the global system of production within a single giant global plan?
If this is not what you mean by democratic control of production could you please explain what you do mean? What will the structure of democratic decision-making look like? Will there be localised democratic decision-making for example?
Bijou, I’m a Marxist, and surely you know by now that by ‘workers’ a Marxist means an exploited class of proletarians. In our present capitalist society, this is the vast majority of humans on this planet.
You seem to be using the term ‘workers’ to mean ‘people who go to work’ as opposed to ‘people who don’t go to work’, the ’employed’ versus the ‘unemployed’ (or, ‘unemployable’). If you’ve been using this ideology to try to understand what I’ve been arguing, it’s not wonder that you’ve been misunderstanding my political arguments.
Perhaps it’s my fault for assuming that on a political site dedicated to democratic socialism, the other posters would be more familiar with Marx.
robbo203 wrote: “So just to be clear here LBird – are you saying that humanity in its entirety should democratically determine the entire output of global production…”
Well, since Marx argued that humanity creates its own ‘entire output of global production’, the most fundamental political question is ‘who should control that output?’.
It seems to me that Marx also argued for ‘democracy’ within our ‘social production’, and that particular political mode of social production would be called ‘communism’.
I openly state that I’m a Democratic Communist, influenced by Marx, so I have to admit that I think that ‘socialism’ means the ‘democratic control of social production’.
Of course, you might disagree with Marx (about his view that humans collectively create their world, and that this production should be democratic), and so you’d disagree with me, but if so, you’d have to explain, in your political view, ‘who’ would control ‘social production’, and ‘how’.
To put this in your terms, if humanity doesn’t democratically control the entirety of its production, who does? You must have in mind a subset of humanity (ie. some sort of an elite) and a political system which is thus not democratic (otherwise, your ‘elite’ could be outvoted).
You seem to be exasperated by my views, which I think are completely consistent with both ‘democratic communism’ and Marx’s political and philosophical views, but you never say what you think (in opposition to my constantly reiterated open clear view that the subject is ‘democratic humanity’), but merely appear incredulous that someone should argue for ‘democratic production’.
What’s more, in many ways, during our longstanding debates, you’ve seemed very close to many of the things that I’ve argued would be necessary for such a social system as ‘democratic socialism’, for example, a democratic education system. But when I point out that any power within socialism would be under the control of the associated producers, you seem to divide power into two. Again, for example, to me, democratic education would mean the election of ‘teachers’, so if the ‘students’ disagreed with their ‘teacher’, the ‘teacher’ would/could be removed. This political method would apply just as much to ‘science’ – if the ‘student’ majority disagree with the ‘physics’ being taught by the ‘physicist’, then the ‘physicist’ would/could be removed.
The only other political method would be to argue that something is outside of the productive control of the majority, and this something determines ‘Truth’, and that a special minority ‘know’ this ‘something’ (and the majority either can’t ‘know’ or are stupid enough to ignore this ‘Truth’), and so, in the final analysis, the majority simply can’t be allowed to take political control and enforce their democratic wishes within social production. ‘Something’ is ‘out there’ which isn’t ‘socially produced’, and the elite ‘know’ this ‘something’.
This belief in a non-socially-produced ‘something’ is not Marx’s view, and it isn’t mine. If it is yours, you should tell us what ‘it’ is.
L Bird- “You seem to be using the term ‘workers’ to mean ‘people who go to work’ as opposed to ‘people who don’t go to work’,”
No I’m not, I was just checking that you weren’t either, although by your definition, “by ‘workers’ a Marxist means an exploited class of proletarians” workers won’t exist in a socialist/communist society, unless you think that exploitation and class will continue in a socialist society.
I think the intent of Bijou, although I hesitate to speak for him but it offers me an opening to lay out my vision, is that the term working class, will no longer be an accurate one for socialism has become a class-free society.
Workers have become just people and the word has no other political or economic meaning.
Will we refer to someone who labours as workers, i’m not sure we will. Identifying a person by the type of contribution made to society I think will disappear although others will disagree and say we will continue to distinguish individuals from their function in society. A fair debate among comrades speculating about something we will not know exactly.
A workers’ council will be as Marx describes a few times in different languages and perhaps in a broader context to depict socialism, a producers’ association, and these workplaces will no longer be separate and distinct from the communities they are located within nor from other workplaces. That’s why I believe the democracy practiced will be much wider than that proposed by syndicalism/industrial unionism.
As a non-member of that cooperative I will bow to the direct experience and knowledge of those who working in it concerning various aspects of the work-process but as a member of the commune, decisions such as required infrastructure, I will have some say in the proceedings. Today it exists early at the planning stage consultations but I suggest that this input from the commune member will continue in one shape or another. As town and country separation disappears with re-designed non-urban living (city farms?) so will other divisions.
LBird – again all I want to know from you is 1) what is your proposed structure of democratic decision-making in socialism and 2) what is the scope of this democratic decision-making. We both accept the need for democratic decision-making in socialism but we appear to differ in how we visualise this being organised
I understand completely the point you are making about social production but it does not follow from that that everyone in the world has to be involved in all decisions relating to global social production, does it? In fact that is not remotely possible as you know. That is why I have asked you whether you accept in principle that many – indeed, the great bulk of – production decisions will be localised and limited to local communities/production units and whether you accept in principle that many decisions that may well have indirect consequences for social production dont really even need to be subjected to democratic decision-making. For example you dont need to get a democratic mandate from your local community to allow you to eat cornflakes for breakfast instead of porridge, wear a particular kind of clothing to work or use a particular mode of transport to get there…
Could you answer these specific points I raise so we can get a clearer idea of your model of democratic decision-making in socialism
Bijou, you (and Vin) especially seem to have a problem with me using the terms ‘proletariat’ or ‘workers’ to describe the ‘social producers’ in this society, and that the ‘proletariat’ or ‘workers’ form the heart of the future ‘social producers’ within ‘socialism’.
The difference between capitalism and socialism, is that within capitalism the majority of the ‘social producers’ don’t democratically control ‘social production’, whereas within socialism the majority of the ‘social producers’ will democratically control ‘social production’.
Furthermore, the building for socialism within this society will be consciously done by the ‘proletariat’ or ‘workers’, and since they (ie. the majority) have built socialism, they (ie. the majority) will have the political control of what they (ie. the majority) have built.
Clearly, the majority won’t be exploited within socialism, because the exploiting minority won’t exist. But the ‘social producers’, of course, will still exist.
So, if we’re talking about the majority of social producers within capitalism, we can call them the ‘proletariat’ or ‘workers’, but we wouldn’t call the majority of social producers within socialism the ‘proletariat’ or ‘workers’, because those classes won’t exist.
If we refuse to use the terms ‘proletariat’ or ‘workers’ within this society, then we lose sight of the exploitative nature of our class society. But clearly the ‘proletariat’ or ‘workers’ literally forms the basis of the ‘social producers’ within socialism. The ‘proletariat’ or ‘workers’ are the creators of ‘democratic socialism’.
I’m not really sure why this causes so much difficulty with you, Vin, or anyone else.
“Again, for example, to me, democratic education would mean the election of ‘teachers’, so if the ‘students’ disagreed with their ‘teacher’, the ‘teacher’ would/could be removed. This political method would apply just as much to ‘science’ – if the ‘student’ majority disagree with the ‘physics’ being taught by the ‘physicist’, then the ‘physicist’ would/could be removed.”
No, not at all. Just which body would have the authority to do so?
The freedom will be that the student can stop attending the lessons and lectures, if she or he, desires without facing any disadvantage like losing out in some sort of certificate/degree of accomplishment.
There will be, I imagine, alternatives tutors available.
Will there be even elections? Perhaps not. Those who believe they have the relevant knowledge and experience that can be passed on to others will freely offer themselves and facilities will be made available for them, class-rooms or whatever although that might be old fashioned in the future days of online learning and Skype presentations. Voting for your preferred professor (if that term still exists) will be with our feet i.e. attending or non-attending. An unpopular teacher will not be punished by removal of any right to express his or her views and opinions. They might however be ignored.
Again we only speculate and whatever differences we hold are comradely disagreements.
robbo203 wrote: “LBird – again all I want to know from you is 1) what is your proposed structure of democratic decision-making in socialism and 2) what is the scope of this democratic decision-making.”
Well, since even Marx didn’t venture to describe any ‘proposed structure’ for socialism, I think that you’re asking too much of any socialist now to make such a proposal. I think that the only answer to this quite reasonable political question is to say, like Marx, that any ‘structures’ will emerge from the building process by the proletariat itself, as it becomes self-conscious of its own power.
But, as to the scope, then I think we can say that it will be all-embracing. That is, that all social production within socialism will be democratically controlled. If we don’t argue that, now, during our building of socialism, then it will leave open the political option for some minority to argue that they, and they alone, should politically control some (or even all) of social production within socialism.
There is a long, well-established, history within the workers’ movement of minorities claiming that that particular minority ‘know better’ than the majority of workers, and that that minority should have (supposedly ‘temporary’) political control of the construction process, because the majority are not capable, for themselves, of planning, directing and doing the building of socialism.
At least these ‘elites’ in the past have had the political sense to claim that their political control was to be temporary (even though that’s a lie), but I’m not too sure about the political acumen of those who tell workers, that they, the majority, the social producers, having built socialism, employing democratic methods, will, after the ‘glorious day’, simply hand over this hard-won political control to an unelected minority.
It doesn’t seem to me to be a ‘winning formula’ when it’s explained to workers, and, not surprisingly, workers in the past have told those saying this (that the workers will do the hard and dangerous work of building socialism, but then won’t control socialism) to, ahem, ‘Go Away!’.
There has never yet been a successful case of this political strategy working with workers, and though it’s possible to argue that workers simply can’t become self-conscious, I’m inclined to think that workers soon suss out this nonsensical political strategy, and so it always fails, and always will.
I’m convinced that, like Marx, it’s better to argue for ‘democratic control of social production’ – all social production – and make that the basis of ‘democratic communism’.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “No, not at all. Just which body would have the authority to do so?”
The body elected by the students.
To argue otherwise, is to argue that ‘teachers’ have the authority.
Simple political question – who has power, and how is it wielded?
My answer – the majority, and democratically. That’s the political basis of socialism.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.