On Marx's Definition of Economics.
- This topic has 88 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
L Bird – “I believe that the political (etc.) basis that we employ now, will be the same in any future society. ”
Couldn’t agree more, I think the democratic structure of the World Socialist movement demonstrates this and the circles within circles approach you describe is reflected in the decision making process within the party, if an individual member decides to undertake work for the party then they get on and do it, unless there is an objection to this in which case, usually a branch and then ultimately the EC will make a decision about it, however if their is dispute about this it can be taken to a full party poll. Similarly branches or groups of members get on and do their stuff, unless their is an objection, in which case it is dealt with at whatever level is deemed appropriate.
I believe this bottom up democratic model is one which is likely to be the basis of any future Socialist Society, I can’t say it definitely will, as this I would only be one of those involved in making that decision, should I be lucky enough to be alive at that point in time.
I also believe that the process of refinement of a future democracy will take place in a similar way in which we carry out that task within the WSM. An example of this is conference, which used to make decisions based on mandated delegates, but which now reports the discussion back to the membership and all members are able to vote as they see things.
As to it operating in practice
L Bird “for example, the inhabitants of a street decide to paint all of their houses with white paint, and this decision is democratic, then the houses all get painted with white paint.
But… what if a single household, within the collective, disagrees, and wants a green house?”
I would argue that we then have one green painted house within the white painted houses and that it will actually look quite nice.
L Bird – “My political problem, Alan, is those who argue that the ‘delegate’ should be a ‘representative’, and that the ‘representative’, being an ‘expert’, should have the final say.”
Well you shouldn’t have any problem with the SPGB, because in the 40 odd years I’ve been in contact with the Party, I have never ever heard anyone argue that experts should have the final say, furthermore, if you investigate the history of the Party, any example of that taking place. You will find examples of experts being listened to and where appropriate their advice being taken into account of before decisions are made, examples of this recently range from advice taken about a party wall at HO and advice being taken about IT systems, however the experts (both inside and outside the party) advise, they do not direct.
Perhaps the scars you have from time spent with the Leninists and the Trots have made you understandably sceptical about democracy within an organisation, I was in the Labour Party YS in my late teens and I know the ways that these fake democrats can twist and manipulate “democratic” processes for their own means, but I assure you that isn’t done and it isn’t possible with the SPGB, because all members are vigilant about the democracy of the party.
Again if you read the history of the party and the nature of it’s departure from the SDF, you can see why the party was set up to be ultra democratic and how this has continued to this day.
“…what if a single household, within the collective, disagrees, and wants a green house?”
If it is in Larkhall, Lanarkshire, it will have all its windows smashed by Orange bluenoses. 😐
Just to reinforce what Bijou says, we have had some terrific orators within the Party such as Tony Turner, who tried to sway the Party to his particular way of thinking — without success.
We have had Marxist analysts such as Hardcastle, who contributed so much to the theoretical basis of the Party, but when it came to refusing to heed the democracy of the Party, he was expelled along with many other speakers and writers who ignored the will of the majority within the Party.
Our future MPs are according to our rule book to act under the direction of the Party and not as independent political representatives
Rule 27. Candidates elected to a Political office shall be pledged to act on the instructions of their Branches locally, and by the Executive Committee nationally.
(just how that will be enforced is a matter of conjecture)
So, ‘decentralisation? Fine. ‘Localism’ Fine. ‘Individual Choice’? Fine. ‘Polycentres’? Fine.
But ‘decentral’, ‘local’, ‘individual choice’ and ‘polycentres’ don’t have the final say. Humanity does. And its political method is democracy.OK so FINALLY, FINALLY FINALLY and at long last I have got a clear statement from you acknowledging that socialism will be a polycentric system of planning!!!!! This is what I have been trying all this time to extract from you and now finally have you answered the question directly without resorting to vague references to the social nature of production (true but not relevant to the question asked) and the like. That’s all I wanted to hear from you and to be honest it has been like trying to extract blood from a stone, LBird. Despite what you say that over the years, I’ve answered this, time and time again, you haven’t actually – not explicitly. This is the very first time you’ve done so explicitly. Its a breakthrough!
Good. So having finally overcome this hurdle in our discussion, with this explicit acknowledgement of the necessarily polycentric nature of decision-making in socialism, a large chunk of my objections to what you have been saying , or rather appearing to have been saying all along, now falls away We can move on to finesse our understanding of the democratic process in socialism
Let me start by saying I do NOT think that
socialism will involve 7 billion sovereign bodies (ie. each individual, doing their ‘own thing’, without ‘the nanny state’ (as individualists characterise any ‘social authority’), untrammelled ‘freedom’).
Individuals doing their own thing is only ever a matter of degree in my book. There will be such thing as absolutely sovereign individuals able to do whatever they want. That is a caricature. The freedom to do what you want has to be balanced by democracy which as I have always said will be play a much large role in socialism than is possible under capitalism but which will itself confront its own outer limits. Needless that will not involve a state in socialism let alone a “nanny state”
I dont disagree with you observation:
These objections, both from within/below the body and without/above the body, must be resolved by a body that encompasses all the disputants. But this might be a regional body, and another region objects to that region’s decision. On so on, wider and wider.
In fact, this follows the same logic I outlined earlier – that the need for democracy or democratic decision-making ONLY arises in the context where there is dispute between individuals or social bodies. This is why I say the great bulk of “economic decisions” in socialism – such as what I consume or what work I chose to engage in – are not really “dispute related” and so do not need to invoke democratic decision making at all which would both pointless and bureaucratically wasteful
Where a dispute arises (typically in the case of joint decision-making) then yes as you rightly suggest the democratic resolution must be accomplished by a body that encompasses all the disputants. If there is a dispute within a local community over the proposed location of a community hall then this needs to be resolved by a democratic vote by all members of the local community. Similarly, if there is a dispute between two local communities over the proposed location of major piece of infrastructure such as a road or hydroelectric dam then this has ro be resolved democratically at the appropriate level encompassing all the disputants – the region in this case
All this is eminently sensible and in fact LBird is clearly outlined in the SPGB pamphlet Socialism as a Practical Alternative (in case you haven’t read it) which refers to a spatial hierarchy of decision-making – local, regional and global.
The ultimately port of call so to speak is global , humanity as a whole . As you say humanity has the “final say” in such matters. However, what I want you to recognise is that in practice there are very very few issues that will ever reach this global level of decision-making. Because the very nature of decision-making at this level is such a monumental undertaking, necessarily this would restrict the number of decisions that could be taken at this level to a tiny handful. Only very important, globally applicable, decisions, in other words
Of course you could have global bodies like the current FAO acting within a devolved framework and making decisions on behalf of humanity. Such bodies need to be subject to scrutiny and democratic control. But as far as direct democracy is concerned only a very small number of decisions could or need be resolved democratically at this level. For example, a global vote on package of measures to tackle climate change
However, as far as 99% plus of the decisions that need to be made in socialism are concerned, these will never, and cannot possibly ever, reach this global level of decision making. Nor is there any reason why they should. They can be democratically resolved at the lower levels of decision-making such as the region of the local community in the way you yourself suggest.
Although I agree with much of what you say, Robbo, I do not agree that global level decisions will constitute a very, very few issues.
In terms of practical issues such as power generation, building of infrastructure, food distribution, etc. I would think that only a global level of debate and decision making will be effective in this area.
To me part of the obvious logic of the Socialist case is that we can organise things on a global democratic level, where necessary.
We see from the current global climate crisis that small decisions have global impact and there is greater and greater understanding that we operate in a very complex and inter related eco-system and the small impacts the big in the same way that the big impacts the small.
Whilst I agree that many decisions will be made that do not involve dispute and that many disagreements will be localised matters sorted out at a local level, I think it is likely that decision making at a global level will be a very busy system.
I’d like to openly thank Bijou Drains, alanjjohnstone and robbo203 for their very comradely responses, and say that we seem to be on the same page politically.
Perhaps this next question will spoil all this new-found comradeship, but, hey, ever the heretic…
…and if youse all disagree, then we can simply agree to disagree. 😛
Who (or what) determines reality/truth/matter/nature/material/universe?
Because I agree with Marx’s philosophy, and this is based upon my prior political commitment to democratic social production, I would answer ‘active humanity’. That is, humans are the creators of their universe, and thus they can change it. ‘Knowledge and reality’ are intertwined, and can’t be separated into ‘consciousness’ and ‘nature’, and the separation of ‘mind/matter’, ‘ideal/material’, ‘consciousness/being’, ‘art/science’, opinion/fact’ was a socio-historic act by the ruling class. This was intended to ensure that they could change all of these things (and so have power), but pretend that they were not changing these things (and so ward off from the start any claims for democracy from the exploited class, within any changes being made). History since Marx has confirmed his view, and they have changed physics, maths, logic, matter, etc.
I find that ‘materialists’ disagree with this political and philosophical position, and argue that the ‘material’ precedes ‘consciousness’, and thus the ‘material’ is not a social product, and thus the ‘material’ cannot be changed.
I’d just note that Lenin was a most vociferous defender of ‘materialism’, because, if what I’ve just written is true, this would give his ruling class the same power as any other ruling class.
This is a genuine political/philosophical question, and I’m almost sorry to raise it again, in the present happy circumstances. But, if what you’ve all said about the SPGB is true, how can it espouse ‘materialism’? I find this contradictory, which is the fundamental root of my disagreement.
Although I agree with much of what you say, Robbo, I do not agree that global level decisions will constitute a very, very few issues.
In terms of practical issues such as power generation, building of infrastructure, food distribution, etc. I would think that only a global level of debate and decision making will be effective in this area.Bijou
I was referring specifically to examples of “direct democracy”. Even a single global plebiscite is an absolutely monumental undertaking, when you think about it, given everything it entails in terms of expediting a result – formulating the resolution to be voted on, preparing the vote, disseminating the information and collating the results. Nearly 8 billion voters is an awful lot of voters!!!
It is for this reason that I think direct democracy at the global level will likely be reserved for only a tiny handful of globally significant decisions and there is also the question of the enforceability of such decisions to take into account. The time it takes to organise a global plebiscite is another factor, quite apart from the logistics. Many decisions particularly at the microlevel cant wait for months and months and so by their very nature exclude themselves from a global decision-making process. They have to be globally significant to truly qualify at all. A package of measures to combat climate change might be a good example.
I dont doubt that there would be decisions at the global level made by global bodies – I gave the example of the FAO – and though such bodies would doubtless be subject to democratic scrutiny, this is not the same thing as direct democracy which is what I was really talk about. Similarly with discussion being worldwide. To an extent this already happens via the social meida, newspapers , academic journals and so on
Bijou Drains wrote: “Perhaps the scars you have from time spent with the Leninists and the Trots have made you understandably sceptical about democracy within an organisation...”
It’s worse than that, mate. 🙂
I’ve come to the conclusion that ‘materialism’ was the root of Leninist/Trotskyist power over me and all the other workers who followed their lead.
So, to me, any ‘Socialists’ who argue in favour of ‘materialism’ are part of a political organisation that is not serious about workers’ democracy, the self-emancipation of the proletariat, or Marx’s political and philosophical views, and intends to usurp power from workers.
The views expressed on here about ‘Specialists’ only confirms my beliefs.
But, I’m prepared to discuss it with any worker, because once I didn’t understand either. And was fooled.
robbo203 wrote: “…though such bodies would doubtless be subject to democratic scrutiny, this is not the same thing as direct democracy…”
robbo, I must admit that I see this statement as a ‘rowing-back’ on your earlier post.
What, to you, is the political difference between ‘democratic scrutiny‘ and ‘direct democracy’?
The juxtaposition of the two seems to suggest that ‘scrutiny’ is done by others than all those affected.
If you say that ‘scrutiny’ is delegated, all well and good, because the scrutineers can be recalled and replaced by ‘direct democracy’, and so power remains with the majority.
Is your ‘scrutiny’ mandated and revocable, or an elite final opinion?
LBird I simply mean by “scrutiny” by answerable to some democratically elected body. As an analogy the SPGB has a democratically elected Executive Committee which is controlled by conference and party polls. There are also various sub Committees under the overall control of the EC whose members are nominated by branches
For example, I’m on one of these Committees – the Publications Committee, We operate within the broad terms of reference laid down for this Committee. Ultimately if we want to get a new pamphlet published we have to seek the permission of the EC for this and the final text also needs EC approval. But we also initiate a lot of things ourselves within these guidelines so that what you end up is a fairly productive and fruitful two way interaction between us and the EC and also with other comrades who we see to commission as writers of new pamhlets
I haven’t given much thought to the precise make up to the democratic structure of decision-making in socialism but I guess there would be the different spatial levels of decision-making referred to – local , regional and global – with corresponding bodies of delegated and recallable members charged with carrying out the wishes of their particular constituencies. In the case of the global body or parliament I imagine it would have a relationship towards specialist global organisations like the FAO, not unlike that of the SPGB EC to its subcommittees
Sorry about the few grammar spelling mistakes in the above post. I see the edit facility has just recently disappeared. Any ideas why?
Sorry about the few grammar spelling mistakes in the above post. I see the edit facility has just recently disappeared. Any ideas why?
It hasn’t. It only permitted edits for 20 minutes. I have adjusted it to 2 hours now.
Grammarly is free and it can be incorporated to the browser. The message can also be written on MS Word, or Free Office, check the spelling and then the finished draft can be transferred to the forum
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.