Radical democracy in communism
- This topic has 13 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Rather than take up LBird's various assertions on the subject of democracy in the Russell Brand thread and risk going off topic and incurring the wrath of the moderator, I have opened up this new thread – hopefully with a view to settling the matter once and for all (we all live in hope where LBird is concerned) . I refer to his comments as follows:
"I'm the non-member desperately trying to reason with the 'materialists' who argue this, and who refuse, on the grounds of bourgeois scientific principle, to allow workers to elect knowledge.
" 'Democracy in the production of scientific knowledge and truth'? That's bullshit, LBird!"
My 'bullshit', Oz, involves radical democracy within all productive activities of humans.
Your 'bullshit' consists in pretending to be a democrat, like the SPGB, whilst having already decided that you won't have workers determining the truth of reality. Because 'reality' speaks to the party."
I don't suppose that LBird has seriously thought for one moment what his "radical democracy" would look like and how it would actually work in practice but it is precisely on these practical points that I would like to press him.
Unless I have seriously misunderstood him he seems to be saying two things
1) All scientific knowledge should be actually voted upon by the entire global population in order to determine what constitutes "scientific truth"
2) All productive activities should actually be voted on by the entire global population in order to underwrite a communist system of allocation and distribution.
DEMOCRACY AND SCIENCE
As far as 1) is concerned it would be interesting to know in concrete detail , rather than flowery language how LBird proposes that this should be organised. New scientific theories come on stream every single day – in effect , thousands upon thousands every year. I subscribe to a circulation list which culls excerpts from various scientific journals on all sorts of new scientific theories. Here's just 2 examples from the latest list
What I find intriguing is why LBird considers it important that the global population needs to vote to determine the "truth" of the theories being advanced here . In the first example ,reference is made to research which suggests that "Birds accents change with elevation". I guess the researcher in this case has not yet come across this forum which he or she will find his or her thesis amply substantiated. We have a Bird here that does this all the time! LOL
Point is – why is it deemed necessary that the entire worlds population should be formally asked to vote on the matter? Is it remotely likely that any more than a tiny fraction of the world's population is going to be arsed to vote on the subject anyway in which case you would still be left with only a minority effectively determining the " truth" or otherwise of whether "Bird accents change with elevation". If you don't know much about bird behaviour or couldn't be bothered to know, because you have other interests or priorities to attend, you are very unlikely to vote anyway. This does not mean the world as a whole divides up into two categories – the scientists and the rest of us. Every single scientist no matter how gifted falls into the latter category too as far as other disciplines are concerned in which he or she has no expertise. A microbiologist, for example, is no different from everyone else as far as some obscure theory in astrophysics is concerned. All of us know something which some scientists may not know much about.. Everyone is "scientist" in some sense; we just have different sceintific interests
LBird seems quite unaware of the fact that there is such a thing as a social division of labour . This is something that is getting more and more complex and elaborate over time. not less so. This has huge implications for what he is saying since how you can you meaningfully vote on a scientific issue if you don't understand what it is about? The point is that without exception none of us can acquire any more than a tiny fraction of the sum total of scientific knowledge available to humanity . This stock of knowledge is just too vast for any one individual to grasp. Therefore quite logically it follows that it is quite impossible to entertain the idea that LBird proposes – that every one should vote on everything that has to do with science.
Its not a question of "refusing to allow workers to elect knowledge". If some workers have an interest in bird behaviour then of course nothing should be allowed to get in the way of them contributing to the debate. But why the obsession with arriving at some final TRUTH, democratically ratified by the global population? If I, as a bird enthusiast, subscribe to one theory of bird behaviour and you consider that theory to be untenable how does putting the matter to a vote make a difference? Am I expected then to conform to the majority opinion and no longer express my heretical views? This is a recipe for a kind of world that exist in the past when deviant thinkers were burnt at the stake for daring to question orthodoxy.
LBirds apparent inability or disinclination to answer any of these questions – let alone explain how in practical terms how he is going to logistically organise multiple thousands of global plebiscites on the validity of each new scientific theory – suggest to me that he does not really understand what democracy is about at all. He is confusing the question of social influence with the formal process of casting a vote. For instance it is quite possible to envisage a bottom up view of science , loosely speaking, (which is what I think he is getting at) without this entailing a formal vote he insists upon. Thus, there might very well be a consensus of opinion on a particular subject on this forum without a formal vote having been taken
LBird evades all this points by constantly invoking the straw argument about others proposing that "reality" is something that exists out there for the scientists to simply discover – a crude positivism. O ras he pits it , the idea that "rocks talk". I don't actually recall anyone specifically advancing such a position but LBird imagines for some reason that he is the only here who questions the fact-value distinction. He is not yet that does not prevent him repeating this claim as a way of evading the practical questions asked of him
DEMOCRACY AND PRODUCTION
As far as 2 is concerned L Bird contends that there should be radical democracy in all our productive activities. Again I take this to mean that LBird considers that the global population should determine the "total pattern of worldwide production". In other words that there should be a system of society wide central planning in which literally everyone should be enabled to to vote on the details of some stupendously huge society wide plan. The difference between Lenin's idea that the "The means of production are the machines, tools, workshops, capital, workers … to be guided by a single plan….” (Lenin. Complete Works. Vol. 27 page 90/91.) and LBird's idea is that LBird believes that the plan should be voted upon democratically rather than imposed from above by a bureaucratic elite.
I would contend that both Lenin's and LBird's conceptions of planning in a communist world are totally impracticable. Even if you could technically devise such a plan linking the literally millions upon millions of different inputs and outputs in a modern economy and assigning numerical targets for each, the integrated nature of modern is such that for such a plan to work on its own terms it would have to be rigidly applied in toto without alteration. Should any part of the plan change then the whole plan would have to be redrafted. But since change happens all the time (even if only for reasons outside our control such as bad weather, earthquakes or pest infestations) then it follows that there is no possibility whatsoever that such a centrally planned economy could ever work. It would never even have the opportunity to get off the ground.
What follows from this is that the only way in which a modern system of large scale production can operate is on the basis of some kind of feedback system. That in turn necessitates a degree of decentralised decision making and, of course, this is precisely what negates LBirds whole conception of society wide democracy in communism. It argues instead for a more nuanced model of democratic decision making in which different kinds of decisions correspond to different levels of decision making – local , regional and global.
The idea that a local area would be able to make local decision and indeed would be best placed to make such local decisions is anathema to LBird for the same reason that he rejects the view that researchers in bird behaviour are best placed to come to an informed decision on what makes birds tick.
The absurdity of LBirds entire perspective, his idealistic view of democratic praxis, can be no more effectively exposed than by asking LBird whether he seriously imagines for one moment that the entire global population should be able or allowed to determine whether, for instance, his local community ought to be able to build a local library or hospital, where such a facility should be sited or what materials should be used for its construction
Predictably LBird will decline to answer this question because he knows in his heart of hearts that even to attempt to do so will expose once and for all the folly of his whole position
robbo203 wrote:Predictably LBird will decline to answer this question because he knows in his heart of hearts that even to attempt to do so will expose once and for all the folly of his whole positionThe TRUTH!robbo does have a neutral method!Congratulations, robbo!
Obviously this new thread sprung up as i busied my response on the existing thread so i refer you to this as there appears to be some similarity of themehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/russell-brand?page=6#comment-22705
alanjjohnstone wrote:Obviously this new thread sprung up as i busied my response on the existing thread so i refer you to this as there appears to be some similarity of themehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/russell-brand?page=6#comment-22705And from alan's post on the other thread:
ajj wrote:Hope the above elucidation goes a way to show where i stand on how i consider the revolutionary process should be like….giving you a blueprint of my political stance …my ideology, LbirdThat's great alan – one's ideology determines how one sees 'science'.If you are like me, and consider socialism to be 'the democratic control of production', then we can move to discussing how, perhaps, possibly, being suggestive, we can democratically control the production of knowledge.robbo's problem is that he doesn't agree with workers' control of physics, which anyone agreeing with 'the democratic control of production' would obviously agree with, and so he's not concerned with how to do this, but to prove that we can't do this.So, the first point would be for those wanting to participate to declare their ideological basis regarding democratic production.If they define 'democratic production' to be 'control of widgets', but not 'control of knowledge', then we also have a problem.So, we have three potential starting points:1. those who want 'democracy in socialism' – meaning everything, including physics;2. those pretend to want 'democracy in socialism' – but really don't mean it, and restrict it in practice to 'democracy in widget production'
. those, like robbo, who have no time for 'democracy in socialism', and define 'socialism' as 'free individuals'.I'm inclined to point out, to help those comrades unaware, that those who adopt position 2 are very likely to agree with the separation of 'natural' from 'social' science, whereas those who adopt position 1 are very likely to agree with Marx, and wish to unify 'science'.Well, here goes: my position is number 1.What about you, alan?Quote:What about you, alan?An empty belly only thinks about foodi don't dismiss the widget production and the democratic control to produce them if it is to satisfy my tummy's needs foremost. I think the SPGB has advanced the case for participatory democracy tremendously with our own party practice…we have whats commonly called the knowledge test … when past, that places everybody on a level even standing…not even the most articulated or talented speaker or writer can assume a position of authority based on any hierarchy. The newest member and the oldest member must convince eachother by the worthiness of their arguments, not prestige or standing. I've witnessed this and i think most members have experience of observing this democracy in action. Paddy Shannon on this aspect influenced me (Lbird, Paddy rarely visits this forum)http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1998/no-1130-october-1998/politics-joiningOur EC (and committees) cannot place motions to conference, only branch resolutions and they are moved and seconded by individual members debated in the branch, and then submitted to conference for debate, if passed the proposals still have to meet approval by a party poll of every member. Can the basics of this bpplied to society/science…i think so. Perhaps the division of labour as Robbo has indicated may have a fuller role but any specialised committees/organisations making recommendations can be judged and challenged by communities who possess overall control of the committees. I don't take upon myself the actual decision making of the widget factory production process and management…society decide if they make widgets in the first place…how many and for whom…and we make the call on the environmental impact of the methods of production….And of course we will face dilemmas such as NIMBYism and we need a democratic procedure to engage with that…democracy also means reaching compromise and adapting to losing situations. I guess i'm a utilitarian, at heart….what works the best is proof of correctness …And if the debates are merely ethereal, who cares who is right or wrong if they don't have a material effect on people or society actions.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Paddy Shannon on this aspect influenced me (Lbird, Paddy rarely visits this forum)Yeah, someone (you?) mentioned that Paddy recommended Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics, which I bought and read, and Lee seems to confirm many of the problems with the myth of physics that we need to discuss. Lee is a working physicist, but not a Commie, like us.
ajj wrote:Can the basics of this bpplied to society/science…i think so. Perhaps the division of labour as Robbo has indicated may have a fuller role but any specialised committees/organisations making recommendations can be judged and challenged by communities who possess overall control of the committees.Yeah, I too think that whatever 'basics' of political control are applied to 'society', not only could, but must be applied to 'science', too. The rest is a discussion of 'how', rather than 'is it possible?'.
ajj wrote:I guess i'm a utilitarian, at heart….what works the best is proof of correctness …The problem is, alan, that 'utilitarianism' is an ideology, and one not compatible with 'democracy'. It is an individualist ideology, a bit like US Pragmatism, that argues 'if it works for the individual, that it's true'.But philosophers of science, and physicists, already know that something 'working' is not proof of its 'truth'.The geocentric system of Ptolemy 'worked', but we no longer regard it as 'true'. Apparently, according to priests, praying for grace in the eyes of the Lord works too, but I have my doubts.I know that you're reluctant to go too far into something that you're very unfamiliar with, alan, and I can't make you look deeper.I can only offer the warning that 'science' is a social activity and doesn't produce 'The Truth', and that science has an authority and legitimacy that the bourgeoisie use to bamboozle workers.If we workers don't take an interest in science and try to develop our understanding, we might as well leave the bourgeoisie in charge of production, too, and retain their scientific economics and market system for individual consumption, too.Oh yeah… it 'works', alan
alanjjohnstone wrote:Paddy Shannon on this aspect influenced me (Lbird, Paddy rarely visits this forum)I wish someone would tell me who Paddy Shannon is. I have heard him mentioned with reverence a few times. Is he famous?If he is, he is not as famous as our LBird
He does the lay-out of the Standard with NeilW, both Lancaster Br, but he wrote and narrates Kids Stuff so you should have known who he was.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/video/capitalism-and-other-kids-stuffHis interventions on the forums are seldom but always interesting if usually painful to be on the receiving end…as i have reason to know.Lbird might be interested to know that our main video does not use the S word in it….So there are other ways to go about convincing others of our ideas.
Vin wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:Paddy Shannon on this aspect influenced me (Lbird, Paddy rarely visits this forum)I wish someone would tell me who Paddy Shannon is. I have heard him mentioned with reverence a few times. Is he famous?If he is, he is not as famous as our LBird
Surely you mean 'infamous', as a troublemaker, Vin?That leads directly to…Infamy, Infamy! … They've all got it in for me!
LBird wrote:That leads directly to…Infamy, Infamy! … They've all got it in for me!Brand is now calling on all his 'followers' on twitter to vote labour, obviously believing (like the internet committee) that 'follower' on twitter means support. I think he underestimates his twitter 'followers'This has probably been planned all along!st warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
Vin wrote:Brand is now calling on all his 'followers' on twitter to vote labour, …This has probably been planned all alongSo, Brand is now calling for austerity to be continued?I don't think that it's 'been planned all along', Vin. I think that it just shows that Brand knows nothing about politics or economics. Those who look to him will be disappointed, whether now (comrades here) or later (workers who vote Labour will find austerity continuing).I place him alongside Piketty, in his influence and longevity. Shallow and short-term.Capitalism marches on, discarding academics and comedians.The solution really is in our own hands.Final warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.This user is suspended for an indefinite period.
LBird wrote:If you are like me, and consider socialism to be 'the democratic control of production', then we can move to discussing how, perhaps, possibly, being suggestive, we can democratically control the production of knowledge.robbo's problem is that he doesn't agree with workers' control of physics, which anyone agreeing with 'the democratic control of production' would obviously agree with, and so he's not concerned with how to do this, but to prove that we can't do this.Just as I predicted, LBird has refused to answer my several questions. He has refused to say why the global population has to vote to determine the "truth" of scientific theories – what is the point of the exercise?He has refused to explain what happens to the heretics who continue to espouse heretical scientific theories in the face of orthodoxy – will they be forcibly silenced, burnt at the stake or what? Again, if not , what was the point of this exercise in voting?He has refused to explain how people are going to equip themselves with the necessary knowledge in order to be able to vote – not just on a handful of theories but the totality of scientific theories. That is to say he has refused to explain how individuals – everyone! – is expected to become scientifically omniscient . Instead he comes up with the above complete aunt sally that I don't agree with workers control – completely overlooking that it is not up to me to prove that omniscience is an unattainable state of affairs as far as any individual is concerned but rather that it is up to him him to prove otherwiseHe has refused to explain in practical terms, how thousands upon thousands global plebiscites are going to be organised every year in order to determine the truth of each and every new theory that comes on stream. He say he wants to move to discussing how "we can democratically control the production of knowledge but of course this is just bluster. He has no intention of discussioing anything of the sort and has consistently declined every challenge thus far to show how this can be done.He has refused to explain what happens if the great majority have no inclination whatsoever to trudge down to the polling booth to vote on the burning issue of whether amoebic reproduction refutes "Mullers ratchet" theory but prefer to do something more interesting and he has refused to explain how the world is going to fall apart and complete chaos ensue should the show of hands in support of the theory be so pathetically small as to cast doubt on its validity. On the question of democratic control of production…. He has refused to explain how his Leninist conception of one single society wide plan in which 7 billion people – the current world population more or less – are expected to decide on the production targets of million upon millions of different kinds of inputs and outputs – from 3 inch nails to steel plates, from bags of bird seed to plastic mugs He has refused to explain how this Leninist conception of his is going to work when any change to any part of The Plan will necessitate redrafting the whole plan in its entirety – meaning in effect that The Plan will never see the light of day and will remain permanently on the drawing board He has refused to explain how this global society of 7 billion people are going to be involved in making decisions about what happens in your local community if no decentralised decision making is to be allowed in this utopian fantasy world of his He has refused to explain how, if we allow local communities to make decisions that effect only them, this is any different in principle from just letting people interested in the question of amoebic reproduction, debate among themselves on whether "Mullers Ratchet" is a sound theory Each after all constitutes only a tiny subset of the total population. Or is LBird going to argue that local decisionnaking is "elitist" because it tends to exclude people who are not local? LBird has clearly got a lot of explaining to do and until he gets his finger out , stops with the constant waffling and gets down to the hard nitty gritty issues raised by all these question , he will continue to have zero credibility in my book. Jehovah Witness type responses in the face of these probing questions is not going to get him anywhere even if might make him feel good about himself to endlessly repeat these pious mantras. One needs something a little more substantial than simply to be told ad nauseum "I am a democratic communist and democratic communism is my ideology"
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.