Rethinking the Marxist Conception of Revolution by Chris Wright

[Anonymous]

LBird is hearing voices. from the 'Religious materialists'.  Or he is making them up.STRAWMAN:  "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."Robbo, stop wasting time on this whacko! 

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

Thanks for your very clear political reply, robbo.All democratic socialists should take note of it.

 Indeed.  And if you claim to be a democratic socialist do you also take note of it?  Do you concur with the statement I made or not.  Yes or no.   And if "no", in what way do you specifically disagree with it,  Spit it out LBIrd.  Lets hear you concrete objections to what was said in post 10 if you have any….

My 'concrete objection' is that I'm a Democratic Communist, and so insist that only workers' democracy can determine social production.I clearly state that the 'practical' can only be determined by social theory and practice, and that that method is a democratic one.My ideology is the same as Marx's. 'Theory and practice' are inescapably linked. There is no 'practice' which is outside of 'abstract theory'.Those who argue, like you do, for the precedence of 'practice', are individualists. They pretend to be outside of society and its consciousness, and pretend that 'biological sensation' gives individuals access to 'reality', without any need to address the social theory and practice behind the production of our social senses.You're simply tying yourself in knots, trying to preserve your right as an individual to ignore democracy.But 'socialism' means 'democracy', not 'individualism'.It's a 'definition', robbo (or, as you like to characterise it, an 'abstract theory').I'm a Democratic Communist, whose ideology defines 'socialism' as 'democratic socialism'.Your ideology clearly defines it as something else, so you should be open with us and openly declare your definition.You are apparently only happy with 'democracy' when it doesn't involve any power over you as an individual. And you'll reduce your parameters of the 'local' to yourself, to avoid any democratic controls over you.You'll ignore any social power that you don't agree with: world, regional, city, village, parish… by reverting to the ideology that only 'local practicalities' matter, and that only you can determine the 'local practicality'.You're an ideological individualist, robbo.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The issue of decision-making is an intriguing one. Robbo's local sewage plant may well be opposed by NIMBY localists against the proposals of LBird's bugbears, the technocrat elitists who have all manner of environmental reasons for the location's benefits.

You're really not reading what I write, alan, and have accepted robbo's version of 'What LBird says'.I have no problem whatsoever with 'technocratic elites' – they simply explain their views to us, and we vote on them.That is, we make the decision, not the 'technocratic elite'.If they claim either not to be able to explain, or that we can't understand, then we'll reject them and that ideology, and replace them with experts who can explain to everyone. The 'technocrats' will be elected, and removed if they don't serve our social needs, interests and purposes.That democratic method in science will be a feature of socialism.There are no needs, interests or purposes that are not amenable to democratic controls. To argue otherwise, is to sanction an elite within social production.That's not socialism, alan. Socialism is we determine our 'environmental reasons'.

[Bijou Drains]

[/quote]My 'concrete objection' is that I'm a Democratic Communist, and so insist that only workers' democracy can determine social production.[/quoteIn a previous post you stated that you only producers democracy can determine social production, when I enquired about whether this included those who do not produce (the retired, people with disabilities, ill health etc.) you stated that what you meant was social production, which is something that all of us are involved in, which I accept is a fairly straightforward definition. You now use the term workers democracy, is this, as it implies, reducing the democratic franchise to only those who are workers, or is your idea of the democratci franchise in a socialist society non elitist and therefore inclusive of all people on the planet?And in answer to a previous post, yes I do like taking the piss, and will exercise my right to do so on occasion in the future, however on this occasion, this is a genuine, non-piss taking question and I would hope you will take it in the spirit is intended and clarify your view on this essential point for me?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Again, what this all boils down to is whether 'democracy' is a core value, or just something employed when it's 'practical'.But, who (or what) determines the 'practical'?Democratic Communists would argue that only the producers can determine whether a political situation is to be based upon 'democratic' values, or upon the 'practice' of an elite.Religious Materialists argue that special elites (in their political/ideological terminology, 'locals') can operate outside of the democratic controls of society. They do this by arguing that 'knowledge' is 'local' to an 'elite' – that is, 'knowledge' is not a social product by society, but a product by a 'knowing elite'.The obvious 'local' elite in political history is the Party, then its cadre, then its central committee, then its leader.You can't get a more 'practical' and 'local' power than 'Uncle Joe'.

robbo203 wrote:

Democracy for me is about practical decisions not abstract theories…

[my bold]What about 'democracy for us', robbo?How do you know what is 'practical', in the absence of 'abstract theories'?Whatever happened to Marx's 'abstract theories' about 'social theory and practice' and 'democratic production'?It's simply an excuse to try to realise the bourgeois myth of 'Individual Freedom' – you're an ideological individualist, robbo.By 'local' you really mean 'yourself'.

More incoherent  drivel.I am not a community, I am just an individual  and a community involves several individuals, by definition,  And democratic decisionmaking, also by definition, is something applies to communities only.  I dont democraticaly debate with myself to make a decision, do I? By local I mean the local community, however defined.  I cannot say in advance precisely what the spatial extent of a given local community might be, I wouldn't be so arrogant as to presume otherwise but what I can assert fairly confidently that there will be local communties, however defined And you completely twist and distrot what I say about abstract theories ,  Certainly I agree that the question of what is practical involves a theory but this is not what I was alluding to and you know that full well, LBird.  All thinking involves "theory" in this general sense but I am talking specifically about theories in the specialised sense as organised bodiies of knowledge such as scientific theories which I explicitly referred to So to give an example of what I mean – String Theory in physics.  Will this be voted upon in a socialist society to determine whether it is "true".  Obviously, no. Why?  Because 1) There is absolutely no point in the exercise.  What are you hoping to achieve by the exercise?  If a minority vote to say the theory is wrong and a majoriy vote to say it is right, how are you going to stop the minority continuing to think it is wrong? Should you even try if you believe in democracy.  So what have achieved with the democratic vote? 2)  Since the electorate in this instance is essentially boundless – meaning global – you have to organise a global vote.  This assumes that most people  have even heard of String Theory or are bothered to vote on it, Its also assume a worldwide mechnism for the organisation of such vote and the diversion of considerable manpower and other reseoruces to effect such a vote.  If you got more than .001 percent of the population voting you would be lucky.  So what is practical worth of the exercise String Theoiry is just one theory; there are hundreds of thousands of other theories in ever conceviable banch of humam knowledge.  Are you going to organise a global vote on all of these too?  What about art?  Are you going to organise a global vote on  different t forms of artistic expression to determine their artistic merit.  Art too is a social construction so, according to you, must therefore be subject to a democratic vote Frankly you have tied yourslef up in knots with this ridiculous argument of yours about democratic decisionamking. Democracy is about practical decisionmaking , about the allocation of resroceus to desired ends  – bot scitific truth or artistic merit.  We may not precisely know where the dividing lines is between practical decisions and abstract theories but by inference we can be certain that such a distinction can be be made – just as we can be certain that in capitalism there is a capitalist exploting class and an exploited working class even if the dividing line between them is blurred

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

There are no needs, interests or purposes that are not amenable to democratic controls. To argue otherwise, is to sanction an elite within social production.

 This i can agree with but what my point was, is how are these controls determined and applied? It seems to be the dilemma on the exchanges between you and others here.  I'm prepared to let the solutions arise as the problems arise and i don't expect it always to be without failings or flaws in the procedures.  Take the flow of a river, for instance. We already have disputes about dams in one country affecting the irrigation in another. I could vote for a dam so as to ensure no flooding in my region, but do i have the right to vote to limit irrigation of farms in another.   Designing parameters to democratic participation is essential. I get your point on electing technocrats but who elects them and who elected them to present actual solutions and alternatives to conflicting practices. I have no knowledge of medicine or pharmaceutical processes…do i get a vote on choosing whether A or B is best suited for an oversight committee? Or do i leave that up to those involved in the industry, able to comment on receptive qualities and qualifications in drug-production.  Do i permit someone unversed in brain surgery to decide on procedures that only medical and only a very limited numbers are skilled and experienced to judge on competence? Even simple survival rates data is no gauge of accuracy. Do we not rely on Peer-Review and not general voting when a scientific paper is presented?  It has been raised before…division of labour which applies to all aspects of production.  I'm prepared to let the future pan out, confident that something fit for purpose, perhaps by trial and error, and by no means, necessarily universal, will spring up…necessity the mother of invention and all that … 

[Anonymous]

I think the Lbird will now fly off to another thread.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

The key political issue here is the question of 'independent'.'Independent of individuals' does not mean 'independent of society'.So, we're faced with arguing either that nothing is independent of society (and so this can be voted upon) or that something is independent of society (and so can't be voted upon).The problem is, as Marx says, nothing is independent of society, and so those who argue that something is independent have to then surreptitiously put their own elite in control of this something (which isn't really independent of society as a whole).This is precisely what Vin, robbo, and the rest of the Religious Materialists do. They claim to be dealing with something independent of society ('nature', 'matter', 'Truth', 'externality', 'reality', etc. etc.), which can't be voted upon, but then claim that they themselves, as an elite, outside of the democratic control of the social producers, can determine this 'something'. 

 You are talking absolute rubbish here Nobody is saying 'Independent of individuals'  means 'independent of society'.  You have totally musunderstood not only Marx but your critics on this forum Independent is an allusion to the will of particular individuals.  Society is indeed a socio-historical construction but as a socio historical construction the individual has to adapt it , to fit in with it , to live with it.  It is in this sense that the relations of the production are "independent" of the individual – in the sense of exerting an external constraining influence  on this particular individual. What you have done is to confuse particular empirical individals with individuals in general who collectively make up society. There is no such thing as a society without individuals and conversely there is no such thing as individuals without society.  We are social animals, No one is saying anything different on this forum. But you have completely misunderstood the signicance of what has been said and then drawing a completely invalid inference based on this elementary blunder So its back to the drawing board for LBird!  You could do with re-reading Marx through the eyes of Emergence Theory

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 I'm a Democratic Communist, whose ideology defines 'socialism' as 'democratic socialism'. 

 Another red herring. Of course socialism involves democracy .  No one is disputing that.  The argument is solely about the limits of democratic decisionmaking even in a socialist society. Do you deny that such limits will exist even  in socialism, LBird? Do you agree that there would be a vast range of decisions that would necessarily fall outside the practice of democratic decisionmaking.  For example  – albeit to take a rather extreme example – whilst you rail against what you ignorantly call the "individualists" on this forum, would you be comfortable with the fact that the democratic community (which in your eyes boils down to the entire global population) should determine how you shoud lead you life, thus: – what work you should do and for how many hours per day- where you may live – what you may study- where you may travel to- your  consumption and lifestye choices- your view on what constututes scientific truth- your view on what constitutes artistic beauty And so on and so forth. Also and I have asked this of you before LBird but would local communities exist in your version of democratic communism that would be able to take democratic decision on their  own (thus limiting democracy to locals in this case).  Can you please answer this question LBird 

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The issue of decision-making is an intriguing one. Robbo's local sewage plant may well be opposed by NIMBY localists against the proposals of LBird's bugbears, the technocrat elitists who have all manner of environmental reasons for the location's benefits.

You're really not reading what I write, alan, and have accepted robbo's version of 'What LBird says'.I have no problem whatsoever with 'technocratic elites' – they simply explain their views to us, and we vote on them.That is, we make the decision, not the 'technocratic elite'.If they claim either not to be able to explain, or that we can't understand, then we'll reject them and that ideology, and replace them with experts who can explain to everyone. The 'technocrats' will be elected, and removed if they don't serve our social needs, interests and purposes.That democratic method in science will be a feature of socialism.There are no needs, interests or purposes that are not amenable to democratic controls. To argue otherwise, is to sanction an elite within social production.That's not socialism, alan. Socialism is we determine our 'environmental reasons'.

This begs the question, if the technocratic elite only advise and do not decide what is the purpose of electing them?  

[alanjjohnstone]

I suppose Brian, in the same way as a patient signs a consent form before undergoing surgery. Voting legitimises the qualification and, in a way, the authority of the surgeon.

The consent form is not the cure-all, of course. Democracy does entail a bit more responsibility and commitment. A patient has the surgical procedure explained, and perhaps he has sought a second opinion, but also done his or her own investigation into the details. I mention success rates because i believe these are available on request now but.

I touched on this in my earlier post. Would workers’ democracy exclude the ignorant and uninformed, or do they have the same equa right of involvement in decision-making? Our own organisation has chosen that we will not permit membership based on any right to join but only on proof of relevant knowledge conducted by his or her peers – fellow-workers. Is this principle of value expanding to wider administrative areas?

[LBird]

moderator1 wrote:

LBird wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The issue of decision-making is an intriguing one. Robbo's local sewage plant may well be opposed by NIMBY localists against the proposals of LBird's bugbears, the technocrat elitists who have all manner of environmental reasons for the location's benefits.

You're really not reading what I write, alan, and have accepted robbo's version of 'What LBird says'.I have no problem whatsoever with 'technocratic elites' – they simply explain their views to us, and we vote on them.That is, we make the decision, not the 'technocratic elite'.If they claim either not to be able to explain, or that we can't understand, then we'll reject them and that ideology, and replace them with experts who can explain to everyone. The 'technocrats' will be elected, and removed if they don't serve our social needs, interests and purposes.That democratic method in science will be a feature of socialism.There are no needs, interests or purposes that are not amenable to democratic controls. To argue otherwise, is to sanction an elite within social production.That's not socialism, alan. Socialism is we determine our 'environmental reasons'.

This begs the question, if the technocratic elite only advise and do not decide what is the purpose of electing them?  

I'm always baffled as to why SPGB members (an organisation that claims to be democratic) have so much trouble with the notion that power must be under democratic control.It's as if the whole notion of 'power' causes a collective mystification, a party-wide shrugging of shouders, a sighing of incomprehension: 'Power? Power? What is LBird talking about? Why's he always banging on about power, politics, democracy? Why the hell does he come to this site, to constantly question us about who will have power in socialism?'I don't know, mod1. Perhaps it'll take a technocratic elite of eugenicists to advise that your reproductive organs be removed, because you don't match up to their advice on 'human normality', for you to start to wonder about just whose needs, interests and purposes are embodied in that advice, and why you're not allowed any say in the taking or not of the said 'expert advice'.It's as if the 20th century in science never happened for the 'materialists' – but then, being a 19th century ideology, I suppose that this socio-historical blindness is entirely to be expected. That's what comes from believing the bourgeois myth that 'scientists' are merely 'discovering' 'The Truth' of 'Reality', as embodied in 'Matter'.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Would workers' democracy exclude the ignorant and uninformed, or do they have the same equa right of involvement in decision-making?

I think that the political answer to this, alan, is that all workers would be fully educated in any issue that they chose to vote upon.The very idea that there will be a large pool of 'ignorant and uninformed' humans, desperate to inflict their nihilistic anti-science views upon the 'decent, educated, thoughtful, minority', is really a central plank of bourgeois ideology.In some ways, it shows the still great power of 'ruling class ideas' upon our society, including over socialists like you.As a Democratic Communist, I would expect that the process of developing a revolutionary class consciousness amongst workers would remove the worry that you have expressed here.Unless you agree, with what I'm starting to suspect is widespread within the SPGB, that only 'an elite of the educated and informed' will make decisions for the dumb majority.It seems that my understanding of the revolutionary process to human emancipation is very different from the SPGB's – not least, over this issue of 'democracy'. If you've got a mental picture of the 'ignorant and uninformed' having to be 'excluded', christ knows what robbo's visions of the "hell of workers' democracy" look like.

[alanjjohnstone]

What i have is a problem of expecting everyone to know everything, LBird, and not respecting the knowledge acquired by others after much study and experience. Simple as that.I know you dislike Engels but he does raise the authority of the ship's captain, and Marx talks of the orchestra's conductor. We do bow down to superior understanding or would you put yourself into the hands of an untrained novice when it comes to dentistry. What i am extending this too, is that membership of the associations and there are many levels of expertise, is selected by their peers, not the general public, not even the patients, but only by those who are qualified to judge his or her competence in different aspects of dentistry. I think it is called delegatory democracy, rather than direct democracy and this is how we make global decisions without the necessity of individual votes by billions but as it does not involve a profession called politicians by those selected by a variety of mechanisms from the factory floor to the city economic forum to the regional resource centres…etc etc I accept that we will know our own limitations in personal fields, but when it comes to the wider social and environmental questions, just how are conflicts of sectional, self-interests resolved when i am not an expert who has studied , say hydrology and have no idea on the effect of fracking on groundwater leaching. My only skill is weighing up conflicting scientific opinion to reach a conclusion.  Will it be by voting and if so, my earlier question remains…who determines the constituency and who determines the competency of those involved in the decision-making.As i have said,i   believe such issues will continue to be asked when a new society has been achieved, as such matters will still be in flux and still be evolving. I'm laying down no imperative democratic procedures, but very much basically saying when it comes to some issues, there can be no "right" of participation in every decision making process.  

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

What i have is a problem of expecting everyone to know everything, LBird, and not respecting the knowledge acquired by others after much study and experience. Simple as that.  

As I said before, alan, you're going to have to discuss with me what I write, not with robbo's "What LBird Says". You really have to make that effort.

ajj wrote:

Will it be by voting and if so, my earlier question remains…who determines the constituency and who determines the competency of those involved in the decision-making.

[my bold]The simple answer, which I've given every time that you or anyone else has asked, to the question of 'who determines' is 'the democratic producers'.But, at no time at all, do you or the SPGB give your own answer.I've suggested you could answer 'an elite of Specialists', or 'Matter', or some variation upon those ('academics', 'physicists', 'the SPGB', 'True Reality', 'Eternal Knowledge', etc.). But you continue to hide your ideology.This answer of mine is in line with Marx's ideological views, that the social producers will create their world.I'm still not really sure what either your personal view is, or the official view of the SPGB.From what I can tell, the site seems to be populated by the 'ignorant and uninformed' mob, of your and robbo's ideological fear of "workers' democracy". Ironic, eh? From what you've written in the quote above, you still haven't figured out what Marx was talking about, and have been taken in by Engels' guff about 'Material/Matter'.Like the rest, alan, if you disagree with me, all good and fine, but you're going to have to read up on these issues. I'm only trying to help, and provide a bit of a shortcut. Why not read one of the books that I've recently recommended (Brzozowski, Miller, for eg.) or one that jondwhite has tried to discuss, GS Jones' Karl Marx: Greatness and Illusion ?

[Author]

Posts