Rethinking the Marxist Conception of Revolution by Chris Wright

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

Unless you can clearly state 'who' 'consciously applies' and 'how' they do so

And you LBird are overlooking my earlier statement that the "who" and the "how" is actually being undemocratic by usurping the power of the people by decreeing the "who" and the "how" in advance  (and so would we be). I suggested that it is simply a speculative venture to discuss that issue when we do not know, nor can fully understand, the circumstances of the unfolding socialist revolution that would usher in the next society which will determine the evolution of the different democratic processes that will arise around the world to administer and run society. All we can do is generalise right now. Except, of course, in the manner of our own party organisation where we have gone beyond mere words and created a structure that we claim is fit for purpose in that it reflects our aspirations of a non-hierarchial, leader-free system of decision-making.Will it be the model for the mass socialist party which will be necessary for the future? Some say it is but at the embryonic stage. Others suggest we will eventually merge with as yet an unborn organisation. But i have not the power of prophecy so i go with the "what is" and what "can be."For the time being, the SPGB is the best there is.If something better comes along, you will witness a migration of members because our attachment to the SPGB is not religious but utilitarian, it is simply a tool but one what we hope will become a weapon. Many of us have left the Party previously  but are returning members (YMS and myself) or ex-members who remain linked (Robbo). Surely that should be an inkling that we view the Party as possessing something of value that over-rides its weaknesses.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I entirely agree with the above.  We = social individuals, where "the labour power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour power of the community."

[my bold]As I said to alan earlier, you're using the words, but missing the meaning.Unless you can clearly state 'who' 'consciously applies' and 'how' they do so, you'll remain in the world of 'free individuals', and a system of production that reflects those needs, interests and purposes.

Well, to return to Chuck's words: a "community of free individuals" is the who, and freely and democratically is the answer to how.  Or, as Engels phrased it "a society organised on a socialist basis" a society is a coming together of people, not an amorphous abstraction.The whole point of socialism is to produce a consious association, where humans, as people, come together by design, not accidentally.Now, maybe when Karl Marx used the words "free individuals" he didn't mean "free individuals" but in fact Giant Fighting Robots.  So, yes, it will be the Giant Fighting Robots do the consious applying. Perhaps.We need to remember that Marx was a humanist, and his idea of communism was a society whee the free development of each shall be the condition for the free development of all.  We will be producing humans, and well rounded individuals, not producing a borganism.

[Anonymous]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

The whole point of socialism is to produce a consious association, where humans, as people, come together by design, not accidentally.We need to remember that Marx was a humanist, and his idea of communism was a society whee the free development of each shall be the condition for the free development of all.  We will be producing humans, and well rounded individuals, not producing a borganism.

In stark contrast to  LBird's view of communism as a Borg take over. Where there will be no local communities or individuals  making decisions. Issues will be decided by the global community(Borg) and imposed on local communities. Sends a shver down my spine.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsUndkXAQ_8LBird ensuring the global extinction of the individual and the establishment of his communism. Decisions are made by the collective. brrrrrrrrr 

[rodshaw]

Vin wrote:

In stark contrast to  LBird's view of communism as a Borg take over. Where there will be no local communities or individuals  making decisions. Issues will be decided by the global community(Borg) and imposed on local communities. Sends a shver down my spine.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsUndkXAQ_8LBird ensuring the global extinction of the individual and the establishment of his communism. Decisions are made by the collective. brrrrrrrrr 

As I understand it, in this monolithic view of communism, all the world's population will all be equally educated and will be equally informed on every single issue. In fact, they will seemingly be expected to vote on every single issue, whether global or local.Such a thing could only happen if we were all telepathic and could all communicate with one another more or less instantly. Which, by the time this monolithic socialism comes about, we might be.But barring this eventuality, it raises the question who proposes what to vote on? Surely anyone individualistic enough to suggest a new idea isn't playing the game, so nothing will ever change because there's nothing to vote about, and society will quickly stultify.Unless, of course, there's some kind of elite making all the proposals "on behalf of" the community, and the community vote in line for fear of being too individualistic.

[twc]

Twenty familiar phrases…Winston:  “But how can you control matter?”¹O’Brien:  “We control matter because we control the mind.²  Reality is inside the skull.  You must get rid of those nineteenth century ideas about the laws of nature.³  We make the laws of nature.”⁴Winston:  “But man is tiny—helpless!  How long has he been in existence?  For millions of years the earth was uninhabited.”O’Brien:  “Nonsense.  The earth is no older than we are.⁵. Nothing exists except through human consciousness.”⁶Winston:  “But the rocks are full of the bones of extinct animals, which lived here long before man was ever heard of.”O’Brien:  “Nineteenth-century biologists invented them.⁷  Before man there was nothing.⁸  After man there will be nothing.⁹  Outside man there is nothing.”Winston:  “But the whole universe is outside us.  Look at the stars!  Some of them are a million light-years away.  They are out of our reach forever.”O’Brien:  “What are the stars?  The earth is the center of the universe.  The sun and the stars go round it.¹⁰  The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them.  Do you suppose our mathematicians are unequal to that?”¹¹ …  “I told you, Winston, that metaphysics is not your strong point.”¹² …  “For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four?¹³  Or that the force of gravity works?¹⁴  Or that the past is unchangeable?  If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?”¹⁵ …  “You are a slow learner, Winston.”¹⁶Winston:  “Two and two are four.”O’Brien:  “Sometimes, Winston.¹⁷  Sometimes they are five.¹⁸  Sometimes they are three.¹⁹  Sometimes they are all of them at once.¹⁹  You must try harder.²⁰  It is not easy to become sane.”

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

Unless you can clearly state 'who' 'consciously applies' and 'how' they do so

And you LBird are overlooking my earlier statement that the "who" and the "how" is actually being undemocratic by usurping the power of the people by decreeing the "who" and the "how" in advance  (and so would we be).

[my bold]But you've given the answer to 'who' as 'the people', alan.That is an ideological assumption, alan. You should be open to yourself and workers about this political assumption.For my part, I don't share your ideological assumption.I share Marx's ideological assumption, that 'the proletariat' will decide. In more historically general terms, the 'proletariat' are the 'social producers' within capitalist society, so the victorious revolutionary proletariat become the 'social producers' within socialism.For Democratic Communists, 'workers' and 'social producers' are a synonymous category, the former just being more historically specific.So, to sum up, Marx's answer to 'who consciously applies' is 'workers', whereas your answer is 'the people'.[quote-ajj]I suggested that it is simply a speculative venture to discuss that issue when we do not know, nor can fully understand, the circumstances of the unfolding socialist revolution that would usher in the next society which will determine the evolution of the different democratic processes that will arise around the world to administer and run society. All we can do is generalise right now. [/quote]But, you are  (as we all do) making 'a speculative venture'.It's just that mine is commensurate with Marx's, unlike yours.Marx 'speculates' that the 'democratic proletariat' will build socialism, and you speculate that an (at least potentially) 'undemocratic people' will build socialism. I say this, because, like the other SPGB supporters, you don't want to make it clear that only democracy can determine the 'truth' for the social producers within socialism. Thus, you ideologically leave room for 'elite power', the rule of 'The Specialists', who will themselves represent 'the people'.I will say in your defense, though, alan, that you seem completely unware of the political consequences of your ideology of 'the people'.

[alanjjohnstone]

In political discourse, there are two words i do dislike…one is proletariat and the other is bourgeoisie.There has been previous debates on which term we should use for the working class…i think i am prone to saying working people these days…and as you have noticed, dropping the working and going for the people. It is to be inclusive. I have encountered many who claim that they are actually not producers, being unemployed or unemployable. The IWW had to revise their industrial unions to cater for this substantial part of the population by introducing Household Service Workers Industrial Union 680.Since i was suggesting that decisions about how we organise a socialist society after it is achieved is best left to those with the task of implementing it under conditions and circumstances we are not aware of and therefore should not pre-empt, i think we have made class redundant as it no longer has any meaning in a class-free society. As Marx the humanist keeps telling us inside a socialist society, its  members now become associated individuals ( https://libcom.org/library/socialism-individual-marxs-work ) and the term proletarian which has a distinction only under capitalism is no longer an appropriate word to use.Perhaps you confused by my meaning of the building socialism once we have acquired political power and displaced the capitalists and assumed i was discussing building towards socialism.As for this specialist issue….my relationship with my doctor, for instance, will basically be the same as it is today…i will have the final say and consent but he or she will no longer have any influence from NHS budgets and pharmaceutical industry inducements when recommending courses of treatment. But will there exist overseeing bodies such as NICE, or as the American Republicans like to name them "death committees", yes, i suppose there will be. Cost-benefit analysis may be different in socialism but there will be various filters for efficiency. NICE might exist. Who picks that specialist body? Maybe the Athenian lottery system as in our jury service. After all, it is not professional lawyers and solicitors who decide guilty and not guilty but people picked from the electoral register. So do i worry that my life may be placed in the hands of my peers?As Robbo has tried to do on a different thread by highlighting the literal meaning of a phrase, i think you make an ado over nothing. As Citizen (another useful word for us to use more) Wolfie Smith says: Power to the People!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMKsR_wUSfA

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

In political discourse, there are two words i do dislike…one is proletariat and the other is bourgeoisie.There has been previous debates on which term we should use for the working class…i think i am prone to saying working people these days…and as you have noticed, dropping the working and going for the people. …Since i was suggesting that decisions about how we organise a socialist society after it is achieved is best left to those with the task of implementing it under conditions and circumstances we are not aware of and therefore should not pre-empt, i think we have made class redundant as it no longer has any meaning in a class-free society. …

Thanks for your open and clear post, alan – it's something that the rest of the SPGB should do.It allows me to judge far more clearly why I don't agree with the SPGB. Dropping the names for classes, dropping the term 'workers', avoiding talking about classes… it's all very far removed from Marx.

ajj wrote:

Perhaps you confused by my meaning of the building socialism once we have acquired political power and displaced the capitalists and assumed i was discussing building towards socialism.

I've addressed this in my previous post, alan. The proletariat become the social producers within socialism, so one can't separate the two issues, as you wish to do, between 'building' and 'acquisition' – the 'builders' are the ones who 'acquire'. 

ajj wrote:

As Robbo has tried to do on a different thread by highlighting the literal meaning of a phrase, i think you make an ado over nothing. As Citizen (another useful word for us to use more) Wolfie Smith says: Power to the People!

Yeah, elites always accuse democrats of 'making an ado over nothing'!I just warn workers to beware of those who use the term 'The People'. It's simply a way of pretending to workers that they themselves will be the power within socialism, whilst the elite really plan to represent 'The People', and use the usual scaremongering tactics of claiming that Marxists are going to get rid of doctors and allow roadsweepers to operate on your brains!I must say, alan, that I've always taken you for a non-elitist that is just confused about Marx, classes, democracy, workers and social producers, but your present willingness to be open has made me realise that you too share the basic ideological assumptions of all the others in and around the SPGB.Personally, I'm going to remain with Marx's terms, bourgeoisie, proletariat, class struggle, democratic production, workers' power, etc., and that 'socialism' means 'the democratic control of production'.The best thing about this thread is that you are now being much more open, and less coy, about political and ideological issues, which can only be to the advantage of any workers reading who are unsure about the direction in which the SPGB is heading, compared to my views.That doesn't mean that they'll reject your views and accept mine, of course, but it allows them a fighting chance of getting to grips with the issues that they have to confront and make decisions about.Are 'workers' to be the class that morphs into the 'social producers' of 'socialism', by their own self-development, consciousness, and democratic power, or is there a group called 'The People' led by 'Specialists' who will prevail?

[alanjjohnstone]

LBird, you are demonstrating a knack of interpreting what i write as you wish to read it.I made a very sensible suggestion of how democratic control is enacted that does not involve voting or electing and one that is not a utopian proposition but a practical projection of the present reality which will be adapted and adjusted as seen fit and which makes any specialist unnecessary for control and those chosen to administer important parts of socialist society will be random and temporary positions. No elite can form but you accuse me of promoting such. I'm lost at such a reading.You can continue using Marxian language but some i find very counter-productive such as "dictatorship of the proletariat". We have already expressed a preference to the term socialist rather than communist even though neither is fully comprehended and invariably require elaboration.I am happy in these modern times to use people…humanity…whatever…as substitutes for workers…working class…producers…whatever. Hopefully, when i use words, they are understood by my fellow-workers (another hangover from my IWW days) since, of course, i am not addressing any specialists in Marxology, academic or autodidact who require their special technical language and terminology.  

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Thanks for your open and clear post, alan – it's something that the rest of the SPGB should do.It allows me to judge far more clearly why I don't agree with the SPGB. Dropping the names for classes, dropping the term 'workers', avoiding talking about classes… it's all very far removed from Marx.

Yes, Alan, you should think like the rest of the collective. No individuals in the Borg. Your mind is our mind. LBird has clearly stated that there will be no individual thinking outside of the collective. Truth will be determined by the collective and all communities and individuals will be bound by that determinition.He is emphatic about that. No ambiquity. He cannot be misunderstood. You are incapable of individual thinking and you will be told what to think by the collective in LBird's version of DEMOCRATIC COMMUNISM! 

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

LBird, you are demonstrating a knack of interpreting what i write as you wish to read it.I made a very sensible suggestion of how democratic control is enacted that does not involve voting or electing and one that is not a utopian proposition but a practical projection of the present reality which will be adapted and adjusted as seen fit and which makes any specialist unnecessary for control and those chosen to administer important parts of socialist society will be random and temporary positions. No elite can form but you accuse me of promoting such. I'm lost at such a reading.

But I'm simply unpicking what you're writing, alan.For example, 'who' determined your 'very sensible suggestion'? You? The SPGB?I merely point out that 'sensible' is always a social and historical product (not an 'objective' or 'eternal' 'sensibility' that an elite has neutral access to), and so I argue that only the social producers can determine what is 'sensible' or not, and that such a 'sensibility' would be democratic sensibility, not an individual sensibility.And then, you contrast 'utopian' with 'practical', which (although you seem to be unaware of this) is always a conservative tactic, which stresses the 'existing', the 'real world', of 'practical matters' over the 'theoretical', the 'planned', the 'democratic mandate for change'. Within the socialist movement, this obviously owes its origin to Engels' Socialism Utopian and Scientific, which is a maked divergence from Marx's own views, about the necessity for 'theory and practice' (or, in your terms, 'utopia and practice').And you seem to be saying that 'doctors' are not 'important', because, given your own argument, we'd have to make doctors 'random and temporary' if they wield power.On the contrary, as a Marxist, I regard doctors as powerful, and argue that they should be democratically controlled, that is, neither a self-selecting and regulating elite, nor a random and temporary appointment.

ajj wrote:

You can continue using Marxian language but some i find very counter-productive such as "dictatorship of the proletariat". We have already expressed a preference to the term socialist rather than communist even though neither is fully comprehended and invariably require elaboration.

Well, I don't use the term 'd of the p', so your use of this in this discussion is very suspect. It suggests that you wish to associate my democratic arguments with dictatorial ones. But, having said that, I would defend that historical usage of it, and any worker who reads about Rome would soon come to understand its very restricted, emergency, meaning within Marx's time, related to its classical meaning in Roman politics.

ajj wrote:

I am happy in these modern times to use people…humanity…whatever…as substitutes for workers…working class…producers…whatever. Hopefully, when i use words, they are understood by my fellow-workers (another hangover from my IWW days) since, of course, i am not addressing any specialists in Marxology, academic or autodidact who require their special technical language and terminology.  

So, 'humanity'. No 'exploiting class' confronted with an 'exploited class'. No 'bourgeoisie' and 'proletariat'. No socio-historical term, but an all-embracing, non-political, 'humanity'. Not my preference, alan.And your last sentence really shows your views of the educational potential of workers. That they'll never understand Marx.

[alanjjohnstone]

No….the sensible suggestion as i pointed out was one that is already in practice, so if you like society made that democratic decision already. My only suggestion is that such a tool can be expanded and used in all manner of situations requiring oversight if we so wished. So when i propose an obstacle to elitism and specialisation, you say i am for it…I have already in an earlier post declared that no one size fits all and historic and social conditions will determine the nature of local organisation. I recall reading about a parallel system of civic administration existing in indigenous regions of Mexico where once the state apparatus is dismantled it will present an organic alternative. I think one of the Zapatista successes was to build upon what already existed. We do have a difference in how we feel socialist ideas should be expressed. We agree that DOTP is not a phrase either of is bandies about and your ill-founded suspicions of why i used it is an example why –  the tone of our words and language can be so easily misconstrued. I'm accused by you of throwing out the baby with the bath-water when i signal that Marxian arguments can be alternatively expressed. Only a hair-splitter would consider Occupy's 1% V 99% to be misleading in reflecting the class nature of society but even some of my comrades seek to amend it to be more accurate by saying 5% V 95%.(i was reared on the the 7:84 divide from the 70s theatre group). I happen to prefer "class war" to "class struggle".I have no desire to restrict myself to a limited lexicon of acceptable revolutionary expressions. Where is the poet in you, LBird?I am not averse to stretching the definition of workers, producers, toilers, to the people and mankind, humanity, no matter how amorphous such a wide-ranging definition is to yourself. I do try to avoid the qualification the common people, though.When Marx wrote in the 19th century, the working class was a minority of people but one that has grown into the vast majority until it is now just "us" and "them", no middle class, no peasantry (and who cares if they are a class or not)…workers democracy is the democracy of the majority. In numbers, the workers are The People (name of the SLP journal, btw), they are humanity, they are mankind.   "The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interests of the immense majority." Substitute socialist for proletarian and i see no great dilemma in the choice of words. 

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

No….the sensible suggestion as i pointed out was one that is already in practice, so if you like society made that democratic decision already. My only suggestion is that such a tool can be expanded and used in all manner of situations requiring oversight if we so wished. So when i propose an obstacle to elitism and specialisation, you say i am for it…

[my bold]That's a strange claim, alan.If something is 'already in practice', that it is tantamount to being 'already' a 'democratic decision'. Wow. Don't mention that to any conservatives that you argue with about politics, because they'll have a field day with you!It doesn't take much to then claim that 'capitalism is already in practice, so if you like society made that democratic decision already'.

ajj wrote:

I have already in an earlier post declared that no one size fits all and historic and social conditions will determine the nature of local organisation. I recall reading about a parallel system of civic administration existing in indigenous regions of Mexico where once the state apparatus is dismantled it will present an organic alternative. I think one of the Zapatista successes was to build upon what already existed.

So, the Zapatista is a model for 'socialism'? This has the feel of you claiming it's an example of 'Already Existing Socialism' – bit too 'Uncle Joe' for me, alan. 

ajj wrote:

We do have a difference in how we feel socialist ideas should be expressed. We agree that DOTP is not a phrase either of is bandies about and your ill-founded suspicions of why i used it is an example why –  the tone of our words and language can be so easily misconstrued. I'm accused by you of throwing out the baby with the bath-water when i signal that Marxian arguments can be alternatively expressed. Only a hair-splitter would consider Occupy's 1% V 99% to be misleading in reflecting the class nature of society but even some of my comrades seek to amend it to be more accurate by saying 5% V 95%.(i was reared on the the 7:84 divide from the 70s theatre group). I happen to prefer "class war" to "class struggle".

But you wrote earlier that you've moved away from classes ('bourgeoisie' and 'proletariat'), so I'm not sure what you actually mean by preferring 'class war', alan. Once again, it seems that you, like other SPGB posters, keep the 'terms' but empty them of any revolutionary content.So, I agree that 'we do have a difference in how we feel socialist ideas should be expressed' – I'm all for 'class war' meaning 'class war', where the exploiting class is removed and replace by the exploited class. No all-embracing 'humanity', but a fundamental separation within 'humanity'.

ajj wrote:

I have no desire to restrict myself to a limited lexicon of acceptable revolutionary expressions. Where is the poet in you, LBird?I am not averse to stretching the definition of workers, producers, toilers, to the people and mankind, humanity, no matter how amorphous such a wide-ranging definition is to yourself. I do try to avoid the qualification the common people, though.

'Poetry' will reflect the politics of the 'poet', alan! Unless your 'poet' is the mythical bourgeois intellectual who transcends society and history, and is able to get to the 'real existence of humanity', the timeless essence of all biological individuals, which can be expressed by Special Genius.

ajj wrote:

When Marx wrote in the 19th century, the working class was a minority of people but one that has grown into the vast majority until it is now just "us" and "them", no middle class, no peasantry (and who cares if they are a class or not)…workers democracy is the democracy of the majority. In numbers, the workers are The People (name of the SLP journal, btw), they are humanity, they are mankind.   "The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interests of the immense majority." Substitute socialist for proletarian and i see no great dilemma in the choice of words. 

[my bold]Yeah, substitute 'socialist' for 'proletarian', then substitute 'humanity' for 'socialist', then substitute 'specialist' for the generality of 'humanity'… I never took you for a Stalinist substitutionist, alan! Even Trotsky could see where that one would go!No, I'd suggest that your removal of 'workers' and replacement by 'people', 'majority', 'humanity' or 'mankind' just empties Marx's revolutionary theory of all of its social and historical specificity.By "workers' democracy" I mean workers (all of them) and democracy (voting by workers).So, if I'm asked 'who determines physics', I would answer 'workers by voting', and would remove Hawking unless his theory and practice reflected our needs, interests and purposes.Of course, Religious Materialists claim that Hawking is a genius and 'knows nature', a 'nature' that the majority can't know (and so can't vote upon), and that the 'nature' that Hawking 'knows' is sitting 'out there', outside of any social production of it.Or do you agree that your 'People' can democratically decide their creation of their nature? If so, perhaps our argument is only about 'terms' rather than politics. But, I'm inclined to think that your use of 'The People' is much the same as your use of 'Workers' – empty rhetoric, when it comes to our real world.

[alanjjohnstone]

My, LBird, aren't you confirming exactly what i accused you of…interpreting what i say as you wish to read it. I dislike the terms proletarian and bourgeoisie was what i said. I never said i reject the concept of class or that class conflict is the motor of social change. That is the big diference with ourselves and Zeitgeist, Moneyfree Party and the ilk who also feel the need to change language. Our ideas go beyond  moralist appeal for  better worldWorker and working class are terms i also use, i see no problem with producers, either, or even wealth-creators and for our master class, I often use the terms owning, possessing employer class rather than bourgeoisie, and nothing wrong with capitalist or ruling class. I indeed said i equated the "masses" with the working class…workers are the vast majority in the world today, as i clearly pointed out to you As the say in Scotland.."we arra people"I never suggested that the Zapatistas was movement was a model for socialism. What i said was that their success could be because they made use of an existing democratic structure that was not the State but an indigenous village democracy, legally unrecognised by the State but older and more rooted within the community. . When it comes to socialist administration being democratic, there is a case that we do not need to re-invent the wheel but as always we build upon what we have.Again, i said that the random election of jurists that takes place within capitalism is a principle that could well be widened and applied to other sectors but required adaptation and adjustment. You could have criticised it as not doing away with the division of labour in law, as it still permits legal specialists…(in Scotland we are more accurate in our words…we call barristers advocates)…but you failed to make that point. Instead, you bring forth the point that we cannot accept practices that are agreed consensually within capitalism – existing society- as it somehow is approving of todays's methods. It is if raising your hand to signal assent and dissent within today's society, is a suspect method of expressing ones view because it an acceptable method of democratic procedure. It is the conservatives who made it illegal…(with secret strike ballots and whatnot), I explained that worker as a word can have both a literal meaning…those who work …or a political economic meaning. I explained that language should be inclusive. A student, a pensioner, the sick and the disabled, those who literally do not work, may well misunderstand us when we talk of workers being in control of society as saying that they have no role whatsoever in decision-making. It is like insisting that production will only be determined be the democracy of the producers and not the consumers i.e. sectional ownership and not common ownership or social ownership.All people are involved in participatory democracy within socialism, to answer your last question.And defining them narrowly as "workers" no longer applies as i pointed out. Classes cease to exist and proletarian is a specific term for a class-relationship and can only be used in the context of capitalism will be a redundant term, an archaic word like villein. 

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

My, LBird, aren't you confirming exactly what i accused you of…interpreting what i say as you wish to read it. 

I can only go by what you write, alan, and ask you to confirm my understanding, as a Democratic Communist, of what you are writing.

ajj wrote:

 It is like insisting that production will only be determined be the democracy of the producers and not the consumers i.e. sectional ownership and not common ownership or social ownership.All people are involved in participatory democracy within socialism, to answer your last question.

So, you do agree that the social production of truth will be controlled by the social producers using democratic methods?That is how I understand the political content of what you've written. If this is not the case (and it might not be what you intend to say), then I'm entitled to ask you just what  "All people are involved in participatory democracy within socialism" means.If you mean that 'nature' is nothing to do with 'all people' (that 'nature' is the political province of 'elite experts') and that 'truth' is produced by a disinterested elite who employ a politically-neutral 'scientific' method, and so is outside the control of any 'participatory democracy', then you should be clear about just what is covered by "All people are involved in participatory democracy within socialism".FWIW, I am open about my particular political beliefs on this issue – to me, everything is covered by "All people are involved in participatory democracy within socialism".And to be even clearer, by 'everything' I mean 'The Universe'. This agrees with Marx's usage – we socially produce Our World, the Universe-For-Us. We create Our Nature, the organic Nature-For-Us. And since we create it, we can change it.If you, or the SPGB disagree with these politics ("All people are involved in participatory democracy within socialism"), then you should be open about it, and openly state just what is not involved in this 'socialism' of yours, in which 'all people' are not 'involved in participatory democracy' about their world, their socio-natural world.I can suggest a list of what you might consider is not involved in your version of "All people are involved in participatory democracy within socialism" – nature, maths, physics, matter, reality, logic, science…It's only being politically open to specify what is not covered by your statement.Of course, I'll then ask you to specify 'who' or 'what' does socially produce whatever you list.This seems entirely appropriate to a thread with this title. Who is 'rethinking' and what is 'the Marxist conception'?

[Author]

Posts