Socialism and Democracy

[robbo203]

Socialism is defined as a system of society in which the means of production are commonly owned and democratically controlled by everyone.  But what exactly is meant by “democratic control” here?  Since socialism is a global society, how is democratic control to be exercised by the 7 billion or so people that currently constitute the world’s population? I think we need to seriously unpack this whole question and present a much more nuanced and – dare I say it – realistic account of how a socialist democracy would work in practice

 

One of the many criticisms that are constantly thrown at socialists alludes to what is called the "complexity problem" which is associated with people like F A Hayek.  In a nutshell what Hayek was saying is that modern industrial society is far too complex for decisions to be concentrated in the hands of a single planning centre.  It is quite impossible for the literally millions upon millions of decisions that are being made every day about every aspect of modern production to be made by this single authority.  Of necessity, such decisions need to be decentralised and then coordinated through an impersonal market mechanism.  Hayek was right about the need for some degree of decentralisation but very wrong about the need for such decisions to be coordinated through a market.  There is an alternative mechanism of coordination that in fact operates side by side with the market mechanism even today – namely, a self-regulating system of stock control involving calculation-in-kind.  Socialism will simply get rid of the former but retain the later

 

Central or society wide planning is also an attempt to coordinate decisions but in a non-decentralised fashion – obviously.  In theory, this can be done either democratically or not.  In practice, neither democratic society-wide planning nor undemocratic society-wide planning is remotely feasible and indeed of the two the former is even more unfeasible because the idea of having to consult the global population on a daily basis about the millions upon millions of decisions to be made every day is self-evidently ridiculous.

 

Society-wide central planning, democratic or not, is a completely unworkable idea. It requires calculating in advance the ratios of millions of inputs and to millions of outputs via a calibrated system of "material balances",  Any given output requires certain inputs so to produce a certain production target for that output requires that the production targets for these inputs should be met.  A shortfall in the production of even one of these inputs will impact upon the output in question such that the target production of that output will not be met.  Since everything is interconnected in a modern production system even small departures from the central Plan will magnify in a cumulative fashion that will undermine the integrity of the whole plan – even assuming it could be put together in the first place

 

I dont need to labour the point.  Society wide central planning is impossible not least because it is simply incapable of adjusting to the problem of real world changes.  But what is the alternative then?

Here I think the principle of subsidiarity will come into play and should be a cornerstone of the socialist view of democracy – notwithstanding the origins of this concept in such a reactionary organisation as the Roman Catholic Church .  Subsidiarity has been defined as “ an organizing principle that matters ought t0o be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Political decisions should be taken at a local level if possible, rather than by a central authority”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

 

A healthy democracy requires informed decision-making.  A local community in one part of the world is unlikely to be even aware of another local community on the other side of the world let alone the kind of issues that affect the latter.  Should it have a say in such issues or would this not be seen as a form of arrogant external interference in matters that don’t really concern it? This surely brings out a central point of a socialist democracy – that there are different scales of decision-making to which correspond different levels of spatial organisation in a socialist society – local regional and global.   It entirely depend on the nature of the decision to be made and its spatial significance for individuals

 

This is one very important constraint on the extent of democratic decision-making in a socialist a society. There are others – such as how to balance the decisions made by individuals against decisions made by groups.  It is only in the sphere of group decisions that democracy has any relevance and there is a shifting boundary between group decisions and individual decisions which we need to take cognisance of. 

 

For instance we would not want to argue that in a socialist society the group should determine what clothes we wear, what food we eat, what music we listen to and so on.  That would make socialism unbearably totalitarian and intolerant.  These things should quite properly should be left basically up to the individual to decide.  Not only that, it is quite impractical for such things to be decided on any other basis.

 

Morevoer, I would argue that the very nature of a socialist society absolutely requires and insists upon this sphere of individual freedom.  As Marx put it in socialism the “free development of each is the condition for the free development of all”.  Note the words. "condition of".  Marx is saying a free society depends on its individuals being substantially free to express their own individuality.  From each according to ability to each according to need is the very embodiment of this principle of free development. For instance, if we are not able to voluntarily choose what kind of work we would like to do then it follows that our labour is coerced not free.  Coerced labour is a characteristic of a class based society not a socialist society

 

So, in summary, what I am arguing for is that we need to more proactively present a more nuanced picture of a socialist democracy as something that is  balanced or constrained by other considerations .  The more realistic or practical our model of socialist democracy the more likely is it to attract interest

[robbo203]

robbo203 wrote:

Socialism is defined as a system of society in which the means of production are commonly owned and democratically controlled by everyone.  But what exactly is meant by “democratic control” here?  Since socialism is a global society, how is democratic control to be exercised by the 7 billion or so people that currently constitute the world’s population? I think we need to seriously unpack this whole question and present a much more nuanced and – dare I say it – realistic account of how a socialist democracy would work in practice One of the many criticisms that are constantly thrown at socialists alludes to what is called the "complexity problem" which is associated with people like F A Hayek.  In a nutshell what Hayek was saying is that modern industrial society is far too complex for decisions to be concentrated in the hands of a single planning centre.  It is quite impossible for the literally millions upon millions of decisions that are being made every day about every aspect of modern production to be made by this single authority.  Of necessity, such decisions need to be decentralised and then coordinated through an impersonal market mechanism.  Hayek was right about the need for some degree of decentralisation but very wrong about the need for such decisions to be coordinated through a market.  There is an alternative mechanism of coordination that in fact operates side by side with the market mechanism even today – namely, a self-regulating system of stock control involving calculation-in-kind.  Socialism will simply get rid of the former but retain the later Central or society wide planning is also an attempt to coordinate decisions but in a non-decentralised fashion – obviously.  In theory, this can be done either democratically or not.  In practice, neither democratic society-wide planning nor undemocratic society-wide planning is remotely feasible and indeed of the two the former is even more unfeasible because the idea of having to consult the global population on a daily basis about the millions upon millions of decisions to be made every day is self-evidently ridiculous. Society-wide central planning, democratic or not, is a completely unworkable idea. It requires calculating in advance the ratios of millions of inputs and to millions of outputs via a calibrated system of "material balances",  Any given output requires certain inputs so to produce a certain production target for that output requires that the production targets for these inputs should be met.  A shortfall in the production of even one of these inputs will impact upon the output in question such that the target production of that output will not be met.  Since everything is interconnected in a modern production system even small departures from the central Plan will magnify in a cumulative fashion that will undermine the integrity of the whole plan – even assuming it could be put together in the first place I dont need to labour the point.  Society wide central planning is impossible not least because it is simply incapable of adjusting to the problem of real world changes.  But what is the alternative then?Here I think the principle of subsidiarity will come into play and should be a cornerstone of the socialist view of democracy – notwithstanding the origins of this concept in such a reactionary organisation as the Roman Catholic Church .  Subsidiarity has been defined as “ an organizing principle that matters ought t0o be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Political decisions should be taken at a local level if possible, rather than by a central authority”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity A healthy democracy requires informed decision-making.  A local community in one part of the world is unlikely to be even aware of another local community on the other side of the world let alone the kind of issues that affect the latter.  Should it have a say in such issues or would this not be seen as a form of arrogant external interference in matters that don’t really concern it? This surely brings out a central point of a socialist democracy – that there are different scales of decision-making to which correspond different levels of spatial organisation in a socialist society – local regional and global.   It entirely depend on the nature of the decision to be made and its spatial significance for individuals This is one very important constraint on the extent of democratic decision-making in a socialist a society. There are others – such as how to balance the decisions made by individuals against decisions made by groups.  It is only in the sphere of group decisions that democracy has any relevance and there is a shifting boundary between group decisions and individual decisions which we need to take cognisance of.   For instance we would not want to argue that in a socialist society the group should determine what clothes we wear, what food we eat, what music we listen to and so on.  That would make socialism unbearably totalitarian and intolerant.  These things should quite properly should be left basically up to the individual to decide.  Not only that, it is quite impractical for such things to be decided on any other basis. Morevoer, I would argue that the very nature of a socialist society absolutely requires and insists upon this sphere of individual freedom.  As Marx put it in socialism the “free development of each is the condition for the free development of all”.  Note the words. "condition of".  Marx is saying a free society depends on its individuals being substantially free to express their own individuality.  From each according to ability to each according to need is the very embodiment of this principle of free development. For instance, if we are not able to voluntarily choose what kind of work we would like to do then it follows that our labour is coerced not free.  Coerced labour is a characteristic of a class based society not a socialist society So, in summary, what I am arguing for is that we need to more proactively present a more nuanced picture of a socialist democracy as something that is  balanced or constrained by other considerations .  The more realistic or practical our model of socialist democracy the more likely is it to attract interest

 

LBird wrote:

I'm a Democratic Communist, whose concern is to use Marx to further the building of the democratic control of social production by the producers (ie., socialism).

---

And so, you hide your ideology

  I note that while LBird goes on and on  and on and on ad nauseum about Marxist epistemology he has made no attempt  whatsoever to respond to the above. Does LBird support Lenin's  idea that the whole of society should be turned into "one office and one factory" in the guise of society wide central planning?  After all this is surely the realisation of LBird's fantasy of the TOTALITY of production – billions upon billions of decisions – being determined "democratically" by the TOTAL global workforce  (all 7 billion of us). Why is LBird hiding his totalitarian ideology from us? Why does he not come out of the closet and admit he is a totalitarian at heart?

[Anonymous]

There are many importance issues that are not discussed in this forum. With Marx Epistemology workers are not going to stop paying their rent or mortgage, and they are not going to put food on their tables for their family, or to eliminate the causes of wars in this society. The thing about epistemology is like a rosary for the church of Marx, it is a repetition of the same ideas all the time, it is an endless cycle. We have discussed those ideas hundred of times, it is like hacking the forum toward a mono-thematic concept

[robbo203]

mcolome1 wrote:

There are many importance issues that are not discussed in this forum. With Marx Epistemology workers are not going to stop paying their rent or mortgage, and they are not going to put food on their tables for their family, or to eliminate the causes of wars in this society. The thing about epistemology is like a rosary for the church of Marx, it is a repetition of the same ideas all the time, it is an endless cycle. We have discussed those ideas hundred of times, it is like hacking the forum toward a mono-thematic concept

 Yes I'm inclined to agree.  Epistemology is not unimportant but it is of secondary importance, in my opinion.   The nitty gritty of how a socialist society might actually be run democratically is a more important issue and tellingly, LBird has completely avoided any serious discussion of this.  I think he is more interested in academic concepts then real struggles and real solutions to those struggles. If that were not the case why does he not explicitly pot forward a model of how a socialist democracy could actually function? He really hasnt thought through a lot of what he is saying….

[Anonymous]

Robb wrote:

Moline's wrote:

There are many importance issues that are not discussed in this forum. With Marx Epistemology workers are not going to stop paying their rent or mortgage, and they are not going to put food on their tables for their family, or to eliminate the causes of wars in this society. The thing about epistemology is like a rosary for the church of Marx, it is a repetition of the same ideas all the time, it is an endless cycle. We have discussed those ideas hundred of times, it is like hacking the forum toward a mono-thematic concept

 Yes I'm inclined to agree.  Epistemology is not unimportant but it is of secondary importance, in my opinion.   The itty gritty of how a socialist society might actually be run democratically is a more important issue and tellingly, Bird has completely avoided any serious discussion of this.  I think he is more interested in academic concepts then real struggles and real solutions to those struggles. If that were not the case why does he not explicitly pot forward a model of how a socialist democracy could actually function? He really hasn't thought through a lot of what he is saying….

I am not saying that Marx's Epistemology is not important, what I care is about the constantly repetition  in an endless  cycle of the same subject matter, it is only an intellectual exercise, or a coffee shop discussion.Your topic about socialism and democracy is more important at the present time, and nobody has paid attention to it,  when the workers around the world  do need a real concept of democracy instead of tailgating their own master, and the real concept of socialism when capitalism can take mankind to its own destruction.This is a public forum and visitors from outside of the WSM join this place they are going to get bored and they are going to leave, because the topic is getting boring already.I do not see L Bird denouncing capitalism, or the capitalists, or the problems that workers are facing at the present time,  his main target is Engels and the Socialist Party, those are not the social enemies of the working classHe says that he is a  super- democratic person, more than anybody around here, he is the champion of democracy, but his practice shows that he is more totalitarian than democratic, and he wants everybody to precipitate toward his ideas, and how ever disagree with his ideas, it is an apologist of the bourgeois ideology, or Engelsian. He has a pathologic obsession with EngelsHe was accusing us in being a bunch of Leninists but we had a discussion comparing Marx and Lenin and he did not make any contributions, on the contrary, thru several knocks out we proved that we are not Leninists, or proto-Leninists

[Anonymous]

All the topics in this forum should be around socialism and democracy because that is our main objective. We are a center of education about socialism and democracy, both are together. There are millions of issues around the world that are related to socialism and democracy

[Sympo]

I think that the principle of subsidarity is a reasonable one in a lot of cases. However, in some cases I think that it would be good for different areas to decide if the approval of something would affect them in an important way. A somewhat bad example would be if a town wants to build a nuclear power plant that is not just near the area of their town, but also near the area of another town. If a disaster happened, both towns could be negatively affected.On the issue of democratically deciding what clothers to wear, what music to listen to etc, I agree that this would be bad.However, if most people would want to decide stuff like that by voting, there wouldn't really be any way of stopping them other than convincing them, right? Not that I think there would be a big risk of that happening.

[robbo203]

Sympo wrote:

I think that the principle of subsidarity is a reasonable one in a lot of cases. However, in some cases I think that it would be good for different areas to decide if the approval of something would affect them in an important way. A somewhat bad example would be if a town wants to build a nuclear power plant that is not just near the area of their town, but also near the area of another town. If a disaster happened, both towns could be negatively affected.On the issue of democratically deciding what clothers to wear, what music to listen to etc, I agree that this would be bad.However, if most people would want to decide stuff like that by voting, there wouldn't really be any way of stopping them other than convincing them, right? Not that I think there would be a big risk of that happening.

 Yes, there is a balance to be struck between what might be called "freedom", on the one hand, and "democracy", on the other, and this is a theme that is unfortunately woefully underexplored in socialist discussion.  There is a sense in which they obviously converge but there is also a sense in which they diverge.  For instance, the right to freely express your opinion or to access other opinions may very well be considered a cornerstone feature of a democratic society.  But so is the process of voting.   We have heard on this forum an argument being put forward (by the contributor LBird) for the "truth" of scientific theories to be democratically voted upon which to me is an utter absurdity (never mind the total impracticality of the the idea).  The  implication is of course that if you continue to hold  to some some heretical scientific idea that  has been voted down then you put yourself in the morally abhorrent position of promoting a scientific "lie" So the totalitarian and frankly anti scientific policy of voting on the the truth of scientific theories – it would turn science into a religious cult rather than an open-minded process of discovery and constant questioning –  is one that we need to take heed of. LBirds argument is reminsicent of the so called democratic centralism put forward by Leninist style parties though LBird himself , strangely enough, claims not to be a leninist  Deciding on what consititues scientific truth – why do we need to decide on this anyway? –  is a good example of where society would benefit from the absence of this ritual of head counting.  The same would apply to a range of other kinds of decisions of a personal nature such as where you wish to live, what work you would like to do , what clothes music or culinary habits you prefer.  Collective decision making which is an aspect of democracy  should not play any role in respect of these things and it would be thoroughly unhealthy were it to do so and if you start laying down the law in this area you will only breed resentment.  I am strongly with Marx when he says "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all"? However, just as there is a danger of too much democracy in some areas of life so too is there a danger of too little democracy in other areas.  Those areas relate to matters of joint concern for numbers of people and which have collective impacts.  Quite rightly, they should be subjected to democratic voting  but even here there is a need to refine our argument about who gets to decide what.  Hence my reference to the principle of subsidiarity.  Its something we need to discuss to reach greater clarity

[robbo203]

robbo203 wrote:

Socialism is defined as a system of society in which the means of production are commonly owned and democratically controlled by everyone.  But what exactly is meant by “democratic control” here?  Since socialism is a global society, how is democratic control to be exercised by the 7 billion or so people that currently constitute the world’s population? I think we need to seriously unpack this whole question and present a much more nuanced and – dare I say it – realistic account of how a socialist democracy would work in practice One of the many criticisms that are constantly thrown at socialists alludes to what is called the "complexity problem" which is associated with people like F A Hayek.  In a nutshell what Hayek was saying is that modern industrial society is far too complex for decisions to be concentrated in the hands of a single planning centre.  It is quite impossible for the literally millions upon millions of decisions that are being made every day about every aspect of modern production to be made by this single authority.  Of necessity, such decisions need to be decentralised and then coordinated through an impersonal market mechanism.  Hayek was right about the need for some degree of decentralisation but very wrong about the need for such decisions to be coordinated through a market.  There is an alternative mechanism of coordination that in fact operates side by side with the market mechanism even today – namely, a self-regulating system of stock control involving calculation-in-kind.  Socialism will simply get rid of the former but retain the later Central or society wide planning is also an attempt to coordinate decisions but in a non-decentralised fashion – obviously.  In theory, this can be done either democratically or not.  In practice, neither democratic society-wide planning nor undemocratic society-wide planning is remotely feasible and indeed of the two the former is even more unfeasible because the idea of having to consult the global population on a daily basis about the millions upon millions of decisions to be made every day is self-evidently ridiculous. Society-wide central planning, democratic or not, is a completely unworkable idea. It requires calculating in advance the ratios of millions of inputs and to millions of outputs via a calibrated system of "material balances",  Any given output requires certain inputs so to produce a certain production target for that output requires that the production targets for these inputs should be met.  A shortfall in the production of even one of these inputs will impact upon the output in question such that the target production of that output will not be met.  Since everything is interconnected in a modern production system even small departures from the central Plan will magnify in a cumulative fashion that will undermine the integrity of the whole plan – even assuming it could be put together in the first place I dont need to labour the point.  Society wide central planning is impossible not least because it is simply incapable of adjusting to the problem of real world changes.  But what is the alternative then?Here I think the principle of subsidiarity will come into play and should be a cornerstone of the socialist view of democracy – notwithstanding the origins of this concept in such a reactionary organisation as the Roman Catholic Church .  Subsidiarity has been defined as “ an organizing principle that matters ought t0o be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Political decisions should be taken at a local level if possible, rather than by a central authority”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity A healthy democracy requires informed decision-making.  A local community in one part of the world is unlikely to be even aware of another local community on the other side of the world let alone the kind of issues that affect the latter.  Should it have a say in such issues or would this not be seen as a form of arrogant external interference in matters that don’t really concern it? This surely brings out a central point of a socialist democracy – that there are different scales of decision-making to which correspond different levels of spatial organisation in a socialist society – local regional and global.   It entirely depend on the nature of the decision to be made and its spatial significance for individuals This is one very important constraint on the extent of democratic decision-making in a socialist a society. There are others – such as how to balance the decisions made by individuals against decisions made by groups.  It is only in the sphere of group decisions that democracy has any relevance and there is a shifting boundary between group decisions and individual decisions which we need to take cognisance of.   For instance we would not want to argue that in a socialist society the group should determine what clothes we wear, what food we eat, what music we listen to and so on.  That would make socialism unbearably totalitarian and intolerant.  These things should quite properly should be left basically up to the individual to decide.  Not only that, it is quite impractical for such things to be decided on any other basis. Morevoer, I would argue that the very nature of a socialist society absolutely requires and insists upon this sphere of individual freedom.  As Marx put it in socialism the “free development of each is the condition for the free development of all”.  Note the words. "condition of".  Marx is saying a free society depends on its individuals being substantially free to express their own individuality.  From each according to ability to each according to need is the very embodiment of this principle of free development. For instance, if we are not able to voluntarily choose what kind of work we would like to do then it follows that our labour is coerced not free.  Coerced labour is a characteristic of a class based society not a socialist society So, in summary, what I am arguing for is that we need to more proactively present a more nuanced picture of a socialist democracy as something that is  balanced or constrained by other considerations .  The more realistic or practical our model of socialist democracy the more likely is it to attract interest

  I refer to LBird's silly comment on the other thread:"But, having tried to discuss 'socialism' with the SPGB, I find no mention of workers, proletariat, bourgeoisie, Marx, democracy, power – all the issues that I would presupppose that any 'socialist' would be keen on discussing, so as to build a 'theory' which can then be put into 'practice' " Even the most cursory glance of the SPGBs literature would reveal copious reference to these things.  But since LBird has mentioned democracy here and since he claims to be a democrat I imagine he would be keen to discuss the kind of issues raised by this thread. So LBird – lets kick off with a discussion about society wide central planning. Are you in favour of this or do you favour a degree of decentralisation – meaning some workers would be taking decisions pertaining to their local community which other workers would not be involved with.  Do you think this is a good idea or not? 

[robbo203]

Since  LBird seems intent on hijacking the "Socialism and Change" thread, as he has done with so many other threads, with his ridiculous claims about socialists not being democrats,  I thought it fit and proper to resurrect this old thread which is  the more appropiraterate place in which to conduct such a debate. Let us see if he can rebut the arguments presented here. At the end of the day,  for all his bluster, the only one here who truly conforms to a "Leninist" point of view in the way he envisages the future organisation of a socialist society is LBird himself

[Author]

Posts