Socialism over night
- This topic has 53 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 6 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Isn’t this a 1928 answer to the OP’s question
“Mr. H. Baker (Wickford, Essex) writes, objecting to the statement that there will be a period of transition after a Socialist working class have gained control of the machinery of government. He says that ”the moment Capitalism is abolished Socialism will start.” He forgets, however,. that economic re-organisation is not a task to be completed in a moment by the simple issue of a decree, even although the majority of the population support the re-organisation. You cannot in a moment convert industries from the production of luxuries for the leisured few to the production of. necessaries for the population as a whole.Mr. Baker adds that the change-over will involve “as little fuss” as a general election. This, of course, depends largely upon the attitude of a dissentient minority. But whether there is fuss or not, there certainly will be very difficult economic problems requiring to be solved before society will be running smoothly on a Socialist basis.”Good point. What can be abolished “overnight” is capitalist ownership and control of the means of production. All that requires is a decision by the state, once the socialist-minded working class has won control of it, to abolish the laws granting them this. What cannot be introduced overnight would be the full implementation of the principle of “from according to their ability, to each according to their needs” as that requires the reorganisation and reorientation of production.
I think the point that was being made was that there isn’t, and hasn’t been for decades, a century even, any need for a “transition period” during which there would be a further development of capitalism but under state control.
Lew wrote “
L Bird wrote:
“… the ‘materialists’, who equate ‘material’ with ‘matter’, might be outvoted, by a class conscious proletariat …”
The victorious proletariat might also reject your assertions about “materialists”. They are assertions because, according to your own criterion, they have not been voted on (and passed) by a class conscious proletariat.
“Who (or what) determines ‘truth’?’, and ‘how?’. The only answer for a Marxist is ‘The Class Conscious Proletariat’ and ‘By Democratic Means’.”
If truth is determined by the class conscious proletariat by democratic means, then we will have to wait to find out what is true and what truth is – including, presumably, the claim that truth is determined by a vote. Until then, again all you have, according to your own criterion, is opinion.”
Well, Lew, what you say is correct – only the class conscious proletariat can decide to use democratic political methods for all their social products.
But, given what you’ve said about my assertions (ie. I argue that ‘democracy is a must‘), you must have some conception of why, and in what political circumstances, the class conscious proletariat would choose a non-democratic political method.
That is, either you think that the building of socialism can be non-democratic, or even that socialism once achieved can be non-democratic.
So, that leaves me to expect that my assertions, of the democratic control of production, would be voted for by any workers’ political organisation, from its inception.
It also makes me wonder what such organisations would make of your implied view, that non-democratic methods would be acceptable.
I’m not sure if you’re a member or not of the SPGB, but I certainly wouldn’t want to join an organisation that has members who would argue against ‘my assertions’, since I would consider that organisation not to be attempting to help self-develop the proletariat.
My opinions are democratic, my criteria are democratic. That, indeed, is all we have.
L Bird wrote:
“Well, Lew, what you say is correct – only the class conscious proletariat can decide to use democratic political methods for all their social products.”
That’s not what I said. I said that, according to you, truth is determined by the class conscious proletariat by democratic means. But you fail to grasp the epistemological implications of this position – namely, that until (and unless) the victorious proletariat vote and decide what is true (and false) we don’t know anything to be true (or false). Which is patently absurd.
“My opinions are democratic, my criteria are democratic.”
Presumably you think this statements is true.
“That, indeed, is all we have.”
No it isn’t.
There’s plenty we know about capitalism and socialism which doesn’t require a vote. For instance:
- Under capitalism the working class are exploited through the wages system (true).
- Socialism will be a classless, moneyless, stateless world community (true).
- In socialism truth will be decided by voting (false).
—
Lew
<p lang=”en”></p>
LBird my old foe, we have been here before and some of us are still awaiting answers.
- How will the entire world vote on all truths? How will this be carried out?
2. If it was carried out by some amazing feat, how will these decisions on truths be imposed on communities around the world?
Lew wrote “
- In socialism truth will be decided by voting (false).”
At least you’re being completely open, Lew, about your attitude to workers’ democracy!
It never ceases to amaze me how easy it is to get SPGB members/supporters to deny democracy, especially given the SPGB’s hard-earned reputation for democratic methods.
The bitter fruits of a ‘materialist’ ideology, I’m afraid.
I hope as many SPGB people attend Carver’s lecture on Engels as possible. Perhaps Carver will succeed in opening your eyes to the ‘anti-democratic’ nature of this ideology.
Anyway, until the scales fall from your eyes, Lew, make sure you continue to be completely open, with any workers who ask about socialism, about your intention that an elite will continue to tell humanity what ‘truth’ is.
But don’t be surprised that you don’t get many takers for your elitist version of ‘socialism’. We’re 135 years after Marx’s death, and it still hasn’t dawned on the Engelsist Materialists that they are the reason that workers always leave the parties that they hopefully join.
patreilly wrote “LBird my old foe, we have been here before and some of us are still awaiting answers.”
Ever the ‘practical’ person, eh, pat?
That’s the bourgeois ideology in you – no need for criticism, theory, philosophy, epistemology, political ideas in general – just ‘practical’, ‘common sense’ questions.
Ruling class ideas, eh? What was it Marx said about those?
Anyway, whilst you think (practically, of course) that humanity will obviously fail to come up with a democratic method of determining ‘truth’ for themselves, I suppose you’ll have to leave ‘truth production’ in the hands of the old elite.
That’s gone well for workers, so far, hasn’t it?
There was an interesting article today as linked below.
It could have in fact gone onto the ‘anti-semitism’, social media or socialism overnight thread.
Maybe she has been reading our forum.
But I think I will put it here as L bird is obviously derailing threads again with his claptrap.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50532.htm
As it was touched on before?
Re socialism before the full development of the productive forces and technology; thus capitalism.
I will include a ‘Schoolboy stupidity!’ quote from Karl.
………..Schoolboy stupidity! A radical social revolution depends on certain definite historical conditions of economic development as its precondition. It is also only possible where with capitalist production the industrial proletariat occupies at least an important position among the mass of the people………..
………. Still more! He wants the European social revolution, premised on the economic basis of capitalist production, to take place at the level of the Russian or Slavic agricultural and pastoral peoples, not to surpass this level […] The will, and not the economic conditions, is the foundation of his social revolution….
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm
As background it was and still is to some extent the Anarchist position that the ‘Marxist’ stagiest position of the necessity for the full development of capitalism; and thus the development of means of production and technology is a load of bollocks.
It was also the left SR position circa 1917 etc.
It presented a bit of problem for the Marxists and Marx circa 1875 or whatever when the stuff about the communistic Mir stuff seeped out of Russia.
It wasn’t straightforward getting that kind of ‘anthropological’ data out of Tsarist Russia at the time.
The proposition was that they were already communists as I suppose the Kalahari bushmen etc are now; as where the then more contemporary Christian Shakers.
Or the Scottish saint Kilda anarcho-syndicalist commune on saint Kilda in the 1920’s
The example Christian Shakers were widely used as an example of ‘communism’ in the 19<sup>th</sup> century.
They all have there own associated and definitely non Marxist ideology and culture etc.
As did the Early Christians?
The Marxist position was that once the labouring classes were completely dispossessed of the means of an independent livelihood and reduced to wage slavery for the owning class.
And dreams of self employed Little House on the Prairie of making your stuff and selling has gone down the toilet.
That is unfolding in dramatic style in India at the moment.
[There are still lots of first generation south east Asians over here sinking ‘remittance’ wages from working in capitalist boiler making factories into lame duck 10 Acre farms in the Punjab for instance.]
There was nothing left but to collectively re-appropriate it all and start something new.
Actually in 1905 Lenin prophesised his own disgrace.
He said that if people attempted to try and make some-kind of ‘socialist’ experiment in Russia they would make twits of themselves.
It was obviously then a pop at the left SR’s, the Anarchists and the novel Trotsky permanent revolution thing;
….. If Social-Democracy [ ie the Bolsheviks] sought to make the socialist revolution its immediate aim, it would assuredly discredit itself. It is precisely such vague and hazy ideas of our “Socialists—Revolutionaries” that Social-Democracy has always combated.
For this reason Social-Democracy [Bolshevism] has constantly stressed the bourgeois nature of the impending revolution in Russia and insisted on a clear line of demarcation between the democratic minimum programme and the socialist maximum programme.
Some Social-Democrats, [ …Trotsky…] who are inclined to yield to spontaneity, might forget all this in time of revolution, but not the Party as a whole. The adherents of this erroneous view make an idol of spontaneity in their belief that the march of events will compel the Social-Democratic Party in such a position to set about achieving the socialist revolution, despite itself. …….
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/apr/12b.htm
Lenin’s novel twist of introducing ‘socialistic’ state capitalism in 1918 was just a ‘formal’ variation on the content of the formerly disgraceful ideology of others.
The Mensheviks made much of that Lenin quote later and translated it as disgrace.
They didn’t seem to forget much.
They had the leftwing populism thing as well.
It was reassuring to me that I didn’t seem to have missed much when ploughing through the Lenin archive after reading some rare Menshevik material from the 1930’s.
I was never sure whether or not I had skipped over some important stuff as I read most of it half pissed of the internet in a chaotic fashion.
I think party members who finance the Guardian Newspaper should be expelled.
And all L Birds contributions should be moved to a special Peer Gynt/ Bishop Berkeley L Bird Truth and materialism thread.
I am hacked off with his shit and responses cluttering up otherwise potentially interesting threads.
“Or the Scottish saint Kilda anarcho-syndicalist commune on saint Kilda in the 1920’s”
How long have we been dealing with this philosophical and idealist crap? It has taken months, and the Socialist Party has continued doing what it must do, which is to spread the real concept of socialism. Like we had said before, without Marx and Engels it would have taken more years to create a coherent concept of socialism, and without them, we would have created our own, and we have done that for more than 100 years, and we have survived.
We don’t worship Marx and Engels, and the problem of Russia cannot be blamed on Engels, it is the same reasoning of the Western capitalist class who have blamed the problems of the Soviet Union on Marx and Marxism
That we are an undemocratic and elitist organization? The presence of L Bird in this forum for several months is a clear indication that it is the opposite way, in others forum they would have blocked him, and they have thrown him out permanently, That we are a Leninist organization? In the past, we disclosed all the basic and fundamental principles of Leninism, and he was not able to reject them and prove his assertion, therefore, his case is invalid. I know that it is a false accusation because I was a cadre of a Leninist party, and I know Leninism-Stalinism-Moism pretty well
That Alan is an elitist individual? I have a different opinion on that, and I have known him for many years, and I have a great deal of respect toward him, and I was able to know the Socialist Party and the WSM thru him, the reality in this forum has shown that he has an open mind and he is accepting all these craps against him, therefore, it indicates that he is a democratic person.
While we are discussing claptrap, the capitalist ruling class is arming themselves to the teeth, and getting ready for war, right-wing populism is rising around the globe, even more, in a country like Brasil, peoples which are descendants of Africans are electing leaders holding white supremacists ideas, immigrants are being openly attacked, and military troops are being sent against them, and they are ready to kill them, the whole planet is being destroyed by the capitalist system placing us in a situation of extinction, and many animals are already extinct
Dave B, Marcos
It’s always open to either of you, or any other SPGB member/supporter, to come up with political answers, rather than to turn to abuse.
What’s ‘shit’ to Dave B and ‘crap’ to Marcos is “workers’ democracy” to Marxists.
Come on, LBird.
The SPGB has been most welcoming to you over the years you have posted on the forum.
Unlike some other lists, you never been permanently banned and those who have abused you have often amused you, too.
“It’s always open to either of you, or any other SPGB member/supporter, to come up with political answers”
And this is probably the most frequently asked question of yourself.
We’ve given our answers on numerous occasions which you decline to accept which is your prerogative to do since there is no absolute truths, is there? 😉
Well, not until, as Lew said, the working class have voted on it.
The SPGB holds two general assemblies a year to exchange information and experience and try to construct the political answers yo so much seek to learn. Proposals and policies have to be placed within practical parameters so that members and branches and our EC can carry them out. We have to cross the t and dot the i , so that our collective democratic instructions are followed out by the relevant committees without any confusion.
Let me suggest to you…Present us with a resolution, a proposition that an organisation such as ours can begin to implement. Not some wordy wishful general observation but something concrete and pragmatic and practical, that we can get our teeth into and show some sort of result from.
As you see in another post we are appealing to fellow-workers directly and we will gauge the success by the response the newspaper insert produces.
Share your own ideas with us, not in an abstract, philosophical, theoretical exercise but perhaps in an advertisement promoting the concept of socialism that would appeal to our fellow-workers.
A challenge i hope you do not shy away from 😛
alan wrote “We’ve given our answers on numerous occasions which you decline to accept which is your prerogative to do since there is no absolute truths, is there? 😉”
But ‘your answers’ are that non-democratic methods are acceptable. Obviously, any proponent of workers’ democracy has no option but to ‘decline to accept’ them. And Lew didn’t say that, Lew said the opposite, that he won’t allow a vote to workers on ‘truth’.
As for ‘practical parameters’ and ‘something concrete and pragmatic and practical’, can you really not see the inherent conservatism of refusing to criticise what exists (ie., to begin from an ‘abstract, philosophical, theoretical exercise’, as you dismissively call it), and to disregard the ‘practical, concrete’ in a determination to change it. The ‘existing’ must be criticised and destroyed, not ‘accepted’ and used as a starting point. It’s simply the difference between revolution and reform, alan. Revolution requires ‘theory and practice’, whereas reform argues for ‘practice and theory’, or often, just ‘practice’, and bollocks to ‘idealist’ theory!
As I’ve sorrowfully said before, alan, you might be a decent bloke, good comrade, and very pleasant to have a drink with, but your lack of awareness of the political and philosophical basis of your ‘practical, pragmatic’ method seems to be widely shared within the SPGB, and so makes it a hostile environment for any workers who are democrats and Marxists. They are opposed by the other posters who openly express hostility to workers’ democracy, and espouse Engels’ destruction of Marx’s ideas.
Calling elitists to members of the SPGB, and saying that you know more than them, is not an abuse? I do not suffer from historical amnesia
So LBird you decline the corial invitation to offer comradely advice to a group you very obviously seem attached to, despite what disagreements you hold with us.
Then let me re-phrase my request
Construct an address to our fellow-workers in a non-party, non-partisan manner that will encourage them to investigate the socialist case further.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.