What would real democracy look like?

[DJP]

Clearly we are all products of capitalist society, but from that it doesn't follow that we all end up thinking the same thing. Therefore what we think is not under the control of the property owning minority as LBird has tried to claim. If it where how would we be having this discussion in the first place?Consciousness is shaped by the contradictory and opaque nature of production relations it is through the dynamic interplay of these antagonistic relations that consciousness develops.

[DJP]

FWIW here's a short extract from an SPGB pamphlet on dialectical materialismhttp://theoryandpractice.org.uk/library/dialectical-materialism-spgb-1974

[admice]

I assume you mean CLASS consciousness?

[admice]

"but surely, in a future socialist society, the field of democratic decision-making will have its limits" I think this point is very important and a good one.

[DJP]

admice wrote:

I assume you mean CLASS consciousness?

Yes that and more to. How people see themselves and their place in the world.

[admice]

LBird wrote:

 To be a bit provocative, surely "in a socialist/communist society people's ideas would be subject to democratic control"?To be a bit more specific, every society that has ever existed has socialised its young into acceptable forms of behaviour. If that's not 'controlling people's ideas', from the very outset of a person's existence, what is?I think that we should be open about this inescapable 'brainwashing' social process, and discuss its contents.Socialization influences ideas and behavior, yes. It hardly succeeds at brainwashing as evidenced by most of the people on this board, the amount of disagreement just here, atheism, us even considering socialism, when there's been so much attempsts at suppression of it. Just a few examples.The bottom line here is, I think, that if society's basic ideas (including respect for democratic methods and minorities) aren't under our collective control, whose control will they be under?This is a long way from 'thought-control' in the the sense that it's usually used (state control of the individual), but it's worth getting to grips with just what would be our enforced basic social ideas.All societies enforce 'ideology', and personally I think that the contents of this 'ideology' should be discussed and voted upon by all of humanity. Someone or something has to set limits – if it isn't us, it'll be 'god'.In that case, I wonder who'll interpret his/her/its thoughts?

Societies regulate BEHAVIOR. I would think you'd have school boards, education dept's, democratically run, determining the curricula, not necessarily global, could be varied. However families etc, still can influence their children. "Someone or something has to set limits" Why?.  if it isn't us, it'll be 'god'. does not logically follow, first of all. Not necessarily. False dichotomy.And you've completely left out the individual in all this.

[admice]

I, and probably not I alone, would advocate for critical thinking as a social ideal to be taught for one thing.

[ALB]

Of course we have always said that socialism cannot be established without majority support and participation and that, being a society without a coercive state, could not work without it. Maybe this resolution passed at our conference in 1991, with its reference to socialist society's "socialisation process", has some relevance here:

Quote:

That this Conference recognises that rules and regulations, and democratic procedures for making and changing them and for deciding if they have been infringed, will exist in socialist society. Whereas a ruling class depends on the maintenance of laws to ensure control of class society, a classless society obtains social cohesion through its socialisation process without resorting to a coercive machinery. However, in view of the fact that in socialist theory the word "law" means a social rule made and enforced by the state, and in view of the fact that the coercive machinery that is the state will be abolished in socialist society, this Conference decides that it is inappropriate to talk about laws, law courts, a police force and prisons existing in a socialist society.

[LBird]

SPGB wrote:

However, in view of the fact that in socialist theory the word "law" means a social rule made and enforced by the state, and in view of the fact that the coercive machinery that is the state will be abolished in socialist society, this Conference decides that it is inappropriate to talk about laws, law courts, a police force and prisons existing in a socialist society.

[my bold]Yeah, but all societies have rules, procedures, enforcers and punishments, whatever terms we give to them.We shouldn't pretend otherwise, and should discuss these and ensure that we all have a say in these inescapable social structures.

[Author]

Posts