Brian
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Vin wrote:Brian wrote:The state is the executive of a minority. That is the lesson of the Paris Commune in that state can not be made to operate in the interests of the majority.
Was the state controlled by a majority of socialists? If not then how is the commune relevant?So what is your position re the state in relation to 6 of our D of P ? Do you disagree that we should use the state? "Unless Socialists use the power of the machinery of government to dispossess the capitalist class they will be unable to establish Socialism. We find it inconceivable that intelligent Socialists of a future generation would even consider such an act of monumental stupidity." Here is what Adam Buick argued was Marx's position in the socialist standard in 1970. Marx views can be summarised:1. The working class must first, either peacefully or violently, win control of the State.2. Then they must make it completely democratic, and,3. Use it to dispossess the capitalists and establish the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production.4. This done, there would no longer be any need for the State, which consequently would cease to exist in Socialism.This displays no fear of the state in the hands of a majority.
Nobody here fears abolishing the state. So what point are you trying to make?
Vin wrote:Perhaps another long standing member can explain when this anarchist-like fear of the 'state' snuck into the SPGB? I have to admit that the talk of 'dismantle' 'abolish' is a little confusing, and when did we advocate 'workers councils' ?The State will not be 'abolished' or dismantled but will be taken over and used to abolish and dismantle the economic and social conditions that give rise to the need for a state.Surely that is our position until we change our DofP 6 fromin order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation to:in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be dismantled or abolished. Why should a vast majority in control of the State fear the actions of the state?The state is the executive of a minority. That is the lesson of the Paris Commune in that the state can not be made to operate in the interests of the majority.
Hud955 wrote:As far as I understand it, the SPGB believes that workplace organisation by the working class is essential for a successful revolution. That to me is a much more important part of the argument. If the coercive forces of the state are on board with the revolution at that time, then taking control of parliament would seems perhaps useful, but inessential. Government machinery could be restructured to provide the administrative needs of a new society, though I suspect that would not be easy. It might be just as easy to set up a new administrative system altogether.Not just workplace organisation but also the community working in conjunction with the production and distribution units. If there is a need for a new administrative system it will depend on how localised each and every community wants to be. For instance, housing at present is a mismatch of council, HAs and private. In socialism all housing would become common ownership and come under the democratic control of the local community. It follows the local community would set Housing Quality Standards (HQS) to cover improvements, internal fittings, repairs and extensions. To bring such a service into operation could mean that Housing becomes devolved down to the town, village or even estate level so that its adminstration is aligned directly to local control.In my estimation implimenting a HQS at a local community level would be more efficient and pro-active for the admin and producers are on site dealing with any problems as they arise. Yes imo housing would be a candidate for a new adminstrative system. But not so sure that other services would require restructuring to such an extent.
LBird wrote:Brian wrote:…I suspect this thread is going to go completly off-topic with your invite to LBird to put some meat on the bones on his version of a functioning democracy.You could always 'put some meat on the bones' on your 'version', Brian.For example, how would you see the education system being democratised, in a way which would increase the power of students and undermine the power of experts?
And provide you with an opportunity to go off-topic. No thanks.
SocialistPunk wrote:Well LBird, it looks as though no members of the SPGB here want to discuss the points raised by either of us regarding the transformation or abolition of "the state", in the event of a successful socialist.Oh well, such a shame, especially as some bright spark stated that my points would be destroyed by the collective "we", as if I were an enemy. When in fact I'm here to learn.Anyway, I agree that there would need to be some democratic "authority" under socialism. How else would society be able to protect itself from rapists, paedos and the like. I'm not some idealist who thinks a socialist revolution would bring about a perfect society of love and harmony.I followed the previous discussions of yours regarding democracy and how far it should extend. So seeing as it is a related topic, I was hoping you could put some meat on the bones regarding how you see such extensive democracy functioning?It seems you are being a bit premature here "no members of the SPGB here want to discuss the points raised by either of us regarding the transformation or abolition of "the state", in the event of a successful socialist." Indeed we are still here pondering on the OP. And still learning I may add! To stimulate the discussion further it would serve a useful purpose if you would kindly draw up a list of the agreements and disagreements. Or I suspect this thread is going to go completly off-topic with your invite to LBird to put some meat on the bones on his version of a functioning democracy.
LBird wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:…and others, myself included, believing that the agent of emancipation is the revolutionary working class itself, ie people. And that social organisation in a socialist society needs no state machinery to function.This is my position, too.But… I am aware that the "social organisation in a socialist society" must be democratic, and thus must have some coercive powers which might be used against those deemed opposed to democratic controls (property owners, individualists, criminals, the insane, etc.).These 'powers' of a democratic structure cause that structure to be defined as a 'state' by at least some anarchists.We shouldn't shrink from being open about the necessity for 'coercive authority' existing for every society, and that is the reason that we stress 'democracy', rather than 'individualism'.All must have a say in the decisions of their society – but the notion of 'complete freedom' from social controls is a bourgeois myth. We are social animals, and our freedom is a social freedom to participate in society's decisions, not an individual freedom to ignore society.Production is social, not individual. And the 'revolutionary working class' is the agent (singular), and not 7 billion individual agents.
This is an interesting point for it introduces a very interelated subject, namely: how does a DPD enforce its democratic authority onto a minority? If the power of persuasion fails to bring a violent recalcitrant minority into line we'll have no alternative other than to take measures against them. And we have never shrinked from saying that we are opposed to the view adopted by some anarchists that an individual is above what a majority in a socialist society decide. Nevertheless, when asked what these 'measures' will amount too in practice, we have always responded that will be up to socialist society. And to go any further than that is pure speculation. Yes LBird you are in agreement with us, in that there will never ever be 'complete freedom' from the authority of society.
SocialistPunk wrote:But like LBird and Robbo, I think it vital that the machinery of "the state" should be dismantled immediately, once a successful revolution has taken place. But another question then appears. How do we quantify the revolution a success?Good question and one that socialist members have asked over the years in its relation to what actually constitutes a majority? My approach is quantification of support is important for without sufficient support its not going to work in respect of the administration, production and distribution of human needs. The "success" can be measured and illustrated in a number of ways, and not just by the number of votes or seats in parliament for that is the confirmation of "success" being achieved. Part of the process for quantifying support will be a significant increase in the number of volunteers engaged on a global scale in the necessary planning and preparation. Another part of this process will be the setting up of a global communication system purely set aside for socialist communication. There will also an increase in the rejection of capitalist values with the dominant ideas facing constant attack from all quarters. There could also be a greater reluctance to becoming a member of the coercive arm of the state machinery.Finally, like I mentioned previously and echoed by others, the number of social organisations adopting DPD will provide sufficient verification that people are saying enough is enough!
LBird wrote:Brian wrote:The theory of DPD in practice is not set in stone neither is it – like I point out – a one suit fit all model.[my bold]I'm not sure what alternative there is, Brian, to the theory and practice of DPD. There is no 'theory' without 'practice', for the proletariat. DPD isn't a 'theory' that might, or might not, be 'practised'. Any 'practice' is based upon 'theory', so if it isn't the 'theory of DPD', what (and whose) 'theory' is this 'practice' based upon?Perhaps I place more emphasis on the 'P' being as much 'proletarian' as 'participatory'.If not 'Direct', who is to 'indirectly' control; if not 'Proletarian Participation', who is the 'active agent'; if not 'Democracy', what is the 'political method'?No, you'll have to expand on your alternative(s) to DPD, to argue that it 'is not set in stone' for Communism, I think.
Brian wrote:DPD also takes into consideration the cultural aspects of a particular locality. Thus, its application in practice will depend on how much baggage of the past is still attached to those procedural issues which can in certain circumstances serve the interests of an elite.Surely the 'universal' class is the world proletariat, in opposition to 'localities'? That is, there will be, in effect at a final level, a World Commune, which will determine which 'local culture' is acceptable to humanity, and which 'local culture' is barbaric/elitist/bourgeois. Once again, DPD will be the determinant of acceptable 'particularities', not 'local elites', on any contentious issues?Won't the abolition of classes and private property, worldwide, remove any basis for 'particularism', 'localism' or 'elites', which runs counter to our world democratic wishes?
Please note its not for me to expand on how DPD will work out in theory or in practice but those who are actually involved in setting it up. Like I said I have no intention of going off-topic.
LBird wrote:Brian wrote:In that there will be a growth in the principle of Direct Participatory Democracy (DPD) being adopted by all manner of social organisations.Including the social organisation of all 'science', including physics.The social production of 'truth' must be by means of DPD.The only alternative is a pretence by an elite that they, and only they, have a politically neutral method which gives them, and only them, access to 'reality' as it is.That pretence is the basis of any ruling class' ruling ideas, whether priests, physicists or cadre.The religious, professors and Leninists all claim to have a 'knowledge' of 'reality' which we don't and can't have access to.They all deny democracy in their specialist spheres of influence.Physics is identical to economics in method, and deals with a similar 'reality': our knowledge of reality, rather than reality in itself.Knowledge is a product of society.If we are to have a democratic society, we must have democratic production of knowledge.
Good point. But how it works out in practice depends on the tools and circumstances appertaining to those social organisations willing to adopt DPD. The theory of DPD in practice is not set in stone neither is it – like I point out – a one suit fit all model. DPD also takes into consideration the cultural aspects of a particular locality. Thus, its application in practice will depend on how much baggage of the past is still attached to those procedural issues which can in certain circumstances serve the interests of an elite.Not that its my intention to go down that off-topic route. Suffice to say the growth of DPD will be an indication that social organisations have decided that the current model of democracy is insufficient in addressing their needs or their aspirations and expectations.
alanjjohnstone wrote:The Guardian seeks to have William Morris featured on the new £20 note. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/24/guardian-view-on-20-pound-note-william-morrisIf it does happen it would be an excellent propaganda pitch for us.
Great subject that well deserves a thorough discussion for it encompasses a wide ranging topic which AlJo touches on e.g social dynamics; revolutionary process; social evolution and uneven development. Thus its important to understand and acknowledge that when discussing the process of the capture of political power it has to be in conjunction with the other three factors of the revolutionary process; namely: economic, social and cultural. And that because of this multi aspect of the process the pace and outcomes will differ from location to location and is much dependent on the tools and circumstances available to socialists in that location.So its not a case of one suit fits all revolutionary process – its dynamic and flexible – and not mechanical.
alanjjohnstone wrote:What do we actually need to make a revolution? We need to be able to act in an imperfect world rather than waiting for a perfect one. Revolution is not merely an announcement of a successful ballot, it is a process, and the process itself will draw people into the struggle. The revolution makes the mass party – the actual date that power can be seen to shift to ourselves is not the beginning, but the beginning of a different phase. The revolution has a snowball effect. The more change is imminent, the faster and bigger it grows and rolls, without conscious direction of leaders, as many vanguardists and social democrats have often found. You cannot stop an idea when its time has come, as is frequently said. The Iron Heel couldn't maintain Marcos in Manila, the Shah in Tehran nor the party apparatchiks and nomenclatura in Moscow, Berlin or Warsaw , nor in Tunisia when people decided to move. Despite the exceptions such as the Sisi counter-revolution in Egypt, when people want change they achieve it.The capture of political power however, involves both a purpose and a reason. The purpose is straight forward: to disarm the capitalist class of its coercive powers. The reason on the other hand is twofold and not just to provide legitiamcy but also to quantify support for the revolution through the ballot box. Nevertheless, both the purpose and the reason will be observable to a certain extent, but not fully, before the eventual capture of political power takes place. In that there will be a growth in the principle of Direct Participartory Democracy (DPD) being adopted by all manner of social organisations. In conjunction with this political development the necessary planning and preparation will also be developing apace.These devolpments in turn offer a rough benchmark on the growth of socialist ideas and when it is possible to quicken the pace of the revolutionary process by instigating elections for instance.
ALB wrote:I don't know how relevant this is but there was some discussion about comparing how we did with how others putting a broadly similar view but not using the word "socialist" did, but here's the result for a council ward contested by the Money Free Party in Poole:http://prntscr.com/72za3fIt's not all that different, considering the sizes of the wards, from what we got in a ward in Folkestone:http://www.shepway.gov.uk/UserFiles/File/pdf/Elections%202015/Folkestone%20Harbour%20District.pdfIts highly relevant for roughly speaking it seems then that each contituency contains on average about 40-50 committed socialists. That is if we accept a vote for the MFP is also a vote for the 'thin red line'? But this also suggests that the hard work in Vauxhall is starting to pay off and that if these figures are correct (?) there are far more socialists in the UK than we realised 600×40=2,400 roughly speaking that is.Which further suggests that potentially there at least 240 new members out there who have yet to contact us, and more importantly we to contact them!.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Our votes was what many predicted. It never went up despite more access to the media but did it bring us closer and strengthen the bond of that audience? Have we been able to identify potential supporters and sympathisers of the party that previously were anonymous.Alan your #16 touches on many areas that will come under scrutiny but imo the one quoted above outlines the whole point and aim of the election campaign. The key word is "identify" both at a macro and micro level. At a macro level the true support and means of identification is only possible when there is a candidate standing from the left. This only occurred in three constituencies and our votes there reflect the consistent and committed number of socialist supporters. The problem of identification for the rest of the constituencies where we contested is that without this challenge from the left the number of votes for us are largely 'unconfirmed votes'. At a micro level the problem for the three constituencies – who had this challenge from the left – is how we go about engaging and attracting these committed voters to become 'socialist activists'. This problem can be resolved by: 1. Using the queries from 38 degrees as a mailing list and still use the election code to identify hits after the mailout. 2. Regular street stalls. 3. Contesting all elections held in these constituencies in the future.
