LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:This, of course, is not what you mean, so there's no need to fall out over this (we know what we mean because we've defined our terms). It's others who might be misled.Better, then, to speak of socialism/communism as "the democratic control of the production and distribution of wealth" or simply "the democratic control of production".
Of course, the problem of workers 'being misled' is the central problem, because the ruling class constantly 'misleads' them with ruling class ideas. Personally, I'm always in favour of trying to present Communist ideas, which oppose ruling class ideas, in as simple and immediately accessible way as possible (you'll remember my attempts on the Pannekoek thread to illustrate the scientific method by reference to 'a baker making pies', etc.). This isn't to argue that workers can't understand or shouldn't proceed to read and discuss Communist ideas in a more sophisticated form, but that, given that Communists are in a tiny weak minority, as are their ideas, we should present anti-ruling class ideas in as simple a form as possible. Once workers begin to even see that there are oppositional ideas to those that they've been force-fed all their lives, only then is the beginnings of a conversation even possible between Communist workers and non-Communist workers.So, since most workers already 'know' that 'economics is not politics', to me it makes sense to try to stress the similarities within the bounds of their existing 'knowledge'. Thus the formulation…
LBird wrote:Capitalism in politics is 'one person, one vote', but in economics is 'one pound, one vote'.Communism in both politics and economics will be 'one person, one vote'…in my opinion lends itself to an easily understood starting point for further discussion, because it begs as many questions as it answers, and also falls within the experience and current understanding of workers who are not yet Communists, but are already asking questions in search of answers different from those they've been given so far in their lives.I'm not of the 'Read Capital, read Hegel, now!' school of tactics, when someone in the pub asks me about capitalism.So, I ask, if democracy is so good within 'politics', why not extend it to 'economics'? Or if democracy shouldn't be extended to 'economics', why not remove it from 'politics', too. The contradiction is exposed, as most workers in bourgeois society are totally in favour of democracy, but have never been led to ask the questions above. Discussion will follow.As you say, none of this tactical opinion of mine leads to any disagreement whatsoever about our longer-term strategy: the end of the market and money, and free access for all.
Vin Maratty wrote:As for political democracy? Socialism will abolish politics.I've come across this formulation before from Anarchists. It seems to see 'politics' as synonymous with 'parliamentary politics', and see political sovereignty as residing in the 'individual'. Under Communism, political sovereignty will reside in the commune, and democracy is the method to ensure that all the members of the commune determine collectively and equally the policies of the commune.Personally, I don't understand how 'politics' can be 'abolished'. There will always be disagreements within society, which have to be dealt with. I think that a better way of conceiving this issue is to regard Communism as 'the democratic control of the economy'.Or,Capitalism in politics is 'one person, one vote', but in economics is 'one pound, one vote'.Communism in both politics and economics will be 'one person, one vote'
Ed wrote:I think it's a very interesting question LBird.Yeah, isn't it just!
Ed wrote:The party should merely be a tool of the working class as a whole.Once again, I could intepret 'the working class as a whole' to mean Workers' Councils, because 'as a whole' suggests a 'structure', rather than an aggregate of individuals lumped together, who vote as individuals in parliamentary elections, as we have now.
Ed wrote:If we were elected with an overwhelming majority then that would be our mandate as directed by the class, who would also be formed into workers councils. So I have always seen the relationship between party and class as more symbiotic than with either being dominant.The term 'symbiosis' in politics usually merely gives ideological cover to the side that is doing the 'exploitation'. Power is a one-way street.Dracula to victim: 'Of course, we're in a symbiotic relationship, aren't we, friend? I need blood, and you need the attentions of the count to validate your miserable existence, so, really, we need each other!'Yeah, an interesting question…
Dave wrote:Workers council does not automatically lead to a succesful reolution after all look at Germany in 1919 where workers councils existed and they were dominated by the SPD the German versionof the Labour Party.I've used that very argument myself, Dave, in a debate with the ICC about the need for mass class consciousness prior to the revolution.
Vin Maratty wrote:At this moment in time, how can we envisage arming workers for revolution when they wont even vote for it?This might be accidentally very revealing, Vin!From my perspective, I envisage 'workers arming themselves for revolution', rather than a separate 'we' providing permission!
alanjjohnstone wrote:LBird i think you are expecting too much of the SPGB “to fill in the blanks” by speculating about the future and circumstances we actually have no idea that may exist. We have formulated our objectives on the conditions that prevail today and have clearly said what we believe the situation is “That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working class must organize consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic.”I don't think that i'm expecting anyone to outline the detailed structure of workers' militia, just to outline 'who' or 'what body' will have the political control of arms.As it stands, I can agree with your statement above, and define "the working class must organize consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local" to mean 'Workers' Councils'.All I'm asking is 'Is that assumption of mine a valid one, in the eyes of the SPGB?'.If not, I'm happy that you define it as 'Westminster and 'county halls', and then I'll know that I disagree with the SPGB.If you don't mind either structure, I'll still know I disagree.You might define to be something else, which hasn't been mentioned yet, and obviously I can't form an opinion on that, yet.
ajj wrote:Workers Councils do not presently exist, nor is there a guarantee that they will indeed be the organs of working class rule although many think it is likely yet others will argue that workers councils would be sectional while neighbourhood assemblies would be more communal and inclusive so it is possible that power-sharing will be at least three-way.Or Workers' Councils could be defined to encompass workplaces and neighbourhoods on a geographical basis; I agree that this is all very unclear.But 'three-way power sharing'? That seems a bit too woolly to my mind. There will have to be a pinnacle to a structure (a federation?) which has the final say on questions that relate to the proletariat on a world scale.I'd rather be open about political power and discuss it, rather than leave everything to 'assumptions' by individuals and groups. It's better we have disputes about 'authority' now, when the outcomes will be no more than bruised egos and changed minds.I suspect 'three way power sharing' will be settled by arms. I'd rather avoid that.
ajj wrote:I’m always surprised as some criticisms of the SPGB when we are often accused of not basing our policy on real existing social realities and when we do, we are damned for not proposing alternatives that are just conjecture about the future.Well, I'm not 'criticising' the SPGB (yet!), just asking questions, to try to locate your politics, and see if either they agree with my current ones, or if I can have my mind changed to come to an agreement with the SPGB. Who knows?
ajj wrote:You also know enough about our case to understand that the Socialist Party has no intention of attempting to raise itself up new saviors or imposing a few intellectuals upon the workers or our organisation as leaders. If the working class choose one means over another and it remains democratic so be it – we will be there, involved and participating.Again, this is acceptable to me, because, in effect, the answer to my question about arms is 'if they exist, Workers' Councils will control them'.If that's 'filling in a blank' unacceptably, I'd rather be told, now.
ALB wrote:Personally I don't like the phrase "the parliamentary road to socialism" (although we have occasionally used it). I prefer "the political road to socialism" which will involve using elections and parliament. We have in fact never been committed to a purely political road but have always held that the working class need to be organised outside parliament too, to control any elected MPs and councillors but also at work to take over production and kee it going.But ‘using elections and parliament’ is ‘the parliamentary road’; the ‘political road’ is an as yet undefined ‘road’, because ‘political’ just means ‘power’. Clearly, the road to power is always a political road, ipso facto.My understanding of the content of ‘political’ in proletarian terms is ‘Workers’ Councils’, the self-organisation of the working class, rather than ‘parliamentary’ which to me means a bourgeois-organisational method.Given that assumption of mine, I’m happy with a twin-track approach of employing parliament both to give us an indication and confirmation of our growing strength through the existing bourgeois electoral system, and to ‘legitimise’ our control of the state and armed forces in the eyes of the members of the state and armed forces, so that any waverers are drawn to obey our ‘legitimate’ parliamentary actions. But… the other ‘track’ is the question of ‘workers’ power’. As you say, that is “the working class … organised outside parliament … to control any elected MPs and councillors”. This, to me, means that power and legitimacy reside outside of parliament, which can only mean within the Workers’ Councils (or soviets, although I know why you avoid that term).
ALB wrote:The armed forces are part of the state and whoever controls the state will control them. This will apply to a socialist=controlled parliament, so why should the question arise of handing over control to some other body.Simply, because parliament isn’t a body for workers’ control. It’s at best a propaganda body and legitimising tool for the proletariat, in the eyes of the state employees.
ALB wrote:Presumably you are thinking of some central council of "workers' councils", but would be the point of setting up such a parallel organisation?Well, it won’t be a ‘parallel’ organisation, but ‘the’ organisation. Parliament will be a glove puppet to fool the state employees, and we should be open about this. It’s presently a glove puppet for the bourgeoisie, because that ‘puppetness’ is in its very nature. Parliament is structurally a class tool, not a neutral tool; our class tool is Workers’ Councils, which encompass economic, social, political and military control. We can’t have a situation of ‘dual power’, where an instrument built by the bourgeoisie for their purposes is allowed to remain sovereign. In my opinion, that would be playing with fire.
ALB wrote:The armed forces are part of the state and whoever controls the state will control them.Yes, Workers’ Councils, the democratic organs of the self-organised proletariat will control (and thus choose which bits to dismantle or temporarily preserve) the state and its armed forces. No ‘parallel’ parliament, just a body subordinate to Workers’ Councils.
ALB wrote:And it wouldn't be an "SPGB dominated parliament" but a socialist-minded working class dominated parliament.I take your point, here. I’m using SPGB as shorthand only. The real issue is ‘parliament’ and its structural relationship to socio-economics, not the ‘membership’, working class dominated or not.
ALB wrote:In a sense this is speculation, but the important factor before socialism can be established is to have a democratically-organised majority in favour of it using democratic methods. In the political conditions that exist today one of the means that can be (and we say should be) used is elections and parliament.See, I can agree with this statement, simply because it can be interpreted to agree with my views, both that ‘today’ (pre-revolution) it can be used, and that ‘socialism requires a democratically-organised majority’, but it omits ‘tomorrow’ (ie. post revolution) and so leaves open the very issue I’m asking about.That is, who will control the weapons?
Whats wrong with using parliament? wrote:It will be the socialist majority self-organised politically, an instrument they have formed to use to achieve a socialist society. The structure of the future mass socialist party will have to reflect – to prefigure – the democratic nature of the society it is seeking to establish. It must be democratic, without leaders, with major decisions made by conferences of mandated and recallable delegates or by referendum, and other decisions made by accountable individuals and committees. It won’t have a leadership with the power to make decisions and tell the general membership what to do. In other words, it will be quite different both from the parties of professional politicians that stand for election today and from the vanguard parties of the Leninists.“An instrument they have formed”? This must refer to Workers’ Councils, because workers haven’t ‘formed parliament’ or, as it says, ‘vanguard parties’.
Whats wrong with using parliament? wrote:This is not to say that the socialist majority only needs to organise itself politically. It does need to organise politically so as to be able to win control of political power. But it also needs to organise economically to take over and keep production going immediately after the winning of political control. We can’t anticipate how such socialist workplace organisations will emerge, whether from the reform of the existing trade unions, from breakaways from them or from the formation of completely new organisations. All we can say now is that such workplace organisations will arise and that they too, like the socialist political party, will have to organise themselves on a democratic basis, with mandated delegates instead of leaders.[my bold]Doesn’t this formulation presume the separation, still, of political and economic power? Isn’t this ‘separation of powers’ a bourgeois conception of power? Surely Workers’ Councils will embody the reunification of socio-economic and political power?Perhaps I’m misreading the words, or missing the real meaning, or making some assumptions that the SPGB doesn’t share, so I’m still open to explanation and clarification.But I would like an answer to my initial question, ‘who will control the arms?’. ‘Parliament dominated by the working class’, ‘SPGB’, ‘socialist political party’, ‘workplace organisations’, whatever.But, I must admit, I’m expecting the answer ‘Workers’ Councils’, the political expression of the self-organised proletariat employing democratic means (delegates, recall, mandates, etc.) to control all aspects of power.Including ‘weapons’.
Vin Maratty wrote:I am willing to debate if you are willing to stop 'filling in the blanks'. You not only filled in the blanks you complety negated what I actually said. What I am unwilling to do is defend myself agains remarks I did not make and which you invented. This would be a complete waste of my time. If you reread my post and ask me a 'reasonable political question' on it, then I will answer you.I'm afraid I decide what I consider to be 'blanks' in answer to my questions, comrade, and am well able to formulate my own questions, and decide upon their reasonableness.You'll be glad, though, that I actually agree with you!It would be 'a complete waste of your time', to continue without engaging with my questions, rather than expecting me to ask questions of your devising or to your liking.Sorry, comrade, and thanks for your efforts.Well, since Vin has said that they're not an SPGB member, is there anyone from the SPGB who could answer my questions, and perhaps alter my views?
Vin Maratty wrote:LBird wrote:So, to be clear, the SPGB will keep control of arms, and thus dominate the Workers' Councils by threat of force?Or am I missing some subtlety, or making an unwarranted, unspoken assumption that the SPGB doesn't?I did not say that please reread my post.
Well, you said:
Vin Maratty wrote:The SPGB does not support the handing over of the army to 'workers' councils'. The reason we would send delegates to parliament would to prevent State violence from being used against the peaceful democratic organisation of production for use. A socialist majority would immediately begin disarming the capitalist state.Since this was a reply to my question about the 'parliament – workers' councils' relationship of (armed) power, but you neglected to mention that very thing, I was forced to attempt to 'fill the blanks'.If, as I said, I'm 'filling the blanks' incorrectly, you have the ability to correct me.Why haven't you taken this chance? In my experience, when someone summarily replies 're-read my post', they are either hiding something or being asked to consider something that they've not thought about and are confused and so bluster.I'm open to your correction, comrade.I'm asking questions, not stating facts or a hard-and-fast position of my own.If Vin declines to participate and answer my reasonable political question, could another member of the SPGB enlighten me? And, if necessary, change my present position?
Vin Maratty wrote:The SPGB does not support the handing over of the army to 'workers' councils'.So, to be clear, the SPGB will keep control of arms, and thus dominate the Workers' Councils by threat of force?Or am I missing some subtlety, or making an unwarranted, unspoken assumption that the SPGB doesn't?
alanjjohnstone wrote:According to Matt on Spopen, it seems like Owen Jones has recommended one of Socialist Party blog posts. .His Twitter feed provides a link.In reply to someone who says,"It's stretching it a bit to suggest that Marx anticipated a parliamentary road to socialism @OwenJones84. Can we have the reference please?"He just says, "Read This" and links tohttp://socialist-courier.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/marx-and-engels-on-power-of-vote.htmlEven if we agree with Marx and the SPGB that ‘a parliamentary road to socialism’ can at least play a part in the process of revolution, isn’t it also true that workers will in parallel organise their own structures, as the SPGB concedes that some strands of the Communist workers’ movement will construct ‘non-parliamentary councils and committees’.
SPGB pamphlet wrote:…the non-parliamentary councils and committees that anarchists advocate as instruments of social revolution.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/whats-wrong-using-parliamentAnd not just ‘anarchists’, but ‘council communists’ (and perhaps some pseudo-Leninist groups) also advocate such Workers’ Councils (or soviets).My question is:‘What would be the power relationship between an SPGB majority in parliament and those Workers’ Councils?’Obviously, SPGB members would also be involved, like most workers, within the Workers’ Councils, because the revolutionary process would involve both parliamentary and extra-parliamentary elements. But, where would sovereignty lie?In simple terms, who would control the weapons?On achieving a parliamentary majority, at least in theory (if not practice, given coup-organisers within the military and wider state (The Curragh, ‘Clockwork Orange’, Column 88, etc.)), the state weaponry would be under the control of workers’ delegates within parliament, but Workers’ Councils will also clearly have their own armed Workers’ Militias, which will have developed to defend Communist meetings, picket lines, buildings, etc., during the revolutionary process.The potential for clashes between these ‘official’ and ‘unofficial’ armed groups clearly exists, given the realities of political power and disagreements between various Communist strands.If I was asked that question at the moment (ie. ‘who should control the arms?’), I would be inclined to answer ‘The Workers’ Councils’. That is, at the moment of achieving a parliamentary majority, the SPGB (and any other party’s delegates within parliament) would transfer political control of the armed forces to the Workers’ Councils, so that the army and airforce especially would be subordinate to Workers’ extra-parliamentary control. We don’t want any jiggery-pokery and manoeuvres within parliament that re-transfers ‘legitimate’ control of the military back to the ‘previous owners’, and allows the officer corps to reclaim ‘legitimacy’ at a moment of crisis. If the majority of SPGB delegates was slender, MI5 hit-squads could assassinate a few, and (before new elections could be called to replace the dead Communists) precipitate a re-run of the ‘transfer’ vote which then returns a majority for the reactionaries, who then immediately ‘legitimately’ use the armed forces to suppress the Workers’ Councils and their armed militias. The ruling class won’t dither, in these circumstances.I suppose I’m asking does the SPGB have a ‘twintrack strategy’, of being elected to both parliament and any emerging Workers’ Councils, but on the understanding that the ‘parliamentary track’ is always the subordinate one. That is, that fundamentally the SPGB favours Workers’ Councils as the location of sovereignty and legitimacy for workers’ power, and that the ‘parliamentary road’ is a mere supplementary tool to help to achieve that aim, the castration of parliament.Or, is an SPGB-dominated parliament to be the controller of the weapons?
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:But, the opposite of the above would amount to a rejection of Marx's claim that the ruling ideas are always those or the ruling-class. If that makes me an elitist, then so was Marx.[my bold]Errr… no, it would amount to regarding Marx's words as often totally one-sided and rhetorical, and would amount to realising that you're taking his words at simple face value.Marx wasn't a god. We can argue with his words. We can change his words, to those that we think fit better with his intended meaning, given the whole body of his work. So, when he says that 'the ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class', to modify it to fit with reality. Clearly, 'ruling ideas' are not always 'those of the ruling class'. Most of the time, yes; the vast majority of the time, yes; almost always, yes. But 'common sense' tells us that Marx was employing political rhetoric during the 19th century to stress what had never been acknowledged until then: we workers are under constant ideological pressure to see the world from the viewpoint of the ruling class. There are also oppositional, minority, hidden, ideas in the exploited classes. We have to cultivate them. That view is more in keeping with what Marx meant to say.So, I'd say that Marx wasn't an elitist, but just a bad writer when it came to explaining his ideas clearly. There's something to his ideas, but we have to dig and interpret and rephrase (and, simply, ditch some).But, although I don't think Marx was an elitist…
RL wrote:Moreover, workers change their ideas in struggle; propaganda has very little effect…This is a philosophical assumption, and one I don't share.Workers don't simply change their ideas in struggle; in fact, often, 'in struggle', they continue to employ ideas that they've previously learnt, to their own detriment. There is no truth in the philosophical assertion that you make, that struggle alone changes ideas.I think that to argue so is an elitist position. It's used by Leninists to justify them providing 'new ideas' for workers who are struggling and so to hijack the 'struggle'.But… 'propaganda' alone, too, 'has very little effect', as you say.We have to merge the two: propaganda, education, organisation, struggle, wider prop., ed. and org., more struggle, etc., a process which allows workers to develop themselves and their ideas, to allow workers to become the 'ruling class' with their own 'ruling ideas' which increasingly confront the existing but now failing 'ruling class ideas'.The class must develop itself: which is what we're all trying to do.
RL wrote:Not really; you all disagree with me over the much more fundamental ideas I have developed about philosophy in general (how many will agree with much I have posted above?). Sure, you disagree with the Diamat crowd, etc., (and you did this long before any of you had even heard about me); but, then again, you have your own philosophical opiates to depend on — it's just a different brand from theirs.[my bold]But this reads like the words of an elitist. 'We' use narcotics, whilst 'you', presumably don't.How come only you are able to overcome philosophy and 'ruling class ideas'?
RL wrote:Even so, how many here would completely agree with me about philosophy in general; that it is just ruling-class hot air (and in that I include philosophical materialism, and all the stuff one reads here about 'brain work', and 'sensation', etc.)?Very few, if any.Well, I agree with you about DiaMat, but don't agree with your elitist rejection of workers' ability to philosophise (or, to adopt your common sense language, 'dig the Suez Canal').You clearly have a philosophy, but either you don't recognise it, or wish to hide it.Given the hard work that you've already done which benefits workers, I'm still not sure which of the above applies. I hope that it's the former, and you join in helping to explain the world to workers, like all of us, and yourself, rather than denigrate your class.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:L Bird:"Well, yeah, you could call it 're-digging the Suez canal', but why would you?"The point was: the label doesn't matter, the content does. And if that content is just a reprise of ruling-class ideology, you can count me out.But if the 'content' is just 'ruling class ideology', you can count us all out, can't you?Surely we're all trying to get at what 'content' is suitable for Communists, whatever the 'label', as you say?
RL wrote:Here is what I wrote about this in that Interview…Yes, I think I agree with your arguments against DiaMat – what I'm interested is the Communist content of your views/philosophy/Suez Canal digging. You've already won us over on DiaMat.
RL wrote:So, I don't expect the majority to agree with me; in fact, just as soon as they did, I'd instantly know I had gone wrong somewhere.I'm not trying to change comrades' opinions, since I know I can't in the main do that.I find this a strange claim for a Communist to make – surely 'a majority' is precisely what we aim to come to agreement with us Communists? The latter part reads like the protestations of an elitist: 'the majority are always wrong, and that is the guiding thread of my philosophy'.Why don't you think you can't change comrades' opinions? Isn't that, in itself, a ruling class idea?
RL wrote:If per impossible I could change their ideas, that would be tantamount to admitting that the ideas of the ruling class don't always rule, or have stopped ruling. Until workers get rid of that class, those who are into philosophy and 'dialectics' are just going to have to suffer from the consequences of their own misguided theories.Well, the ideas of the ruling class don't always rule, do they?There are always oppositional ideas, even if at times only held by a tiny minority. Surely part of 'getting rid of the ruling class' is also changing workers' ideas – a role for Communists, as part of the process of revolution? Of course, education alone can't do it, but it's part of it.As for 'dialecticians suffering the consequences of their misguided ideas', isn't that why many of us agree with you?
RL wrote:Finally, I only engage on forums like this to sharpen my own ideas. I expect to be disbelieved by the vast majority, if not all, of you.But perhaps a majority here actually agree with you – that will become clearer as the discussion advances. But to expect to be always in a minority (of one?) is to be too dismissive of the ability of other workers, like yourself, who try to understand this world of ours.
RL wrote:And bless you, you lot haven't disappointed me!This is uncalled for, given that at least some have openly said they agree with your views on dialectics, and does your argument no favours.In fact, if pushed, I'd say it smacks of Leninist philosophical elitism.I, for one, am not a Leninist. If you are, that's fine, but then we can start to unpack your views, if they don't seem to be related to those expressed by the majority here.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:LBird:"If it's just the term 'philosophy', then just call what you're doing 'Historical Materialism'; if others call it 'philosophy', so what? As long as we try to work together to build Communist ideas useful for us workers."Indeed, I could call it re-digging the Suez canal, but who would that fool, except Simon?Well, yeah, you could call it 're-digging the Suez canal', but why would you? Surely you want to influence (and indeed help) comrades to come to some understanding of, errm… 're-digging the Suez canal', but if the terms are so flexible and unrelated to the matter in hand, why not use 'philosophy' just as much as 'historical materialism'?I mean, you could use all three terms interchangably at various times during a discussion, but wouldn't that just confuse all comrades, rather than just the (alledged) 'fools'?What would be the point?
Morgenstern wrote:First … Sorry, LBird, misread your last post entirely, and drew the wrong conclusions. I think you're quite possibly potty, but I reserve myself the same right, and that's entirely within the spirit of enquiry. Shine on you crazy diamond, and all that.Thanks for the apology, Morgenstern – my problem is that I'm a sensitive little soul.
