Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 01:30:20 +1000 (EST)
From: billbartlett-AT-vision.net.au (Bill Bartlett)
Subject: Re: AUT: Neo-conservatism and workers


Ilan Shalif wrote:

>Hi People
>Though he is not one of them bill go again for hair splitting.

Perhaps, but if we can both avoid getting stroppy with each other we might
both learn from each others arguments. Personally, I'll admit, I can be a
bit touchy. On some subjects so can we all. In my experience it is just
those subjects where a person seems the most thin-skinned that they
probably are in greatest need of "hair-splitting" debate. Because it is in
just such subjects that we all unconsciously gloss over the fine cracks in
our logic.

So bear with me Ilan and I'll try to bear with you. Actually your answers
are pretty good, but you should not reprimand me for looking for cracks,
you should thank me for trying to find any. If I fail then I will learn
something and you will be strengthened.  If I succeed in finding cracks
then you will STILL learn something and we will both be strengthened. A
win-win situation for both of us.
>
>Bill Bartlett wrote:
>
>> Ilan Shalif wrote:

[...]

>> I'm not so sure. Depends what is meant by the term "Democratic Centralism".
>
>The term "Democratic Centralism" has long history.
>If some one use it - it is on hir to prove it is less than the
>whole of the old trash.

Well, I guess I can't do that. It seems quite a vague term to me. I think
the "centralism" part of it means centralising all power and I disapprove
of that. But my feeling was that it was possible George seemed to be
implying a different definition and I was going with that flow. Definitions
are often a bit fluid on this list, again I was going along with that
particular flow.

>> It is a practical question, some social issues need to be settled by
>> society as a whole, because they concern society as a whole. If that is
>> what is meant by democratic centralism then it seems quite appropriate.
>
>As if Bill do not crow the organizational platform of
>the anarcho-communists.
>
>The world commune of communities communes will use the
>direct democracy of recallable delegates to any organizational
>need and for facilitation of the decision making by the people
>the specific decision is relevant to.

Hmm... A Devil's Advocate could make much of the generalisations there, but
I couldn't possibly comment. ;-)

>> On the other hand of course there are many decisions best left to local
>> processes. The general principle to be followed is that all decisions are
>> best left to those who are affected by those decisions. If that is
>> everyone, then everyone should be consulted. If it is only a few, then only
>> those few should make the decision.
>
>This is the old idea of more than 100 years of the
>anarcho-communists

I'm glad to hear they agree with me. ;-)

>> As for your implied assertion that all left political parties must
>> necessarily be authoritarian and Leninist, I would be interested to hear
>> why that is so in your opinion.
>
>In English the word 'party' have two main meanings:
>One is having fun together with people,
>the other is a political structure.  For sure you can
>use any word the way you want, but the hierarchical structure
>of political party is contrasted to the political federation
>which is based on direct democracy of recallable delegates.

A political party could theoretically have recallable delegates too
couldn't it? I'm afraid my knowledge of actual political parties is
woefully inadequate to the task of venturing whether any political parties
have such a structure though.

However the important thing to acknowledge is that there is a difference
between a political party whose object is to *exercise* power and a
political party whose function is to advocate a political programme. You
seem to be assuming that the former is the only possible object of a
political party.

However if a political party, hypothetically, was not aiming to exercise
political power, but only engage in political agitation, then whether its
structure was hierarchical or otherwise would be of less importance. Such a
political party, whose only function is to propound a particular social
manifesto, would probably benefit from being internally democratic
(especially if its manifesto included a democratic plank) but if it is not
actually designed to administer anything other than a campaign of political
agitation then it might be counter-productive to be *excessively*
democratic.

By "excessively democratic" I mean democratic to the point of its actual
platform being vague or ambiguous.

It is perhaps this very need for a political party to be able to clearly
and firmly espouse a particular manifesto which most obviously renders a
political party completely inappropriate to actually administer its own
programme. Unfit to govern society in other words. Because administraion,
government, requires a different - a more flexible and more democratic
structure. A politcal party which is structured to administer society, will
be unfit to expound a clear vision and vice-versa. You see what I'm getting
at?
>
>> [...]

>> >For the working class the centralism needed is zero.
>>
>> So how are decisions effecting everyone to be made?
>
>By the direct democracy of recallable delegates of the various
>levels - including the world-comity which will have to facilitate
>the decision making regarding the whole world and to
>be responsible to implement them.
>
>> Having local
>> organisations of workers make decisions that effect millions of other
>> people who have no say in the decisions is just another form of
>> dictatorship it seems to me.
>
>Who proposed "organisations of workers" that will decide
>for others? Not the anarcho-communists.

Oh, some of them I'm quite sure. No names, no pack drill, but *some* of
them for sure are inclined to the view that local organisations should be
"autonomous" and have the right to unilaterally decide the disposition of
that part of the means of production which they directly operate. Without
regard to the big picture of their particular industry, related industries,
or the wider community that industries are there to serve.

Even *I* have come across that and I've led a much more sheltered life than
you Ilan, of that I'm fairly certain.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas




     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---