"The minority’s first preferance is to convince the majority to their position and carrying out that position. Their second preferance is to carry out the position of the majority, because this would lead to worse consequences than carrying out the position of the minority. Their last preference is to exit the organisation, because this would lead to worse consequences than carrying out the position of the majority. The basis for democratic centralism is the existence of this second preferance, where after a period of debate, the majority position can be established as that which the majoirty and minority must carry out together. The minority participates, because carrying out the majority position is still preferable to the minority than carrying out neither. The participation in all communist organisation is voluntary in this sense"
Why is there not the option of simply the minority carrying out the will of the minority using their own time, energy, and property? Would this be allowed to exist under such a system? If not, how can you remotely consider participation voluntary? If someone can't withdraw from or attempt to withdraw from something without threat of coercion, it cannot be considered voluntary.
"As such, law must lose its form and cannot be carried through into the socialist mode of production. Following the open, materialist organisation of society, disagreements or violence with the superstructure can no longer be appreciated as infractions upon a list of rules, but only as contradictions between the economic needs of members of society. Those contradictions must then be resolved by that society. This is an area which lacks theoretical development."
If those contradictions were resolved, would it not effectively create some legal code by which judgements are made on "contradictions" (I suppose you mean conflict over scarce means). As law is always a subset of morality, what moral system do you suppose to contain the legal ethic you use?
Also, why is it presupposed that it is right for people to vote on what others can or cannot do with their own property? Or is there some argument why nobody should be allowed to own their own property in the first place? If so why?
The minority is always free to carry out its own will, but the point of this section is that there will be situations where the minority would rather carry out the will of the majority than split from the majority.
The idea of the law section is not the abolition of legal systems themselves, which remains contentious, but the current form that it takes as a list of rules. This form obscures the true motivation behind the law which is the maintenance of class society and the oppression of the proletariat. In a communist society, the response from the legal system would be the consideration of the material basis for these contradictions and not a comparison between the infraction to a set of rules, which is an idealist method.
Lastly, it should be understood that ownership is a construct. It is an idea that does not have to apply to everything. When people have personal attachments to certain things, this doesn’t predispose that thing to their ownership.
If you're saying that under the society that you propose, the minority would be free to withdraw and live their own way of life, then fair enough. I would still question whether other parts of your system involve coercion of private individuals but if you genuinely believe what you want can be achieved by fully voluntary means then fair play to your consistency.
I understand what you're saying about the legal code, but do you understand that any legal ethic implied to give consistent, rational decisions, will eventually result in a list of legal norms that would form the basis for a legal code. Any situation where conflict can arise over scarcity requires a legal code and ethic to resolve that conflict and decide the just winner of it.
Which is the final point on ownership being a construct of humanity and not a necessary part of a world of scarcity. Ownership is simply defined as the right to exclude others from some given scarce means. Because two different people can disagree over how something should be used, a legal ethic exists naturally as a means of resolving this. Today, that ethic is one of utility and politics, but it could be a consistent natural law ethic theoretically. I agree with you that mental attachment doesn't create ownership, but that implies that you don't have the right to exclude, which is contradictory to the idea of mass voting on the use of various property.
I am talking about the minority of a communist party, not a minority of society. It is not currently possible for a minority in society to withdraw from it. As such, participation in society is not voluntary whilst the participation in the party is. That is a precondition for democratic centralism to function.
Situations where conflict can arise over scarcity does not require a legal code or ethic to be resolved. This is because it is possible to take a course of action based on the concrete situation rather than reference a legal code. The basis for codified laws, this consistency you speak of, is for judgements to always rule in favour of the ruling class, not any consistency in apolitical moral convictions. Seeing this as theoretical proposition rather than as a plain fact is an indication of privilege.
Lastly, on this supposed right to exclude. It is not a natural right, but a rule that people must actively fight to enforce. History can be thought of as the fight to exclude others from tools and resources for their own political interests. The fundament of political interest is, of course, class. Thereby we declare that the history of society is the history of class struggle.
Withdrawal from current society is not what I am talking about, I am not claiming we currently have a voluntary system. I am saying in theory, in the absence of state regulation of private property, restrictions and such, people could withdraw and do their own thing. Would your society permit this? Whether you could choose to vote or to not does not make your system voluntary.
Any means you use to resolve the given conflict constitutes a legal system. That's an inherent fact of the matter. Specifics may change, but the outcome (who wins) can stay the same. The purpose of the law is to ensure that a winner of a conflict can be decided which can be adhered to instead of using force to decide the winner or the loser (a might makes right ethic). Law can be exploited or morphed to benefit people unfairly or in violation of natural law, just because somethings a right doesn't mean it is permitted as such, but it remains a right nonetheless. Just the same way as you believe you are morally right in your ideals. Just because it's not the current system, doesn't mean it couldn't be right. You aren't wrong because of the current system being different to your ideal.
Natural rights aren't defined as rights that you don't have to enforce, as others may try to violate them. Natural rights are rights you as a human actor have that are inherent in your own nature as a living human actor and within a reality of scarcity, not abundance. If we are to decide who is allowed to do what with what property, we have to permit certain people the right to exclude others from that property. If nobody has the right to exclude, it is not property, it is nature, and is free for homesteading. The history of society does not negate this, the existence of currently different legal codes does not negate this. Just because we are trying to enforce a consequentialist/utilitarian legal ethic, does not mean that legal ethic is right, just, and non-contradictory. It's being enforced, but it's wrong. Just because something is wrong, does not mean it cannot be forced or believed in en mass.
I believe that a communist society ought to be defined as a socialist society which produces according to ability and distributes according to need. I believe that we should strive to reduce the criteria for each of these to a minimum — reducing need to want and ability to willingness. The reason for this striving is because a communist society should produce and distribute according to the conditions of that society. As such, a communist society should strive to make labour voluntary, which has a secondary effect of allowing them to have privacy as well as social isolation. But this is not the same as a withdrawal from said communist society, which still distributes to that individual on the basis of need. As for a complete exit from society, this does not seem likely, because society is international and expansionist.
"The minority’s first preferance is to convince the majority to their position and carrying out that position. Their second preferance is to carry out the position of the majority, because this would lead to worse consequences than carrying out the position of the minority. Their last preference is to exit the organisation, because this would lead to worse consequences than carrying out the position of the majority. The basis for democratic centralism is the existence of this second preferance, where after a period of debate, the majority position can be established as that which the majoirty and minority must carry out together. The minority participates, because carrying out the majority position is still preferable to the minority than carrying out neither. The participation in all communist organisation is voluntary in this sense"
Why is there not the option of simply the minority carrying out the will of the minority using their own time, energy, and property? Would this be allowed to exist under such a system? If not, how can you remotely consider participation voluntary? If someone can't withdraw from or attempt to withdraw from something without threat of coercion, it cannot be considered voluntary.
"As such, law must lose its form and cannot be carried through into the socialist mode of production. Following the open, materialist organisation of society, disagreements or violence with the superstructure can no longer be appreciated as infractions upon a list of rules, but only as contradictions between the economic needs of members of society. Those contradictions must then be resolved by that society. This is an area which lacks theoretical development."
If those contradictions were resolved, would it not effectively create some legal code by which judgements are made on "contradictions" (I suppose you mean conflict over scarce means). As law is always a subset of morality, what moral system do you suppose to contain the legal ethic you use?
Also, why is it presupposed that it is right for people to vote on what others can or cannot do with their own property? Or is there some argument why nobody should be allowed to own their own property in the first place? If so why?
Hi Jon,
The minority is always free to carry out its own will, but the point of this section is that there will be situations where the minority would rather carry out the will of the majority than split from the majority.
The idea of the law section is not the abolition of legal systems themselves, which remains contentious, but the current form that it takes as a list of rules. This form obscures the true motivation behind the law which is the maintenance of class society and the oppression of the proletariat. In a communist society, the response from the legal system would be the consideration of the material basis for these contradictions and not a comparison between the infraction to a set of rules, which is an idealist method.
Lastly, it should be understood that ownership is a construct. It is an idea that does not have to apply to everything. When people have personal attachments to certain things, this doesn’t predispose that thing to their ownership.
Thanks for your reply.
If you're saying that under the society that you propose, the minority would be free to withdraw and live their own way of life, then fair enough. I would still question whether other parts of your system involve coercion of private individuals but if you genuinely believe what you want can be achieved by fully voluntary means then fair play to your consistency.
I understand what you're saying about the legal code, but do you understand that any legal ethic implied to give consistent, rational decisions, will eventually result in a list of legal norms that would form the basis for a legal code. Any situation where conflict can arise over scarcity requires a legal code and ethic to resolve that conflict and decide the just winner of it.
Which is the final point on ownership being a construct of humanity and not a necessary part of a world of scarcity. Ownership is simply defined as the right to exclude others from some given scarce means. Because two different people can disagree over how something should be used, a legal ethic exists naturally as a means of resolving this. Today, that ethic is one of utility and politics, but it could be a consistent natural law ethic theoretically. I agree with you that mental attachment doesn't create ownership, but that implies that you don't have the right to exclude, which is contradictory to the idea of mass voting on the use of various property.
I am talking about the minority of a communist party, not a minority of society. It is not currently possible for a minority in society to withdraw from it. As such, participation in society is not voluntary whilst the participation in the party is. That is a precondition for democratic centralism to function.
Situations where conflict can arise over scarcity does not require a legal code or ethic to be resolved. This is because it is possible to take a course of action based on the concrete situation rather than reference a legal code. The basis for codified laws, this consistency you speak of, is for judgements to always rule in favour of the ruling class, not any consistency in apolitical moral convictions. Seeing this as theoretical proposition rather than as a plain fact is an indication of privilege.
Lastly, on this supposed right to exclude. It is not a natural right, but a rule that people must actively fight to enforce. History can be thought of as the fight to exclude others from tools and resources for their own political interests. The fundament of political interest is, of course, class. Thereby we declare that the history of society is the history of class struggle.
Withdrawal from current society is not what I am talking about, I am not claiming we currently have a voluntary system. I am saying in theory, in the absence of state regulation of private property, restrictions and such, people could withdraw and do their own thing. Would your society permit this? Whether you could choose to vote or to not does not make your system voluntary.
Any means you use to resolve the given conflict constitutes a legal system. That's an inherent fact of the matter. Specifics may change, but the outcome (who wins) can stay the same. The purpose of the law is to ensure that a winner of a conflict can be decided which can be adhered to instead of using force to decide the winner or the loser (a might makes right ethic). Law can be exploited or morphed to benefit people unfairly or in violation of natural law, just because somethings a right doesn't mean it is permitted as such, but it remains a right nonetheless. Just the same way as you believe you are morally right in your ideals. Just because it's not the current system, doesn't mean it couldn't be right. You aren't wrong because of the current system being different to your ideal.
Natural rights aren't defined as rights that you don't have to enforce, as others may try to violate them. Natural rights are rights you as a human actor have that are inherent in your own nature as a living human actor and within a reality of scarcity, not abundance. If we are to decide who is allowed to do what with what property, we have to permit certain people the right to exclude others from that property. If nobody has the right to exclude, it is not property, it is nature, and is free for homesteading. The history of society does not negate this, the existence of currently different legal codes does not negate this. Just because we are trying to enforce a consequentialist/utilitarian legal ethic, does not mean that legal ethic is right, just, and non-contradictory. It's being enforced, but it's wrong. Just because something is wrong, does not mean it cannot be forced or believed in en mass.
I believe that a communist society ought to be defined as a socialist society which produces according to ability and distributes according to need. I believe that we should strive to reduce the criteria for each of these to a minimum — reducing need to want and ability to willingness. The reason for this striving is because a communist society should produce and distribute according to the conditions of that society. As such, a communist society should strive to make labour voluntary, which has a secondary effect of allowing them to have privacy as well as social isolation. But this is not the same as a withdrawal from said communist society, which still distributes to that individual on the basis of need. As for a complete exit from society, this does not seem likely, because society is international and expansionist.