What Kind of Socialism do you want?

Dubversion said:

So you DON'T actually believe in a socialism based on the will of the majority at all times, just when it suits you?

Click to expand...

At risk of defending tbaldwin whose views I don't tend to often support, his posts at the beginning of this thread re socialism as genuine democracy I do support.

Pogroms against Jews etc are the result not of popular democracy but of powerlessness and manipulation of the powerless by the powerful. Benign dictatorships simply do not exist. I agree then that mistakes or reactionary policy is more likely from unaccountable heirarchy than from genuine democracy.

Unfortunately tbaldwin frequently takes the scapegoating views espoused by the likes of The Sun 'newspaper' (or of Margaret Hodge) then decides they are majority opinion and that socialism will of necessity have to take these views (on immigration, death penalty etc) on board.

What tbaldwin misunderstands is that what passes as popular opinion at present can be easily misrepresented and can also be manipulated by the minority who weild power. There is therefore a conundrum.

Socialists want thorough democracy, but right-wingers throw at us 'majority opinion' on the death penalty, asylum seekers, law and order etc (whilst of course ignoring majority opinion on most other issues, such as war on Iraq). Thus the argument that the inequalities and balance of power under capitalism distort people's interpretation of their interests can be potrayed as an elitist position (we know better than than majority).

The fact is though that socialism can only be achieved by the actions of the majority, and will reflect the opinions of the majority once they have emancipated themselves, rather than the opinions people hold from a position of powerlessness. Socialists opposition to some views said to be popular opinion, such as relating to asylum seekers, recognises that the majority cannot emancipate themselves if they are hoodwinked into turning their frustrations and their discontent against the oppressed thus destroying any chance of unity. A mass socialist consciousness develops as part of the process of struggle.

Fruitloop said:

Hi Louis,

Short answer 'cos I have to run off - sorry.



Certainly not all minority groups are constituted around legitimate interests, but then again not all minority groups are self-constituted at all. Societies tend to produce from their own internal dynamics groups that are abjected from the main social body, and in my opinion a political system that allows the majority to tyrannise such groups is not desirable.



Certainly not the former. It's no accident that bourgeois liberalism is just a cypher - as you imply there's an inherent conflict between the false appearance and the real political content. As for the latter part, it's a tricky question, but I think in general I am open to the idea of recuperating, actualising or however you want to put it, existing ideas. In fact I think it may well be essential, if our political programs aren't to resemble the famous Irish directions: 'How do you get to x?', 'Well, firstly I wouldn't start from here'.

Click to expand...

Hello - in the first instance are you saying that it is not possible for groups to 'abject' themselves by dint of their own behaviour? If this is the case then what sort of protection should the rest of society afford them? Protection from arbitary violence yes, but surely not protection to maintain the behaviour that caused them to be 'abjected' in the first place?

In the second instance I am very sceptical that liberalism can be divorced from capitalism (recuperated or whatever) - as someone like Chantal Mouffe would maintain - and allowed to somehow deliver on its promise of individual protection; but I'd be interested in what other people think.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

Dubversion said:

So you DON'T actually believe in a socialism based on the will of the majority at all times, just when it suits you?

Click to expand...

Sorry if my other post was not clear enough for you Dub. I believe that Yes the Majority in Power could make mistakes. Decisions would be taken that i wouldnt agree with. But I believe that as a Socialist,you have to support the majoritys right to make decisions even if at times you feel they get it wrong.

To me the chances of a majority getting things right more often than a minority of benevolent and good or educated people...Means that i believe in Democratic Socialism .

Groucho said:

Unfortunately tbaldwin frequently takes the scapegoating views espoused by the likes of The Sun 'newspaper' (or of Margaret Hodge) then decides they are majority opinion and that socialism will of necessity have to take these views (on immigration, death penalty etc) on board.

What tbaldwin misunderstands is that what passes as popular opinion at present can be easily misrepresented and can also be manipulated by the minority who weild power. There is therefore a conundrum.

Socialists want thorough democracy, but right-wingers throw at us 'majority opinion' on the death penalty, asylum seekers, law and order etc (whilst of course ignoring majority opinion on most other issues, such as war on Iraq). Thus the argument that the inequalities and balance of power under capitalism distort people's interpretation of their interests can be potrayed as an elitist position (we know better than than majority).

The fact is though that socialism can only be achieved by the actions of the majority, and will reflect the opinions of the majority once they have emancipated themselves, rather than the opinions people hold from a position of powerlessness. Socialists opposition to some views said to be popular opinion, such as relating to asylum seekers, recognises that the majority cannot emancipate themselves if they are hoodwinked into turning their frustrations and their discontent against the oppressed thus destroying any chance of unity. A mass socialist consciousness develops as part of the process of struggle.

Click to expand...

Interesting and thoughtful post Groucho.

I take issue with you saying that i follow a scapegoating agenda.
I think the Liberal Left has got things badly wrong on Crime and Immigration.
As do millions of Socialist inclined people in this country.

On one hand the Liberal Left say they want Socialism from Below but on the other you talk about the majority of people being hoodwinked?
But the most reactionary ideas to me are from people who claim that ordinary people are too stupid or too uneducated to have real power.
And those reactionary ideas are very strong in our society and unite the middle class left and middle class right.

tbaldwin said:

But I believe that as a Socialist,you have to support the majoritys right to make decisions even if at times you feel they get it wrong.

Click to expand...

And is this at a national level only, or at a regional or even more atomised level.

If the majority of people on an estate want to drive someone on the Sex Offenders list out of their home, you'd presumably back them up, whilst sobbing inside?

Dubversion said:

And is this at a national level only, or at a regional or even more atomised level.

If the majority of people on an estate want to drive someone on the Sex Offenders list out of their home, you'd presumably back them up, whilst sobbing inside?

Click to expand...

I think it depends on what issue it is Dub?
And no i dont think id be sobbing inside to be honest.

Its never going to happen.In socialism everyone is equal untill the socialists are in power and then it becomes.Some are more equal than others

CUMBRIANDRAGON said:

Its never going to happen.In socialism everyone is equal untill the socialists are in power and then it becomes.Some are more equal than others

Click to expand...

I agree thats the danger. And that is why you have two choices. You put faith in the Majority....Or you put faith in an enlightened minority.....

I know which i believe in.

Louis MacNeice said:

Hello - in the first instance are you saying that it is not possible for groups to 'abject' themselves by dint of their own behaviour? If this is the case then what sort of protection should the rest of society afford them? Protection from arbitary violence yes, but surely not protection to maintain the behaviour that caused them to be 'abjected' in the first place?

Click to expand...

Definitely it is their activities that cause the separation from the rest of society, but I don't think that this kind of social conflict will be miraculously resolved in any future society (trans-humanist sci-fi societies excepted), because things like sexual perversion, mysticism and the pursuit of altered states are part of the human condition and will not be resolved by any kind of economic or political activity. Antagonisms will inevitably arise and how they are resolved or mediated will be a critical factor in whether a socialist society is a stable and desirable place to live.

Louis MacNeice said:

In the second instance I am very sceptical that liberalism can be divorced from capitalism (recuperated or whatever) - as someone like Chantal Mouffe would maintain - and allowed to somehow deliver on its promise of individual protection; but I'd be interested in what other people think.

Click to expand...

I don't know that much about Mouffe, other than that 1981 thing with Laclau that's memorable mostly for making Lenin look like a vagina:

http://www.amielandmelburn.org.uk/collections/mt/pdf/81_01_17.pdf

Recuperation of any kind is full of pitfalls, but to my mind it's inevitable unless you either think you have some kind of dialectical hotline to non-ideological truth, or indulge in majoritarian abdications of responsibility.

Fruitloop said:

Definitely it is their activities that cause the separation from the rest of society, but I don't think that this kind of social conflict will be miraculously resolved in any future society (trans-humanist sci-fi societies excepted), because things like sexual perversion, mysticism and the pursuit of altered states are part of the human condition and will not be resolved by any kind of economic or political activity. Antagonisms will inevitably arise and how they are resolved or mediated will be a critical factor in whether a socialist society is a stable and desirable place to live.



I don't know that much about Mouffe, other than that 1981 thing with Laclau that's memorable mostly for making Lenin look like a vagina:

http://www.amielandmelburn.org.uk/collections/mt/pdf/81_01_17.pdf

Recuperation of any kind is full of pitfalls, but to my mind it's inevitable unless you either think you have some kind of dialectical hotline to non-ideological truth, or indulge in majoritarian abdications of responsibility.

Click to expand...

I wasn't really thinking of sexual perversion, mysticism or the pursuit of altered states of consciousness; although I can see why you may have thought this was what I was getting at. My thoughts were more along the lines of violence against the person, theft, extortion...surely we don't just have to put our hands up and say we can't see any economic, political or social activity which would effectively work against these (or even that these minority behaviours need to be protected)?

I think my problem with recuperation is that it suggests the recovery of something which is historically specific and therefore cannot be saved; Mouffe's suggestion is that by somehow uncoupling liberalism from capitalism it can go on to fulfill its liberatory promise. My take would be that liberalsim doesn't need to be uncoupled from capitalism, but rather the limitations of liberalism, which are there in part due to its historical formation, need to be recognised and transcended.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

Of course the same goes for socialism.

Louis MacNeice said:

I wasn't really thinking of sexual perversion, mysticism or the pursuit of altered states of consciousness; although I can see why you may have thought this was what I was getting at. My thoughts were more along the lines of violence against the person, theft, extortion...surely we don't just have to put our hands up and say we can't see any economic, political or social activity which would effectively work against these (or even that these minority behaviours need to be protected)?

Click to expand...

No absolutely not. It's a difficult question to which I don't really have an answer; should there be 'global' limitations on behaviour that transcend the majority's power to alter the law etc. I think that by and large the question is pretty hypothetical, since the number of people who think that rape, murder and extortion should be allowed is vanishingly small. There's also the question of whether the enforcement powers of the majority should be limited with respect to individuals - personally I think that killing people regardless of what acts they have committed is bad for society as a whole, and that ideally society's power to compel shoudn't be extended that far, regardless of what the constituent members might think at any particular time. Maybe sometimes you have to grasp the nettle of universalism with respect to rights etc, whilst bearing in mind that judegments can only be made from a particular historical and ideological perspective.

Louis MacNeice said:

I think my problem with recuperation is that it suggests the recovery of something which is historically specific and therefore cannot be saved; Mouffe's suggestion is that by somehow uncoupling liberalism from capitalism it can go on to fulfill its liberatory promise. My take would be that liberalsim doesn't need to be uncoupled from capitalism, but rather the limitations of liberalism, which are there in part due to its historical formation, need to be recognised and transcended.

Of course the same goes for socialism.

Click to expand...

I think the difference in our positions in this respect is purely terminological, as I agree completely with the above.

tbaldwin said:

I agree thats the danger. And that is why you have two choices. You put faith in the Majority....Or you put faith in an enlightened minority.....

I know which i believe in.

Click to expand...

Ah, nowt like simplistic binaries: black/white, good/evil/ and right/left.

Who is this "majority" that you continually speak of and do they really share your 'vision'?

nino_savatte said:

Ah, nowt like simplistic binaries: black/white, good/evil/ and right/left.

Who is this "majority" that you continually speak of and do they really share your 'vision'?

Click to expand...

Yes, clearly the majority were wrong in Germany in the 1930s. It's not an either/or position, the art of the possible for me is like Gramscis'. A respecter not of common sense, but of good sense.

The 'mass public' are systematically exposed to reactionary politics from birth, and are not taught their own history. In conditions like this it would be dangerous in advance to put faith in the 'public' whose options are continually closed down, or open only to simple vote a or vote b solutions. I have argued before that such a term/thing does not exist, and a better term for it is the multitude.

And I say these things as a populist - I believe in popular and mass forms of politics. The best working class politics does not exist in advance of class struggles, it will emerge out of such struggles.

nino_savatte said:

Ah, nowt like simplistic binaries: black/white, good/evil/ and right/left.

Who is this "majority" that you continually speak of and do they really share your 'vision'?

Click to expand...

It is not about people sharing my or your views on everything. Its about people having an equal say in the decisions that effect their lives. Which to me is a preety basic socialist thing.

Attica said:

Yes, clearly the majority were wrong in Germany in the 1930s. It's not an either/or position, the art of the possible for me is like Gramscis'. A respecter not of common sense, but of good sense.

The 'mass public' are systematically exposed to reactionary politics from birth, and are not taught their own history. In conditions like this it would be dangerous in advance to put faith in the 'public' whose options are continually closed down, or open only to simple vote a or vote b solutions. I have argued before that such a term/thing does not exist, and a better term for it is the multitude.

And I say these things as a populist - I believe in popular and mass forms of politics. The best working class politics does not exist in advance of class struggles, it will emerge out of such struggles.

Click to expand...

But wasnt Hitler invited to take over after getting less than 40% of the votes by some unelected bloke Hindenburg?
Do you really think that Hitler is a good arguement against Majority power?

tbaldwin said:

It is not about people sharing my or your views on everything. Its about people having an equal say in the decisions that effect their lives. Which to me is a preety basic socialist thing.

Click to expand...

There is nothing 'equal' about majoritarianism. What you advocate isn't 'socialist' at all, it is populist. It is reactive and it is regressive.

If the majority view was to burn books because a 'majority' of people had deemed them 'decadent', presumably, you would accede to their wishes?

tbaldwin said:

Interesting and thoughtful post Groucho.

I take issue with you saying that i follow a scapegoating agenda.
I think the Liberal Left has got things badly wrong on Crime and Immigration.
As do millions of Socialist inclined people in this country.

On one hand the Liberal Left say they want Socialism from Below but on the other you talk about the majority of people being hoodwinked?
But the most reactionary ideas to me are from people who claim that ordinary people are too stupid or too uneducated to have real power.
And those reactionary ideas are very strong in our society and unite the middle class left and middle class right.

Click to expand...

You have highlighted half a sentence in my post! The sentence does not in fact say that the majority are hoodwinked. The key point here is that I believe those, for instance in Barking & Dagenham who believe that the housing problems in the area are caused by immigrants are hoodwinked. They are believing lies spread by BNP supporters, the local press and more recently Margaret Hodge. However, you believe their opinions to be right and to represent majority opinion. There is no evidence that majority opinion in this country agree with the racists, but those who seek to influence popular opinion throungh the tabloids etc would have us believe that; it suits their agenda.

The one council seat in B&D where LP beat the BNP is where the LP candidates were not Blairites but challenged both the racism of the BNP and the LP Govts. housing policy (not building council homes). Elsewhere LP candidates pandered to the BNP as does Hodge, and sought to defend LP Govts. record (happy to see 'migrants' rather than New Labour take the blame). So a more progressive voice can win the majority of votes cast even in the heartland of BNP protest voting.

I maintain that in fighting for majority rule, in emancipating themselves the majority will throw off the shackles imposed by reactionary and false ideas propogated as 'common sense' in our society. tbaldwin - you not only accept these most reactionary of ideas but you seek to foster them under the guise of speaking up for the 'majority'.

You are guilty of what you accuse others of doing; you decide on behalf of the majority what their views are.

Dubs point re 'majority' views on an estate seeking to drive out those on the sexual offenders register is important. It is an example (Palsgrove estate - I've been there, good for silly Xmas lights on houses, shit place to live, but the majority did not take part in the mobs on the streets) of people who are powerless taking out their frustrations on nearby clearly defined (by the tabloids) enemies. Such actions are reactionary and can only reinforce the power structures that keep people poor and downtrodden. A more extreme example were the progroms against Jews in Tsarist Russia. Here the ruling class deliberately encouraged scapegoating and violent assualts on Jews as a diversion from people's real problems. The Russian poor could not rise up against Tsarist oppression whilst fighting amongst themselves in such a reactionary basis. tbaldwin's is an argument that states that since the majority in a Russian village seem to have supported pogroms against Jews then supporters of the concept of majority rule must support the pogroms or else really you are some kind of would-be dictator.

In tbalwin's 'socialism' I still see a version of 'popular will' that would fit in nicely with that espoused by Mosely. It is the opposite of what it claims to be.

tbaldwin said:

I think it depends on what issue it is Dub?
And no i dont think id be sobbing inside to be honest.

Click to expand...

Would you be participating?

Attica said:

Yes, clearly the majority were wrong in Germany in the 1930s. It's not an either/or position, the art of the possible for me is like Gramscis'. A respecter not of common sense, but of good sense.

The 'mass public' are systematically exposed to reactionary politics from birth, and are not taught their own history. In conditions like this it would be dangerous in advance to put faith in the 'public' whose options are continually closed down, or open only to simple vote a or vote b solutions. I have argued before that such a term/thing does not exist, and a better term for it is the multitude.

And I say these things as a populist - I believe in popular and mass forms of politics. The best working class politics does not exist in advance of class struggles, it will emerge out of such struggles.

Click to expand...

I think that you've nailed it there, Attica, particularly with regards to the w/c not knowing their own history and this is the sort of thing that demogogues prey on. The 'history' presented to the w/c is one of their total subservience to the state and how the ruling classes did such a remarkable job in creating such a wonderful country.

Groucho said:

In tbalwin's 'socialism' I still see a version of 'popular will' that would fit in nicely with that espoused by Mosely. It is the opposite of what it claims to be.

Click to expand...

Oh dear.

Last time I drew tbaldwins' attention to the parallels between his position and that of the likes of Mosley and A. K. Chesterton I had to put up with him denying he was a racist and his friends all having a go at me while telling me what a brave anti-fascist he was.

Because, as usual, he and his chums entirely missed the point I was making, which wasn't that he was racist or fascist, but that there were parallels between his and their views.

Hopefully you won't get a bawling out by those who don't see the rather large distinction.

Groucho said:

Would you be participating?

Click to expand...

Only if the majority wanted him to.

ViolentPanda said:

Oh dear.

Last time I drew tbaldwins' attention to the parallels between his position and that of the likes of Mosley and A. K. Chesterton I had to put up with him denying he was a racist and his friends all having a go at me while telling me what a brave anti-fascist he was.

Because, as usual, he and his chums entirely missed the point I was making, which wasn't that he was racist or fascist, but that there were parallels between his and their views.

Hopefully you won't get a bawling out by those who don't see the rather large distinction.

Click to expand...

Innit. I've tried to do the same thing, only to be met with the usual flak and noise.

Though I suspect that his views on higher education and those who are educated, are fairly close to those of Pol Pot.

Attica said:

Yes, clearly the majority were wrong in Germany in the 1930s. It's not an either/or position, the art of the possible for me is like Gramscis'. A respecter not of common sense, but of good sense.

The 'mass public' are systematically exposed to reactionary politics from birth, and are not taught their own history. In conditions like this it would be dangerous in advance to put faith in the 'public' whose options are continually closed down, or open only to simple vote a or vote b solutions. I have argued before that such a term/thing does not exist, and a better term for it is the multitude.

And I say these things as a populist - I believe in popular and mass forms of politics. The best working class politics does not exist in advance of class struggles, it will emerge out of such struggles.

Click to expand...

So the practical upshot of this analysis is what, that they need a managerial paternal hand put around them by the more educated and far seeing members of society? This is just a leninism that refuses to admit it isn't it? This is about as far from anachism as you can get. Total distrust in the capacities of people to identify and then develop effecative collective solutions to their own social problems in whatever enviroment they may find themselves in - in favour of trying to get them to adopt yours on the basis of their assumed political incapacity.

Ther last para is just tagged on and clearly contradicts your substantive content - that's when it even has anything to with what you argued prior to it.

torres said:

So the practical upshot of this analysis is what, that they need a managerial paternal hand put around them by the more educated and far seeing members of society? This is just a leninism that refuses to admit it isn't it? This is about as far from anachism as you can get. Total distrust in the capacities of people to identify and then develop effecative collective solutions to their own social problems in whatever enviroment they may find themselves in - in favour of trying to get them to adopt yours on the basis of their assumed political incapacity.

Ther last para is just tagged on and clearly contradicts your substantive content - that's when it even has anything to with what you argued prior to it.

Click to expand...

You are assuming way too much in your post - you have a a priori want for me to have Leninist politics, 'the party knows best' - but I do not. Your misreading is due to your failure to understand that I am a populist (as people who know me know from previous engagement over decades) and at the same time I am aware of the contradictory possibilitites out there. You have failed to grasp that there are different political possibilities from the right and from the left out there (and here I include @ as part of the left).

Attica said:

You are assuming way too much in your post - you have a a priori want for me to have Leninist politics, 'the party knows best' - but I do not. Your misreading is due to your failure to understand that I am a populist (as people who know me know from previous engagement over decades) and at the same time I am aware of the contradictory possibilitites out there. You have failed to grasp that there are different political possibilities from the right and from the left out there (and here I include @ as part of the left).

Click to expand...

Explain to me then, as i asked, what the practical upshot of this sort of elitest attitude from you (quoted below) is then - and i don't mean just tagging on an unrelated defensive claim to be a populist with no definition of what that actually entails:

The 'mass public' are systematically exposed to reactionary politics from birth, and are not taught their own history. In conditions like this it would be dangerous in advance to put faith in the 'public' whose options are continually closed down, or open only to simple vote a or vote b solutions.

Click to expand...

torres said:

Explain to me then, as i asked, what the practical upshot of this sort of elitest attitude from you (quoted below) is then - and i don't mean just tagging on an unrelated defensive claim to be a populist with no definition of what that actually entails:

Click to expand...

Its not an elitist attitude - it is a statement of fact. They are conditions we have to politically work in.

As for populist I am with Karl Marx - "We must shout to the multitude the slogans of their own struggles" - OK, I've updated his insight in that paraphrase but the meaning is there - as he meant it. And no, it is not a party viewpoint which is detached, but slogans that we shout as participants in these class struggles.

And, are you following me around for any particular reason other than your love for me?

Right, so no actual answer to a political and practical question. 2nd one in a row. Nothing you say above has any connection to the question that i asked you. Ok, fair enough, if i'm getting no political debate out of you - it's clearly not worth my time.

torres said:

Right, so no actual answer to a political and practical question. 2nd one in a row. Nothing you say above has any connection to the question that i asked you. Ok, fair enough, if i'm getting no political debate out of you - it's clearly not worth my time.

Click to expand...

Your assumptions are wrong and so we have to rebuild the base before we can proceed Torres. You are jumping to quickly beyond primary socialisation, education, housing/welfare/ and other statist ideas to an imagined future where all these can be disregarded and instead there is the immediate choise of autonomy. I wish it were true BUT it is not. You will remain a utopian unless you have some position on the ideology(s) of the superstructure...

Explain to me the practical upshot of this analysis, not this other waffle - you either can, in which case, great, let's hear it, or you can't as it's meaningless or you wish to deny the logic implicit in it - just let me know one way or the other please:

The 'mass public' are systematically exposed to reactionary politics from birth, and are not taught their own history. In conditions like this it would be dangerous in advance to put faith in the 'public' whose options are continually closed down, or open only to simple vote a or vote b solutions.

Click to expand...

Attica said:

And, are you following me around for any particular reason other than your love for me?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry, B'Elanna was following me around for a bit until I put him/her on ignore.