What does socialism mean?

[Louis MacNeice]

I did like, and agreed with mk12's post, but I think you have developed the SW position even clearer.

Sorry RMP3 I don't know the SW position on socialist workplace or team sports leadership; can you give us some more detail.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Knotted]

The authoritarian/libertarian distinction is useful in identifying tendencies re. who is to be relied upon to promote and sustain socialism, but again I'm less convinced how useful it is with regards to defining socialism. Going back to the OP there needs to be some sort of creative tension between individual and collective (including state collective) responsibilities.

I'm not even sure the authoritarian/libertarian distinction is useful in this respect. If there were any real libertarians on urban they would be up in arms about the smoking ban. They aren't. Not that that bothers me, just observing that the whole 'libertarian' thing is a bit of a red herring.

 

[TremulousTetra]

the problem I have with the thread, is that I don't think you can go much beyond what I said in my first post, without making it very clear it is impossible for us to prescribe what socialism/communism/anarchism will be and will not be. Will we have representative democracy, or mandated delegates? We don't know, emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class, and the construction of new democratic methods will also have to be the act of the working class. We can say what we think now as individuals and political organisations we would argue for, but surely we cannot say in honesty "X, Y, Z IS SOCIALISM"? THE CREATION OF SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM, IS A DYNAMIC DIALECTICAL PROCESS.

So for example. There is a great deal made about the difference between Socialist worker, and say anarchists. I would say anarchism and communism, a truly stateless classless and non hierarchical society are the same thing. Where we differ, is on workers states and workers autonomous regions. Now Socialist worker would argue we are going to need workers states, before we can have communism/anarchism. However, I do think logically SW has to concede not only may it be wrong, the revolution may be so thoroughgoing there is no opposition, that we may be able to leapfrog straight to communism/anarchism, but that also this would be highly desirable. I personally, and I'm sure every comrades I come across, would prefer to jump straight to communism/anarchism. We just don't believe it is possible, YET.

PS. And I don't really accept that workers autonomous regions, are not states, but that's another debate.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Sorry RMP3 I don't know the SW position on socialist workplace or team sports leadership; can you give us some more detail.

Louis MacNeice

the debate about competitive sports at Marxism is always a light hearted a debate. Such debates have to be put in the context of my post 33. I personally believe there will be competitive sports in a socialist society, and even in a communist society. But is that the culturally dominant ideas weighing upon my unconscious reactions, and guiding my conscious analysis?

With regard to the leadership, SW has always argued what you articulated quite clearly. However, I suppose I would not name such relationships as hierarchical. I think Tony Benn put it more succinctly, if somebody has any power you have to ask how did they get it, what can they do with it, and how can I take it off them? As long as the people give them power, and have the power to take it off individuals, I do not think such relations are necessarily hierarchical.

PS. If you get a chance have a listen to or read Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell.it isn't a political book, but a very entertaining read about the construction of consciousness, and the strength of the unconscious mind in guiding our actions. It's seriously questions the notion of ' free will'.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I prefer this way of looking at it:

Basically it separates the authoritarians from the libertarians on the economic left, and it separates the left-wing environmentalists from the right-wing environmentalists on the social scale.

Socialists on these boards and others seem to agree on the economics bit - about taking things into public ownership. However, that seems to be as far as it goes and the left has never dealt with the "social" side of things. Party discipline vs open debate.

People when discussing "what socialism means" need to make clear whether they are libertarian or authoritiarian in their disposition.

think I am your average SW member, and I came here.

 

[biff curtains]

Incidently I find the idea of anyone advocating 'authoritarian socialism' or 'libertarian socialism' mildly alarming. None of the three broad tendencies I outline above are either authoritarian or libertarian. I don't even think anarchists are libertarian, how else are you supposed to guarantee an individual's liberties if you don't have a state?

Where do anarchists say anything about guaranteeing individual liberties?

In what way does a state guarantee "individual liberties"?

 

[Knotted]

Where do anarchists say anything about guaranteeing individual liberties?

I don't believe they do, that's the point. I suppose 'libertarianism' means different things to different people just as 'socialism' does.

In what way does a state guarantee "individual liberties"?

In fairly obvious ways - the right to own property, the right not to be assaulted, the right to free speech etc. All these are defended to some degree by the state.

However that's beside the point. The point is that without a state and in particular without civil law, what sense does it make to talk about civil liberties? Furthermore if liberties are not civil liberties then what are they other than the way things just are?

 

[kyser_soze]

2) Abolition of hierarchical social relations

Well that's kind of the key to all of it. Work this one out - and how to stop hierarchy re-appearing in another form, using a different route. For example, in all the talk of committees etc, how does one stop a permanent bureacuray developing whilst ensuring transparency of resource use and allocation in say healthcare? Same applies to all services provided by 'the State', even at a local level - and do you want national or locally agreed standards? Should the state exist as nothing more than an auditor to ensure that hierarchies do not form?

Until someone addresses the issue that hierarchies, or at least concentrations of power can form naturally in any system of social organisation.

 

[northernhord]

Equality of life

 

[butchersapron]

The word "socialism" means different things to different people. For a Marxist it could mean one thing, for a Xtian it could mean something else.

I don't see how this is going to "improve" anything. The thing that needs to change is the way in which leftist groups relate to one another.

What I find quite interesting about this exercise is how you used something that I had posted on another thread as material for this thread. I wonder what would happen if I were to pop over to MATB and had a wee look? I didn't give a definition of socialism, I listed a few things. I suspect that you have ulterior motives for starting this thread.

Where's your pal, torres?

I've been down to the gower for few days. I'll get some tea and check out what's been going on in a bit.

 

[lewislewis]

The Scandinavian countries developed their own style of socialism during the last century, it didn't result in the overthrow of society and it retained the capitalist system, but on the positive side it consistently created the best standard of living in the world.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

The Scandinavian countries developed their own style of socialism during the last century, it didn't result in the overthrow of society and it retained the capitalist system, but on the positive side it consistently created the best standard of living in the world.

How was it socialist?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[lewislewis]

How was it socialist?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

I will use Norway as an example as in Sweden, the centre-right has now gained power.

Norwegian society has been moulded by social democracy with a mixed economy of the private sector and the state sector (with the government having key ownership of the petroleum sector, the main bank, communications etc etc)- essential to the construction of a social democratic society in Norway has been the government's resistance to continued demands from foreign parties for the privatisation of Norway's oil. State ownership over the petroleum sector has literally translated into popular ownership because all oil revenues have been re-invested back into the state.
Oil aside, Norwegian society is based on egalitarian values. Unemployment is amongst the lowest in the world, Norway has topped the UN Human Development Index about six times in a row now, per capita income, literacy, freedom of speech and human rights are all at the highest indicators. Norway has arguably the most advanced welfare state in the world. Norway was also one of the few Western countries to consistently support the Palestinians and is a place where the combined forces of the left (including the far-left) are currently in government.

There is no perfect society on Earth of course, and Norway is still a capitalist country (and of course has it's own cultural and historical quirks), but I am just making an example that socialist policies can work in government.

 

[mk12]

Well that's kind of the key to all of it. Work this one out - and how to stop hierarchy re-appearing in another form, using a different route. For example, in all the talk of committees etc, how does one stop a permanent bureacuray developing whilst ensuring transparency of resource use and allocation in say healthcare? Same applies to all services provided by 'the State', even at a local level - and do you want national or locally agreed standards? Should the state exist as nothing more than an auditor to ensure that hierarchies do not form?

Until someone addresses the issue that hierarchies, or at least concentrations of power can form naturally in any system of social organisation.

That's a good post. I guess the only possible method of stopping permanent bureaucracies from developing is to be consistently democratic from below. It's an interesting subject though, as bureaucracy has developed (in varying forms) in all revolutions in history.

 

[mk12]

think I am your average SW member, and I came here.

Theoretically, yes.

 

[mk12]

MK what about hierarchies of skill or esteem that are agreed and voluntarily entered into; you might agree who is to lead a particular piece of work or captain a netball team on the basis of that persos's skills and the regard with which they are held by others. Surely socialism won't preclude these sorts of hierarchical soical relations; and if that is the case what is it that marks them out from hierarchical relationships that you would want done away with?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

I am not one of these people who all authority or anything like that. I meant class contradictions/social relations. The relationship of workers to boss, or worker to management. That is the "hierarchical social relation" which needs to be abolished for socialism to develop.

The "authority" of an elected committee, or an elected manager, is completely different to the "authority" of a CEO of a company, or top-down appointed manager.

 

[Groucho]

Theoretically, yes.

No, that is exactly where the SWP belongs on that chart. We have plans to shoot anyone who contradicts us on that.

 

[mk12]

i'd argue that people in your tradition would be rolling in their grave knowing that they have been placed that far down the chart. Especially if "state imposed collectivism" is in that top left section of the graph.

 

[Groucho]

i'd argue that people in your tradition would be rolling in their grave knowing that they have been placed that far down the chart. Especially if "state imposed collectivism" is in that top left section of the graph.

The SWP don't support 'state imposed collectivism' but that is your problem isn't it? Any state, even a workers state representing majority interests against the minority = authoritarian state imposition to some anarchists and you can't decide where you stand on that question. So come the revolution you'll be wanting to stand up for the 'rights'* of the bourgeoisie against the workers in the name of individual freedom and liberty.

*The right to exploit others, the right to sack workers, the right to seek to overthrow by violent means the workers democracy.

As a sadly now deceased former member of the IS and then SWP described the tradition - it's libertarian Leninism innit.

 

[audiotech]

Counter-revolutionaries more like.

 

[Spion]

For example, in all the talk of committees etc, how does one stop a permanent bureacuray developing whilst ensuring transparency of resource use and allocation in say healthcare?

Ensure that there is no pay differential during times spent working in officer roles. If there's no *material* reason to maintain position then there's no reason a bureaucracy in the true sense of the word will emerge. Also, ensure that there are means by which the rank and file can initiate a process of recalling and judging officials.

 

[ViolentPanda]

MK what about hierarchies of skill or esteem that are agreed and voluntarily entered into; you might agree who is to lead a particular piece of work or captain a netball team on the basis of that persos's skills and the regard with which they are held by others. Surely socialism won't preclude these sorts of hierarchical soical relations; and if that is the case what is it that marks them out from hierarchical relationships that you would want done away with?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

IIRC Ferdinand Tönnies kind of dealt with these sorts of heirarchies/power relations with his concepts of gemeinschaft and gesellschaft.
While not designed to answer your point, they do provide a handy tool.

 

[mk12]

Any state, even a workers state representing majority interests against the minority = authoritarian state imposition to some anarchists and you can't decide where you stand on that question. So come the revolution you'll be wanting to stand up for the 'rights'* of the bourgeoisie against the workers in the name of individual freedom and liberty.

That may be the case for a minority of 'anarchists', but I certainly don't hold that opinion. Nor do most 'anarchists' I have come across. Or anarchists throughout history I imagine. It's a strawman, as they say. I am not sure where you would get the idea that 'anarchists' would support the 'rights' of the bourgeoisie in the name of 'individual freedom and liberty'. The anarchist who shut down the constituent assembly in 1917 certainly didn't give a shit about the "individual freedom and liberty" of bourgeois democracy!

When I said "in your tradition", I was referring to Bolshevism and its offshoots. Although I accept that theoretically, the SWP/IS were (in some cases) critical of orthodox Leninsm. People like Widgery and Sedgwick at least. But it was a fairly weak critique, let's be honest.

 

[greenman]

It all goes back to the old man himself doesn't it? Old Lev was of the "By Any Means Necessary" school of politics echoing Babeuf and Nechaev. So when recruiting trade unionists you are a syndicalist, when recruiting labourites you are a left social democrat, when things get revolutionary and there are radical youth to recruit or you wish to contrast with a more cautious rival you are ultra left or anarchistic (As in old Vlad's State and Revolution), when getting the mosque vote onside you are a tolerant religious liberal, when appealing to radical liberals you are red hot anticlerical, when you get power and are challenged from the left you ape Stalin......
It is why arguing with SWP cadre above a certain level is such an irritating, frustrating and ultimately pointless activity - like arguing with Zelig

 

[nino_savatte]

I've been down to the gower for few days. I'll get some tea and check out what's been going on in a bit.

Really? You should have stayed there, mate. I didn't miss you.

 

[butchersapron]

Well you could have fooled me, given that you mentioned me or posted about me 7 or 8 times in my absence.

 

[nino_savatte]

Well you could have fooled me, given that you mentioned me or posted about me 7 or 8 times in my absence.

You exaggerate but then you're rather prone to such things - aren't you?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Theoretically, yes.

no, I answered the questions, and that was where it placed me.

 

[TremulousTetra]

That may be the case for a minority of 'anarchists', but I certainly don't hold that opinion. Nor do most 'anarchists' I have come across. Or anarchists throughout history I imagine. It's a strawman, as they say. I am not sure where you would get the idea that 'anarchists' would support the 'rights' of the bourgeoisie in the name of 'individual freedom and liberty'. The anarchist who shut down the constituent assembly in 1917 certainly didn't give a shit about the "individual freedom and liberty" of bourgeois democracy!

When I said "in your tradition", I was referring to Bolshevism and its offshoots. Although I accept that theoretically, the SWP/IS were (in some cases) critical of orthodox Leninsm. People like Widgery and Sedgwick at least. But it was a fairly weak critique, let's be honest.

the state is that body which claims the sole and monopoly right the use of violence. This means that workers autonomous zones would be states, because workers autonomous zones would not extend to bourgeois military forces the same rights it would bestow too workers militias, the monopoly right to the use of violence.

 

[butchersapron]

the state is that body which claims the sole and monopoly right the use of violence. This means that workers autonomous zones would be states, because workers autonomous zones would not extend to bourgeois military forces the same rights it would bestow too workers militias, the monopoly right to the use of violence.

If you use an incredicbly reductionist view of what constitutes the state then yes. If, however, you take a more nuanced view (as Marx generally did) of the state as an entity that has historically divided itself from the mass of people and that takes on board a range of social functions that had previously belonged to society, functions that the state then makes it's own seperate from society then no, it's nothing like so simple. That functional seperation is overcome through the revolutionary process itself - that's what it is, those functions return to society as a whole and the basis for a society wide defence of its collective interests (militarily even) apart from and against states is put in place.