TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
well surely that would mean a worker's state isn't,,,,,,,,,,,,, a state.torres said:
What does socialism mean?
- Thread starter Louis MacNeice
- Start date
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Depends on the set up doesn't it - if you still have the seperation then yes, it's a state. If you don't then it's not. The name isn't the key thing, it's the actual living content. You can surely think of things that were called workers states that were states can't you?
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
well what I aim for, and everybody I've met in SW, is called by SW any worker's state, But at the same time it is argued there should be no separation between the bureaucracy and the working class. They should be a organically linked, is the phrase that springs to mind. So how would this constitute a state?torres said:
Isn't the difference that you don't believe in any form of centralised bureaucracy, however organically linked to the working-class?
PS. these are honest questions, the answer to which I am not entirely clear upon myself.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
oh yes, obviously I can think of Russia, but we don't want to go down the road of discussing the process of destruction of the workers revolution do we? Let's stick to the other topic, much more interesting. To me anyway.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
ResistanceMP3 said:
Well why call it a state if you think it's not a state then? It's impossible to talk about a model like that and assume that it will do what it says on the tin - it's very easy to say that there will be no seperation, when that's a matter that can only be judged in concrete terms as it's taking place. You cannot say in advance how things will work out, as we've seen over the last 90s years, it's not simply a matter of intentions, and if it were there are counter-vailing tendencies within your tradition that work against the overcoming of that seperation, that in fact look to reconstitute it but on a different basis, but that's by the by really. Again, it's the concrete situation that counts, not what we call something in advance.
My only real point was that i don't like the reduction of the state to simply being a force and that's it - i wasn't making any really significant point (in the absence of any debate as to what relation pro-w/c movments or 'socialists' have/should taken towards the state historically and in the current situation anyway).
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
well I'm always prepared to admit when I am a bit of a dumb ass. I am not entirely clear on the topic. Perhaps I can sort something out at Marxism this year.torres said:
but who what are the "there are counter-vailing tendencies within your tradition that work against the overcoming of that seperation, that in fact look to reconstitute it but on a different basis". Care to expand?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Well, the substitutionism (if only of a temporary kind) that i find implict in the traditions that developed out of the 2nd and 3rd internationals is one that springs to mind. It's very easy to say that every cook can govern but if you're in a tradition that believes that it is the brain and memory of the class and that it can see necessarliy see further than the atomised w/c then i think there's a very real temptation to want to cook and govern everything yourself - i don't think that impulse is limited to the leninist/trotskyist traditions by any means, but the importance that is placed on the role of the party does, IMO lead to the development of specialists of all sorts, and there is then a danger of the seperation being reconstituted around them and their specialities (endorded by other specialists as well) - with them standing in for the role of the w/c. Historically i think that pretty clearly happened on a number of occasions.
Prince Rhyus said: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.
I dont mean to sound rude BUT..........
er what a completely shit way of looking at things.....
On some issues i may be counted as Libertarian eg Gay stuff.....But that is bollocks.....Utter bollocks.......Its just that i dont give a flying shit about concensual sex between adults.....On others like anti social crime....Im apparently authoritarian......
On opposing top down undemocratic solutions,im apparently a Liberfucking terian again....But hang on i want to see mob rule and anti social criminals strung up....so is that Libertarian or Authoritarian....Or just plain rude.
The whole thing was drawn up by liberal wankers....
Fruitloop said:The political compass has you down as not knowing your arse from your elbow, and is thus demonstrated to be highly accurate once again.
Sorry i missed the category....Silly me....I wonder if it was drawn up by someone from a public school background.....
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
sorry yes, I was aware of that criticism, and I do think it has some merit. As I said earlier in the thread, I have never come across a comrade who would not love the anarchist to be proved right, that there is no need for a vanguard party or a worker's state. It would be great if the global revolution was so overwhelming, that there were no contradictory levels of consciousness in working-class people, no muck of ages, and that we could virtually jump straight to communism. However, we do not believe that is the case, and there in lies our fundamental difference. Respect comrade.torres said:
PS. I would say one countervailing factor to the possibility of slipping towards bureaucratic lead state capitalism, he is in the vanguard party's memory of the last time this happened.
what does socialism mean? nothing
Prince Rhyus
Spokesman of King Antonio
tbaldwin said:
It is a model - a simplified way at looking at a part of the complexities of life. All models are flawed to some respect. Even Marxism has its fair share of flaws, just as we all know capitalism does. (I just wish the proponents of both Marxism and Capitalism would be a little bit more honest about the flaws of the ideologies they are the proponents of).
As Chris Rock said, on crime, he's conservative. On prostitution, he's liberal. Different people have different strengths of feeling about different things. This is something that model cannot factor in. It doesn't make it a useless model though...just not one that should be used for government policy making!!!
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
I'll take this in 2 points:
Hmm, not too sure you really got what I meant. Some of the most basic admin jobs in bureaucracies involve developing specialist knowledge of that specific industry/company/organisation. Taking the example I used, healthcare; even at non-officer level there is a need for people with healthcare experience and backgrounds for admin tasks from care records through to healthcare reporting simply because it's so complex. The same applies to much bureaucracy - it's not about the money, it's about the actual work that is done, that you can't simply 'rotate' people on the basis of 'well they've been in a role for 12 months so they need to change to ensure no one gets a chance to begin a concentration of power'.
Plus money will be one of the first things that has to go - it creates artificial scarcity, and acts as a channel for power...money=bribery and quite simply socialism and it's associates, at a fundamental level, require people to be honest all the time. Graft in a system like capitalism is inevitable (indeed, it's by-product of capitalist morality) and provided it's kept reasonably in check doesn't create big systemic stresses; in a system like socialism it's absolute poison, because while capitalism is based on mistrust and alienation, all the societies we're talking about here are based on mutual trust and cooperation - as soon as you start getting widespread breaking of that trust the whole thing falls apart.
'Judging'? How about assessing? I know it's only a debate, but semantically I can see that you'd quite quickly end up in Stalinist mode - I'd expect some form of ongong informal peer and extrernal assessment anyway that would be a part of everyone's working life - but to use a word like 'judging'...
Spion said:
Hmm, not too sure you really got what I meant. Some of the most basic admin jobs in bureaucracies involve developing specialist knowledge of that specific industry/company/organisation. Taking the example I used, healthcare; even at non-officer level there is a need for people with healthcare experience and backgrounds for admin tasks from care records through to healthcare reporting simply because it's so complex. The same applies to much bureaucracy - it's not about the money, it's about the actual work that is done, that you can't simply 'rotate' people on the basis of 'well they've been in a role for 12 months so they need to change to ensure no one gets a chance to begin a concentration of power'.
Plus money will be one of the first things that has to go - it creates artificial scarcity, and acts as a channel for power...money=bribery and quite simply socialism and it's associates, at a fundamental level, require people to be honest all the time. Graft in a system like capitalism is inevitable (indeed, it's by-product of capitalist morality) and provided it's kept reasonably in check doesn't create big systemic stresses; in a system like socialism it's absolute poison, because while capitalism is based on mistrust and alienation, all the societies we're talking about here are based on mutual trust and cooperation - as soon as you start getting widespread breaking of that trust the whole thing falls apart.
'Judging'? How about assessing? I know it's only a debate, but semantically I can see that you'd quite quickly end up in Stalinist mode - I'd expect some form of ongong informal peer and extrernal assessment anyway that would be a part of everyone's working life - but to use a word like 'judging'...
Prince Rhyus said:
Maybe it is of some use to some people. But i think a huge problem for people on the left is that too many people want to accept a whole package of ideas.
Perhaps it is part of human nature to want to conform like that.
But the Orthodox Left obviously has some things very wrong and are unable to really connect with what should be their natural supporters..
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
brasicattack said:
More insightful analysis from brasicattack.
Fruitloop said:
I dont agree with brassic. But Socialism seems to mean many different things to many different people. Hitler,Stalin,Pol Pot,Tony Benn,Mussolini all had different ideas didnt they. None of them were Socialists in my view but some people even to this day will still claim that Stalin or Tony Benn were Socialists...
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
tbaldwin said:
Tony Benn isn't dead yet, so people would claim that he is a socialist. As for Stalin; I expect the number of people world wide who consider that he was a socialist/communist is large...many of them would see it as a good thing too.
Louis MacNeice
Surely the only realistic judgement is based on what the people in question actually did, rather than how they style themselves. I mean, Hitler and Mussolini were both corporatists and opponents of working-class organisation whilst in power, which I would have thought excludes them from any sensible definition of socialism.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Don't most people say that Benn is a Fabian, rather than a socialist tho?
nino_savatte said:More insightful analysis from brasicattack.
more powerfull rhetoric from nino
Unlike the inward looking political nerds who post on these boards to the majority of people socialism means nothin g-unless you are from a middleclass background then it gives you an opt out while the world goes downwards towards a new dark age for individual freedoms and democracy
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
brasicattack said:
You're such a tool: dim, thick and utterly braindead. I wasn't using "rhetoric", numbskull, I was commenting on your less-than-insightful analysis...which it is. You could say this...
...about a lot of things. All you need to do is replace the word "socialism" with "brasicattack".
So what do you add as a 'witty' putdown? The hackneyed line about me being from a "middle class background". It would be funny, if it weren't so pathetically juvenile....and incorrect.
I think you suffer from inverted snobbery. It isn't my fault that you never got anywhere in life. It's up to you to change that, instead of blaming others for your failures.
nino_savatte said:
pot and ketlle politics from nino
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
brasicattack said:
Another silly post from brasicattack. How is it "pot and kettle politics", numbskull? Do you ever read what you type before you post it?
nino_savatte said:
I was not suggesting that you were .Most things seem beyond your limited abilties apart from posting abuse
numbskull, I was commenting on your less-than-insightful analysis...which it is. You could say this...
...about a lot of things. All you need to do is replace the word "socialism" with "brasicattack".
So what do you add as a 'witty' putdown? The hackneyed line about me being from a "middle class background". It would be funny, if it weren't so pathetically juvenile....and incorrect.
nino_savatte said:
you think
-it would appear you are acrediting yourself an ability that you lack in any shape or form I do not blame the middleclass for anything i just draw attention to the hipocrasy of many on the left on these boards who talk about marx masterbate about working class revoltion abuse labour liberal and tory yet totally ignore the contribution of the middleclass with regards to globalisation and the growing inequalties within british society.
Do you not think that class is important then nino?
Do you not think that different social class play different roles and are so reponsible for implementing the capitalialist system?
Two questions nino
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Do you ever read what you type before you post it, brasicattack or are you one of those posters who thinks that if they type enough words that it will 'look' like an 'argument' with a 'serious point'?
You are, without a doubt, one of the more useless wastes of space that I have ever encountered on these boards.
Do, kindly, piss off.
You are, without a doubt, one of the more useless wastes of space that I have ever encountered on these boards.
Do, kindly, piss off.
Similar threads
- Poll
