What Kind of Socialism do you want?

[tbaldwin]

er If any....

For me Socialism has to be Populist eg It has to be the will of the majority.
Not just in some clever persons idea of the interests of the majority But actually the Majority to be in charge.

I am in favour of extending the limited democracy we have now,in to all important areas such as the judiciary...I want too see a second chamber elected by PR...And the replacement of a uneleceted but powerful monarchy.

I would also like to see extended workplace democracy including in the media.

 

[Belushi]

Hard Line Soviet Style.

Tanks, Parades, Neckshots, Military Interventions into Fraternal Socialist Republics, the lot.

 

[Dubversion]

er If any....

For me Socialism has to be Populist eg It has to be the will of the majority.

regardless of how that manifests itself?

 

[tbaldwin]

I guess thats a joke Belushi.
I think Soviet style is what a lot of the Left do want though. eg Socialism from above....Most of them seem to view the masses as a horrid tangle of reactionary Sun and Mail readers.
People who need to be educated and led by the kind and intelligent ones like their good selves....

 

[tbaldwin]

regardless of how that manifests itself?

Its a good point dub.
And the answer for me is YES.
But not an unqualified yes....Of course if you had Socialism and the majority decided they wanted to throw Jews into the Thames and kill all Gays....I wouldnt be in favour.....But i dont think that it is any more likely that the majority would make bad decision than a minority....
So for the usual arguement against majority control,is wrong.

Thanks for the good question.

 

[8ball]

I'd like radical Federalist Democracy with a side-order of humanist libertarianism, thanks.

And some chocolate cake for dessert.

 

[Cobbles]

The obsolete dead-in-the-water kind that we have at the moment is fine, thanks.

 

[8ball]

The obsolete dead-in-the-water kind that we have at the moment is fine, thanks.

Capitalism is not a kind of socialism, nor is it quite obsolete or dead in the water just yet.

Remember at school when they said 'read the questions'?

 

[Dubversion]

Its a good point dub.
And the answer for me is YES.
But not an unqualified yes....Of course if you had Socialism and the majority decided they wanted to throw Jews into the Thames and kill all Gays....I wouldnt be in favour.....But i dont think that it is any more likely that the majority would make bad decision than a minority....
So for the usual arguement against majority control,is wrong.

Thanks for the good question.

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

 

[8ball]

 

[Fruitloop]

Shurely if the great majority decide to burn all the pooves, then that's exactly what should happen?

 

[Knotted]

er If any....

For me Socialism has to be Populist eg It has to be the will of the majority.
Not just in some clever persons idea of the interests of the majority But actually the Majority to be in charge.

I am in favour of extending the limited democracy we have now,in to all important areas such as the judiciary...I want too see a second chamber elected by PR...And the replacement of a uneleceted but powerful monarchy.

I would also like to see extended workplace democracy including in the media.

There's a difference between accepting the will of the majority and favouring something because it is the will of the majority. You can always say, "although I disagree and I will continue to argue against such and such a course of action, I do however accept that I am in a minority and will not impose my will upon the majority."

Favouring something simply because it is a majority (ie. popular) view is what I would call populism. Its not necessarily democratic at all - democracy includes the option of trying to win over the majority.

 

[Tom A]

One that actually works for the benefit of all people would be good.

 

[8ball]

One that actually works for the benefit of all people would be good.

YOU MUST CHOOSE SIDES, DAMMIT!!!

 

[treelover]

Its a bit basic; er, for a start one that doesn't exhibit a hierarchy of oppression, an example being how disabled people never really suppported by the left, if you don't agree count how many SWP, and other sects are on the Remploy demo today.

the 19C left is finished, imo...

 

[nino_savatte]

er If any....

For me Socialism has to be Populist eg It has to be the will of the majority.
Not just in some clever persons idea of the interests of the majority But actually the Majority to be in charge.

I am in favour of extending the limited democracy we have now,in to all important areas such as the judiciary...I want too see a second chamber elected by PR...And the replacement of a uneleceted but powerful monarchy.

I would also like to see extended workplace democracy including in the media.

Ah, so you admit to populism. The majority of people want to see a return of capital punishment, but capital punishment is wrong and many have been executed for crimes they didn't commit. Presumably, under your 'administration', capital punishment would make its return and all those in higher education would be forced to work in some shitty factory turning out useless items.

Socialism is both democratic and libertarian. Your socialism smacks of centralised state control of every aspect of people's lives.

 

[nino_savatte]

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

That's about the size of it.

What I would like to know is, who forms this 'majority'?

 

[Fruitloop]

White people.

 

[Andy the Don]

er If any....

For me Socialism has to be Populist eg It has to be the will of the majority.
Not just in some clever persons idea of the interests of the majority But actually the Majority to be in charge.

Well that would mean a return of the death penalty, zero taxes, no immigration of any sort, no motoring offences & other populist actions. Governments have to implement laws which the majority do not want for the good of society in general. Governments have to at times be unpopular.

 

[Paul_N17]

Well that would mean a return of the death penalty, zero taxes, no immigration of any sort, no motoring offences & other populist actions

I'm not convinced it would. Maybe I've just been lucky but I've met few people who believed in even one of those ideas.

In fact, isn't it just the sort of thing that justifies the status quo? This idea that the majority are too dangerous to have power? Could it really be much worst than what we've had instead from the minority?

 

[Belushi]

Shurely if the great majority decide to burn all the pooves, then that's exactly what should happen?

Its for exactly that reason that no where in the world is a direct democracy.

Most democracies are liberal democracies in which (in theory at least) the rule of the majority is tempered by the defence of the rights of minorities and individuals.

 

[Fruitloop]

Well quite. That's the inconsistency to tbaldwin's argument that I've always found a bit troubling. In any future political arangement there needs to be some protection for minority groups of all kinds, and it's highly desirable for that protection to extend to individuals (who are after all just a very small kind of minority).

I'm kind of with Zizek on this issue, in that traditional liberalism is obviously a sham in that it fails to deliver what it promises, but its original aims are both modest and desirable - i.e. how can disparate groups of people live together without conflict.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Well quite. That's the inconsistency to tbaldwin's argument that I've always found a bit troubling. In any future political arangement there needs to be some protection for minority groups of all kinds, and it's highly desirable for that protection to extend to individuals (who are after all just a very small kind of minority).

I'm kind of with Zizek on this issue, in that traditional liberalism is obviously a sham in that it fails to deliver what it promises, but its original aims are both modest and desirable - i.e. how can disparate groups of people live together without conflict.

Fruitloop (and of course anybody else) - a couple of genuine questions. Firstly, your post suggest to me that you believe all minority groups are constituted around legitimate interests; it's on this basis that they are to be afforded protection. Is this what you meant?

Secondly, do you think the original aims of liberalsim (which in this case I'm guessing you take to be the defence of the individual against overbearing authority: state, nobility...) can be either attained within current class relationships, or even divorced from those class relationships which so informed its origins?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Fruitloop]

Hi Louis,

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

Firstly, your post suggest to me that you believe all minority groups are constituted around legitimate interests; it's on this basis that they are to be afforded protection. Is this what you meant?

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.

Secondly, do you think the original aims of liberalsim (which in this case I'm guessing you take to be the defence of the individual against overbearing authority: state, nobility...) can be either attained within current class relationships, or even divorced from those class relationships which so informed its origins?

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'.

 

[urbanrevolt]

Socialism will mean people managing their own affairs- democratically but also with freedom and rights for minorities.

Now it is possible for some one to say what of the majority decide to execute a minority e.g. in a racist pogrom- well of course we stand against that.

However, in the struggle for power and autonomy over our lives the working class will destroy both the material benefits of oppression and the ruling class and its poisonous ideas that foster such division- in struggle and politics we will become fit to control our own fate such that the problems t'baldwin identifies will remain theoretical and anachronistic

 

[treelover]

maybe, one where so called leftists actually show interest in marginalised groups,

oh they do, but only of a certain colour

 

[greenman]

Ecosocialism.
Without a sustainable economy and society there will soon be no socialism, capitalism or any other "ism" other than perhaps barbarianism.

 

[rhys gethin]

Ecosocialism.
Without a sustainable economy and society there will soon be no socialism, capitalism or any other "ism" other than perhaps barbarianism.

I agree with that. The rest of the discussion seems to me a bit abstract, because if you want socialism you have to decide how you plan to get it, and that has consequences. It looks to me as if it implies the Party, with all its dangers. Anyone can sit around being 'democratic' and caring about minorities, but be very sure the capitalists won't - so what do you reckon to do about it? Parties may not have achieved democratic socialism, but they have achieved power, which nobody else has over any length of time except the various boss classes - into which, of course, the Party may turn if it gives up democratic centralism and the need for a working-class majority.

 

[lewislewis]

The socialism of Eduard Bernstein and Olof Palme.

 

[shagnasty]

It won't be our life time or our childrens lifetime probably but the cosumerist capitalism of today will not last for ever just like the feudal system of yesteryear faded ,another system will probably be in place !!god help our forebears!!