What Kind of Socialism do you want?

[Louis MacNeice]

The gang's all here.

Translation?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[ska invita]

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

Yeah. I think this is the key to "Socialism in the 21st century" - to coin a phrase. I've posted this article before but if you are interested it really explores the way workplace democracy is trying to be introduced by the Chavez state:
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/lebowitz241005.html
Lebowitz is like a one-man think tank for the Chavistas.

Anarchists are not happy about this mind, they dont believe that you can have worker autonomy nurtured by the state - it has to be grassroots, they argue.

I disagree: I think state can help a lot in creating autonomous workers, citizens and regions - it is not only possible, it is perhaps the best approach as the state can create a level of support that will build real, lasting foundations. There is no reason why grassroots work shouldnt continue in tandem with a progressive programe of state devolution of power.

Whether in practice socialist politicians can overcome the trappings of power and work towards giving away that power remains to be seen: I dont think there is a solid enough ideology proposing this in socialist circles, although it is gaining momentum (as in Venezuela). Even Chavez' willingness to do so is being questioned.

In short, IMO modern socialialism has to devolve power at all levels and has to empower the public to use that power (training, education type things). It has to encourage business, at the very least, to take on worker representation (as in Waitrose), and more importantly should be looking to enable outright worker takeovers where applicable.

A noteable example was, I think the Dartford Crossing bridge, whose tenure [is that the right word?] came up - the workers who knew the system inside out, put forward a bid to take it over and manage it as a co-op - New Labour didn't even consider the proposal:
http://www.cooperatives-uk.coop/live/cme836.htm

The pre-tender application by the Thames Gateway Co-operative was rejected because the Highways Agency lacked confidence in its ability.

But closer to the truth, is a flawed procurement system of unequal opportunities and prohibitively high costs in which competing companies typically spend £1 million each to tender for that size of contract.

I say New Labour because it is up to government to encourage such schemes and change the culture at the level of such bodies as the Highways Agency.

 

[butchersapron]

Translation?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

Rascist.

 

[JoePolitix]

I know who you are - you're a very very bad man.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm quite bad but i don't think i'm you who you think i am. (IMO of course)

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Rascist.

No still don't get it?

Louis MacNeice

 

[The Black Hand]

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."

I repeat, it is not analysis - it is descriptive fact, these are the conditions we have 'to do politics in'. They are all around you, and I am quite sure the obviousness of the matter is staring you in the face, but for whatever reason you seem to want to play dumb or deny it. Those who know me know I play ball for nobody, and I am certainly not going to start here with you. Go figure.

 

[butchersapron]

Right, so bascially you've bottled out of the logic of it. The logic that's now staring you in the face - don't trust people, they're thick. Don't let them run things, they're brainwashed. We need to run things as we're not brainwashed, we're not thick (for whatever reason - not explained) and we know what's best. Go figure uh...dude. Anarchism?

 

[butchersapron]

No still don't get it?

Louis MacNeice

Maybe nino can clairify. I doubt it but there's always hope.

 

[The Black Hand]

A) Say, for example, that i accept your elitest model and all it contains, what is the practical upshot? Tell me that.

B)Tell me that if everyone else is brainwashed, or complicit in existing structures and too thick to see it,

C)who then is going to educate them out of that and on what grounds (non-self-selecting ones please) are these advanced teachers standing - what's their special powers that have allowed them to rent the mystificatory veil asunder

D) you mean intellectuals don't you? You mean people like who you think you are.

E) Remind me why you're not a classical leninst?

A) It is not an elitist model, describing social conditions has never been.

B) I am not saying people are brainwashed, that was you. As was the observation that they were complicit.

C) People educate themselves if they want to, and there doesn't have to be an hierarchy. I regard myself as self taught, I directed my choices and who I associated with. Certainly a few people helped along the way but they weren't all teachers by any means.

D) No.

E) I never have been.

 

[The Black Hand]

Right, so bascially you've bottled out of the logic of it. The logic that's now staring you in the face - don't trust people, they're thick. Don't let them run things, they're brainwashed. We need to run things as we're not brainwashed, we're not thick (for whatever reason - not explained) and we know what's best. Go figure uh...dude. Anarchism?

No, that is you that is. I get fuller of hope the older I get, I am more convinced of the possibilities for change than I was when I was a youngster like you.

So I do not know why people like you think so sceptically and would rather label people in silly ways.

 

[butchersapron]

A)It is not an elitist model, describing social conditions has never been.

Um..yes, descpritions can quite and do frequently contain elitism - the choices you make in what you decide to concentrate on, on what you decide its important etc are all things that can and quite often are, shot through with elitism. Your 'model' is one of them.

B) I am not saying people are brainwashed, that was you. As was the observation that they were complicit.

Doesn't look that way to me?

"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."

C) People educate themselves if they want to, and there doesn't have to be an hierarchy. I regard myself as self taught, I directed my choices and who I associated with. Certainly a few people helped along the way but they weren't all teachers by any means.

They certainly can and do - did you award yourself you various degrees? Your Phd for example?

D) No.

That's what you tell yourself.

E) I never have been.

Maybe not formally at least.

 

[butchersapron]

No, that is you that is. I get fuller of hope the older I get, I am more convinced of the possibilities for change than I was when I was a youngster like you.

So I do not know why people like you think so sceptically and would rather label people in silly ways.

And he talks about assumptions

The only thing i'm sceptical about is that confused mess that you posted earlier. Certainly not the capacities of people to run their own lifes without 'intellectuals' like you demanding they be allowed to stick their finger in the pie - which is something that you don't seem to. I hope i never do get that old and cyncial frankly.

 

[The Black Hand]

Um..yes, descpritions can quite and do frequently contain elitism - the choices you make in what you decide to concentrate on, on what you decide its important etc are all things that can and quite often are, shot through with elitism. Your 'model' is one of them.

Doesn't look that way to me?

"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."

They certainly can and do - did you award yourself you various degrees? Your Phd for example?

That's what you tell yourself.

Maybe not formally at least.

You do talk rubbish Torres, on the one hand the people know best, and here you say I do not know what I have said. It is you with the contradictory logic.

As for me being a disguised Leninist I would say you're having a larf - but that does you too much credit.

If you want to talk politics any further I suggest you describe what politics you have or have done, or have some real points, otherwise my replies are going to get shorter and shorter and ruder and ruder.

 

[The Black Hand]

And he talks about assumptions

The only thing i'm sceptical about is that confused mess that you posted earlier. Certainly not the capacities of people to run their own lifes without 'intellectuals' like you demanding they be allowed to stick their finger in the pie - which is something that you don't seem to. I hope i never do get that old and cyncial frankly.

It wasn't a confused mess, it was a description of social conditions, you are just being stupid here, and from a political position that could be anything from libertarian capitalist to fascist.

 

[butchersapron]

You do talk rubbish Torres, on the one hand the people know best, and here you say I do not know what I have said. It is you with the contradictory logic.

As for me being a disguised Leninist I would say you're having a larf - but that does you too much credit.

If you want to talk politics any further I suggest you describe what politics you have or have done, or have some real points, otherwise my replies are going to get shorter and shorter and ruder and ruder.

Are you 'the people' now Messiah? NO contradiction if you're not.

I think you've laid a pretty solid basis for a classical leninist model of consciousness there.

You've not talked ANY politics - you've ducked evey single question i've asked. I don;t think i'll be missing that much. Unless you can maigically and suddenly translate your confusion into real terms.

 

[butchersapron]

It wasn't a confused mess, it was a description of social conditions, you are just being stupid here, and from a political position that could be anything from libertarian capitalist to fascist.

It was a confused mess of an attempt to describe social conditions under certain assumptions - elitist ones from where i'm standing. And from a political position that could be anything from libertarian capitalist to fascist.

 

[The Black Hand]

Are you 'the people' now Messiah? NO contradiction if you're not.

I think you've laid a pretty solid basis for a classical leninist model of consciousness there.

You've not talked ANY politics - you've ducked evey single question i've asked. I don;t think i'll be missing that much. Unless you can maigically and suddenly translate your confusion into real terms.

Oh, its Letsa isn't it? I've just figured out who you are. That's a guess btw, nobody has told me and I haven't had any PM, so I could be wrong...

You do talk rubbish Torry. I wasn't intending to go into a detailed exegesis of social control, but believe me, it happens There are plenty of books on the subject, and many different theories, you should do some swotting.

No I haven't put a classical base of Leninist consciousness out there, there are many flaws with your position, but perhaps the most telling is that Lenin (the 'classical' Leninist after all) did not talk about consciousness in the way I partially did. You cannot construct somebodies position from a throwaway remark on a board like this anyway.

 

[The Black Hand]

It was a confused mess of an attempt to describe social conditions under certain assumptions - elitist ones from where i'm standing. And from a political position that could be anything from libertarian capitalist to fascist.

THe assumption being that there are schools, media and so on. Hardly elitist assumptions Letsa. And you were looking for a fight so that's why I said lib cap to fascist, its nice of you to return the compliment but I really didn't know it was you.

 

[butchersapron]

Oh, its Letsa isn't it? I've just figured out who you are. That's a guess btw, nobody has told me and I haven't had any PM, so I could be wrong...

You must get bored being so wrong so often.

You do talk rubbish Torry. I wasn't intending to go into a detailed exegesis of social control, but believe me, it happens There are plenty of books on the subject, and many different theories, you should do some swotting.

No I haven't put a classical base of Leninist consciousness out there, there are many flaws with your position, but perhaps the most telling is that Lenin (the 'classical' Leninist after all) did not talk about consciousness in the way I partially did. You cannot construct somebodies position from a throwaway remark on a board like this anyway.

Yes he did, he might have taken those ideas on from Kautsky and the other 2nd international popes of marxism, but if you're seriously suggesting that lenin never once formaulated the idea that the w/c have a lower level of consciouness due to social conditions then you've no business at all talking about Lenin.

 

[butchersapron]

THe assumption being that there are schools, media and so on. Hardly elitist assumptions Letsa. And you were looking for a fight so that's why I said lib cap to fascist, its nice of you to return the compliment but I really didn't know it was you.

No i meant the assumptions that these structural and mediating factors are succesful.

 

[The Black Hand]

A) You must get bored being so wrong so often.

B) Yes he did, he might have taken those ideas on from Kautsky and the other 2nd international popes of marxism, but if you're seriously suggesting that lenin never once formaulated the idea that the w/c have a lower level of consciouness due to social conditions then you've no business at all talking about Lenin.

A) You know, I don't believe you. There's something about you're up for it stance that I do not trust.

B) I said Lenin did not talk about "consciousness in the way I partially did". Are you really suggesting Lenin mentioned 'primary socialisation'? I say he didn't. I could go on. But as I said you're boring me.

 

[The Black Hand]

No i meant the assumptions that these structural and mediating factors are succesful.

An entirely different question, and one that you would have to qualify. Certainly these attempts are not totally succesful, and neither are they totally unsuccessful.

 

[butchersapron]

Given that he's on here in his own name i don't see why he'd post under my name. Keep going though. You're doing very well. Though i am as equally bored, or more so, than you.

 

[The Black Hand]

Given that he's on here in his own name i don't see why he'd post under my name. Keep going though. You're doing very well. Though i am as equally bored, or more so, than you.

Hmmm, so you've got 2 names, that wouldn't be the first time somebody has done that.

 

[butchersapron]

An entirely different question, and one that you would have to qualify. Certainly these attempts are not totally succesful, and neither are they totally unsuccessful.

So why argue that they are and that as result 'the public' can't be trusted? That sounds pretty much like you imagine that it's a done deal to me. Cue: denial of ever saying such a thing to which i will asnwer in advance:

"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."

 

[butchersapron]

Hmmm, so you've got 2 names, that wouldn't be the first time somebody has done that.

Right, OK, you've ground me down, yes i'm LLETSA

 

[The Black Hand]

So why argue that they are and that as result 'the public' can't be trusted? That sounds pretty much like you imagine that it's a done deal to me. Cue: denial of ever saying such a thing to which i will asnwer in advance:

I stand by this as a comment; "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."

Certainly, and let us take those who have a modicum of intelligence here. My over 70 yr old mother has an open mind and always has, but I talk politics with her and she learns stuff off me about British society, just as I learn stuff off her, still.

We (everybody) are a long long way, so far from political revolution that the levels of statist and corporate hegemony aren't worth thinking about that much. I spend more time encouraging class struggles.

 

[The Black Hand]

i'm not sceptical about the capacities of people to run their own lifes without 'intellectuals' like you demanding they be allowed to stick their finger in the pie - which is something that you don't seem to. I hope i never do get that old and cyncial frankly.

No fkwit, I said I am fuller of hope that people can run their own lives. But not NOW, here today (25.5.07), in this society.

 

[butchersapron]

No fkwit, I said I am fuller of hope that people can run their own lives. But not NOW, here today (25.5.07), in this society.

You said nothing of the sort - here's your post in full:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=6034004&postcount=43