What Kind of Socialism do you want?

[The Black Hand]

Whoops

 

[The Black Hand]

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

Hey, here's those people who have taken the logic of the corporate media and British Empire/state at their face value, and 'have proved' their Britishness all too well (by picking upon people in a racist manner). And yes, they are ignorant, and let us all say it loud...

How would you explain their consciousness otherwise?

http://www.leedstoday.net/news?articleid=2905705

 

[The Black Hand]

whoops double post

 

[butchersapron]

What? What? What?

Oh i get it, denying that people are not the sheep you seem to think means that i must argue there are no racists.

I don't think this is really worth it.

 

[The Black Hand]

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

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

Yes, I said do class struggle. You are being stupid here by saying I meant anything other than that.

I am saying that there ARE ideological and material parts of the state that will and do work against any working class movement. This is not contraversial, this is more common/good sense from me

 

[northernhord]

There is only one type, the others are compramised conveniences for those who are really liberals.

 

[The Black Hand]

What? What? What?

Oh i get it, denying that people are not the sheep you seem to think means that i must argue there are no racists.

Thats you that is, mine was a nuanced position, whereas you want to force an absolute position upon me. One I do not and will not hold. So why are you having a go at me - this is a mystery, it's certainly not to clarify anything worthwhile.

 

[The Black Hand]

There is only one type, the others are compramised conveniences for those who are really liberals.

One type of what?

 

[northernhord]

One type of what?

Socialism

 

[butchersapron]

Yes, I said do class struggle. You are being stupid here by saying I meant anything other than that.

I am saying that there ARE ideological and material parts of the state that will and do work against any working class movement. This is not contraversial, this is more common/good sense from me

You think you can simply say 'class struggle' and use it as magic wand to mean what you want when you want? And to pretend that it covers a developed argument? You might be able to with other people (i'd be suprised if anyone buys it though). Not me.

Well done, you've noticed that there are parts of the state that vare opposed to w/c emancipation, that's an encouraging start i suppose. But you go further and argue that these factors have currently rendered the working class incapable of pursuing their own ends and are so not to be trusted - those 'correct' ends presumably being filled in by people like you with your finger on the pulse.

Do you ever think about what you type before you post it - what it actually says? What it actually means? Or do you just get confused and just think 'fuck it - i'll post it anyway?'

 

[butchersapron]

Thats you that is, mine was a nuanced position, whereas you want to force an absolute position upon me. One I do not and will not hold. So why are you having a go at me - this is a mystery, it's certainly not to clarify anything worthwhile.

Lord above - nunaced? In the dark wardrobes of your mind maybe. It was pretty definitive as was the later attempts at clarification.

 

[butchersapron]

Ok, i think i'm leaving this here for now. Attica, you need to think about what you're saying and how you're saying it.

 

[The Black Hand]

You think you can simply say 'class struggle' and use it as magic wand to mean what you want when you want? And to pretend that it covers a developed argument? You might be able to with other people (i'd be suprised if anyone buys it though). Not me.

Well done, you've noticed that there are parts of the state that vare opposed to w/c emancipation, that's an encouraging start i suppose. But you go further and argue that these factors have currently rendered the working class incapable of pursuing their own ends and are so not to be trusted - those 'correct' ends presumably being filled in by people like you with your finger on the pulse.

Do you ever think about what you type before you post it - what it actually says? What it actually means? Or do you just get confused and just think 'fuck it - i'll post it anyway?'

OK - I'll have another guess. Are you Butchers Apron? The smug self satisfaction could be... Yes, I think you are the Butchers Apron now...

Again - you are the one who has those reactionary positions, not me. You are trying to put them into my mouth for whatever reason. It certainly has nothing to do with developing libertarian class struggle politics.

I do not like the way you assume that you know best, and I do not know what I am saying. Yours is elitist arrogance, of the Leninist sort you are trying to accuse me of. And the evidence is on this thread.

I would be surprised if you ever did any public politics at all, you know, one where you had to actually take part with other people in class struggle... You spend too much time on the web.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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?

While your interpretation of what Attica said is a possibly accuarate assessment of it's meaning, it's not exactly the only interpretation you could make (although given the animus in your post, perhaps the most likely one) is it?

He could also have meant "some people are brainwashed, we'll be taking a chance but so what?"

It seems to me that you're going out of your way to imply "vanguardism" on Attica's part. Why?

 

[118118]

'cos that would likely to lead totalitarianism. surely?

 

[Groucho]

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?

Shit, I agree with tbaldwin again. Twice in one thread.

There was a myth propogated by Fascists and Stalinists that democracy led to Hitler taking power. In fact it was the crushing of democracy. There is a point that the adherence to bourgeois niceties could not stop the Nazis, but it is simply wrong to say that hitler came to power through winning an election. The only 'election' the Nazis 'won' took place after they had come to power, controlled the voting process in a number of areas, had imprisoned much of the opposition and had banned the CP (one of the biggest suported oposing parties) from standing in elections.

 

[The Black Hand]

While your interpretation of what Attica said is a possibly accuarate assessment of it's meaning, it's not exactly the only interpretation you could make (although given the animus in your post, perhaps the most likely one) is it?

He could also have meant "some people are brainwashed, we'll be taking a chance but so what?"

It seems to me that you're going out of your way to imply "vanguardism" on Attica's part. Why?

Cos he's covering his own 'do nothing' back, so he constantly pretends he knows 'the true way' when really he's never done anything. and there's more truth in that than many dare acknowledge...

 

[The Black Hand]

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?

I wasn't talking about the election in 1933/4. I was talking about how he was maintained in power in the subsequent years. The only power worth thinking about is that what comes from the workers and community councils, I don't think it is useful to get into debates about majority/minority. That sort of argument is loaded with assumptions, like there will be opinion pollsters/sociologists after the revolution (I hope not). Let class struggle decide the form and content, probably it will be the best working class politics at any given time, as democratic and libertarian as possible (and this society is far far from democratic).

 

[The Black Hand]

'cos that would likely to lead totalitarianism. surely?

Look, if it were possible that my throwaway remark could have affected world development then there maybe some worth in assuming it could lead to totalitarianism... BUT it never stood a chance nor had it been practiced at any time in the class struggle. Therefore, why has he chosen to blow it up aout of all proportion?

Pleeeassseee I wish I was that important

 

[mk12]

State capitalism made to benefit the whole people, please.

 

[mk12]

"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."

When can 'we' put faith in the 'public' then?

 

[donald duck]

This kind, but please disregard the SWP fist at the end!

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

 

[Knotted]

I think there is more than a hint of an elitist streak from some posters. However I still think that there is kernel of good sense in attacking populism. A popular point of view is not necessarily the same thing as a democratically expressed popular point of view. The latter will have gone through a democratic process. Minority opinions will have been expressed and given the chance to win over the majority. What the majority think as atomised individuals is not necessarily the same as the collective will.

However, I still think its reasonable to trust 'what most people think' over what some self-defined vanguard think. But best of all its best to think for yourself.

 

[butchersapron]

While your interpretation of what Attica said is a possibly accuarate assessment of it's meaning, it's not exactly the only interpretation you could make (although given the animus in your post, perhaps the most likely one) is it?

He could also have meant "some people are brainwashed, we'll be taking a chance but so what?"

It seems to me that you're going out of your way to imply "vanguardism" on Attica's part. Why?

Because that's entirely consistent with his approach over many years. Indeed, when pushed to clarify what he meant by me he made it absolutely clear and in no uncertain terms:

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.

This is precisely the darkness lurking within 'throwaway' descriptions like the one attica posted - it's got a long pedigree on the paternal left from victorian meddlers to fabain string pullers, 57 varieties of vanguardist and the moral impositions of new labour - all based on the idea that working class people are too confused by the media, the state, advertsing etc to be able to identify what issues are of concern or importance to them and to collectively come up with solutions. Coming from an anarchist it stinks. And tagging on 'Oh yeah, i'm apopulist btw' doesn't really mean anything.

It also ignores the fact that society is already by and large run by 'normal people' (ugh!) - why do you think things like work-to-rule are so effactive? Or strikes? Who do you think actully keeps things going - consultants? Globally, wherever people live there is collective self-organisation or counter-planning to meet community needs.

It's also an incredibly crude one-way model that only sees people having crap pumped at them which they then take on passively rather than it being an active process in which people decode, or demystify or put to their own use a whole host of processs based on their own experiences and their own needs -people aren't empty glasses just waiting to be filled up by adverstising or polticos.

And from someone always bigging up Negri, it's even more shocking to hear - what on earth does Negri mean by 'self-valorisation', by the immediate nature of contemporary communism if not the direct capabilities of people to run (already running) their own lifes and society in here and now?

 

[butchersapron]

Shit, I agree with tbaldwin again. Twice in one thread.

There was a myth propogated by Fascists and Stalinists that democracy led to Hitler taking power. In fact it was the crushing of democracy. There is a point that the adherence to bourgeois niceties could not stop the Nazis, but it is simply wrong to say that hitler came to power through winning an election. The only 'election' the Nazis 'won' took place after they had come to power, controlled the voting process in a number of areas, had imprisoned much of the opposition and had banned the CP (one of the biggest suported oposing parties) from standing in elections.

That's all factually true of course (mostly anyway, the CP weren't actually banned but their voters and canidadates violently pressured into inactivity yet they still managed to get 12.3% of the national vote), but equally so is the fact that Hitler's elevation to the Chancellorship was entirely constitutional and in that sense entirely 'democratic'.

 

[becky p]

When can 'we' put faith in the 'public' then?

baldwin appears to believe straight away. And in many ways it probably would be better. There are problems with that approach,though.
If a 60% majority were fairly comfortably off and 40% were quite poor. Would it really be likely that the majority would share the wealth?
If not would that be Socialist?

 

[durruti02]

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.

you are a tb and i claim my 10 euros!!

tb does not as you suggest misunderstand popularism or how opinion is distorted .. he is not that blunt/stupid ..

he constantly raises it to try to get you/the left to debate/understand that without the people the left is nothing.

what the left do is have a wish list/a dogma that they follow and demand others follow and indeed condemn them as backward/ stupid/ 'hoodwinked' etc if they do not

we actually need to understand how and why people think the way they do and not just dismss it. we also need to understand that sometimes dogmas stop us seeng what others see

a very good example is indeed refugees. we on here can all agree that any decent society goes out of its way to help refugees BU BUT BUT if we are also not savy with the consequnces in this country today of how refugees are 'used' and housed etc we end up discrediting both refugees AND the left

 

[durruti02]

from each according to their abilities
to each according to their needs

i tend to go with greeman and all .. some sort of ecosocialism thing though ii am keen on (approproiate) technology and their is a big debate about what technology we could have without ultra capitalism as we have today

i also think socialism means destroying power .. of the state / money etc .. i think what the left misunderstand is that ideologically and practically they themselves need to 'give up ' power to attract people .. political ideologies that believe in 'taking power' ( bolsheism) are not really socialist in my book and belong more in the facist camp

 

[durruti02]

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 .

this is about right .. but i would add that it is the process that is MOST important .. if you do not trust or accept peoples opinions why the hell should they take any notice of yours??

there is an interesting similarlity ( only that!!) in bringing up kids . it is indeed possible to utterly indoctrinate a child ( facism) but that child will grow up into a right little nazi but equally a child who is treated with respect,autonomy and allowed to make mistakes etc etc is going to develop responsability respect etc

it seems socialism has acted more, as either the former in its stalinist form, or comes across like those awful right-on middle class parents constantly preaching at and hectoring their poor kids, who no doubt grow up hating everything their parents stood for ..

 

[nino_savatte]

Translation?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

There's no translation necessary.

Cheers - nino_savatte