What Kind of Socialism do you want?

[nino_savatte]

Rascist.

Nice try but like the rest of your mates, you're wrong. Furthermore, you are over-reliant on exaggerations and clichés. How's your pal, Swarthy? Is he still posting call out threads about me on MATB?

So, who are you then?

 

[AnnaKarpik]

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

I think the point being made is that dissent is permitted. There is a world of difference between recognising the right to be objectionable while disagreeing with objectionable actions on one side and preventing objectionable behaviour on the other.

 

[tbaldwin]

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

I think a huge problem for people like me and you who believe in Socialism for the majority. Is the large number of people who seem to believe they are Socialists and have contempt for the idea that ordinary people should be in control.
The people who believe in Vanguardist politics,the top down Socialists just confuse people.
And i'm not really talking just about the likes of the SWP. But hundreds of thousands,possibly millions who believe that the majority are too stupid for political power and that the best hope is an enlightened minority. I think on urban its preety much the view of the majority..
I dont think their fascists though...(though on immigration a lot of them come quite close) They are Liberal supremacists..Nihilists....Just plain wrong.

 

[Pigeon]

Oh dear.

Last time I drew tbaldwins' attention to the parallels between his position and that of the likes of Mosley and A. K. Chesterton I had to put up with him denying he was a racist and his friends all having a go at me while telling me what a brave anti-fascist he was.

I remember that! And was it not on a thread almost exactly the same as this one?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I remember that! And was it not on a thread almost exactly the same as this one?

It was indeed.

And just like before he totally misunderstood the point, and in such a way as to present himself as a victim.

I rather think that mr baldwin likes presenting himself as a flame flickering in the darkness, a victim of "top-down" socialism and "liberal supremacists" (i.e. anyone who disagrees with his quck nostrums). I'm sure he sees himself as a Keir Hardie, though I think he's closer to Ramsay MacDonald.

 

[durruti02]

I rather like the idea that describing Red Action as trots is a minor semantic point; I seem to recall that they thought it was a little more signifficant than that. Then again I doubt they'd have put anyone 'on ignore' over it.

Thanks for the entertainment - Louis MacNeice

i thought this was more interesting re where nino is coming from .. he never really explained it

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5974090&postcount=681

"We all know how the RA came about....don't we? Friggin' sectarian shite....I take anything that the RA/IWCA says with a tonne of salt. In fact, I think that both organisations have some barking mad ideas"

how this is relevent to this thread is that IWCA ex RA is making a genunine attempt to break from top down leftism and build from the base. I continually find it amazing (though of course i shouldn't) the reaction this gets from the liberal and orthodox left

 

[durruti02]

i think Torres has made some very good points against what Attica said, (which i think actually was fairly indefensible) about how society (particularly w/c society) is already socialist/cooperative in many ways ( sort of Colin Ward argument?)

i think attica does need to explain how then change can occur outside of, as Torres points out it implies, a vanguard liberating the hoodwinked masses.

equally though i think Torrres needs to explain how then his described situation equally can move on

i think it is misunderstood how much people do know and understand but just don't have the time or energy to do anything. They also, i find, have lost confidence in the idea that things can change ..

 

[biff curtains]

I support 100% populist free socialism/communism, direct democracy, the right of autonomous communities to federate at whatever level they see fit (or not). The right of communities and workplaces to decide what they do with the fruits of their labour.

The fundamental right to self management can never be suspended because of liberal fears of mob rule, that betrays a patrician lack of belief in people to make the right decisions.

There is no such thing as positive or negative freedom, there is only freedom - attempting to trample on someone else's freedom is not negative freedom, but the negation of freedom, and an aggressive act.

 

[donald duck]

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 ..

But why don't you tell us your own analysis?

Surely we all know that immigratio9n undermines the working class?

Did your parents treat you like shit?

I'm so sorry for you, but you must learn to live your own life as a free-thinking independent person outside of state control.

 

[118118]

immigratio9n undermines the working class?

anyway like i don't venture in here often cos no-one really makes much of a concerted stab at explaining why what i quoted is true. i would be lying, if i said anything of the sort is obvious to me. on the contrary, it seems obvious to me that undermining nationalism (- of some description), is very, very, good for us all.

 

[118118]

i think it's funny that those who retch at the idea of vanguadism, like to associate themselves with the terrorist state of the ussr. why is this, and am i wrong?

 

[donald duck]

i think it's funny that those who retch at the idea of vanguadism, like to associate themselves with the terrorist state of the ussr. why is this, and am i wrong?

Is vanguardism allowing a few people to edit your comments on Urban75?

And is not voting an anarchist statement? (Tee,hee)

Is a terrorist state one that will allow the pigs to stop and search you if they feel like it? Like in Northern Ireland or if you happen tob eblack, or if you live in Palestine?

Sorry if ive misinterpreted your comments.

 

[118118]

yeah ni is not soviet russia.

how do you suggest dealing with Palestine exactly? By killing a few israelis? i ask atm: how is that different to the uks involvement in iraq?

 

[118118]

What kind of socialism to you want?

Should have been a poll

 

[The Black Hand]

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:

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?

You fuckwit are being a stupid pedant. Only to massage your own petulent ego. It has no other use.

Oh look, my comment was right, communism hasn't happenend has it? We haven't even got anywhere closer to it. You have a utopian attitude that imposes 'communism now' without any regard to social conditions and politics. Negri wouldn't be as stupid as you are pretending to be.

I am not an old leftist, I attack paternalism, the IWCA, those with stupid assumptions like yourself, and so on.

You cannot explain other (right wing) ideologies and people who believe in them, their working class participants, or their movement without some emphasis on the media as a means of reflecting and contructing society (an argument I have put on these boards before).

You for no other reason than your pathetic ego have decided to use simplistic ultra left bollox to try and critisise me. I do not know why. You haven't progressed theory one tiny bit. Instead, you have regurgitated failed ultra left rubbish. Again. Your ultra left '5 yr plan' will get you precisely nowhere with your arrogant opinions. You have achieved nothing in the last 5 years, and will acheive nothing in the next 5.

 

[nino_savatte]

i thought this was more interesting re where nino is coming from .. he never really explained it

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5974090&postcount=681

"We all know how the RA came about....don't we? Friggin' sectarian shite....I take anything that the RA/IWCA says with a tonne of salt. In fact, I think that both organisations have some barking mad ideas"

how this is relevent to this thread is that IWCA ex RA is making a genunine attempt to break from top down leftism and build from the base. I continually find it amazing (though of course i shouldn't) the reaction this gets from the liberal and orthodox left

I hate to break up this cosy chat but, once again, you're engaging in another smear. You demand that others be civil but you never play by those rules yourself.

I stand by what I say. The RA are no better than any other cult and I include the SWP and others in this. The reason why the left does so badly is because of mindless sectarianism. You can make all the excuses you want but that is the truth.

I've heard the "let's break top down 'leftism'" before, the simple truth is that all organisations and parties, however well-intentioned they are, will always contain a core of ideologues who will formulate policies and doctrines and will guide the party in a particular direction. These people do not give up power easily, if at all.

I've heard no rebuttal to the point that the w/c are ignorant of their history. it is for this reason that they are swindled and hoodwinked by demogogues and ideologues.

 

[durruti02]

But why don't you tell us your own analysis?

Surely we all know that immigratio9n undermines the working class?

Did your parents treat you like shit?

I'm so sorry for you, but you must learn to live your own life as a free-thinking independent person outside of state control.

where the fuck did this come from!!

p.s. 3.56a.m. that where!

 

[durruti02]

I hate to break up this cosy chat but, once again, you're engaging in another smear. You demand that others be civil but you never play by those rules yourself.

I stand by what I say. The RA are no better than any other cult and I include the SWP and others in this. The reason why the left does so badly is because of mindless sectarianism. You can make all the excuses you want but that is the truth.QUOTE]

sorry it is not a smear .. you made a statement and in fact i have never ever seen you use language such as "Friggin' sectarian shite" to describe any other left group. You saved it for RA BUT you have not in ANY way justified it.

If you make statement you should justify it. simple as.

 

[october_lost]

Surely we all know that immigratio9n undermines the working class?

Am I the only one with suspicions about this poster.

 

[Pigeon]

I'm sure he sees himself as a Keir Hardie, though I think he's closer to Ramsay MacDonald.

There I'm afraid we differ. I see him as closer to Ronald MacDonald.

 

[nino_savatte]

I hate to break up this cosy chat but, once again, you're engaging in another smear. You demand that others be civil but you never play by those rules yourself.

I stand by what I say. The RA are no better than any other cult and I include the SWP and others in this. The reason why the left does so badly is because of mindless sectarianism. You can make all the excuses you want but that is the truth.QUOTE]

sorry it is not a smear .. you made a statement and in fact i have never ever seen you use language such as "Friggin' sectarian shite" to describe any other left group. You saved it for RA BUT you have not in ANY way justified it.

If you make statement you should justify it. simple as.

Yer all sectarians.

 

[Jean-Luc]

Why do people think that Russia had anything to do with socialism, when it quite obviously didn't? Not just ordinary anti-socialist propaganda trying to associate socialism with a one-party state, regimentation and labor camps, but also alleged "socialists" like Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and their followers. They're all still around and still saying that the Bolshevik insurrection was socialist and that the regime was basically OK till 1922, 1924, 1928, 1953 (choose your date). Until this false link between Russia and socialism is broken we're going to have a hard time arguing the case for a libertarian socialist society.

 

[nino_savatte]

Why do people think that Russia had anything to do with socialism, when it quite obviously didn't? Not just ordinary anti-socialist propaganda trying to associate socialism with a one-party state, regimentation and labor camps, but also alleged "socialists" like Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and their followers. They're all still around and still saying that the Bolshevik insurrection was socialist and that the regime was basically OK till 1922, 1924, 1928, 1953 (choose your date). Until this false link between Russia and socialism is broken we're going to have a hard time arguing the case for a libertarian socialist society.

Agreed. Whenever the word "communism" is mentioned, many people's minds drift towards the USSR and its centralised state control of every aspect of people's lives. They will use that as an 'example' of how socialism has 'failed'.

 

[becky p]

Why do people think that Russia had anything to do with socialism, when it quite obviously didn't? Not just ordinary anti-socialist propaganda trying to associate socialism with a one-party state, regimentation and labor camps, but also alleged "socialists" like Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and their followers. They're all still around and still saying that the Bolshevik insurrection was socialist and that the regime was basically OK till 1922, 1924, 1928, 1953 (choose your date). Until this false link between Russia and socialism is broken we're going to have a hard time arguing the case for a libertarian socialist society.

That is quite interesting. Perhaps you could explain your ideas more fully. You don't think 1917 had anything to do with Socialism? What about the Bolsheviks or the Mensheviks ?
Could you point out WHO you do think has something to do with Socialism?
What are you ideas on Socialism?

 

[october_lost]

The problem is becky is that everything from religion to utopian to caesarist ideas can be found to have influence within 'socialism', your current left sects are conclusive proof of this idea. Hopefully Im going to defend Marxism from his wretched followers of today and widen socialism way beyond a scope I usually work with and say that the act of liberation as to be by the workers themselves
..and not as the case is many times put forward, by a professional leadership.
This would include most kinds of left communist, liberatarian marxists, council communist, egalitarian socialists, anarchists, autonomists etc.

 

[rhys gethin]

The problem is becky is that everything from religion to utopian to caesarist ideas can be found to have influence within 'socialism', your current left sects are conclusive proof of this idea. Hopefully Im going to defend Marxism from his wretched followers of today and widen socialism way beyond a scope I usually work with and say that the act of liberation as to be by the workers themselves
..and not as the case is many times put forward, by a professional leadership.
This would include most kinds of left communist, liberatarian marxists, council communist, egalitarian socialists, anarchists, autonomists etc.

October - I think you are unbelievably hopeful. How do you see the current 'workers themselves' achieving this feat, and where?

 

[mk12]

Hopefully Im going to defend Marxism from his wretched followers of today and widen socialism way beyond a scope I usually work with and say that the act of liberation as to be by the workers themselves

here here.

 

[The Black Hand]

i think Torres has made some very good points against what Attica said, (which i think actually was fairly indefensible) about how society (particularly w/c society) is already socialist/cooperative in many ways ( sort of Colin Ward argument?)

i think attica does need to explain how then change can occur outside of, as Torres points out it implies, a vanguard liberating the hoodwinked masses.

equally though i think Torrres needs to explain how then his described situation equally can move on

i think it is misunderstood how much people do know and understand but just don't have the time or energy to do anything. They also, i find, have lost confidence in the idea that things can change ..

I never said the masses were hoodwinked, I said that when people are fed lies from birth and they don't know their own history, then it would be stupid (and niave) to think that 'communism today' is possible. That is not to say that the working class cannot be the revolutionary agent. My point, as is born out by IWCA experience, is that right on working class ideas are struggling with capitalist social life and the range of ideas and material factors working against working class consciousness. In 15 years the IWCA hasn't spread beyond its original clique. Why do you think that is? It may have something to do with the lack of access to the media certainly. The roblem Tores and other Ultra left communists/anarchists have is that they have no power, no way of spreading their ideology and no class struggles of their own. They have 'nice ideas' but the class is elsewhere.

How do you explain right wing ideas/movements without some explanatory weight being given to the media as a means to spread, reflect and construct right wing ideology and working class involvement in them? You can't do it. If so, I would like to see the justification of that position. As an observer of right wing social movements I know the central role that their key players give to the media. It is not given that name for nothing, it mediates social life. Not totally, but it certainly is not neutral.

I agree Durutti, the class is already fairly cooperative, but if you look the other way it is also the opposite. Playing up ideologically about how 'great we are at organising ourselves' has been done since Prince Kropotkin bigged up the RNLI (if you read that wreckers article I sent you) and on its own is politically meaningless. Not because self management isn't important for anarchism, but because POLITICS (big P) is elsewhere. The political and economic dynamic is not in peoples own homes and will never be, despite how central reproduction is. We can take control of our own homes, areas even, but they will still have the factories, warehouses, offices, police and army.

However, in the 19th century welfare was very important for class formation (and the IWCA is just a parochial variant of class formation theory), and organising around welfare issues is important today and is central to 21st century working class formation in the long term.

 

[mk12]

In 15 years the IWCA hasn't spread beyond its original clique. Why do you think that is?

Do tell me Attica - how has your brand of, whatever you call it, doing compared to this? It seems to me that the IWCA has been fairly successful in breaking free of the leftist 'ghetto' (for want of a better word), or this "clique" as you say. For all the critiques, analysis, PhDs etc - have you actually "spread beyond" the anarchist "clique"?

 

[The Black Hand]

Do tell me Attica - how has your brand of, whatever you call it, doing compared to this? It seems to me that the IWCA has been fairly successful in breaking free of the leftist 'ghetto' (for want of a better word), or this "clique" as you say. For all the critiques, analysis, PhDs etc - have you actually "spread beyond" the anarchist "clique"?

It hasn't broken out of the leftist ghetto - it IS part of the ghetto. There go it alone thing is just a new way of being vanguardist 'We're small and we know we are'. The other huge contradiction that I have problems with is that the working class never called them in as saviours, and to say that 'all other politics is the middle class left - we must start again' is pure rubbish. The working class (contrary to their formulation) was not invited to their autopsy, in fact it hasn't died at all!! Interesting working class politics in fact has been in many interesting places, and not once with the IWCA.