Authoritarian Socialism,Yes please....

[ViolentPanda]

Balders dearie, it doesn't matter who formulates the dictionary definition of "authoritarian", what matters is what the majority of people know the word to mean.

I'm sure that as a majoritarian you agree that if the majority definition differs from yours it must be your definition that is wrong?

 

[tbaldwin]

and who provides the information on which they base these decisions?

That is the typical get out for people hostile to the idea of real socialism....The majority are too stupid for it eh blagsta....Much better to have the minority of clever like erm well like erm like the erm people on U75 impose their views....

 

[ViolentPanda]

Anyway balders, how about setting out exactly what "authoritarian socialism" is?

Not what it's not, because we know it's not liberal, libertarian, or the like, but what it is, what it has as it's "core philosophy", how it's applicable to the lives, hopes and dreams of the polity.

I don't need a magnum opus. Just a few detailed paragraphs will do.

 

[tbaldwin]

Balders dearie, it doesn't matter who formulates the dictionary definition of "authoritarian", what matters is what the majority of people know the word to mean.

I'm sure that as a majoritarian you agree that if the majority definition differs from yours it must be your definition that is wrong?

Thats a very good first post...keep this up and i may be on the ropes before long.

 

[Fruitloop]

It's pretty much a golden rule that anyone who claims to know what the majority wants invariably tells you far more about what they want.

 

[tbaldwin]

But without a plan of how this comes about isn't it about as much use as a turd on a string? I mean I think that direct democracy is a political ideal, but that direct democracy under capitalism would be a complete disaster. There also needs to be come kind of legal separation between what rights are inalienably granted to every individual, and which ones can be altered by majority opinion. It's the absence of details on any of this stuff that makes your sloganizing so alarming, in my opinion.

Your idea of a plan i find alarming...Im talking about the majority deciding and you want me to decide a plan for them...
I think thats a fairly typical thing for a public school anarchist.

 

[ViolentPanda]

That is the typical get out for people hostile to the idea of real socialism....The majority are too stupid for it eh blagsta....Much better to have the minority of clever like erm well like erm like the erm people on U75 impose their views....

That isn't what he said, balders.

What he asked was who provides that information. More pertinantly, who formulates it?

The question needs to be asked, because states and monopolies are adept at manufacturing propaganda, and not just tabloidesque stuff, but deep stuff too, stuff that's manufactured to give a particular picture not for the "here and now", but for the future.

Do a google on "IRD" or "Information Research Dept" for some interesting reading on state-manufactured political spin and propaganda.

 

[tbaldwin]

Anyway balders, how about setting out exactly what "authoritarian socialism" is?

Not what it's not, because we know it's not liberal, libertarian, or the like, but what it is, what it has as it's "core philosophy", how it's applicable to the lives, hopes and dreams of the polity.

I don't need a magnum opus. Just a few detailed paragraphs will do.

Up to them not me you Joe Stalin or even worse Fruitloop...

 

[Fruitloop]

Not a plan of what they should do, but a plan for how to get from the present society to the one that you envisage. Are the majority to decide on absolutely every issue of collective interest, like the height and placement of street lights? Or is that something for the majority to decide as well?

If the majority object to the colour of my socks, do i have to change them?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think thats a fairly typical thing for a public school anarchist.

Only two pages and you're already descending into name-calling and snideness?

 

[Groucho]

That is the typical get out for people hostile to the idea of real socialism....The majority are too stupid for it eh blagsta....Much better to have the minority of clever like erm well like erm like the erm people on U75 impose their views....

No, that's you avoiding the question.

You assert that the majority believe this or that and that this and that should be imposed.

Unless you state a method by which the majority view is ascertained your argument falls flat.

A certain Oswald Mosely made numerous speaches about weak politicians incapable of imposing the majority view. In his scheme the majority view was to be what he decided it was. He was to be swept to power by one election or later by imposition by his friend Hitler. After which he would sweep aside the liberal elite and impose what he had determined was the majority view.

So far you have never posted anything to say how you would impose your illiberal authoritarian 'socialism'. We know it includes a return to the death penalty (as you have said as much). We know it includes a ban on immigration (you have said that too). But how would you impose your vision of er 'Socialism'? Sounds more akin to 'National Socialism' to me. Moseley claimed to be internationalist as well and is why he named hs party after an Italian movement - Fascist - and subsequently a German movement 'National Socialist' - the British Union of Fascists and National Socialists they were called. They believed in authoritarian 'democracy'!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Up to them not me you Joe Stalin or even worse Fruitloop...

Don't be soft.

You're putting the cart before the horse. How can it be up to people to decide what "authoritarian socialism" is, if they haven't at least got a framework to refer against?

If you're saying "the people decide" then are you going to be ok if some group (perhaps even a majority?) decided that "authoritarian socialism" actually means a form of fascism, and start to practice such?

So stop wriggling and tell me what "authoritarian socialism" is or isn't.

"Put up or shut up" time, balders.

 

[ViolentPanda]

No, that's you avoiding the question.

You assert that the majority believe this or that and that this and that should be imposed.

Unless you state a method by which the majority view is ascertained your argument falls flat.

A certain Oswald Mosely made numerous speaches about weak politicians incapable of imposing the majority view. In his scheme the majority view was to be what he decided it was. He was to be swept to power by one election or later by imposition by his friend Hitler. After which he would sweep aside the liberal elite and impose what he had determined was the majority view.

So far you have never posted anything to say how you would impose your illiberal authoritarian 'socialism'. We know it includes a return to the death penalty (as you have said as much). We know it includes a ban on immigration (you have said that too). But how would you impose your vision of er 'Socialism'? Sounds more akin to 'National Socialism' to me. Moseley claimed to be internationalist as well and is why he named hs party after an Italian movement - Fascist - and subsequently a German movement 'National Socialist' - the British Union of Fascists and National Socialists they were called. They believed in authoritarian 'democracy'!

yea and verily.

You do realise that balders (and his sidekick(s) ) may well now derail this thread by claiming you called him a "nazi", don't you?

 

[tbaldwin]

Not a plan of what they should do, but a plan for how to get from the present society to the one that you envisage. Are the majority to decide on absolutely every issue of collective interest, like the height and placement of street lights? Or is that something for the majority to decide as well?

If the majority object to the colour of my socks, do i have to change them?

OK your making more sense there....You could start off by asking how many issues people want to decide by referendum and how often these referendums should be held?
If you settled on 10 issues per year,people could vote for them on the same day. The issues themselves would be decided by the majorities views on what were the 10 most important issues not by political represenatitives.
Your mum could still decide the colour of your socks without any threat of me and a peoples militia torturing her.
But not pink on sundays...

 

[Fruitloop]

The point is it's completely disingenuous to hide behind this 'the majority decides on everything' schtick when you clearly have some pretty set ideas on what the majority want in terms of immigration, crime etc etc, much of it just recycled blairite horseshit.

What you seem to forget is that even the people you so despise are also part of the majority, and are entitled to their opinions on what constitutes a desirable state of affairs despite their lack of primark clothing and crooked teeth, or whatever your deranged fucking yardstick for acceptable prole-hood is.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Not a plan of what they should do, but a plan for how to get from the present society to the one that you envisage. Are the majority to decide on absolutely every issue of collective interest, like the height and placement of street lights? Or is that something for the majority to decide as well?

If the majority object to the colour of my socks, do i have to change them?

That's the crux, isn't it? Representative democracy or properly direct democracy?

 

[Groucho]

yea and verily.

You do realise that balders (and his sidekick(s) ) may well now derail this thread by claiming you called him a "nazi", don't you?

Yep, I'm sure.

But I haven't of course. He has called me various names. I have merely asked him to explain where hos views differ from Fascism (as it really is not clear). Fascists also believed in using referenda to legitimise their rule. After all referenda can be easily manipulated. Who decides what question to ask, how it is worded, when to hold it? More importantly who decides what questions not to ask?

 

[Fruitloop]

OK your making more sense there....You could start off by asking how many issues people want to decide by referendum and how often these referendums should be held?
If you settled on 10 issues per year,people could vote for them on the same day. The issues themselves would be decided by the majorities views on what were the 10 most important issues not by political represenatitives.
Your mum could still decide the colour of your socks without any threat of me and a peoples militia torturing her.
But not pink on sundays...

Sounds like a recipe for a failed state to me! The entire business of statecraft reduced to ten multiple-choice questions per year? Jesus wept.

 

[Pigeon]

But I haven't.

Details, dear boy. Mere details.

 

[tbaldwin]

Don't be soft.

You're putting the cart before the horse. How can it be up to people to decide what "authoritarian socialism" is, if they haven't at least got a framework to refer against?

If you're saying "the people decide" then are you going to be ok if some group (perhaps even a majority?) decided that "authoritarian socialism" actually means a form of fascism, and start to practice such?

So stop wriggling and tell me what "authoritarian socialism" is or isn't.

"Put up or shut up" time, balders.

Your losing the point a bit now VP....And if a majority decide to practice fascism .......What a very liberal point.....What about if a minority decide to impose fascism...what do you think is worse or more likely?

 

[ViolentPanda]

But I haven't. He has called me various names. I have merely asked him to explain where hos views differ from Fascism. Fascists also believed in using referenda to legitimise their rule. After all referenda can be easily manipulated. Who decides what question to ask, how it is worded, when to hold it? More importantly who decides what questions not to ask?

I know you haven't.

Thing is, when I informed him that some of the policies he (as an "authoritarian socialist") espoused were strikingly similar to policies that Mosley and Chesterton formulated 70 years ago, and remarked that it was odd how many political ideas eventually "changed sides", I was accused by him and his sidekick durruti02 of calling him a fascist, a supporter of fascism and a nazi.

Just thought I'd warn you.

 

[Pigeon]

Your losing the point a bit now VP....And if a majority decide to practice fascism .......What a very liberal point.....What about if a minority decide to impose fascism...what do you think is worse or more likely?

Yeah, VP- what if a minority decided to impose fascism, throwing a sop to the masses like, I dunno, 10 referenda a year on issues like capital punishment, immigration etc?

never thought that one through did you...?

 

[tbaldwin]

Yep, I'm sure.

But I haven't of course. He has called me various names. I have merely asked him to explain where hos views differ from Fascism (as it really is not clear). Fascists also believed in using referenda to legitimise their rule. After all referenda can be easily manipulated. Who decides what question to ask, how it is worded, when to hold it? More importantly who decides what questions not to ask?

Fascists, like you believe in a kind of natural elite and survival of the fittest.
I think that the majority of people should decide things for themselves,you believe in a vanguard of the best minds,the fighting minority etc etc...

 

[ViolentPanda]

Your losing the point a bit now VP....And if a majority decide to practice fascism .......What a very liberal point.....What about if a minority decide to impose fascism...what do you think is worse or more likely?

Balders, as you well know, I was positing an example, not a possibility.

Now stop wriggling and define "authoritarian socialism".

 

[thefishdead]

Up to them not me you Joe Stalin or even worse Fruitloop...

Who the hell is them. It is impossable for the majorty to rule. For many reasons. Thats why we elect representatives to run things. Thats what the word means. They repersent the views of the people to the best of there ability. we can arrgue all day if they are any good at it but thats another story

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yeah, VP- what if a minority decided to impose fascism, throwing a sop to the masses like, I dunno, 10 referenda a year on issues like capital punishment, immigration etc?

never thought that one through did you...?

You're right, I didn't. Shame on me.

Mostly I didn't think that one through because I don't have the faintest conviction that tbaldwin is actually a fascist. What I do believe is that he has lots of interesting ideas that he can't be bothered to think through from first principals to logical conclusions, and so he posts his half-chewed ideas, and then gets defensive when asked perfectly rational questions.

 

[tbaldwin]

Balders, as you well know, I was positing an example, not a possibility.

Now stop wriggling and define "authoritarian socialism".

Have a look at the opening post.

 

[tbaldwin]

Who the hell is them. It is impossable for the majorty to rule. For many reasons. Thats why we elect representatives to run things. Thats what the word means. They repersent the views of the people to the best of there ability. we can arrgue all day if they are any good at it but thats another story

I think your post shows how far people have swallowed the idea that politics is best left to the people who know best er whoever they are?
The them is the majority.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Who the hell is them. It is impossable for the majorty to rule. For many reasons. Thats why we elect representatives to run things. Thats what the word means. They repersent the views of the people to the best of there ability. we can arrgue all day if they are any good at it but thats another story

You could have political rule via direct majoritarian principles, but it'd be very cumbersome if you were being at all democratic, and that would make it not only mostly reactive and unable to deal with the vagaries of life, but slow to be reactive too.

You'd have to redesign democratic politics from the ground up, and that's pre-supposing that the majority would actually want a democratic politics, given the choice.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Have a look at the opening post.

I have.

It tells me quite a bit about your opinions, but sweet F.A. about what authoritarian socialism stands for, what it's about, what it would do with power (beyond "ten referenda a year") and how it would benefit the majority rather than the minority.

Stop wriggling nalders. Define "authoritarian socialism" for me.