Authoritarian Socialism,Yes please....
- Thread starter tbaldwin
- Start date
thefishdead
I love cake. Somewhat.
I know waht u think 'them' means. But lets say 25million brits want abortion on demand and 24 million dont is it simply a case of the majority is correct? the point is that your idea is fine but as a couple of the other posters keep asking you, how do u practially implement it
tbaldwin said:
No, I believe that the majority do need to wrest control from the unelected elite who really run this country. For the majority to rule we need increased democracy. I believe such a state of affairs can only come about through the struggle of the mass of people themselves, and through democratic socialist revolution. I think that Hugo Chavez is an elected head of a movement for change that stands a chance of bringing in such a state of affairs. For that to succeed the balance of power has to move into the hands of the mass of the people - the more they rely on a leader the easier it will be to behead the movement. Chavez has been facilitating such, and the people have been self-organising. All very good so far, but so much further to go.
Are you one who would like to see Chavez overthrown?
You keep talking about 'democracy' but you fail to explain how your version will come about. In fact it is hard to see anything democratic about your proposals. I tried to make it easier for you by inviting you to show how your ideas differ from the Fascists - they talked about the will of the majority too. They were also vague about how to define it. Until they got into power - then people saw what they actually meant.
Vague formulations about the will of the majority mean nothing.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
tbaldwin said:
That's it? Majority rule?
In which case what you're talking about would be "majoritarian socialism".
Why not just admit once and for all that the only reason you included the word "authoritarian" in your formulation is because you thought it made you sound hard?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Fruitloop said:
Tragic.
ViolentPanda said:Why not just admit once and for all that the only reason you included the word "authoritarian" in your formulation is because you thought it made you sound hard?
cor thats a thought.....
I think that people who claim to be socialists but actually want minority rule are misusing the word....But then again i'm no friend of the dictionary..
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
tbaldwin said:
I'd noticed.
I also notice that yet again you're throwing tags and ideas around without defining your terms.
So come on, tell me:
What is "authoritarian socialism".
What is "minority rule"?
What is the point of this thread if you're never going to have the guts to actually give people chapter and verse on your ideas?
ViolentPanda said:
Depends who you ask and what you mean?
But i use the word authoritarian cos i dont believe libertarianism or concensus really works.
I believe in majority rule..Anything else i dont think can be really Socialist..
Anyway thats just what i think what do you think?
Pigeon said: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...?
a "sop to the masses" eh.....Spoken like a true Libertarian.....
Groucho said:
1 Remind me again how Democratic centralism works and how long Paul Foot and Tony Cliff were on the central commmitte?
Did you like Ceacuscue?
2 My proposals?
3 er he was a Fascist twat,who wanted believed in the idea of a ruling elite.
I think Fascism stinks and people like you and him who want to see a ruling elite are wrong.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I'm asking you.tbaldwin said:
So you use it to mean something it doesn't mean?
What I think isn't important. Your explaining what "authoritarian socialism" is, is what's important, so get on with it.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
tbaldwin said:
He shoots.....he misses the point yet again.
we already have authoritarian socialism. great thread to seperate the fabians from the politically vain-ians
great thread to seperate the fabians from the politically vain-ians
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
tbaldwin said:
Errrr...wtf?!?!?!
Where have I said "The majority are too stupid for it"? That's coming from you, not me. My point is that people need access to information to base decisions on. Where is that info coming from? Who gets to say what is important? In whose interests do they work? etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism
Why would the majority choose a system that oppresses them?
I think it's a pretty safe bet that the majority of people in this country don't want any form of socialism, authoritarian or otherwise.
Blagsta said:Errrr...wtf?!?!?!
Where have I said "The majority are too stupid for it"? That's coming from you, not me. My point is that people need access to information to base decisions on. Where is that info coming from? Who gets to say what is important? In whose interests do they work? etc
Yes but that is the classic get out isnt it blagsta......Yes of course people need information to base decisions on....But LIBERAL SUPREMACISTS ( I put that in just for you VP,hope your pleased) seem to think that people are going to base those decisions primarily on what murdoch and rothermere say...I think that shows that they have just as much contempt for ordinary people as the Tories.
If you dont trust people in the here and now to make better decisons than an elite then you cant be a Socialist can you blagsta?
mk12 said:that's a shameI was sympathising with you on this thread too!
Sympathy would be nice but mind controlling drugs might be better matt.
I'm not arguing against workers control in individual workplaces though, im all for that as a bit of a reformist myself but i was talking about majority power not just in the workplace.
So essentially what we learn is that tbaldwin's politics in their entirety can be summed up in two words: majority rule.
Any other terminology like authoritarian or socialism is completely redundant, partly because none of it has really been thought through, but mostly because any kind of political program that balders could suggest concerning anything at all would be trumped by the will of the majority on that particular issue, whatever it happened to be.
The only other concrete suggestion at all is that of ten referenda per year on subjects decided by the will of the majority. Presumably it could be a hundred referenda, or none, were the majority to decide that were preferable. All citizens not disqualified by having a university education, posh accent, hoodie, foreign place of birth etc will decide on their 10 (/100/0) most important governmental issues and tell, who, exactly?
Any other terminology like authoritarian or socialism is completely redundant, partly because none of it has really been thought through, but mostly because any kind of political program that balders could suggest concerning anything at all would be trumped by the will of the majority on that particular issue, whatever it happened to be.
The only other concrete suggestion at all is that of ten referenda per year on subjects decided by the will of the majority. Presumably it could be a hundred referenda, or none, were the majority to decide that were preferable. All citizens not disqualified by having a university education, posh accent, hoodie, foreign place of birth etc will decide on their 10 (/100/0) most important governmental issues and tell, who, exactly?
Similar threads
- Poll
