So, what does it *mean* to be socialist in 2006?
- Thread starter swells
- Start date
Socialism means the extension of democracy from the purely political to social and economic realms. This can be achieved by various means, nationalisation being one of the bluntest tools, useful in some areas and not in others. It is still seen as being useful for national transport systems for example, as evidenced by many opinion polls in this country and actual economic practice in others. It has generally been a failure when applied to productive industry in a mixed capitalist and globalist economy where finance capital has the upper hand - the finance capitalists simply move mobile capital to areas they can profit from, leaving closed pits and empty factories. So common ownership and democratic control over the bulk of the economy is only likely if working people force through things like global controls on capital movements, abolition of tax havens etc as a start and then move on quickly to challenge the power of the transnationals and the bankers. Other democratic and socialist economic forms are co-operatives and mutuals - again, these can be successful at the moment, but are more likely to be bullied, crushed or taken over in the globalist free market situation we are currently heading for. Therefore the first tasks of socialists of any description today are the same as ever - education, agitation, organisation towards the expression and exercise of the power of the workers, peasants and public servants that create and maintain the financial and human capital that the elite exploit. (An interesting recent booklet on these topics was Ken Coates, "Workers Control")
Furthermore, being a socialist today must surely entail the consciousness that the capitalist economy is causing possibly irreparable damage to the ecosystems that sustain life on earth - any new economic arrangements must be sustainable as well as socially just. So to be a socialist today , you must also be an environmentalist.
Furthermore, being a socialist today must surely entail the consciousness that the capitalist economy is causing possibly irreparable damage to the ecosystems that sustain life on earth - any new economic arrangements must be sustainable as well as socially just. So to be a socialist today , you must also be an environmentalist.
Should the rest of industry be nationalised?
Anyway industry itself is no longer at the commmanding height in this service sector world. Do we really want a society where you can only walk into one chain of shop (owned by the state), buy one brand of telly (made by the state) and watch telly from one broadcaster (run by the state), and how would that be better than what we have now?
Or is it possible to be a socialist without wanting nationalisation??[/QUOTE]
The article below is available on www.marxist.com
Friday, 13 January 2006
We publish this article based on a speech given by Rob Lyon at the international Marxist school in Barcelona last summer. Part One looks at the revolutionary principles of workers' control and management as opposed to the reformist idea of workers' participation, best realized in Germany in the 1970s.
Anyway industry itself is no longer at the commmanding height in this service sector world. Do we really want a society where you can only walk into one chain of shop (owned by the state), buy one brand of telly (made by the state) and watch telly from one broadcaster (run by the state), and how would that be better than what we have now?
Or is it possible to be a socialist without wanting nationalisation??[/QUOTE]
The article below is available on www.marxist.com
Friday, 13 January 2006
We publish this article based on a speech given by Rob Lyon at the international Marxist school in Barcelona last summer. Part One looks at the revolutionary principles of workers' control and management as opposed to the reformist idea of workers' participation, best realized in Germany in the 1970s.
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Does it occur to anybody that being a socialist in 2006 might involve not engaging overmuch in head-of-a-pin debates about what kind of revolution we want to have? I mean I wouldn't want people to drop it, but it's not exactly fundamental in the here-and-now, is it? It's not exactly connecting with people.
FruitandNut
New Member
Divisive Cotton said:
And just how would they control things? What model of human reality would you use? The Chinese tried a 'workers' in control' type model for their Army when Mao's Commies took control; but even they realized that debate and argument at a time that decision and action was needed wasn't a practical or clever demonstration of democracy.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Mmm, that's about as far away from the point I was making as it's possible to get, I reckon.gurrier said:
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Then what's IYO the difference between socialism and social democracy (or even left leaning liberalism)? That definition would seem to fit both.Donna Ferentes said:
So, what does it mean to be socialist in 2006
"Socialist" is now a much derided term. Having been one most of my life , perhaps we should move away from the term (contentious I know).
A more equal, democratic society with zero poverty and exploitation, equal life opportunities for working class people and greater distribution of wealth would be a start. In reality what it means is day by day stealing back from the powers that rule this land, to get to a postion that socialism becomes an active part of life in the UK.
A hard slog - join the battle.
Kevin
"Socialist" is now a much derided term. Having been one most of my life , perhaps we should move away from the term (contentious I know).
A more equal, democratic society with zero poverty and exploitation, equal life opportunities for working class people and greater distribution of wealth would be a start. In reality what it means is day by day stealing back from the powers that rule this land, to get to a postion that socialism becomes an active part of life in the UK.
A hard slog - join the battle.
Kevin
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
It probably would.redsquirrel said:
Zeppo said:
Bloody hell, it's Zeppo!
I don't think that 'Socialist' is a problematic term. Mark serwotka stood as a Socialist for General secretary of PCS and won easily. Why? Because his address explained his socialism in democratic terms and concentrated on issues that were close to the hearts of the PCS members - pay, job security, opposing privatisation. He got plenty of votes from non-socialists on these policy issues and by making clear his commitment to fighting the Government (referring to his history of leading strikes).
In polls where the question is asked - should we be more Socialist? - most answer yes. By which they mean protecting and funding the welfare state. The term itself is not a problem. But on its own it means little until expanded upon. No need IMO to junk the whole of a very fine history - William Morris, Marx, Luxemburg etc.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
try here http://www.resistancemp3.lpi.org.uk/swells said:I'm not sure what an unreconstructed Trot is!
Not actually sure what a trot is for that matter! Wasn't Trotsky a communist, not a socialist?
I think so far Donna is the closest to what I believe in.
If that is indeed a fair definition, I reckon can tick most of those boxes and hence still be a socialist
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
So are you saying that you see them as the smae thing? You see social democray as a trend within socialism? Or what?Donna Ferentes said:
lewislewis
Lumumba Cymru
mattkidd12 said:
Could you elaborate, so I can file them for future reference. I'm not taking the piss btw, the factories under workers' control in Venezuela were claiming to have increased production a few months ago.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
No, it means I think they have things in common.redsquirrel said:
Similar threads
