Socialism "The will of the majority" or is it?
- Thread starter tbaldwin
- Start date
My preference would be to see a situation where people are empowered to make their own decisions on matters that affect them, not where the majority dictates individual choice whether it's affected or not.
If the majority decided we should go back to burning homosexuals at the stake, could it possibly be right?
If the majority decided we should go back to burning homosexuals at the stake, could it possibly be right?
Fruitloop said:
Empowered to make their own decisions????? What kind of liberal shite is that??? Empowered by who?to do what? agree with an educated elite?
As for burning homosexuals? Its a good point. No it wouldnt be right but does that mean it couldnt happen under Socialism?
Is Socialism always going to be right?
you did this thread ages ago
And yes, its the will of the majority. But that implies that people have a say in everything. For the "will of the majority" to be expressed, people need to democratically run every aspect of their lives - workplace and community. Then the "will of the majority" can be put into practice.
And yes, its the will of the majority. But that implies that people have a say in everything. For the "will of the majority" to be expressed, people need to democratically run every aspect of their lives - workplace and community. Then the "will of the majority" can be put into practice.
It seriously amazes me that you can read 'empowered to make their own decisions' and interpret that as 'empowered to agree with an educated elite'. Am I to expect further mangling of anything that I might say in the future?
I think the 'will of the majority' in the abstract is a fairly dangerous formula, not least because it's historically been the catch-cry both of unenviable tyranny and of bourgeois liberalism. It would be far better if the wills of individual people were focussed on their more proximal concerns, and if any interventions at the macro level of society were to aim primarily to promote and safeguard that autonomy.
I think the 'will of the majority' in the abstract is a fairly dangerous formula, not least because it's historically been the catch-cry both of unenviable tyranny and of bourgeois liberalism. It would be far better if the wills of individual people were focussed on their more proximal concerns, and if any interventions at the macro level of society were to aim primarily to promote and safeguard that autonomy.
Kameron said:
did you even look at the last lot of election results?
Originally posted by wikipedia -
Socialism is a social and economic system (or the political philosophy advocating such a system) in which the economic means of production are owned and controlled collectively by the people. This control may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils or community councils, or it may be indirect, exercised through a State. In the latter case, the issue of who controls the state is crucial. A primary concern of socialism (and, according to some, its defining feature) is social equality and an equitable distribution of wealth that would serve the interests of society as a whole
My emphasis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Socialism is a social and economic system (or the political philosophy advocating such a system) in which the economic means of production are owned and controlled collectively by the people. This control may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils or community councils, or it may be indirect, exercised through a State. In the latter case, the issue of who controls the state is crucial. A primary concern of socialism (and, according to some, its defining feature) is social equality and an equitable distribution of wealth that would serve the interests of society as a whole
My emphasis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Kameron
Kamoceratops
But me and you have a difference of opinion don't we? I think that not voting is the same as voting for the party with the most seats in parliament and you think it means you don't buy into the system where as I think not buying into the system means not paying tax, not using the NHS and not living in the country. I think we've had this discussion before and we didn't find any place we could agree in the topic.Dubversion said:
tbaldwin said:
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/socialism21/
the above link is for the introduction to socialism in the 21st century, a good place to start.
no, that's not what i mean. More people voted AGAINST Blair for a start. And i don't believe not voting automatically means rejecting the system - it can also mean that you can find nobody you're prepared to vote for, an argument i've expounded repeatedly. So kindly don't put words into my mouth
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
northernhord
Active Member
tbaldwin said:
When your talking about the will of the majority it can be applied to any political party.
Socialism is about equality and Justice for all, it is about the workers being in control of the workplace and the processes of Industry, it is about collectivism and communality.
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
I'm surprised at tbaldwin not knowing this. Herbert Morrison said it ages ago - "Socialism is What a Labour Government Does".
Kameron
Kamoceratops
fair enough, I couldn't find the thread and it was sometime ago so if you say it's not what you believe then cool.Dubversion said:
We don't have PR in this country so speculating about what the results might be if we did is redundant in my view. The fact is that by the electoral system we have we returned Tony Blair's government.
Everybody gets the government they deserve.
Kameron said:
well i don't agree, but nonetheless your claim about Blair's majority is a clearly false one.
Kameron said:
see above
Kameron said:
nice truism, but what do you believe that actually MEANS? Do you believe the people of Sudan have the government they deserve? Or Zimbabwe? Or any number of other places.
facile crap
Kameron
Kamoceratops
He is clearly in power, he clearly won by the rules, people who voted (or didn't) did so by the rules. We collectively elected Tony Blair with a majority in Parliament. It isn't like we live in the US. (that last comment is facile BTW)Dubversion said:
My comment was never intended for internal extrapolation as you are no doubt well aware.Dubversion said:
-We do seem to have drifted a bit here from the potential topic. My answer is that by and large people tend to be selfish cunts and are prepared to step on others to get ahead rather than work for the greater good, particularly when the greater good extends well beyond anyone you know or might know someone you do. The real truism is that the world would be a better place if everyone was nicer to each other.
Giles said:
Excellent piece of analysis. Clear, concise, straight to the point. Unfortunately totally wrong. We have never had socialism except with borders and socialism can never work in one country or even on one continent. It would have to become a global movement to be fully realised. If it doesn't, it degenerates into the the "socialist" or "communist" states that most people refer to when they make statements like "socialism never works".
Zippo said:
That's exactly what I mean though. It only works in a perfect but impossible situation. Which is very unlikely to arise, isn't it?
Too many people would lose too much under such a system to get everyone to agree to it, let alone all at the same time.
And even if you did, people would get sick of just accepting their lot.
People just want more and more.
Giles..
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Asking whether "socialism is the will of the majority" or not depends on the context that the "will of the majority" is expressed in.
For me socialism is about altruism. It means everyone, as much as possible, getting a fair crack of the whip. It means enabling and encouraging people to be part of the political process rather than just requiring them to vote occasionally. It's about inclusivity.
What socialism isn't is party diktat. It isn't about nebulously claiming the support of the majority (something no political party has been able to do for a long while) for your policies. It's about the expression of the wishes of the people through a political process, and the execution of policy to fulfil those wishes in accordance with certain political principles.
In other words it's an ideal. We can aim for it, but we're unlikely to achieve it in it's "pure" form. The best we can hope for is a facsimile.
For me socialism is about altruism. It means everyone, as much as possible, getting a fair crack of the whip. It means enabling and encouraging people to be part of the political process rather than just requiring them to vote occasionally. It's about inclusivity.
What socialism isn't is party diktat. It isn't about nebulously claiming the support of the majority (something no political party has been able to do for a long while) for your policies. It's about the expression of the wishes of the people through a political process, and the execution of policy to fulfil those wishes in accordance with certain political principles.
In other words it's an ideal. We can aim for it, but we're unlikely to achieve it in it's "pure" form. The best we can hope for is a facsimile.
Similar threads
