Socialism "The will of the majority" or is it?
- Thread starter tbaldwin
- Start date
Giles said:
True socialism perhaps is. But then so is 'true' everything, we don't live in a 'true' capitalism and we never have and nor does anyone else for that matter.
We live in a doctored version of capitalism. Given that as a truth, a doctored version of socialism not only works, it has been proven to work in this country.
ViolentPanda said:
I think that is really interesting and is probably the reason that we always disagree..
I think altruism is a very strange idea. I think people are motivated by their self interest sometimes in a narrow way but often in a wider way(which some people may interpret as altruism)
Socialism to me is about the self interest of the majority.
northernhoard 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.
Does that include being in charge of the criminal justice and education systems?
Will high court judges be replaced by mob rule?
One of the big problems with implementing the 'will of the people' is that 'the people' at the moment are defined by their membership of a state - an inherently repressive tool of bourgeois social control. Many states will also contain sub-groupings whose interests aren't particularly congruent, and in fact some states have been specifically engineered to be this way. Allowing the group with numeric superiority to lord it over the others simply because there are slightly more of them is going to be a recipe for disaster not socialism.
Cobbles said:
I reckon if there were referendums on the 10 main issues that people wanted to vote on.
The UK.
Would have tougher punishments for anti social crime.
Would bring the Troops home from Iraq.
Reverse Rail privatisation.
I think that the will of the people would be the best government we ever had.
northernhord
Active Member
tbaldwin said:
I agree with you so long as the will of the people wasnt informed by big business or religion
northernhord
Active Member
tbaldwin said:
that depends on what the will of the people is informed by, and it could depend on whether or not you see democracy as mob rule or something more.
northernhord
Active Member
Fruitloop said:
Summut needs doing with the trains though, something private investment really doesnt want to sink its quids into cos the paybacks are long term.
Privatisation was a crock from the outset, as any efficiency gains obtained by farming public stuff out to private companies are completely overshadowed by all the shareholders getting their sticky little fingers into the public purse. However, the objective of the last Conservative Govt was to make any process of renationalization as difficult and expensive as possible, and unfortunately they did a pretty good job, for once.
This assumes of course that the Govt are going to try to avoid bringing down reactionary capitalist forces on themselves by playing by the rules, otherwise they could just take back the railways for free and tell the fatcats to go swim. Thing is, if you're going down this route why stop with the railways? Take the whole fucking lot!
This assumes of course that the Govt are going to try to avoid bringing down reactionary capitalist forces on themselves by playing by the rules, otherwise they could just take back the railways for free and tell the fatcats to go swim. Thing is, if you're going down this route why stop with the railways? Take the whole fucking lot!
northernhoard said:I agree with you so long as the will of the people wasnt informed by big business or religion
Of course its informed by big business and religion.But what do you do say "Oh well,i'm afraid youve had too many bad influences,you can't vote" ?
Or do you respect the will of the majority and try to change i when you think its wrong?
I think there's more to socialism than 'the will of the majority' because as has been pointed out, that can change, be manipulated through propaganda, advertising etc. So it's not an opinion set. It's a way of organizing society in which
- there are no classes (or only one)
- everyone is paid according to the value of his work
- production is for use, not profit
- no wars
- fair distribution
- no exploitation of man by man
- no duplication of labour (e.g. ten competing banks)
- difficult to achieve through consensus or reform of any system based on greed
- might run counter to the in-born characteristics of some humans
Kameron said:
The question should be 'why do we have PR in Northern Ireland to ensure that minorities are represented, but not in all other parts of the UK?'
Though I'm not convinced that the 'will of the people' would get much different results, because a lot of the people vote from fear instilled in them by politicians and the media here, and don't give much real thought to what would be best for them as individuals.
I am shocked too at the number of young people who refuse to vote, and say it doesn't concern them. My late husband and I were politically involved before we were old enough to vote, and I don't understand my daughter and her friends, who have been old enough to vote for 16 years, but just can't be bothered. Especially with the right-wing weasel that we have as an MP.
I get criticised for coming out with terms like LIBERAL SUPREMACIST.Binkie said:
But i really dont know how else to sum up many of the views on U75.
People seem to believe in a kind of benevolent dictatorship.....
Ordinary peoples views and aspirations are written off.
Fruitloop said:Yep that's it, an anarchist dictatorship
Ideology and propoganda are extremely effective tools for shaping society the way you want, otherwise the r/c wouldn't expend so much energy on them. You seem to think if you ignore them they will just go away.
Not exactly in favour of ignoring problems. But the Left has to work with ordinary people and respect their views and aspirations if it is to get anywhere.
If there are majority views you disagree with thats fine.But to say that you disagree with them so they should be overruled seems a very dangerous road.
Myself id like to see an end to the monarchy.But if most people were against getting rid of the monarchy i dont think it would be right to ignore their views.
It has to be a process of dialogue for sure, but what about the fact that most people are against getting rid of capitalism? At some point if people have differing opinions you have to have some conviction that your opinion is the right one, otherwise why engage in political activity at all?
Personally I reckon capitalism is like smoking fags - it's bad for you regardless of whether you think you like it or not.
Personally I reckon capitalism is like smoking fags - it's bad for you regardless of whether you think you like it or not.
Fruitloop said:
The amount of people smoking has gone down loads over the last 10-20 years.(In the UK anyway) This has happened because more people have realised that smoking is not good for them or their wallets.
People are not all for or against capitalism. But most people are against the excesses of capitalism.
If the "Will of the Majority" ruled there would be much less inequality.
Capitalism is not going to simply disappear overnight. And the only way it will be tamed is by the "Will of the Majority" Which makes it ridiculous that Lefties treat the views and aspirations of ordinary people with such contempt.
IME smoking goes in cycles. It went down to almost nothing in NZ, to the point where pretty much the only people you saw smoking were tourists, but there's been a big resurgence in the last ten years or so.
I don't know what you mean when you say that people are against the excesses of capitalism. I'm sure if you stop them in the street and ask them if pollution is bad then they'll say yes, but hardly anyone has shown any inclination to change their lifestyle to a less destructive one. Most people regard driving around for no particular reason in an enormous fucking car burning fossil fuels as some kind of inaliable right, rather than as a pretty harmful pastime that probably needs to be mostly phased out. Not that this kind of attitude is particularly prevalent in the w/c, it's completely endemic in society.
Personally I agree with Gramsci that hegemony isn't simply dictated top-down, it's also built up from elements of w/c culture itself - otherwise it would be far less stable than it is. And what the 'problem' is that socialism or anarchism sets out to solve is a set of destructive social and institutional relationships that are masquerading as economic ones. So the problems of the w/c are to a limited extent problems with the w/c, basically problems of society in general, and unless this is recognised then you're not going to acheive what I think should be the objective, which is the transformation of society into a more just, sustainable and free one than what we have at the moment. I don't think that this is a point of view that's motivated by contempt for people - in fact if anything it's probably hopelessly optimistic about people's ability to change their social situation for the better.
I think the reason why your 'will of the majority' stuff scares me slightly is it's eerily reminiscent of the 'silent majority' so often invoked by fash and tories - this 'silent majority' that always seems to have slightly medieval views on criminal justice, asylum, etc etc. The purpose of the silent majority is basically talismanic - in their name you can put the boot into whatever minority you like - travellers, single mothers, intellectuals, kulaks, etc. The thing to remember is that everyone constitutes a minority in some respect, and a society where the majority view is tyrannical in each aspect of life isn't a desirable one, in my opinion.
I don't know what you mean when you say that people are against the excesses of capitalism. I'm sure if you stop them in the street and ask them if pollution is bad then they'll say yes, but hardly anyone has shown any inclination to change their lifestyle to a less destructive one. Most people regard driving around for no particular reason in an enormous fucking car burning fossil fuels as some kind of inaliable right, rather than as a pretty harmful pastime that probably needs to be mostly phased out. Not that this kind of attitude is particularly prevalent in the w/c, it's completely endemic in society.
Personally I agree with Gramsci that hegemony isn't simply dictated top-down, it's also built up from elements of w/c culture itself - otherwise it would be far less stable than it is. And what the 'problem' is that socialism or anarchism sets out to solve is a set of destructive social and institutional relationships that are masquerading as economic ones. So the problems of the w/c are to a limited extent problems with the w/c, basically problems of society in general, and unless this is recognised then you're not going to acheive what I think should be the objective, which is the transformation of society into a more just, sustainable and free one than what we have at the moment. I don't think that this is a point of view that's motivated by contempt for people - in fact if anything it's probably hopelessly optimistic about people's ability to change their social situation for the better.
I think the reason why your 'will of the majority' stuff scares me slightly is it's eerily reminiscent of the 'silent majority' so often invoked by fash and tories - this 'silent majority' that always seems to have slightly medieval views on criminal justice, asylum, etc etc. The purpose of the silent majority is basically talismanic - in their name you can put the boot into whatever minority you like - travellers, single mothers, intellectuals, kulaks, etc. The thing to remember is that everyone constitutes a minority in some respect, and a society where the majority view is tyrannical in each aspect of life isn't a desirable one, in my opinion.
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
ViolentPanda said:
You knows it.
It's also, for me, the way society is judged by the individual and society in general.
Are they involved in protecting and improving the lives of the most vunerable (DUAF's socialism) or is it more interested in the achivements of the top few (law of the jungle, right wing, neanderthalism)?
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
greenman said:
Plus more burds wiv hairy armpits
tbaldwin said:
Starts with getting involved in campaigns which strengthen the confidence and organisation of the class, campaigns which are self-organised and autonomous from the state, parties etc. This way people will feel confident about taking direct control of their lives and workplaces. Hopefully
Where does it end? I don't know, that's utopianism.
Good point.
Socialism is a scam.
Its just another method of redistributing assets into the hands of the elite.
Yay! no middle class just everyone in a huge welfare state in an environment where govt meddling is openly welcomed.
Socialism doesn`t target "the rich", it targets the "slightly richer"
Its a false revolution my friends. How can anyone expect freedom by handing even more power over to the govt?
Its just another method of redistributing assets into the hands of the elite.
Yay! no middle class just everyone in a huge welfare state in an environment where govt meddling is openly welcomed.
Socialism doesn`t target "the rich", it targets the "slightly richer"
Its a false revolution my friends. How can anyone expect freedom by handing even more power over to the govt?
That's the nub of the issue of what constitutes real revolutionary change IMO - the question of change in institutions vs change in personnel. Having worked in securities banking before I saw the error of my ways I can tell you that although the institutions do very bad things, they aren't in the main staffed by evil people - the problem is the the institution as a whole by its nature makes decisions that no single employee would endorse. What this means is that there is nothing to be hoped for from a mere change in personnel and/or the people who are notionally in control of a repressive institution, instead you actually have to build something different.
Azrael23 said:Socialism is a scam.
Its just another method of redistributing assets into the hands of the elite.
Yay! no middle class just everyone in a huge welfare state in an environment where govt meddling is openly welcomed.
Socialism doesn`t target "the rich", it targets the "slightly richer"
Its a false revolution my friends. How can anyone expect freedom by handing even more power over to the govt?
The socialism I agree with doesn't hand anything over to the government, and i'm sure others on here will agree with me.
Similar threads
