Socialism "The will of the majority" or is it?
- Thread starter tbaldwin
- Start date
Fruitloop said:
The above looks to me like a description of our society as "Institutional Capitalism"
So if institutional capitalism is the problem then the solution must be to get rid of it. Then we come to the 'how'. Voting will not do it because the voting system is part of the Institution.
Come on horsey heres the water.
Isambard said:
I do think that most people on U75 probably agree with you on that. But i find that view reactionary and negative.
Basically its saying people are too brainwashed for "Real Socialism" Instead the best thing is a benevolent dictatorship.
I totally reject that view.
If you dont trust people,you cant have Socialism.
Fruitloop said:
Yeah i would say so.And it is a big problem for the left.
I can understand people being scared of a silent majority,if they believe that it will be led blind by the Daily Mail. But ive more faith in people than that.
The Daily Mail appeals in a way to peoples sense of injustice. Even a lot of DM readers would like less inequality.
On some issues like Crime and Migration the Liberal Left has got things so badly wrong and they need to face up to that before they can move on.
I've just realized (probably the last to do so) that the question in this thread's title is ambiguous. It could mean EITHER
- Is it the will of the majority that we should go for socialism?, OR
- Under socialism, will the will of the majority (on major issues, presumably) be carried out?
- the interests of the majority (mistakes)
- the interests of minorities
munkeeunit
sumptuous lushness
Socialism is an economic analysis, but nowadays anyone calls themselves a socialist because of their moral stance. That is not socialism, and in a nutshell explains why 'socialism' is clueness about the economy, because it no-longer seeks to understand it. It's become nothing better than a way of taking the moral highground, without thinking that they need to be experts in economics.
munkeeunit
sumptuous lushness
Binkie said:
Yes, Socialism is a way of organising society, but you can't reorganise society by thinking nice morally (or politically) correct thoughts, you have to have a pretty serious and comprehensive understanding of how economies function.
I agree. It's (probably) a great advantage to understand anything you want to change, but you need morality to give you the necessary indignation to fight an unjust society and change it to something better. What's morality but a list of things you consider good / right?munkeeunit said:
munkeeunit
sumptuous lushness
tbaldwin said:
No, everyone already does the jobs necessary for Socialism. Everyone already is clever enough, in principle, but no-one is going to ever get into power unless they can demonstrate they have people with the skills capable of running the economy.
No-matter what I think about New Labour, and the economic mess it has in reality made beneath the speculative bubbles they've created, they got back into power precisely because people believed they were 'clever' enough to run the economy.
munkeeunit
sumptuous lushness
Binkie said:
Yes, nothing wrong with morality, but by itself it has a tendency to become a very suffocating and judgemental political correctness. I feel that the flight into PC, by the left, was the way of filling the vacuum left by it's clear loss of economic credibility.
munkeeunit
sumptuous lushness
Binkie said:Monkey, PC was an invention of the right-wing press and their pathetic followers.
Yes, that's true, but the left greedily consumed the myths and reguritated them into a substitute for economic competency.
munkeeunit
sumptuous lushness
The establishment certainly don't define me, and neither do the PC left, who have allowed themselves to be defined by the right. It's so much easier for many on the left to point fingers at people who put their foot in their mouth, than it is to read books about their subject, and to take themselves seriously as people capable of re-organising society.
As for Anarchism, there is so much potential in anarchism (despite the reluctance of many on the left to make a pact with them and vice versa), but the right have defined much of Anarchism too. Many of those who call themselves anarchists, when pressed, really seem to be supporters of free market capitalism, as a subsitute for a genuine and expert form of self-organisation.
As for Anarchism, there is so much potential in anarchism (despite the reluctance of many on the left to make a pact with them and vice versa), but the right have defined much of Anarchism too. Many of those who call themselves anarchists, when pressed, really seem to be supporters of free market capitalism, as a subsitute for a genuine and expert form of self-organisation.
The Left are those who advocate change in favour of the producers. They differ in how that should be achieved. The reformists say it can be done through parliament. The revolutionaries say it can't and that the ruling class must be overthrown, leading to a one-class (classless) society where exploitation of man by man will cease. Within the revolutionaries you have anarchists and socialists. The anarchists focus on lessening state control (as do some socialists and conservatives). The (revolutionary) socialists vary in their position with respect to the state. The Marxists advocate a temporary "workers' state", which co-ordinates the transition to a classless society, which will lead to a 'withering away of the state' - presumably not entirely. The Stalinists are accused of being satisfied with the workers' state and leaving it there, co-existing with capitalism in other countries. The Trotskyists say that's an unstable situation and a clash between the people and both the capitalists and the now conservative workers' state apparatchicks is inevitable. They also claim (unlike the Utopian socialists) that a perfect, static society will never happen. They call this theory 'permanent revolution'. It's a bit of a muddle but is where Trotskyists focus their attention. My explanation itself is probably a bit of a muddle too.Fledgling said:
The Left as it stands is deeply anti socialist. Not only the sectarian groups but the main non aligned lefties.
Most seem to believe that Socialism is only for GOOD or CLEVER people.
The opposition to people having more say over their own lives shows just how right wing most self proclaimed lefties are.
The thread on private schools is interesting most people are in favour of private education.
If i started one on the Criminal Justice system i bet most people would also be in favour of the establishment on that as well.
The Left in the UK is a bit of a Joke it is smaller now than in 97 and has rejected the basic idea of Socialism.
SOCIALISM IS NOT JUST FOR CLEVER PEOPLE?
Most seem to believe that Socialism is only for GOOD or CLEVER people.
The opposition to people having more say over their own lives shows just how right wing most self proclaimed lefties are.
The thread on private schools is interesting most people are in favour of private education.
If i started one on the Criminal Justice system i bet most people would also be in favour of the establishment on that as well.
The Left in the UK is a bit of a Joke it is smaller now than in 97 and has rejected the basic idea of Socialism.
SOCIALISM IS NOT JUST FOR CLEVER PEOPLE?
Similar threads
