United Front of Revolutionary Leftists

A forum for members of all revolutionary left wing currents to converge, and discuss theory, news, and so on.
 
HomeHome  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  

Share | 
 

 Political Profile (John)

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
John



Posts : 3
Join date : 2008-11-04

PostSubject: Political Profile (John)   Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:12 am

So....

I'd probably call myself a socialist, and do not see a socialist society as being any different to a communist one. By a socialist society I mean one where all of the 'means of production' are owned in common by all, and in which all work is done on a voluntary basis and all goods and services can be accessed for free. I tend to restrict my definition of socialism to mean this, meaning that I would deny that, for example, the USSR was a socialist country or a “communist state”, or that other groups who see nationalisation to be socialistic could be described a socialist.

Such a society must be achieved democratically, and the best way to do this is for a socialist party that contests elections to win with an overwhelming majority. This Socialist party should contest elections with the aim of implementing socialism and nothing else, in other words, it should not propose a series of reforms and such like. I am against reformism for several reasons, because it has been a largely unsuccessful tactic, because reforms that are won can be taken away at a later date and will only be implemented in the first place if they can be paid for, but largely because a socialist party which offers reforms would attract voters who are only after the reforms. Furthermore, I would define 'reformism' to include not only parliamentary reforms, but also reforms that are expected to be won using so called 'direct action'.

There are several reasons why a socialist party should be democratically elected. Firstly because, having taken into consideration that it offers only socialism and asks for votes only from socialists, it will be able to demonstrate through its majority that a majority of the population want to see a socialist society. This will send an effective message to those who do not want to see a socialist society that resistance is futile, and equally importantly it would 'de-legitimise' any resistance that does take place since they will not be able to claim that is was us who stopped 'playing by the rules' (that is who, rejected what is generally considered by non socialists to be a legitimate system). More importantly, a socialist party would be able to prevent the capitalists from using the army against people, since they would no longer be in a position where they could exercise as great a degree of control over them. After all a violent revolution supposes that, untrained, poorly equipped workers would come out on top against an SAS regiment or a tank division, (assuming they are prepared to kill at all).

I hate doing things like this but hopefully you see what I'm getting at.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Stos
De Leonist


Posts : 123
Join date : 2008-10-23

PostSubject: Re: Political Profile (John)   Tue Nov 04, 2008 7:05 am

John wrote:
Such a society must be achieved democratically,
This is impossible.

Quote :
By a socialist society I mean one where all of the 'means of production' are owned in common by all, and in which all work is done on a voluntary basis and all goods and services can be accessed for free.
So basically one in which people can easily just work less and consume more? Or are you a 'community of busybodies'ist?

Quote :
After all a violent revolution supposes that, untrained, poorly equipped workers would come out on top against an SAS regiment or a tank division, (assuming they are prepared to kill at all).
Right, so you're saying that violent revolution will not be necessary at all. lol!
When the ballot is silenced, the bullet must speak.

Quote :
More importantly, a socialist party would be able to prevent the capitalists from using the army against people, since they would no longer be in a position where they could exercise as great a degree of control over them.
This is pretty much the major reason I support the use of a political party at all, though not the only one. Of course, some would say that 'they' would never let this happen. Of course, if things go along the course they've begun on, and voting machines are owned and controlled by private corporations, then perhaps a change of tactics would be in order.

Also, after this awesome socialist party was elected (presuming that they evade shutouts and such during the elections), presumably the workers would suddenly have to get into a separate organization (unless you support using the current governmental machine as the best way to fight against shit?), and get their policies, and everything else, settled. The revolution must be enacted without any interruption in the flow of food, medicine, education, transportation, and the other necessities of life. Thusly, the workers should organize into a form that would allow immediate workers' democracy, such as, say, an international Socialist Industrial Union. The capitalists' managers would be screaming that workers should follow their plan A, but we should be ready to laugh at them and enact our plan B, with managers that we have already elected and who are prepared for the job. Of course, this will require linking up the departments of workers from manufacturing, mining, transportation, health, education, etc, as we will need to keep workers' units to be in close touch with each other, for example, designers sending specifications to fabricators, tool operators placing orders for field repair, repair crews obtaining replacement parts, public services sending requisitions to suppliers, procedures prearranged between hospitals and laboratories, an unbroken connection from agriculture to trucking to food stores, etc. Getting all of this ready before the transition to capitalism will ensure the streamlined transition between capitalism and dictatorship of the proletariat (socialism, except not yet international).
Back to top Go down
View user profile
John



Posts : 3
Join date : 2008-11-04

PostSubject: Re: Political Profile (John)   Wed Nov 05, 2008 2:12 am

Quote :

This is impossible.

How so?

Quote :

So basically one in which people can easily just work less and consume more?

Within reason, I suppose you could say yes (but mainly because a lot of people don't consume enough). After all, we would have freed up a large number of people who would otherwise have been working in banks and such like to do work that is beneficial to society as a whole. However, such a society can only work if an overwhelming majority of people agree with the principles that it operates on, so if they are not willing to keep consumption at a reasonable level (that is, not owning two or three cars per person and so on.), they are not willing to work voluntarily then it cannot work.

Quote :

Right, so you're saying that violent revolution will not be necessary at all.

Well ideally no. You'd think that anyone who opposed a revolution would be as reasonable as the rest of us (well most of them anyway), and would recognise that they could not impose their will on the huge majority of people, especially when they have very little power to back themselves up. I wouldn't say that there would be absolutely no resistance but largely I think it would be unlikely for there to be anything really resembling a war.

Quote :

Of course, some would say that 'they' would never let this happen. Of course, if things go along the course they've begun on, and voting machines are owned and controlled by private corporations, then perhaps a change of tactics would be in order.

Well I would hope that the membership of a party would be reflected in the votes it receives, and it should be their aim to include the vast majority of the working class in the membership. Meaning that foul play would be detected.

I don't disagree with you on the whole SIU thing.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Stos
De Leonist


Posts : 123
Join date : 2008-10-23

PostSubject: Re: Political Profile (John)   Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:29 am

What about, say, fascist states, and other states with no election?
Also, the reason why democratic transition between capitalism and socialism is impossible is because there can never be democracy under capitalism.

Also, at least in the US, I think an SIU could just run its own candidate, without any rules making it necessary for forming a separate Party too. However, I'm not totally sure on this.
Also, what would you plan we should do if a few socialists get elected into positions, but not enough to implement socialism? Surely, something like this will probably happen.

Quote :
Within reason, I suppose you could say yes (but mainly because a lot of people don't consume enough). After all, we would have freed up a large number of people who would otherwise have been working in banks and such like to do work that is beneficial to society as a whole. However, such a society can only work if an overwhelming majority of people agree with the principles that it operates on, so if they are not willing to keep consumption at a reasonable level (that is, not owning two or three cars per person and so on.), they are not willing to work voluntarily then it cannot work.
So, would you advocate labour vouchers until people were born under socialism and a huge majority supported it, and thus were less likely to wish to undermine it? To wait for a huge majority (90-95% or so) of people to support socialism would simply lead to more of the suffering and war inherent to capitalism.
Also, how would you advocate educating the workers? Hopefully not 'Bread, Peace and Land'?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
beatnikzach



Posts : 71
Join date : 2008-10-21
Age : 27

PostSubject: Re: Political Profile (John)   Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:18 pm

well there is one democratic socialist Rolling Eyes

what is your plan for education on a grand scale?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
KenCat
Anarcho-Communist
avatar

Posts : 37
Join date : 2008-10-29

PostSubject: Re: Political Profile (John)   Thu Nov 06, 2008 3:42 pm

Democracy has nothing to do with electing rulers or parties. If you're a socialist (like myself), you must believe in democracy in all aspects of life, not just in things relating to giving more power and money to the state.

And is the point of both socialism and communism is equality, why give more and unequal power to the class of the state?

Well anyway, welcome -- I by no means have any intention to scare you off. haha
Back to top Go down
View user profile
beatnikzach



Posts : 71
Join date : 2008-10-21
Age : 27

PostSubject: Re: Political Profile (John)   Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:50 pm

KenCat wrote:
Democracy has nothing to do with electing rulers or parties. If you're a socialist (like myself), you must believe in democracy in all aspects of life, not just in things relating to giving more power and money to the state.

And is the point of both socialism and communism is equality, why give more and unequal power to the class of the state?

Well anyway, welcome -- I by no means have any intention to scare you off. haha
haha damn kencat, scarin john off like that!
anyway welcome john

Very Happy
Back to top Go down
View user profile
John



Posts : 3
Join date : 2008-11-04

PostSubject: Re: Political Profile (John)   Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:43 am

Hellllooo.

Quote :

What about, say, fascist states, and other states with no election?

How could such states survive if '90-95%' of the population disagreed with their existence? Obviously, if such states are able to exist then the majority of people do not support socialism. Nevertheless, if socialists do find themselves as a majority in a 'undemocratic' state then they'll have to push for an election (just the one of course) to demonstrate their majority.

Quote :

Also, the reason why democratic transition between capitalism and socialism is impossible is because there can never be democracy under capitalism.

However, it is not sufficiently undemocratic that if 8 or 9 in every 10 people voted for a party, that party would not win an election. Even if they are not democratic as such, elections provide a good marker for which way the wind is blowing.

Quote :

Also, what would you plan we should do if a few socialists get elected into positions, but not enough to implement socialism? Surely, something like this will probably happen.

Probably. Naturally they should not accept cabinet positions and such like, what they do apart from that (including voting for or against reforms and such like) would probably be a decision that is made by all party members.


Quote :

So, would you advocate labour vouchers until people were born under socialism and a huge majority supported it, and thus were less likely to wish to undermine it?

No. Firstly, if a huge majority want a socialist society, then they will hardly work to undermine it. Secondly, the using labour vouchers and such like, until enough people were “born under socialism” would imply that when it was established it was established by a minority group and not on the authority of most of the human race.

Quote :

To wait for a huge majority (90-95% or so) of people to support socialism would simply lead to more of the suffering and war inherent to capitalism.

How could socialism be democratic if the majority of people did not support it? Surely, in this case the first thing they would do, would be to decide to bring capitalism back.

Quote :

Also, how would you advocate educating the workers? Hopefully not 'Bread, Peace and Land'?
&
Quote :

what is your plan for education on a grand scale?

Same way as other people: public debates, books and so on.

Quote :

Democracy has nothing to do with electing rulers or parties. If you're a socialist (like myself), you must believe in democracy in all aspects of life, not just in things relating to giving more power and money to the state.

Which is exactly why I hate writing things like this, because there are often points I either forget, or as in this case, do not make clear enough.

The purpose of electing a socialist party would be for it to enact legislation which, transfers ownership and control of the 'mop' to the community as a whole (rather than just 'the workers') and to give power to whatever institutions have been decided upon as a means of managing day-to-day life (if you will) in a socialist society. Effectively the party will render itself unnecessary in this process.

Quote :

And is the point of both socialism and communism is equality, why give more and unequal power to the class of the state?

Terribly sorry, I don't really understand what your getting at.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Stos
De Leonist


Posts : 123
Join date : 2008-10-23

PostSubject: Re: Political Profile (John)   Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:07 am

John wrote:
How could such states survive if '90-95%' of the population disagreed with their existence?
Force.

Quote :
Probably. Naturally they should not accept cabinet positions and such like, what they do apart from that (including voting for or against reforms and such like) would probably be a decision that is made by all party members.
I would agree with this. However, it should also be necessary for them to stress that the reforms are not enough.

Quote :
Firstly, if a huge majority want a socialist society, then they will hardly work to undermine it.
It's like somebody took the whole 'human nature is greedy and selfish' bullshit, then decided to just claim the opposite... It's still an unverifiable and pointless assumption. Also, how would taking more than one has earned mean 'undermining' socialism?
Also, I really don't see where you get your definition that free access is a necessary part of socialism. Certainly not Marx, at least.

Quote :
How could socialism be democratic if the majority of people did not support it? Surely, in this case the first thing they would do, would be to decide to bring capitalism back.
I didn't say anything about a majority not being required, but 90-95%? I'm sure the workers, when they get a majority, are going to just tolerate capitalism while waiting for a 90% majority before revolution. "Shit, guys, it's a crisis, and we're losing jobs quickly. Think we should use our majority to revolt now?" "Nah, be patient."

Quote :
Quote :

Democracy has nothing to do with electing rulers or parties. If you're a socialist (like myself), you must believe in democracy in all aspects of life, not just in things relating to giving more power and money to the state.

Which is exactly why I hate writing things like this, because there are often points I either forget, or as in this case, do not make clear enough.

The purpose of electing a socialist party would be for it to enact legislation which, transfers ownership and control of the 'mop' to the community as a whole (rather than just 'the workers') and to give power to whatever institutions have been decided upon as a means of managing day-to-day life (if you will) in a socialist society. Effectively the party will render itself unnecessary in this process.
Those who use their control of the means of production are workers. What's your point? Though yes, if the party decides to stay on for a moment after taking power, then it's pretty much self-defeating. Of course, at least in the US (though probably in different ways in different places), the mayor who commands the city police, the governor who commands the state police, and the president who commands the army, are all publicly elected offices.
Though beware, KenCat uses an extremely wide definition of 'ruler'.

Quote :
Terribly sorry, I don't really understand what your getting at.
He used the word 'state'. I think he's trying to annoy you.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Political Profile (John)   

Back to top Go down
 
Political Profile (John)
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
United Front of Revolutionary Leftists :: Member Introduction :: Political Profile-
Jump to: