How does it work
- This topic has 46 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Some interesting broad concepts, so what is the detail plan to bring about Socialism then ? How do you propose we get there and what does it look like when we do ?
Quote:The World Socialist Movement does not offer a blueprint for administering a socialist society. For a small group of socialists to do so would be undemocratic. It would also be dumb. Socialists don't have crystal balls to determine what the conditions will be when socialism is established. As the socialist majority grows, when socialism is within the grasp of the working class, then will be the proper time for making such important decisions. The only thing socialists can say now, about administration, is that socialism is only socialism if it is democratic.Quote:Socialism can only be established by a vast majority of people deciding it wants to establish socialism. Therefore, the World Socialist Movement puts forward the socialist case so that people can decide for themselves. Once the vast majority makes the decision in favour of socialism, then it will elect socialist representatives or delegates to prove its majority, and to serve as a temporary focal point to administer the elimination of capitalism and the creation of socialism. But it won't be, and could not be, the elected representatives or delegates who create socialism, it will be the people of the world as a whole. The vast majority of the people of the world are working class, so socialism will be established by the working class. It also means that ordinary people will have to do all of the work required. The capitalist class isn't going to do it, and professional socialists (whatever they might be) aren't going to do it. The only way to establish socialism is for people to work for it.I suggest it will never happen then, you need to sell more than a broad principle, the reality of the vision is far too complex to be worked out by a committee of billions. As there seems to be a fundamental set of rules that you do feel at liberty to define then I would suggest that maybe someone should actually work out a possible reality, otherwise don't you just have an unbelievable pipe dream? Putting forward a set of ideas is not dumb! In fact the reverse is… nor is it undemocratic, after all you already propose an idea don't you, just it's an idea that is wholly incomplete and beyond the comprehension of most. The democratic part comes when the majority either accepts or rejects the ideas, wherever they may come from. I think if you really believed it could work you might well present a proper comprehensive example of how. Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti, but it seems to me that your wasting your time on the current course and have been doing so for a very long time.
Hi Ralph, Socialists do sometimes turn their attention to the practical organisation of a hypothetical future socialist society. In fact the SPGB published a pamphlet on this very subject here http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/socialism-practical-alternative I'm one of those who strongly believes we definitely needs to put more flesh on the bare bones of the idea of a socialist alternative, There is a lot more than can be inferred from the idea that is often left unsaid which is a great pity. While the more fine grained details are arguably of a more speculative nature and are liable to be outdated by the time we achieve socialism, there is much to recommend the process of speculation itself (providing it is understood to be such_ If you can't fire the imagine all you are left with is a dry formulaic response to the question of "what is socialism", Thats not going provide much of an incentive to organise for socialism, I think
Hi Robbo, I'm glad there are some progressive thinkers then, I agree wholeheartedly with you, ideas spark debate they capture imaginations, good ideas sometimes even evolve in reality. The problem is that as we say the "devil is in the detail", it's the detail that gives credibility to an idea and provides the ability to make a positive case when scepticism is levelled, it's a starting point for evolution. What a massively complex problem though I can understand thee on the part of anyone to take on the challenge, not something you could switch on overnight and yet no room for a road of reform, it's very hard to see how a transition could not result in anarchy but there lies part 2 the challenge I guess, part 1 has to be the practical operation after transition.Best Regards Ralph
What's more democratic? Spelling out details for workers to 'take it or leave it'. Or leaving details undecided and saying workers will work it out.Also if you've ever used Wikipedia you have a model of sorts as to how to manage mass participation and effective control.Also why are capitalists in control seen as realistic but workers in control as a pipedream.
Perhaps what I said wasn't clear Jon, I didn't mention anything about take it or leave it, simply presenting an idea doesn't imply anything of the sort, if I suggest a process and someone loves it then great if it can be improved also great. Not suggesting any kind of imposition but the fact remains that to build even a half workable plan is a massively complex undertaking, one that requires so many avenues of thought. No I don't think you can base it on wikipedia!why are capitalists in control seen as realistic but workers in control as a pipedream.Well that's obvious surely and in fact the very point I'm making, capitalism is the reality, it's what we have, it's what people see working and understand, whilst on the other hand you are unable to illustrate even an example of what socialism looks like.It's simply a cop out for the SPGB to leave it to someone else to decide, there can be absolutely no harm come from a realistic blueprint, a proper basis for a reality that people can consider, develop and refine. If a true socialist society can work then a plan could of course be documented but only by the people with the drive to do so and the proper understanding of the inevitable issues, as it stands it looks like a pipe dream because the very advocates of it cannot even describe it, and because of this individuals less passionate than yourself will never buy into the concept.Perhaps you think I'm anti, but I'm really not, it's just frustrating in a way that the impression given by the party is one of a few stuck in the mud individuals pursuing a philosophical pastime rather than a serious goal. Best RegardsRalph
Ralph wrote:Perhaps you think I'm anti, but I'm really not, it's just frustrating in a way that the impression given by the party is one of a few stuck in the mud individuals pursuing a philosophical pastime rather than a serious goal. Best RegardsRalphAs you seem to be a person who has serious social concerns, surely it is encumbant upon you to get involved with us in the discussion of how socialism could work. If you have ideas to contribute, then let us hear them. I can assure you the SPGB is not a philosophical group looking for "the meaning of life". Life is what we make it.
Well indeed as I am doing…I'm quite sure that the SPGB is made up of some very serious individuals, but it doesn't appear very proactive in the approach hence the impression you get as an outsider.
There was a time that if you'd told Kings and Lords that capitalists would be in control of society then they would have laughed at you and dismissed it as a pipedream.Anyway, here's some blueprints or partial blueprints, parts of which may be loosely compatible with 'resource-based-economies'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Zeitgeist_Movementhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owenismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminster_Fullerhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looking_Backwardsome less resource based economyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacque_FrescoEven based on wikipedia ideashttp://wikiocracy.blogspot.co.uk/Some might be more preferable than others to you, but what about everyone else?By the way, thanks for your contributions and what you've asked doesn't necessarily put you in opposition.
The way I look at it, there are 3 different aspects or dimensions to the question of presenting a vision of the kind of society we socialists seek to bring about: 1) A core set of formal postulates that constitute the very definition of socialism we present – for example, common ownership of the means of producing wealth, democratic control, free access to goods and services, voluntaristic character of labour, and so on 2) logical inferences that derive from the above and from the application of this model of society under conditions of real world constraints – for example, the elimination of quid pro quo economic exchanges and all kinds of exchange-related phenomena and institutions such as money, wages, profit; the disappearance of the state as an institutional tool of class society; a spontaneously ordered or relatively decentralised system of production as opposed to one based on centralised or society wide planning (the Leninist model) , etc etc 3) Contingent details that are, of their very nature, unpredictable and uncertain and dependent upon unforeseeable cultural technological and other developments – for example, forms of rationing that might apply in the case of goods that are technically scarce, the degree of automation or labour intensity in the production process, the degree of localisation versus global interdependencein the organisation of production, the treatment of socially deviant or disruptive behaviour and so on I believe that 1) and 2) should obviously be promoted as part of the formal case for socialism and that there should be ample scope for promoting 3) albeit in a more tentative or speculative fashion. This goes hand in hand with my belief that it would be healthy for an organisation like the SPGB not to project a too monolithic image of itself and that it should to an extent accommodate and reflect the diversity of views being expressed in the wider social environment. I find this whole train of thought stemming from Marx expressing an ingrained reluctance to “write recipes for the cook-shops of the future" deeply regrettable. As a matter of fact had Marx been more forthcoming in that regard it would have been far more difficult for the Leninists of all hues to assimilate Marxian thinking to their own anti-socialist and statist project.I always remember the words of the late comrade Pieter Lawrence back in the 1980s when the "Production for Use" project was set up and a report was commissioned. Pieter argued along the lines that if we are not ourselves prepared to say more about a possible socialist future and how it could tackle the existing problems we confront today, then we effectively relinquish the future to the opponents of socialism. We abandon the very ground on which the debate about the future is being waged. We turn socialism into a kind of hollowed-out formulaic set of empty and lifeless dogmas. We need to add flesh to the bones of a future socialist society. We need to draw people into the debate about a possible future society and what it might mean and we can only do that by critically exciting their imagination
robbo203 wrote:I find this whole train of thought stemming from Marx expressing an ingrained reluctance to “write recipes for the cook-shops of the future" deeply regrettable. As a matter of fact had Marx been more forthcoming in that regard it would have been far more difficult for the Leninists of all hues to assimilate Marxian thinking to their own anti-socialist and statist project.Actually, Marx did say quite a bit about your (1) and (2) and certainly enough to counter Leninist distortions:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1973/no-832-december-1973/marxs-conception-socialismIt was (3) he wasn't so keen on (and of course the "cook-shops" of Marx's day, where you could buy ready-cooked meals, were quite different to those of today). Others like Edward Bellamy and William Morris were prepared to have a go But these are descriptions of what the writer would personally like socialism to be like not what it actually will be. I don't think that would satisfy Ralph. He does seem to be insisting on knowing what the cook-shops of the future will be like rather than could be or might be.
Ralph wrote:Some interesting broad concepts, so what is the detail plan to bring about Socialism then ? How do you propose we get there and what does it look like when we do ?The thing is, we know how to run an economy co-operatively: it's what we do in all our workplaces everyday. We don't dicker and bargain with our colleagues or calculate the cost of every task, we have an open ended approach to work with each other and our teams. We go to the stationery cupboard, or the chemicals stores, or the woodshed, and take what we need to do the job, and other colleagues ensure that the stores are well stocked.Socialism is about extending that co-operation outwards from within firms across the whole community, as a conscious association. That is detailed enough.
ALB wrote:robbo203 wrote:I find this whole train of thought stemming from Marx expressing an ingrained reluctance to “write recipes for the cook-shops of the future" deeply regrettable. As a matter of fact had Marx been more forthcoming in that regard it would have been far more difficult for the Leninists of all hues to assimilate Marxian thinking to their own anti-socialist and statist project.Actually, Marx did say quite a bit about your (1) and (2) and certainly enough to counter Leninist distortions http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1973/no-832-december-1973/marxs-conception-socialism It was (3) he wasn't so keen on (and of course the "cook-shops" of Marx's day, where you could buy ready-cooked meals, were quite different to those of today). Others like Edward Bellamy and William Morris were prepared to have a go But these are descriptions of what the writer would personally like socialism to be like not what it actually will be. I don't think that would satisfy Ralph. He does seem to be insisting on knowing what the cook-shops of the future will be like rather than could be or might be.
True. Marx did write a fair bit on 1) and 2) and I suppose it would be a bit churlish and pointless to argue that he could have written more to clarify what he wrote and preempt the kind of gross misinterpretations to which his writings have been subjected which we with the benefit of hindsight can see It is in respect of 3), as you say, that his reluctance to “write recipes for the cook-shops of the future" was most pronounced. His rare forays into this area of, lets call it, "futuristic speculation" e.g.. his reference to the division of labour in socialism (it would be "possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, to fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have in mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic"). or the use of labour vouchers in the first stage of socialism/communism were not very well argued at all. They seem half hearted and/or naffI come back to the point that Pieter Lawrence was making about the need to make socialism relevant in the conditions we find ourselves in today. That does mean going beyond 1). and 2) and taking seriously the need to significantly expand on 3) which is the domain where socialist principles directly engage with the empirical facts we face. Of course such speculations about how socialism will go about solving the problems we confront are provisional , not set in concrete and must always be open to modification and amendment. But the point is that they must still somehow be made. Not to make them betrays a lack of confidence in the possibility of socialism ever happening. Ironically it actually contributes to the impression that socialism is just a utopian ideal that has no practical relevance to the world we live in
I've always questioned the “the cook-shops of the future" argument. I can agree that Marx and others at the time could not create specific formats for a Socialist Society, the conditions for World Socialism were not in existence. The difference we face now is that the conditions for World Socialism actually do now exist. I fully understand the need to have democratic shaping of a Socialist Society, however I think that as Socialists, we need to provide the Socialists of the future something to start shaping. Using the cookery analogy, unless we start thinking about what we might have to eat, nobody is going to go as far as putting the kettle on. Providing a feasible plan for socialist production is not making a blueprint for the future, it is giving a suggestion as about how the future might be. Pieter Lawrence's work on Production for use Committee was, in my opinion, a missed opportunity for the Party.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.