Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi McDonald, welcome to the forum. I hope you become a regular contributor.
My view on this is that in a Socialist Society, issues such as big v small (which is effectively what you are asking about) will probably have some of the same debate that Capitalist society. That is to say there will be an ongoing debate between different view points about what decisions were made.
Taking the example you have been used, there will be some members of society that highlight the large strategic advantages of bigger road planning, and that others will see more localised planning as being the most important thing. Administrative structures will move and change to adapt to different majority view and that they will then change as different systems are used and are found wanting. I have no doubt there will be high levels of “heat” in the debate, just as there are now.
The big difference will be that the decisions and the planning will not be influenced and distorted by the current system on vested interests. Democratic changes will be made about how we organise our lives, I hope that we will acknowledge that mistakes can be made and that the system of democratic planning is a multifaceted thing.
In the current society, if you have wealth and own the means of production, you have far more influence that those who don’t. So for example, Elon Musk’s view on what is appropriate regarding mineral extraction in Greenland, is far more influential than some poor bugger that lives next to the proposed Greenlandic mineral mine
It may be that in the debate distinct parties will form where individual groups join together to support a particular view point or strategy. For example some citizens might be more environmentally inclined, whilst other groups may have slightly more varying viewpoints. I would imagine that these groupings would be much more issue by issue based, that the current political party system which has its basis on sectional class issues. Perhaps they would be loose confederations a bit like the parliamentary parties that emerged in the late 18 and early 19th Centuries (without the vested interests)
I have often thought that the way the Socialist Party organises our party is an example of how democracy would act in a socialist society. I have seen over many years the ways in which we organise ourselves change and adapt democratically. We might not agree with each other, however we recognise that all members (even though they have different views in terms of what might be best) are taking the best view of what they think will create the most effective outcome.
None of us are trying to manipulate the organisation to get the best outcomes for ourselves, or to foster our own career pathways, as is the case in other Party Organisations. As we have no leaders we effectively have a collective leadership of all members. None has more power that the other. In some circumstances individuals have more knowledge of a particular issue than others. So if our Head Office needs a new central heating system, the views of a member who was a central heating engineer might have more influence around the decisions than members who didn’t have that knowledge, but that position of influence is transient and specific.
As the way we work is completely open to examination (all of our executive committees are open to observation to anyone who cares to watch the meeting or read our minutes) nothing generally secret (there are one or two occasions where personal information about party members, etc, which we do keep things confidential), debate is open, democratic and task focused.
I think you overestimate the number of people who have read “News from Nowhere” and “The Soul of Man Under Socialism” and underestimate the number of people who read our publications or those who are members/agree with our view about Socialism. To be fair, in terms of percentage of the people in the whole world, it is not really important
According to Frank “ You were expected to do a lot of intellectual work, otherwise you wouldn’t be in the RCP”
They obviously relaxed that rule for their Newcastle members. The ones I used to encounter could barely string a sentence together.
They were usually more interested in discussing New Romantic music than politics.
The RCP were more of a fashion statement than a political movement
Isiah said “Anyway, this is why decomposition is linked to phenomenon like Trump. The naked idiocy, amoralism and nihilism as well as the decline in the ability of any bourgeois faction to put forward anything like a coherent plan are all an expression of this underlying crisis of capitalism”
Why is Trump a phenomenon linked to decomposition anymore than any raft of capitalist politicians from any period of the capitalist system. Is Trump any more of amoral idiot than James Buchanan, Calvin Coolidge, Warren Harding or even Richard Nixon?
You also imply that there has really ever been a “coherent plan” for capitalism. If you could let me know details of this plan and when it was put together, I’m sure we would all be fascinated.
Unfortunately there he been a long line of Trotskyists and Leninist who have been trying their hand at some kind of political soothsaying, I remember “leading member” of the then then Militant Tendency explaining that Roy Hattersley winning the Labour Party Deputy Leadership election over Tony Benn, would be “the high water mark of the Labour Right wing”. Yeah and that worked out well, didn’t it.
The Left Communists and their fellow travellers are like a third rate version of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, prophesying the “end is near”
Moo – “That reminds me of something someone said about Bob Hope: ‘Some say Bob Hope was a bad comedian because he didn’t write his jokes. However, Elvis didn’t write his songs & nobody says he was a bad singer’.”
To be fair Pavarotti and Marie Callas didn’t write many of their songs either
But that’s not what I want.
I have thousands of books, my house and garage are both filled with books.
I adore my books and I read and reread many of them.
However I don’t feel the necessity to bang on about it all of tge time or the need to look down my nose or decry the choices of other people who prefer to use other forms of literature/media, or speak scornfully about people who don’t love books.
TM – “Use the word bibliophile here and people sneer “f*****g pervert!””
To be honest TM, the only person I see regularly sneering at other people on this forum is you. Sports fans are either barbarians or philistines, people who don’t use reported English are ill educated brutes, those who prefer to read online are to be condemned.
The Socialist world that TM strives for is one where everyone conforms with the world of TM! People have other tastes than you get over yourself.
As you say, “except for two, there are no more bookshops in the combined two where I live”, so what you are saying is that actually there are bookshops near where you live, there are two, by your own admission.
You say “were I a teenager or in my twenties I would be distraught at their disappearance (which doesn’t bother people on this forum). Fortunately, I’ll be dead before books disappear, and I have hundreds, and can still obtain those I want.”, so you aren’t a teenager, you are not be alive when (or) books disappear, what have you got to worry about? Is it that you are distraught that people live after you are dead and buried won’t be forced to conform with you view of how a life must be lived? Very strange.
Interesting point about the possibility of “taking back” the Panama Canal.
I would doubt Trump is aware of the long history of canals and waterways shaping the ends of empires, but as well as the obvious link to The British and French failure at Suez in 1956, leading to the end of Britain and France being viewed as World Powers. The Goths cut the canals and waterways of Rome, leading to the successful siege and sacking of Rome in 537AD, and arguably the fall of the Roman Empire, the breaking of the canals in Alkmaar was pivotal, to the Dutch winning the Siege of Alkmaar, which, in 1573, was the first success for the Dutch in the 80 Years’ War, which led to the eclipse of the Spanish Empire, and the Battle of St Quentin Canal in Sept 1918, was the start of the 100 day offensive that ended the 1st world war and set off the collapse of the German Empire.
Perhaps the future battle of the Panama Canal will be the final act of the collapse of the US empire?
RJ7’s view flies against all of the evidence
There are hundreds, if not thousands of organisations in the UK alone that have more than 100 people organising themselves and working voluntarily already.
There are over 5,200 volunteer lifeboat crew volunteers, with an additional 4,000 shore crew an other volunteers, there are 850 Scottish Volunteer mountain rescue workers. Add to that the number of people in unions who carry out extra volunteer work, those in political parties of all hue, the numbers are astronomical. about 16.5% of the population are involved in some form of voluntary work, many on them in organisations that are over 100 strong and many that are entirely voluntary. That’s what is possible within the constraints of a capitalist society, what would be possible with those constraints removed?
Problem I face is that I have a rather uncommon first and second name combination, which ironically is shared with a guy in the US who used to be the CEO of a large Medical Insurance Company!
Might reconsider the possible trip to the US next year?
Following on from the point that CitizenoftheWorld makes, online versions of books on Law and Medicine (and many other disciplines) make perfect practical sense. A Law text book is out of date. effectively, before it is published (especially in Common Law Jurisdictions) and they are not cheap. Students are increasingly ripped off by publishing houses which quickly produce new editions which effectively make worthless the expensive editions they have just bought.
“but the majority of drugs we would not need in socialism, where life’s balance would be restored, plus humanity’s healthy relationship with nature.”
Sorry, TN, but that is a load of utopian horseshit.
For instance, would Socialism do away with the need for antibiotics, would suddenly deadly bacteria suddenly decide to live cooperatively with their hosts?
Would a whole host of genetic and similar conditions miraculously disappear, following the development of a society based on need not greed?
Would multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and the many other immune system based problems suddenly be solved.
Would schizophrenia be gone from our society completely?I’ve got gout, heamochromatosis and some other conditions that are clearly linked to my family genetics, some of which link back to the Celtic peoples and to the Vikings. How will Socialism stop that?
Socialism will not be a universal panacea where all of our difficulties disappear. Families will fall out, relationships will go wrong, physical and mental illnesses will still arise, perhaps not due to the strains of surviving in a crazy economic system, but other issues will arise. Children will be killed in car accidents, or due to childhood illnesses and families will bereft through grief in socialism, some people will continue to be anti social arseholes in a socialist society, people will get drunk and obnoxious and whether you like it or not, those who enjoy football, cricket or even boxing, will continue to do so because it is what they enjoy and it is their right to do so.
When professed socialists do this “in the future there will be no need for ………..” “In socialism everyone will love each other and live on complete harmony”, it does the cause of socialism no good. This is because the general public look at that and in a perfectly reasonable way, think, that’s a load of bollocks.
Our argument is that we need to create a society where what was previously private property, i.e the means of production and distribution are commonly held, that goods and services will be produced on the basis of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” and that the creation and administration of that society will be done on and in the interests of the vast majority. That’s it, we are not in a position to decide what that majority of people decide in the future. Will they decide to have prisons, football matches, Christmas celebrations, golf courses or Elvis impersonator? I don’t know. How will the majority decide how to deal with anti social arseholes, I don’t know either, and neither does anyone else. We may hazard a guess, but that’s as far as we can go.
I would also clarify that by use of the term private property, I do not mean personal property. In socialism people will still own their own personal property, clothes, lap tops, homes, toothbrushes, lawn mowers, fondue sets, books, etc.
