Ralph
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think this train of thought is great, how to respond to the nay sayers with well considered arguments, the ideas considered to a point where criticism levelled can be deflected convincingly, "we'll all work it out when the time comes" does not achieve that and denies you any credibilty. You don't have any considered criticism as it stands since the volume of following is insignificant and provides no threat to the incumbent – were that to change though you can bet you'll have to defend the idea with a lot more detail than exists now. You may think that the majority is the solution but you have to persuade them first, and there are two sides to every story..
robbo203 wrote: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 Finally read this, it's really good… It starts to look persuasive, if this was done back in 1994 was there a different attitude or was this just a rebellion! If you can go this far you can go further surely…Create something saleable and put it into the public domain, what is wrong with a scatter gun approach I wonder, isn't the initial goal at to persuade as many people as possible across the world to at least consider the idea ? Why limit your audience in any way, I don't understand that.
Correct me if I'm wrong though but in over 100 years the party has really failed to reach out to any audience let alone a broad one, doesn't that suggest that maybe a different approach is needed?
Young Master Smeet wrote:So, do you feel the same way about wage slavery?I suppose so, If there's a convincing alternative that has some proof of concept then I suspect the majority might, if it looks like it couldn't work then it would be foolhardy and potentially disasterous. But of course I would feel far more strongly about abolishing slavery than wage slavery if I were a slave I'd have a lot less to lose and a lot more to gain, the choice would be more black and white.
Isn't it about building that audience then with language people can understand and tangible ideas they can relate to, pre-armed with answers to difficult questions, don't believe that there are many people out there with the time or inclination to get involved in politics at all let alone contribute to the extent you're suggesting, the audience within this forum is not representative when it comes to interest and engagement, of that you can be sure. Your right all I've contributed is questions and I wish I did have the imagination, drive and/or intelligence to offer something a little more useful.The SPGB has been around for 110 years, out of interest how many active members are there currently ?
I think you're rather twisting what I said there…"not whether it should happen but most certainly how it should happen."
There needs to be a level of detail, enough to prove workability, enough for confidence, it's not about having the technology or the means to produce, that's kind of a given. It's about structure, processes, expectations, deliverables, timescales, social interactions, keeping the wheels turning through transition. I could have the best resources in the world if I don't have the ability to coherently use them then they're useless.I'm not fussy about breakfast by the way
"I think you have to differentiate between what socialism might be like and the process of arriving there"Oh absolutely, two very different questions and both as important as the other, I think you have to start with defining what Socialism might be like though otherwise you can't possibly know how to get there…
Good question, I'm going to assume you mean slavery in the traditional sense of the word rather than wage slavery (since the two are clearly very different). So it comes down then to whether I believe it's easy to abolish slavery and whether the outcome of doing so is clearly not going to be detrimental to those enslaved, if there were many billions of slaves and the abolishment of slavery suggested the possibility that they might starve or become shelterless through a miscalculation of events then yes of course I would question it – not whether it should happen but most certainly how it should happen.
"Socialism is about extending that co-operation outwards from within firms across the whole community, as a conscious association. That is detailed enough."Well I for one do not think that is detailed enough, it assumes the premise that it would just work because everyone would function in the same way as if nothing had really changed. It must be clear to anyone who's thought about how things might actually look that there are thousands of potential pitfalls along the way. I'm not saying what we have isn't broken, but the interactions are established and understood, for better or for worse, it works on a clearly defined reward system and thus establishes a large amount of control over the general population. There a whole host of practicalities to consider if it's to be replaced and still function, let alone function better. Some random thoughts.How exactly could we transition, what might that look like.What things do we need to keep doing, what things do we not.How are required commodities and services to be fairly distributed or apportioned.How does the change effect an individual's standard of life, if they're on the breadline, if they're well off..What happens to ownership of existing wealth (tangible assets such as property)What happens if a significant minority are refusing to participate. How long do I have to keep doing this job I hate so much.When can I move my family out of my one bedroom flat or my tin shed.Can I stay in my five bedroom house.I'm not wanting answers of course but there are thousands of questions just like these that need consideration, let's not assume that it would just work, because it wouldn't, everyone who would buy into the concept would inevitably have some expectation of the outcome, they would be asking these kind of questions, so why not sit down and try and work it out. Consider every way something can fail, preempt solutions or do something a different way and perhaps you end up with a working model something believable for wider consideration. The ability for the "plan" to deliver would be everything, if it didn't then anarchy would follow and there would be no going back.OK I can hear the groans already, we can't try to answer these kind of questions.. and yet they need answering, everyone would need to understand their role, have realistic expectations and contribute accordingly.Catch 22 then, if you can't persuade people to join without having a blueprint then you'll never have the people to make or agree a blueprint. A committee of billions would never achieve it in the time the planet has left, too many cooks spoil the broth, but we nearly all agree when something tastes good.
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.
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
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
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.
