Ask the Socialist candidate for the European Parliament election

Great Debates
1

Greetings, fellow Dopers.

I am standing as a candidate in the London constituency for the European Parliamentary Election on 4 June. I haven’t heard much talk of the election on the boards so I thought I’d start this thread to (a) introduce my political views and invite people to discuss and debate them, and (b) allow those interested in the European Union’s electoral process the chance to ask questions about it.

I’m standing for Britain’s second-oldest party, the Socialist Party of Great Britain. Now, many people, when they see the word “Socialist”, make all sorts of assumptions about what the Party is about. Especially since the Russian Revolution of November 1917, many parties have used the word “socialism” to refer to a brand of Leftist politics advocating things such as nationalization of industries, higher taxes for the rich, participation of trade unions in government, more social programs, and a greater control of the economy by the state. However, the Socialist Party is not a party of the Left, and doesn’t advocate any of these reforms. We stand for one thing and one thing only: a world-wide, democratically organized society without states, leaders, markets, and money. We believe that society at large, not governments or a small minority of private owners, should own and control the means and producing and distributing wealth, and that production should take place not for profit but to satisfy human needs. This would, of course, be a revolutionary change in the organization of society, but we do not believe in achieving this through coercion or through violent seizure of power by a revolutionary vanguard. The only way that socialism as we understand it could be set up and run is through the consent and cooperation of an overwhelming majority of the world’s population, and the only way we will know once there is such a majority is when it says so via the ballot.

Now, being the curious, intelligent Dopers that you are, I’m sure you’re all ready to either find out more about this crazy-sounding idea, or (more likely) to tell me why it couldn’t possibly work. Hence this thread!

I’m keeping this first post short so as not to flood everyone with pages upon pages of political ideas. However, I’m perfectly happy to answer questions, either about said ideas or about the general mechanics of standing as a candidate for the European Parliament. For those who want to jump in with some arguments right away, here are some links to information about socialism as understood by the SPGB:
[ul]
[li]Frequently Asked Questions about socialism[/li][li]How the SPGB is different from other groups calling themselves “socialist” or “communist”[/li][li]An explanation of the object and principles of the SPGB[/li][/ul]

2

How does it feel to represent a political view that 99% of the American people :

[ol]
[li]Disagree with completely[/li][li]View as a threat[/li][li]Hi, Opal[/li][li]Would fight you with every fiber of their being.[/li][li]And, lastly, if you achieved it in Europe, & tried to start it here, would result in a new Cold War between the EU & the USA, as enemies?[/li][/ol]

Seriously, the idea of a one world government is a nightmare.

Basiically, China would call the shots. Period. And it wouldn’t stay democratic for long, as large %s of the world’s population have neither the experience of democracy, nor the desire for it.

3

[quote=“Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor, post:2, topic:498252”]

How does it feel to represent a political view that 99% of the American people :

[ol]
[li]Disagree with completely[/li][li]View as a threat[/li][li]Hi, Opal[/li][li]Would fight you with every fiber of their being.[/ol][/li][/quote]
Actually, most people, including Americans, have never heard of socialism at all—at least, not what we are advocating. Their familiarity with the term comes from its use by totalitarian governments such as Cuba, North Korea, China, and the USSR, and from the more moderate left-wing parties in the West such as the Labour Party in the UK, the NDP in Canada, and the social democrats. In my experience, when we explain to people what we mean by socialism, their initial reaction is usually, “It sounds nice but I don’t see how it could possibly work”. That’s a far cry from “I disagree with that completely”. (To be fair, we do get a lot of the latter as well.)

It would be impossible to achieve socialism in Europe, or indeed in any one part of the world, alone. Such a system would function only on a global basis. Thus your scenario is impossible.

I agree. Fortunately a one-world government is not what we are advocating, even as an interim solution.

4

It’s still coercion, even if you outnumber your opponents. If you truly wanted to achieve this without forcing your opponents to comply and forfeit their property, it could be done just as easily without any political power at all.

5

Then what form of government are you avocating? Or are you advocating anarchy - the absence of government?

6

Yes, we are advocating the abolition of government. It should be possible for society to be organized and run without states, politicians, and leaders.

7

Yes, I suppose technically speaking this is true. Certainly the tiny minority of people who currently own and control the means of production and distribution (land, factories, railways, etc.) would be dispossessed of this concentration in socialism, so it is possible that this would need to be done forcibly. However, I think that is unlikely—it would be ultimately futile for them to resist a democratic decision supported by the vast majority of the world’s population, and any sane person would realize this. Besides which, they would have difficulty in putting up any organized violent resistance; if the vast majority of the world’s working class support socialism, it stands to reason that this majority would be reflected among the individuals comprising the armed forces.

When I spoke about coercion, what I meant to do was to draw a distinction between how we and vanguardists hope to achieve our system of society. We believe that socialism could be achieved only with the support and cooperation of an overwhelming majority of the working people of this world, who themselves comprise upwards of 90% of the population. Contrast this with, say, the Bolsheviks, who, as a tiny minority of revolutionary vanguardists, violently seized power in the name of the people and then proceeded to impose their social system upon them, ostensibly because it was in their interests. The people themselves had no opportunity to voice their disagreement.

8

Congratulations on standing. Your life is about to change a great deal. Take it from someone who knows. :cool:

9

Thanks for posting this thread! Where else but the SDMB could I get to have a discussion with a candidate for EU Parliament?

I have no direct questions atm, but am reading with great interest.

10

That statement seems self-contradictory. Aren’t the people organizing and running your society by definition leaders and politicians?

11

I don’t understand how the balance of work and play will be achieved in daily life under this system. Currently, at least in America, it is balanced out by the need to pay for goods, services and life necessities. So for example, a low end worker cannot take a two month European vacation, and eat at fine restaurants, and buy expensive things because their salary does not permit it. How would this system prevent massive abuse, (at least in the short term) of the ability to freely access such services and goods? I see a problem with creating any industry that is sustainable outside of basic needs. What will the TV makers do when everyone has a nice, long lasting, quality Telly?

12

Follow-up: Also, how would rule of law be kept without some sort of dedicated force empowered to administer justice? Surely you don’t expect the world to vote on each and every case of fighting, abuse, rape, and murder do you? After all, not all crime stems from the inequality of social classes.

13

Also:

What about Lamborghinis?

Will everyone get a Lamborghini? Will no-one? Will some people get Lamborghinis and others not get Lamborghinis, and if so, what factors will determine whether one gets a Lamborghini or not? Will there be a set number of Lamborghinis in the world, and everyone will get to take turns? Who will manage this turn-taking? Who will decide which Italian sports car is purchased for the purpose of taking turns?

14

No. A large organization need not have leaders in order to function. Take the Socialist Party—we’ve operated for over a hundred years without any leaders. We do elect people from among our membership to take care of certain administrative tasks—we have a secretary to take meeting minutes, and a treasurer to handle the accounts, and a couple of auditors to audit them—but all political policy is set by a democratic vote of the membership as a whole. There are many other functioning organizations out there far larger than us which operate in a more or less democratic, decentralized manner without leaders. Take Wikipedia, for example—there’s no central cabal which sets policy; rather, every individual contributor (and there are thousands upon thousands of them) is able to participate in the policy-making and decision-making processes. Some members may be more active than others, but everyone has an equal say.

15

Well, I think my life would change a great deal in the event that I am actually elected to Parliament. :slight_smile: For now, it hasn’t changed so much, with the exception that I’m getting a lot of mail, mostly from unions, asking me to support them.

16

How do you justify outright theft of the “means of production” from it’s current owners? Unless I am mistaken, they have something you want, and you are suggest that because there are more of you, you are taking it and too bad if they don’t like it?

If there are no states or leaders, how do you propose to stop evil men from banding together and enslaving the lot of you?

Without money, what do you propose to do about all the people who decide they can’t be bothered to work and just want to leech off the system? Furthermore, how do you reward those who decide to work to their full potential rather then doing the bare minimum?

17

The problem I have with your goals is that you seem to have focused solely on how to not fail as your predecessors did, ignoring the question of how to not do bad things like your predecessors did. Property redistribution might be more likely to succeed when you’ve got a 90% majority at your back, but you’re still taking their stuff without their consent.

18

But a society is not the same as a small group of people with a common goal and no real power. Are you suggesting absolute democracy, in which every decision, including who to hire as Luton Chief of Police and which potholes to fill in Bangalore, will be voted and debated upon by every single person on Earth? Or do you suggest that society be run by relatively small groups of people (a few hundred, tops), much like your party?

As for Wikipedia - there’s a reason it’s not accepted as a citation in academic circle. Wikipedia is a toy. It’s inherent unreliability is the only reason it exists in its current format.

19

Actually all citations from any encyclopedia (even Britannica) are frowned if used in academic circles.

By pure experience I have to say that Wikipedia is more reliable than unreliable, I would not trust all their entries, but I think the main point is that Wikipedia is the best guide out there to find more reliable citations. If all people stopped looking for more information at the mere sight of the Wikipedia entries, then I would agree that it is a toy.

20

Neither. Decisions affecting only a localized area, such as filling potholes in Bangalore, will be made by the people at those localities. In most cases authority would be delegated; I’m perfectly content to delegate my local pothole-filling authority to a trusted person with experience and expertise in the field, rather than directly participating in all pothole-filling decisions myself.

Well, by that logic so is every other encyclopedia. But even if it’s true, that’s not a rebuttal to my claim that large projects can exist without leadership. A very large toy—one that required thousands of people to construct—is still a very large organizational project, and can serve, in at least some ways, as a model.