So who will decide in which order the potholes are filled? Or if resources shall be first diverted to filling in potholes or refurbishing traffic lights? Are you saying that the 10 million inhabitants of London would have to vote on each of the thousands of decisions the city needs to make each day?
And will there be a chief of police? And if so, who will be responsible for supervising his activities, to make sure he doesn’t overstep his authority?
What predecessors? We were around long before anyone tried to implement anything vaguely resembling or even referred to as socialism. The socialists predate the governments of the Bolsheviks, the Trotskyists, and all the other Leftist movements. It’s debatable as to whether those movements had the same goals as us, but even if they did, they set about implementing them long after, not before, we established our principles.
So? If the Supreme Court of the US hears a case involving disputed property, and a majority of the justices find in favour of one of the parties, then everyone abides by the decision, even though the other party may be thereby dispossessed against his consent. Dispossession is by no means unique to any one political system, though in the most fair among them it is done democratically.
That’s actually a pretty brilliant way of dissecting utopian political thinking. If they claim their policies will alow everyone to get a Lamborghini, you’d better check their economic growth estimates. If they claim that under their utopia nobody will feel the need for a Lamborghini, you can be sure that their society is for angels, not men. And if they propose a way to distribute a limited supply of Lamborghini, well, that lays out their principles pretty clearly, without rhetorical niceties.
My biggest problem with direct democracy, especially on a large scale, is that it provides no protection for the minority. What protections will there be in your new system to prevent even a 51% majority from tyrannizing the other 49% percent (say, a gender majority imposing draconian restrictions on the gender minority)?
Yes, in the current socio-economic system, a lower-paid worker may not be able to afford certain luxuries. But many of them are also unable to afford some very basic needs, such as adequate health care, or even sufficient food and shelter.
Except where resources are scare, people do not tend to hoard things. In capitalism, much, if not most, of scarcity, particularly for essential goods and services, is artificial; for example, while people go hungry, food is routinely destroyed simply because it is not profitable to ship it to them, and governments pay farmers to let otherwise productive fields lie fallow in order to manipulate prices. In socialism, production would be geared to meeting human needs rather than to making profits, eliminating much or most of this artificial scarcity. If some people wanted to eat out in restaurants every day, there’s no economic reason why they couldn’t. For other reasons, people would be able to devote more of their time to leisure activities, such as two-month European vacations: without a large portion of the workforce tied up in socially unproductive pursuits (namely, maintenance of the money system, armed forces, and other bureaucracy of capitalism), these people would be free to direct their labour towards more socially useful activities. The result is that people in general would have to work much less in order to maintain the same standard of living.
This question presupposes an extreme specialization of labour which may not exist in socialism (and indeed, which doesn’t exist even under capitalism). Most of the workers involved in production of televisions, even today, have sufficiently diverse skills which could be applied to any one of a number of related disciplines (e.g., production of radios, computers, monitors, and other electronic goods).
What would be the motivation for them to do so?
Religious views perhaps (As the gay marriage issues in the States is showing)? Or Cultural views, or simply the concept that people tend to favor those closer to them, in order for your system to work, you would have to destroy the concept of cultural pride/genetic favoritism.
Also, why should people invest time into more difficult trades and professions such as doctors, lawyers, and other careers requiring many years of schooling, if they will have no difference in status than someone who can just work from 9-5 and flip burgers or run a blog and get paid the same amount of money?
Your system seems to want to assume the best of human behaviors- that we are kind people who care about those in need and are willing to sacrifice our own resources to possibly help someone who we will never meet or see. To a more cynical person, it just doesn’t seem feasible and more of “it’s a good idea- but it’d never work”.
How about sexual drive? That’s not going to change when the ownership of the means of production changes. What if men decide that they would best be satisfied by a requirement that all women be available instantly at any time for sex, and to further that objective, and for the personal enjoyment of men, women should never wear clothing? (Hey, I just realized that that this sounds like Ferengi, although that was definitely not a socialist society.)
Or a smaller scale example. What if the vast majority of people in Bangalore never drive down 24th Street. In fact, the only people who ever drive down 24th Street are the 12 citizens who live there. What’s to prevent the local pothole filling authority, which is majority non-24th Street dwellers, from deciding never to repair any potholes there?
I meant to add that I’m very glad you started this thread, and I find it fascinating. I went and read the documents to which you linked and I’ve learned quite a bit. I’m not raising these questions to be antagonistic, but because political systems are a particular interest of mine and I’m trying to grasp how yours would work.
Because people are bastards.
Not all of them, obviously, but plenty. Certainly enough to mess up any system based solely on altruism.
We are avowed materialists, and recognize religion as a purely social construct which, in its organized forms, has been used by the ruling classes throughout history to keep the labouring classes in line. This is exemplified by the Christian dogma of salvation after death; since its very inception adherents of the most popular sects have been told to endure the hardships of life in hopes of a world of plenty handed to them after death.
As for same-sex marriage, socialists are opposed to it, just as they are opposed to different-sex marriage, at least in a legal sense. The state has no business saying who can or can’t commit to each other.
True. We are against nationalism and racism, and such sentiments would have to be eliminated in the vast majority of the population before they could establish socialism.
Well, first of all, since we propose to abolish money, nobody would be earning any of it. And without a state and its associated legal apparatus, there wouldn’t be any lawyers. As for why people invest a great deal of time and energy into their education, I think that, even under capitalism, more people do it because they are interested in a particular discipline than purely because they wish to earn more (though the latter certainly figures into it). I think you’ll find that most doctors have a genuine desire to help cure their patients, and most physicists attend colloquia and symposiums because they find them fascinating; they’re not just in it for the money. And what about those people who always wanted to attend university but couldn’t afford it? Do you not think that their number would greatly exceed those who pursue an education for purely economic reasons?
Not all men would agree with this proposal now; how is it realistic to think it would be different with another type of society? Not to mention this attempt to objectify women and treat them primarily as objects for sexual gratification is in complete opposition to a society that predicates itself on genuine equality.
psychonaut after reading some of this, I have to ask: how does your party’s stance differ from that of an anarcho-syndicalist?
But people are not genuinely equal - men and women have different sexual organs, for example. The equality that we currently value and practice in the U.S. is based on a complex system of laws that require equal treatment under a variety of circumstances. A society that is based on majority rule democratic choices would presumably not have these kind of restrictions, and would open itself up to any majority oppressing any minority. All men might not agree on one proposal, but all people who live in a certain geographic area, all people who practice a certain profession, all people who have certain physical skills, etc. might. I’d like to know if psychonaut envisions majority rule being restricted in any way under Socialism to prevent majority tyranny.
Post snipped ::
What process would exist for conflict resolution? Would people magically become so nice that they’d deal with conflict by themselves in non-violent and totally fair ways?
How, exactly, would these sentiments be eliminated?
Slee
I’m not an expert on anarcho-syndicalism (though some in the SPGB probably are). However, my understanding is that anarcho-syndicalists repudiate any form of political action, preferring instead what they refer to as “direct action”—that is, strikes, industrial strikes, and general strikes. There are a few problems with this approach: first, merely striking is not predicated upon any sort of class consciousness; it’s more a statement of disagreement with one’s employers. People would conceivably join a general strike in an attempt to better their economic situation under capitalism rather than to achieve socialism. (Contrariwise, people are unlikely to vote for socialism unless it’s something they actually want.)
Secondly, strikes (including general strikes) have historically proved ineffective: employers, with their accumulated wealth and control of the means of production, can generally wait them out whereas the workers can’t for long; in cases where this isn’t feasible for the employers, they can always petition the state to legislate the workers back to work. And the state, whether it is left- or right-wing, is happy to oblige; even the avowedly “socialist” NDP in Canada have a long track record of legislating strikers back to work.
Third, simply seizing control of the means of production from various capitalists, without any sort of wide-scale democratic endorsement of this action, is bound to be controversial. How do you know if people want to replace capitalism with socialism unless there they are polled for their opinions in a fairly systematized manner? The existing political apparatus in most of the world already permits this through the ballot; anarcho-syndicalism offers no such device for confirming when the time is right for it to implement its program.
If I’ve mischaracterized the goals and methods of anarcho-syndicalism, I apologize, and am willing to be corrected. As I said, it’s not a subject I’ve studied extensively.
Apologies if it seems I am skipping over some of your questions. Though I’m pleased that there is so much interest in this topic, please remember that there are a lot more of you than there are of me, so I’m trying to make my way through the queries as best I can. Sometimes this means putting aside a more involved question in favour of one that I can answer right away, and sometimes this means skipping a question from someone who’s already asked several in favour of one from a newcomer. I’ll try to answer as many questions as I can, though!
That wa spretty much the point. But thanks.
It’s a shame the OP isn’t answering the question - probably thinks it’s too silly. But if he can’t answer the silly questions, how can he answer the serious ones?
Illogical! Norman, coordinate!
I am surprised that I find so many difficult issues with psychonaut being that I would describe myself as Socialist. I am a trade union official, very active.
I have a goodly awareness of the wrongs of social history and how the rest of the world sees Britain in terms of imperialism, yet somehow the world seems to think British are all the same, instead of understanding that the British Empire was designed and run by a tiny percentage of an elite that pretty horribly opressed population - we didn’t have universal suffrage in the UK until the 1920’s, and even that was discriminatory as women were not allowed to vote at the same age as men. My view is tha British Citizens were as much victims of imperialism as any native of a foreign land.
That said, the idea of Socialism is not one of state property ownership, some posters here, most of them, seem to be confusing Socialism with Communism, which is quite a differant thing. I wonder about the OP because what is being advocated is not at all that far off.
I do think that the far left of Socialism has unrealistic expectations, the idea of having every matter being decided by the electorate is a non-starter - who on earth would make the day to day decisions, which decisions would be classed as day to day and which ones would be for collective consultation - it simply would not be possible to draw any sensible boundaries.
It is vital that there are lines of responsibility and accountability, and the OPs view seems to head for some golden collective, where decisions are made by the people in their own interest. Sorry that will never happen, our nature is such that no matter how well intentioned, some hard choices always have to be made, from there is is only a short step to the tyranny of the majority - and then we will end up having to use the legal system to defend our minority rights - which is a poor substitue for democracy.
In the matter of marriage, ok so the state has no input, except that individuals in a partnership have a responsibilty to each other and to any possible offspring, and this responsibility has to be enforced, you simply cannot expect people to do what is the right thing - society as a whole has an interest in the relationship commitments of individuals , who would be the arbiter in such relationship breakdowns.
As a Trade Union rep, I can be called in to act in the best interests of members who have behaved in a manner that I find indefensible, however its not for me to judge, just get the best and fairest outcome, but it gives me a good insight to the mindset of many workers. I also come from a background where being on unemployment is the norm, where there is absolutely no desire for self improvement, in other words I have seem plenty of the worst side of hman nature, especially when you consider my day job as well.What are you proposing to do about these people whose only interest is to contribute as little as possilbe and take as much as they can?
Collective decisionmaking has the great danger of dropping to the lowest common denominator, I’ll bet psychonaut that you would be opposed to the death penalty, as am I, but I can also be pretty sure that if we had a plebiscite then we would certainly vote for it as a nation. How would you handle that?
You see, there are matters of conscience, but you cannot impose your egalitarian views of what should happen on everyone else - not without leaving the ideals of your view of Socialism . Put it to the logical test, if we had you sort of socialism, and the populace demanded the right to public execution, how would you habndle it, after all, it is the decision of the collective.
Since you are standing for Euro elections, I would like to ask your views on imposed democracy, which is what the European Parliament amounts to. Most of our legislation is enacted through EU statutes which are then codified into UK law. The problem is this, even if all UK citizens voted against the EU grouping that has proposed such a law, it could easily be imposed upon us because it comes down to a majority of Euro MEPs who have their own national interests in mind. Do you think this is acceptable?, It means to me that there is no direct accountability from our lawmakers to our UK population.
I think there is a long way to go, we will never become Socialist but many ideas of collective resoponsibility are important, the the sense of entitlement of our elites must be challenged, not just in the UK but across the world, and that includes the nepotism that can be found in the most simple of tribal groups, I would certainly be happy with the idea of true equality of opportunity - which can be partly seen in The American Dream - work hard and you too can make it - but without the back biting this usually involves.
We have not got equality of opportunity, we have not even got equality in front of the law - what ways might we address such things?
How does a large society organize itself without any kind of government?
What’s to prevent someone from seizing power and mucking it all up?