The Revolution Referendum
- This topic has 22 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
In view of the refusal of certain peoples to accept the results of the recent European Referendum as legitimate, what would be the Party's attitude to a referendum on the revolution itself? We can, doubtless, imagine the circumstances in which this might occur. Would we boycott such a referendum? And if, say, the results were 52% in favour and 48% against, would we accept this as a vote in favour of socialism?
* The posing of this question by no means indicates the support of the poster for the holding of such a referendum.*
* Nor does it indicate that the poster believes that socialism can be brought about solely through political means.*
KAZ wrote:In view of the refusal of certain peoples to accept the results of the recent European Referendum as legitimate, what would be the Party's attitude to a referendum on the revolution itself? We can, doubtless, imagine the circumstances in which this might occur. Would we boycott such a referendum? And if, say, the results were 52% in favour and 48% against, would we accept this as a vote in favour of socialism?Perhaps you can tell us what the question might be?
Good point. Perhaps the referendum question would be;Should we have a revolution and establish socialism?YesNo
"Should we have a revolution and establish Socialism, that is to say a classless, stateless society without money?YesNo
Sympo wrote:"Should we have a revolution and establish Socialism, that is to say a classless, stateless society without money?YesNoThat doesn't tell us what socialism really means. That description tells us what socialism won't be. Socialism means production for use, not profit and common ownership of the means of production.
rodmanlewis wrote:That doesn't tell us what socialism really means. That description tells us what socialism won't be. Socialism means production for use, not profit and common ownership of the means of production.Should we have a revolution and establish a classless, stateless society without money that produces for use instead of profit and where there is common ownership of the means of production?YesNo
A confirmatory referendum would be perfectly sensible, indeed, I suspect there'd be several. There would be big differences, an election with sufficient support for the change would have happee first, and the predominant party would be in charge, and would have expressly announced a referendum; th party in power would more likely than not have a detailed plan/programme that it would be asking to be confirmed (as well as a detailed description of what each result of the referendum would mean), t wouldn't be a weird #referendum to not ave socialism. It would also have detailed opportunities for a fresh election after the results. I'd also expect some sort of citizens assembly/jury to look at th detail of the question and the process.I doubt it would be a referendum for 'socialism' but a referendum on the key aspects: "Should all residential properties be brought into comon ownership, and a right to housing be assured?' or somesuch.Also, I'd expect the results to be binding.
Yes "socialism" would have to be defined, otherwise it would be like the recent vote for an undefined "Leave". The Trots and other Leninists would be able to claim that it was actually a vote for their aim of state capitalism ruled by them.
Young Master Smeet wrote:A confirmatory referendum would be perfectly sensible, indeed, I suspect there'd be several. There would be big differences, an election with sufficient support for the change would have happee first, and the predominant party would be in charge, and would have expressly announced a referendum; th party in power would more likely than not have a detailed plan/programme that it would be asking to be confirmed (as well as a detailed description of what each result of the referendum would mean), t wouldn't be a weird #referendum to not ave socialism. It would also have detailed opportunities for a fresh election after the results. I'd also expect some sort of citizens assembly/jury to look at th detail of the question and the process.I doubt it would be a referendum for 'socialism' but a referendum on the key aspects: "Should all residential properties be brought into comon ownership, and a right to housing be assured?' or somesuch.Also, I'd expect the results to be binding.I think you may misunderstand, I think the original poster is talking not about a confirmatory referendum but one initiated by others outside the party (the ruling class perhaps?) prior to the establishment of socialism (and prior to a general election sending a majority of socialist delegates to parliament). And whether the party would take a view, on one with our definition or (more likely) one where 'socialism' was left undefined? And also what if 52% voted in favour of 'socialism' either our definition or undefined?
Timmy old boy, you've got it in a nutshell. Clearly nobody noticed the sarcasm in "doubtless", which was supposed to guard against fruitless indepth speculation of this sort, nor the addenda, which were supposed to indicate that such a referendum would, in fact, be pretty much worthless. I thought my question was pretty plain but clearly I was not being brutal enough. Subtlety, like humour, is not big in the SPGB. I am posing a question about *democracy* and how we understand it. So once again:*Is 52% good enough?*
I'll reiterate my answer: it's not one vote, one time, one answer, but many votes: and the context of the votes is clearly important. 50.000001% is enough, in the right context.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I'll reiterate my answer: it's not one vote, one time, one answer, but many votes: and the context of the votes is clearly important. 50.000001% is enough, in the right context.Not if it means a recount.
Kaz you have persuaded me, I've looked through the arguments both for and against and I for one am definitely voting for Socialsim, can you let me know when the referendum is being held?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.