We believe that leaders are inherently undemocratic; socialists oppose leadership? How can this work?
- This topic has 10 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
- we believe that socialism will be a cooperative, world wide system, and it has clearly not yet been established.
so how can this happen?No leadership but all the world united.What is to stop rogue elements, warlords, nations , gangs etc.. from just doing whatever they see fit?
No leaders (and no state and no nations) does not mean no organisation.The Socialist Party of Great Britain has existed for 105 years without a leader and is a strong example that such a form of organisation is possible and resilient.Warlords, nations and gangs exist because of and as a way of preserving and expanding private property.Democratic control of the means of production means no private property. (This doen't mean no belongings) No private property means everyone has free access to the goods society produces. With society set up in such a fashion what is the need for warlords, nations and gangs?Here's another for the reading list:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1979/no-899-july-1979/world-without-money
What's to stop feudalism coming back? Society doesn't move to more primitive forms of production systems. Thousands and millions of class conscious workers who have overthrown capitalism would not suffer warlords or gangsters. Sorry if that sounds determinist.
DJP wrote:Democratic control of the means of production means no private property. (This doen't mean no belongings) No private property means everyone has free access to the goods society produces. With society set up in such a fashion what is the need for warlords, nations and gangs?How about just good old fashioned human nature, of the base sort?Men always seem to want to dominate others, whether they have a large amount of property or not.
jondwhite wrote:What's to stop feudalism coming back? Society doesn't move to more primitive forms of production systems. Thousands and millions of class conscious workers who have overthrown capitalism would not suffer warlords or gangsters. Sorry if that sounds determinist.I'm certain that feudalism would come back, given a total lack of regulation, much like a monpoly game turns into a monopoly.Human nature is inherently selfish, so this trait will re-assert without government regulation and control.
wiscalatus wrote:Human nature is inherently selfish, so this trait will re-assert without government regulation and control.It's funny how predicable responses from people who are not familar with socialism are…"Human nature is inherently selfish", now is that a fact or an assertion? Do you think you are inherently selfish? If people sometimes behave in a selfish way, what is the cause of that behaviour? You cannot deny that people also sometimes behave altruistically, so why is not "altruism" also an inherent part of human nature?I'm answering with questions because this is something that you yourself need to think about..There's hundreds of articles dealing with this topic on here. Here's a few:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/subject/human-nature
So the scenario being put forward is thousands and millions of workers become class conscious and overthrow capitalism, only for warlords and gangsters to enslave them and re-introduce serfdom with warlords as the new aristocracy? Meanwhile, production and modern industry plummets, I'm not sure even modern capitalists would willingly let the restoration of feudalism. But if that's human nature and definitely going to happen, I guess there's nothing I can do about it.
Anarchist FAQ isn't too bad on some of these issues with a stateless societyhttp://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secA2.html#seca215http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secA2.html#seca216http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secA2.html#seca217
WiscalatusIn many ways we can't help but be selfish, as we all have basic needs that have to be satisfied in order for us to live. If we're hungry, we need to eat, etc. No amount of altruism is going to alter that. The problems arise when people can't get these basic necessities.But the only way we can achieve our needs is by co-operating with others. We do this in our family and leisure time and, for the most part, in the workplace.But if, by selfish, you mean antisocial, I would contend that antisocial behaviour is a result, and not the cause, of the restrictive, oppressive society we live in – capitalism.As regards the desire to dominate, and human nature of the base sort, do you think we are all like this, or just some of us? I would contend that the vast majority of people don't want to dominate, but to live peaceful, co-operative lives. This is not totally possible in a world where resources are not owned in common and available freely to all.It may be that those individuals in the top few percent – the rich, ruling elite – love to dominate. And no doubt some of us would like to be in their shoes, because they have all what we don't and their worlds are seen as enviable. But if we abolish the system that produces the elite, we abolish the need to dominate.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.