[Ed]

Doh! oh well that seems like a bit of a blanket resolution that wasn't really needed. I don't know what the situation was before, whether every by-election was contested? But to ban them rather than just limit the amount that they are used seems a bit extreme and ultimately restricting.

[Ed]

On whether it will be better, that can be seen as a fairly subjective term. It's not a question without warrant. There's historical precedent for changes which are largely positive to make some worse off. Take slavery in the United States; the abolition of slavery made some slaves worse off. The sudden change from slave to proletarian was a sharp shock which left many homeless, without food and without a job. Would we then say that because some of these people were materially worse off for a while that nobody should have bothered with the act of abolition in the first place?For the vast majority of the planet it couldn't get much worse. If, say you were David Beckham, a multi-millionaire earning £200,000+ a week, then no, perhaps you might not be better off. If not then what have you got to lose?

[Ed]

Lets flip this around, Alaric, can you empirically prove that the problems you've stated and the many more you imagine are not the result of class society and will thus exist in a socialist society?There are different levels of speculation, the Higgs Bossom particle being one example of acceptable speculation. But they didn't come up with it on a whim; all the evidence pointed to it being there and it was the only conclusion which made sense to them. What I need is your indisputable proof that these problems will exist in a socialist society.

[Ed]

Ozymandias wrote:

"Thank you Socialist guy for putting us in our box of "Communism". Now go away. You don't get it. An entire article of him trying to understand TZM by comparing it to antiquated bullshit. Man he was trying real hard to find that box! COMMUNISM?! SOCIALISM?! MARXISM?! ARRRRAHHH I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THESE GUYS MY BRAIN IS EXPLODING!"This is the latest comment from a TZM member on a thread which has been running here on the TZM global website http://thezeitgeistmovementforum.org/showthread.php?433-Socialist-Perspective-on-TZM-2012-13-Orientation-Guide-Part-1-Adam-Buick-SPGB-WSMI just find this really depressing. 5 years ago when TZM came on the scene I was thinking it would be a great opportunity for WSM and TZM to interact and create sparks. This is never going to happen is it? I think TZM are going nowhere at the moment. The initial buzz has dampened with traffic on the new TZM website about a tenth of what it was 5 years ago. They are a nebulous web based phenomena with no card carrying members. They are not organised politically, democratically or consciously.

To be fair the guy who posted that has 3 posts and his location is "the freest and most prosperous country on earth". Probably not representative of TZM.That said I completely agree with Gnome although I hope we're wrong and TZM goes on to prosper and grow.

[Ed]

Alaric wrote:

Here is a none exhaustive list of the problems that such a proposal would have to deal with.

OK I'll do my best.

Alaric wrote:

1) How do we stop democratic oppression of minorities?

What minorities? How do you define a minority in a socialist society? If there are minorities we certainly have not reached a level of equality and are still compounded by social constructions which are caused by a class society. Socialism will require a fundamental change in the way we identify ourselves and others, recognizing that our interests are dependent on everyone elses. I don't think something like minorities can exist in a socialist society not in the same way they do now.

Alaric wrote:

2) How do we get people to put in the sufficient effort to make informed decisions when their votes will have negligible weight (no individuals vote will make a difference to any big decision)?

I don't know and I don't think it is possible for anyone to do anything other than speculate on this question. But I will say that there are certain forms of democracy that could be used if it was a serious issue, which I think it could be, but then again my opinion is pure speculation. So lets say for example there are many decisions which are not very important and that people find boring, instead of calling a huge referendum for something fairly trivial we could use a demarchic system. A bit like jury duty, a certain number of people are called at random to sit on a committee who would spend some time learning about the issue in depth before voting on it. That's an option.

Alaric wrote:

3) How do you stop capture by entrenched executive committees with specialized knowledge of the current workings of the system?

Well demarchy would prevent this as well. But really I'm reminded of Chomsky's answer when asked how to end terrorism "it's simple stop participating in it". Same thing don't create committees that have too much power, limit their terms, etc, etc. But really what makes you think that people would re-submit themselves to a class society? There's only two reasons I can think of apathy (Plato's reasoning in the republic for why democracy fails) or natural disaster creating a natural period of scarcity.But of course both of those premises are wild speculation about things that could happen.For a real world example you might enjoy the story of Tristan Da Cunha on Ian Bone's blog; it's an enjoyable read. I remember one part of it talks of a guy who tried to make himself into a leader, gave himself heirs and graces. For this he was generally mocked by the other inhabitants of the island.http://ianbone.wordpress.com/tristan-da-cunha/

Alaric wrote:

4) How do you get people to work hard on boring/unglamorous/hard jobs of which there will still be many?

Consider housework, why do you do it? You do it because otherwise you'd be living in unpleasant surroundings. Earlier you used the example of people not respecting their workplaces, not keeping them clean and tidy etc. I doubt they all do the same at home. Could this be because they don't have a personal stake in it? Because they don't own it. If they did have a personal stake not just in their workplace but in every facet of society we can presume with some certainty that people would be willing to do the boring or hard jobs. Glamorous jobs are different, however. What is a glamorous job? Why are some jobs more glamorous than others? Well in capitalist society being a celebrity for no other reason than appearing on a TV game show, is glamorous and it unbelievably is a job. Now again this is speculation but perhaps socially necessary jobs will be given the glamorous status in a socialist society. Since we obviously recognize that some socially necessary jobs are harder than others could we not also give them the same social capital as say a doctor gets. I fully support making street sweepers the new premier league footballers.There are of course other parts to this answer making hard jobs easier, making sure people responsible for these jobs work less hours etc. Making boring jobs less boring. Boring jobs usually are jobs where workers have the least amount of input into how they do those jobs. If they were in control of the method used to do that work they would presumably make it less boring.So yes as you predicted the answer is positive social enforcement but what seems to be missing from your analysis and what I have alluded to twice in this answer is Marx's theory of alienation which goes a long way to explaining the effects of capitalism on human behaviour.

Alaric wrote:

5) How would “scarce" goods be allocated?

Which scarce goods? What are they needed for? Why are they scarce? These are all questions which would factor into any answer. But simply put on a needs basis.

Alaric wrote:

6) How do you find out what to produce?

Democratically.There are blueprints for how a kind of socialist government could function. Many fairly similar to how the party functions. Delegates elected from within their place of work sent to a county committee then again sent to a regional one then up to a higher committee and so on. People have created these very detailed plans. I wouldn't endorse a single one and neither would any good materialist. As the exact way that we organize these things will depend entirely on the material conditions at the time. To endorse something now, to say this is how it must be, is to dictate to the people in the future actually making those decisions who may be faced with material conditions which we are currently unaware of and contradict our plan. By making exact plans for the future we create dogma, it is in every way idealistic.I know you won't be happy with my answers, you'll probably accuse me of dodging the questions. However, I think your questions are based on speculation not fact. How can they not be? And if they are based on speculation, on hypothetical situations, how can the answers be anything but speculation. So while you may feel the answers are unfair I believe it is the questions which are unfair and which are impossible to answer empirically.I prefer dealing with objective facts that exist in the here and now, things that can be empirically proven to exist. Looking at today's problems in the context of today. Looking for the material conditions causing these problems and looking at how we can eliminate the causes of the problems. Almost exclusively todays societies problems are a result of it's economic system. To solve todays problems I suggest removing that cause completely altering the material conditions which gives rise to them forever. Once we've done that we can see what problems we encounter and Socialism will be no utopia, I don't believe in perfection. I'm sure there will be problems but problems based entirely on the material conditions present at the time which will be completely alien to us now. It would be like asking a Venetian merchant in 1500 to explain how to fix unemployment in 2013. He might just about be able comprehend what you were talking about but how could he possibly give you the right answer, let alone what you are asking for which is empirical proof to back those answers.For these reasons I think your questions are impossible to answer.

[Ed]

Sorry I haven't responded properly yet Alaric, I haven't had time to give your response the full attention it deserves. I just want to say quickly as I don't think this point has been raised. That at no other time has there ever been a blue print or I would argue the sort of definitive proof that one mode of production and one class dictatorship would be better than any other. If we look at the middle ages and the gripes of the burghers they exist right throughout the period Canterbury tales being a good example but it wasn't until the enlightenment that they actually sat down and started making any sort of concrete plans and then look how much their plans have been forced to change since then. While they knew that capitalism could work in isolated areas they had no evidence that it would work as an interconnected global system as we have today. People didn't require proof; they didn't even make concrete plans until it was plain to see that they had enough support and were on the eve of a fundamental change.

[Ed]

and the two writers are in a pissing contest over whose right http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112345/andrew-sullivan-pret-porter-fawning-american-virtue http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/02/06/tim-noahs-non-fawning/

[Ed]

The article is about an article which in turn is about an essay http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112204/pret-manger-when-corporations-enforce-happiness# http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n01/paul-myerscough/short-cuts I thought it was very interesting

[Ed]

Hello Alaric, I'm not sure what kind of evidence you can expect anyone to produce. If you're asking for evidence of a world-wide classless, stateless, moneyless society of abundance I'm afraid you're asking the impossible. As once modes of production are established they do not regress. If you're asking for small isolated communities organized without private property, classes and money then sure there are plenty of examples both ancient and modern. But if it ever had existed on a world wide scale it would be a reality right now. What possible reason would there be for society to reintroduce classes?If you're asking for evidence that the productive forces of the human race can produce the essentials needed in abundance for the entire population of this planet at this current point in time then sure we can get that for you. There's plenty of independent sources which claim that.We don't however, draw up blueprints of exactly how a socialist society will function. As we don't currently know the precise conditions that we will face when we have the power to contribute to that discussion. For example; A world revolution could be very peaceful with little destruction. If that's the case then the plan for society would be very different than if the revolution had been very violent and destructive or if we were facing ecological disaster or any other number of factors which we don't currently know about. We can only make plans when we can see the whole picture and have the power to change it. We can however, learn from what has already happened and say what we don't want.So back to my original question please could you expand on exactly which kind of evidence you're looking for?

[Ed]

SocialistPunk wrote:

EdPlease leave this personal stuff alone mate. I chose to overlook your original comment to me that lit the fuse.We are socialists, frustrated with the lack of progress in bringing the capitalist system to an end. I am only interested in this issue now because I can see some improvements need introducing to make this forum reflect socialist values of openness and resolution instead of censorship and silence.If I did not care I would have left this forum long ago, in fact I would not have even bothered to join. But I do care and so I stick around in the hope something positive will come of this situation.

Perhaps you are completely unaware what an ordeal this has been for me. Having four people gang up on you, spread lies about you and then turn around and accuse you of doing it to them. It's a sick kind of bullying which has lead to much stress and depression. I've been on the verge of quitting the party since October and I've completely withdrawn from the party except for branch activities. I feel like I've been ostracized and made into a scapegoat and it's all down to Old Grey Whistle and Steve Colborn's actions. So next time you think about singing their praises, perhaps spare a thought for how their actions have impacted on others. Not just me but the other members of my branch, the EC and moderators and most active members of the party have been affected to some degree.I sincerely believe that had your friends not intervened we would have sorted this out on our own. Unlike them I believe that you are more than capable of defending yourself from criticism. Even if that criticism does include 'strong' language.

[Ed]

SocialistPunk wrote:

While we seem to be on the subject of role playing. Here's one.You're walking down the street and you turn a corner, only to be confronted by a scene of two people involved in a physical altercation. One of them has the other on the floor and is raining down blows.Do you :a) Ignore the situation and walk away, telling yourself that a police officer will come along sooner or later?b) Take a deep breath and attempt to stop the situation, knowing full well you could get hurt?c) Call the police?  Then…..a or b?Not everyone reacts to such situations the same. Some may walk away telling themselves it will be ok, some will attempt to break up the situation.  In the absence of a police officer the outcome may depend on what course you take.What you don't expect, is to intervene and find yourself in a police cell. Your good will seeing you on the wrong side of the law. That is exactly what happened originally, and it has led to here. Some do not want to look at it, but sometimes in order to fix a problem you have to look at the cause.

Actually I think if you intervene and call your friends in to help the person who instigated the fight and then attack the police I think that you're probably looking at 3-5 first offense as the police will treat it as a gang related incident.As a side note where do party members stand on one member accusing another of a serious offense.For instance lets say member A accuses member B of being a pedophile or a rapist or an undercover cop.What should happen in an instance like that?What should happen if one forum member says to another forum member that they'd like to smash their teeth in?Shall I tell you what happened in these cases. Nothing, at least not to the perpetrators. It's the victim who gets blamed, it's the victim who gets called things like ignorant hooligan, it's the victim who is accused of action detrimental to the party for destroying the (non-existent) north east branch, it's the victim who is blamed as the cause of the trouble by the internet department and it is the victim who is blamed by the EC. It's the victim who nobody listens to and it's the victim who's not received one friendly word of support from anyone.That my comrades is the reality of events

[Ed]

Thanks for the responsesDJP I realized I had read it before but forgotten all it's contents so thank you for that not a cop-out at all and very useful. It seems to confirm all of the above.Hollyhead thank you that's a superb post and an extremely helpful article.

[Ed]

jondwhite wrote:

A journalist is singled out because he was a full-time journalist for Socialist Worker and the most high-profile resignation – perhaps this should be specified?

I think singling out one member due to their perceived high profile sends the wrong message. That some members are more equal than others. It shouldn't be specified at all.

[Ed]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I'd drop reference to the journalist…why single out one profession.

Exactly it sounds as though the journalist is of greater importance or worth than any other member.

ALB wrote:

I don't like the term "privileged position" in relation to us.

Entirely agree, I suggest position of responsibility

[Ed]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I suspect if TUSC hadn't have been there we'd have attracted some of their voters, so it's interesting to see the effect of a head-to-head like this (at the GLA election they didn't contest the seats, that may be why we did slightly better last year).

Are they votes that we would want if they have a straight choice between voting socialism or reforms and choose the latter?

ALB wrote:

But we didn't contest primarily for the vote (except to avoid a derisory score, which we did) but to publicise the case for socialism. Here we exceded our expectations, thanks to a lively and very fair local on-line newspaper, the Brixtonblog (which we hadn't known about before). Here is a list of the internet publicity we got, not just for the fact that we were standing but also discussion of our ideas:

I'll admit that I was initially sceptical about the amount of publicity we would gain from standing in a by-election. I'm very happy to be proven wrong on this occaision.

[Author]

Posts