[SocialistPunk]

It's basically a "New Age" news site, but that shouldn't put any one off because as Ozy said, the idea is growing.I like this bit.

Quote:

Think about how technology will change when money no longer drives the economy. Today, companies have to design technology and commodities to break down. If things are not made with an artificially limited useful life, how will companies make a profit, and thus sustain themselves or the services they provide. The new paradigm will see technology offer sustainability at another level due to the abolishment of planned obsolescence. A new consciousness will ensure things are created and built to last.So What Next?So how do you move from a society that depends on people’s self-interest to a society that is of global-interest? When you remove money out of this equation, the motivation to do work suddenly changes. Without money people are motivated to work for each other. It essentially means that the business mentality that has shaped most societies for thousands of years will cease to exist. Business will not survive because there is no competition, no money and no motive of self-interest.

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/09/22/can-fathom-world-without-money-without-disease/I've put the link on here again Ozy as I couldn't get on via your link. Don't know why.

[SocialistPunk]

You could be right Rodshaw, but I guess we will only know for sure if Paramjeet bothers to engage with us.What I don't get, is if we are weak and greedy human beings and need the protection and guidance of a benevolent state, who is in control of such a benevolent system? Perhaps there are some humans who are not as weak and greedy as the rest? Perhaps there are a few good people (usually meant as men) out there who are strong enough of character to take on the task of guiding us for our benefit.It would be good if Paramjeet could engage in discussion instead of just posting long soliloquies.

[SocialistPunk]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Shirley, in democracy

Could be the title of a bad political romance novel.I'm not taking the piss, it's added a much needed dose of humour to an intense debate.    Humour break over.

[SocialistPunk]

I'm not really sure what is meant by "No man will stand for another"?Perhaps it refers to the practice of men giving others, usually women and the elderly, your seat on a full bus?

[SocialistPunk]

As I understand it LBird is searching for a way to allow a socialist society to control science. As science is another  activity based social resource, it isn't unreasonable for socialists to seek to gain some form of control.The other side of the debate, championed by YMS, sees democratic control as impractical. Trust seems to be the method implied.However trust is not enough in a socialist society, as without checks and balances a scientist could engage in research of a dubious nature, even in a socialist society.It then becomes a case of how do we figure out what checks and balances to use and who gets to decide them.My apologies to both sides if I've got things wrong, this is just my simplified take on things, so please correct me if I've cocked up anywhere.

[SocialistPunk]

twc wrote:

Your whole integrity, and credibility as a socialist, depends on a direct answer—not one that hides behind 5000 year-old Aboriginal culture, which somehow your mother managed to avoid when she transmitted the objectivity of “sensuous” practice you now deny.Your entire intellectual and honourable humanity is at stake. No devious shifts this time.

Hi twcThis is an interesting one. A few times LBird was criticised for challenging party members socialist credentials.I wonder if the same party members will show the same concern now.

[SocialistPunk]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

SP, at the risk of verging off topic: no I don't consider socialism to be an ideology.  I consider it to be the reutation of ideology.  One of the problems with the concept of ideology, is that if it is eternal, and everyone is wrapped up in it, then how can some people claim to see out of it?  It seems a ready made gift for Leninist vanguards (and, indeed, did become an issue when the vanguards seized power, and found themselves fighting the workers, the vanguard were free of ideology, and needed to rule against and over the workers blinded by it).  The point of socialism is to free us from the distortions of power (and the need to maintain power) and instead live our lives in conscious accord with our own experience.

Don'y worry too much about off topic in discussing ideology, as you seemed unconcerned with being off topic when wishing to discuss the word earlier in the thread.I've asked a few times now why socialism is not an ideology and from mcolome1, I get shown to the WSM thread that taught me nothing other than there is messy disagreement among socialists on this subject. Then I'm told I "have to go through the pain and the suffering in order to obtain the knowledge" along with socialism is a theory (that in itself could mean a few things) that it isn't a doctrine. All that washed down with the best line yet, " One of the best thing about the SP is that, we have explained complicated terms into simple definition and explanations." Really!?I'm sorry YMS but your post in answer to my question, quoted above, travels along the same lines as mcolome1, it tells me you think socialism is a refutation of ideology and not an ideology itself, but says very little in simple terms as to why you consider it so. You mention vanguards and tell me the purpose of socialism, as if I was unaware as to why socialism is so important.Your answer, if indeed it is supposed to be such, adds more layers of complexity to something that should be easily explainable for someone who holds the view. In my experience whenever someone is unable to explain something in their own words, in a clear and precise way, it usually means they don't understand it themselves.I laid out my stall in a clear and precise way in post #770. So am I, or perhaps I should say we (the workers), going to get an explanation as to why socialism is not an ideology? Is there anyone in the WSM who can actually explain clearly why socialism is not an ideology?

[SocialistPunk]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

Ideology is in essence a word that refers to human ideas and concepts in a way that forms a  joined up thinking, such as a world view or belief system, usually with a goal in mind. This is the meaning of the word ideology to most people. I say most people because philosophers do not behave as most people do, they seem to see the world in an ever more complex spiral of hidden meaning and can wax lyrical about the most banal everyday words adding multiple meanings and a myriad of contexts.

Or, the word has been moved from its original uses, to simply mean any set of ideas, itself an ideological move to robn the word of meaning and to protect ideologists.  Common sense is ideology, so you generally have to step away from copmmon meanings of words.  If ideology is a system of ideas, then we need some other term for the process of the imposition of class dominance i the domain of ideas.

Hi YMSI take it you are of the opinion socialism is not an ideology? If so, would you be willing to explain why? I'm here to learn and when I asked mcolome1 and ALB, I got nothing. This issue seems to be an area where SPGB members don't always agree, as the WSM thread demonstrated, so I would appreciate an explanation from your point of view YMS.

[SocialistPunk]

Ideology is in essence a word that refers to human ideas and concepts in a way that forms a  joined up thinking, such as a world view or belief system, usually with a goal in mind. This is the meaning of the word ideology to most people. I say most people because philosophers do not behave as most people do, they seem to see the world in an ever more complex spiral of hidden meaning and can wax lyrical about the most banal everyday words adding multiple meanings and a myriad of contexts.This brings us nicely to the word as seen from a Marxist perspective. We have talk of  ideology as "false consciousness" something some on the WSM thread provided by mcolome1 defended while others disagreed. And we have ideology as the prevailing ideas and concepts of the ruling class. Ironically this view acknowledges the fact that ideology is about ideas and concepts, though it takes on an additional aspect of those ideas being the ideas of the ruling class.That the dominant ideas in any given society are the ideas of the ruling class is easy to understand as it can be seen in almost every aspect of life. A good example being the Scottish independence issue. The workers of Scotland have been drawn into this issue as if the outcome will change their lives to such an extent as to be unrecognisable should they vote either way. Yet once the votes are in and a decision taken, they will still wake up to a life of mind numbing employment every day, austerity measures will still be put upon them when ever their rulers deem it necessary. In short they will still find that capitalism, supported by both political sides, will still continue on relentlessly taking its toll. So the dominant ideology is that of capitalism.Now some socialists would say it is the only ideology. If ideology is viewed as something other than human ideas and concepts forming a world view, then yes it becomes the only ideology. But if we accept the every day meaning that it involves human ideas and concepts, then we are getting somewhere. We can then see that there are two ideologies in existence. The ruling ideology and the workers ideology, or as we here call it, socialism. Unfortunately most of the working class do not see that socialism is their ideology because they are born into a society that emphasises the ruling class ideology at every opportunity, at school, in church, on tv, in the press, in films the list is long.I think a socialist society will still have a socialist ideology. In order to achieve a socialist society workers need to develop a conscious awareness of what is really going on in society and where their interests as a class lie. It is my view that people in a socialist society will still need to be conscious of, if not their interests in the class struggle that will no longer exists, but of where they came from and how a truly human society was achieved. I fail to see how this can be done without being aware of the existence of the two ideologies and of which one is beneficial to all humans.If anyone thinks I've just spouted a load of bollocks please let me know, I'm here to learn.

[SocialistPunk]

This is my favourite post from the WSM forum discussion link provided by mcolome1."I think it is about "baffling them with bullshit, although that may be afalsely conscious ideology."http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.politics.socialism.wsm.general/15643

[SocialistPunk]

Thanks Vin, I found success with the link via my email msgs from this site. Weird how I couldn't access it from here directly.What I'm getting here is the neutral reference is essentialy the everyday known use of the word, is that correct?

[SocialistPunk]

Hi mcolome1The link for the WSM didn't work, it doesn't register when I try to click on. Tried pasting the link into my browser but it failed also.Anyway, I don't want to have to go through a long discussion on another socialist forum to find out why socialism is not an ideology. A long discussion sounds as though there is some disagreement, otherwise it wouldn't be a long discussion.It would be easy just to explain in your own words why socialism isn't an ideology.

[SocialistPunk]

mcolome1 wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

Hi mcolome1When you say that, do you also include the ideology of socialism/communism?

 I do not think that socialism/communism is an ideology, or an economical system. Ideology are the prevailing ideas of the ruling class. Are we going to have a ruling class under a sociaist/communist society ? 

Hi mcolome1I should hope not, it's one of the things that inspired me the most about socialism when I was a young punk.Would you be able to put some more flesh on the bones of why socialism/communism is not an ideology? Just saying, "Ideology are the prevailing ideas of the ruling class." to me sounds a little like saying ideology is the prevailing ideology of the ruling class. It simply confirms that human ideas play a central role in the definition of ideology.There is also the disconcerting attitude that LBird points out, as it is a statement that claims absolute authority with no room for error. It reminds me of someone saying something along the lines of, "I know the world was created in 6 days because it says so in the bible."

[SocialistPunk]

Hi mcolome1When you say that, do you also include the ideology of socialism/communism?

[SocialistPunk]

ALB wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

It's pretty obvious why no mention of parliament is spoken of, as in Britain, it wasn't until 1918 all men over twenty one got the vote and 1928 that all women over twenty one got the vote.So as parliament was not the route of obvious choice for the workers to bring about socialism in 1904, does anyone know what the SPGB had in mind then? 

I don't think that that is correct. There are, in the end, only two ways to gain control of political power: the ballot box or an armed uprising. Since the early party didn't contemplate an armed uprising the only alternative was the ballot box. The early party accepted that adult suffrage would be best but argued that, even on the basis of the restricted franchise of the time, the working class made up a majority of voters and so could win control of the state via elections and parliament if they wanted to. This reply to a correspondent from the November 1913 Socialist Standard explains this:

Quote:

We have received the following questions from Mr. John Drysdale. Our reply is appended.(1) Would you kindly let me know your attitude toward Adult Suffrage?(2) Do you think the working class have a majority at the ballot box with the franchise they have now?(3) Do you think the working class should use the franchise they have got in their own interests before the Socialist Party should fight for more? (1) Our attitude towards Adult Suffrage is as follows :While Adult Suffrage would be a useful measure for the working class, to enable them to more quickly and completely take control of political power when they understand how to use their votes, yet as the working class have a franchise wide enough for the initial steps of their emancipation, it is not the business of a Socialist Party to spend time and energy in advocating the extension of that franchise, but to educate the workers in how to use the voting power which they already possess; hence the business of a Socialist Party is to advocate Socialism only.(2) The working class are overwhelmingly in the majority at the ballot box, as is shown by the following figures :According to "White Paper" No. 478 on " Parliamentary Constituencies (electors)" for 1913, there are 8,058,025 voters on the Register. Of these 4,895,840 are in the Counties and 3,111,062 in the Boroughs, while the remaining 51,123 are University electors.In the Counties the Owners number 637,608, the Occupiers 4,086,829, and the Lodgers 171,402.In the Boroughs the Freeholders and Freemen number 54,854, Occupiers 2,824,923, and Lodgers 231,285.It may be accepted that the Owners, Freeholders, and University electors are members of the capitalist class. They number 743,585.The Lodgers may be taken as members of the working class, the few exceptions to the contrary in this case being probably balanced by the few very small property owners in the first case, and they number 402,687.We have left, the Occupiers, who number 5,911,752. Who are the Occupiers? An answer is found by looking at the rent of private houses is given in the In. Rev. Report. Of the 1,473,214 houses that come under their survey only 1,088,631 are of the yearly rental of £25 and upwards. It is a poor capitalist whose house is not estimated at more than £25 per annum, while plenty of slum property is rented above his amount. In addition, many houses that are let out in tenements are returning a total rental of £60 or £70 a year. Still others are Occupiers under the Service Franchise who are servants.We will, however, suppose that all the occupiers of Houses of £25 and upwards are members of the capitalist class, even then we get:Total Electorate …… 8,058,025Owners, Freeholders, University Electors and Capitalist Occupiers 1,832,216Working-class Occupiers & Lodgers 6,225,809 Or more than 3 to 1.(3) Certainly. In whose interest should they se it if not in their own ? It would be absurd to urge them to use it in anyone else's interest.

The full article is here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1913/no-111-november-1913/franchise-questionsSee also this manifesto for one of the 1910 general elections:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1910/no-76-december-1910/general-election-our-manifesto-workers

Thanks AdamThat makes sense.I'm still at a loss as to why number 6 of the DoP is not explicit about this?

[Author]

Posts