Anyone interested in having a go at socialism?

[HEDD]

Over a number of years I have been developing an idea that essentially involves implementing a form of socialism on a limited scale.

The idea is to start a completely new, and truly democratic organisation (constant, responsive, dynamic, liquid-democracy), entirely independent of the existing power structures, that will potentially combine some of the functions of a trade unions, recruitment agencies, credit unions, mortgage lenders/landlords, pension providers and employers, as well as food, energy, water, healthcare, and security providers, and perhaps even the media; and give people more direct control over the things that they need or that affect them. It also has the capacity to correct massive income inequality, and has redistribution built into it. Furthermore it addresses heritability to some degree, meaning that family dynasties will be impossible within the organisation (though outside of the organisation they will still be possible).

The democratic processes involved would give equal weight to all members and will pay no heed to the wealth of individuals.

It can and will operate within existing structures of organisation, but as it grows will develop a greater capacity to change or circumvent those elements of the existing structure that inhibit it or are not in keeping with the spirit of the new organisation. Where the circumvention is of existing democratic structures, even this will be enacted democratically.

The fundamental reason for the organisation is to provide a mechanism for a shift toward truly democratic and socialist society.

Eventually I think that with enough support that it could become a kind of substate. A group of people with a common ethos who operate collectively as part of the democratic whole, while retaining their autonomy as much as possible. What’s more there is no need for geographic proximity of members; so the organisation has the capacity to transcend existing divisions between people including international borders, differences in race, religion, gender, sexuality, and any other way people are being divided.

It’s also hoped that such unity among such different people will help foster a spirit of community that seem somewhat lacking in our fast-paced, consumption-driven society. It will mean that rather than operating under pure self-interest, all members of the group will have not only their own interests to motivate them but the interests of each other member individually, as well as the group as a whole, and both individuals and the group will have their interest at heart in return.

The idea itself, while not yet complete, is currently detailed in a document that is over 10,000 words long (and increases every time I have a brainwave).

I have started this thread to see if there is any interest in such an idea.

If there is I would very much like to discuss the idea.

EDIT by moderator Tim Cornelis: I removed the distracting html codes

[Tim Cornelis]

So that you don't needlessly reinvent the wheel. This particular strategy isn't new. It was most successfully executed by the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), with its clubs, associations, trade union relations, and so forth. 'Kautsky revivalism' also seeks to build a movement capable of re-employing this strategy that has been lost in the jungle of dead-end activist sects. Associated terms: alternative culture, party-movement.

Personally I've proposed to form organisations that are a combination of two small (but large compared to the various Trot sects for example) groups: Seasol and Philly Socialists. SeaSol focusses on workplace and landlord issues, Philly Socialists on community building ('socialist' gardening and shit). But remember, that such a movement doesn't simply spring up because of a post on revleft. Abahlali baseMjondolo and the Landless Workers' Movements are also two excellent examples.

I've also written about it here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=18910

It's pretty old now, not sure if I still agree with anything I wrote there. But you get the general idea.

[HEDD]

Thanks for the reply. I agree that small scale attempts at a more socialist organisation of society have come up before. While the idea I have is still in it's infancy, I really feel that what I have come up is unique in both its approach and it's potential outcome; and also in the way that it deals with the existing paradigm.

I agree entirely with your comment about needlessly reinventing the wheel, so the idea tries to use existing ideas and structure where they are useful, relevant and equitable, while trying to render those ideas that aren't [useful, relevant and equitable] obsolete.

What I am looking for are persons willing to discuss the idea in detail (further to those I have already discussed it with), in order that I can try to iron out as many of the kinks as possible, before I try to present the idea in a more formal manner.

[Tim Cornelis]

But no approach is going to say that they keep the relevant and the irrelevant alike, everyone says they've ditched the irrelevant. This sheds no new light on your proposal. If I look at the features of your proposal

"The idea is to start a completely new, and truly democratic organisation (constant, responsive, dynamic, liquid-democracy), entirely independent of the existing power structures, that will potentially combine some of the functions of a trade unions, recruitment agencies, credit unions, mortgage lenders/landlords, pension providers and employers, as well as food, energy, water, healthcare, and security providers, and perhaps even the media; and give people more direct control over the things that they need or that affect them. It also has the capacity to correct massive income inequality, and has redistribution built into it. Furthermore it addresses heritability to some degree, meaning that family dynasties will be impossible within the organisation (though outside of the organisation they will still be possible). ... Eventually I think that with enough support that it could become a kind of substate."

[LIST]
Grassroots democracy;
Fight for workers' rights and against landlord abuse in struggles (trade union activity);
Credit union;
Social welfare services (pensioners, healthcare, utilities);
Redistribution of income;
Substate (state within a state);


Democracy
So you have a democratic form of organisation, much like the anarcho-syndicalists, Maoists, like Stalinists, like the Trotskyists, like the platformists, like the such and such and so on.

Fight for workers' rights and against landlord abuse in struggles (trade union activity)
Solidarity networks do this, as do communist party affiliated trade unions

Credit union;
Historically part of the cooperative movement, associated with the labour movement. Kautskist theories propose the merger of Marxism and the labour movement, and so would include credit unions presumably.

Social welfare services (pensioners, healthcare, utilities);
Abhalali baseMjondolo does this, the Dutch Socialist Party had free clinics, the various 'official Communist parties' in Italy, Portugal, Finland, France had social services. The Landless Workers' Movements do this. Black Panthers did it.

Redistribution of income;
Don't see how it can be achieved.

Substate (state within a state);
Dual power in other words.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_power

I think you're on the right track, in that, you're not pursuing dead end strategies usually done by anarchists (introvertism) and Trotkyists (extrovertism without substance) but I can't see what is specifically unique or revolutionising in your proposal. And more importantly, I think you're punching way above your weight. You're not going to see such a comprehensive movement with the capacity for all what you propose any time shortly. And certainly not without appealing to the existing labour movement, including reformist democratic- and bourgeois-socialist parties. Setting up one aspect of all the features you listed will require pretty much all of your spare time. Look up how to set up a solidarity network, they'll tell you it's "full time".

[HEDD]

Lets say everyone who is part of my organisation puts in 10% of their net income. We use the money to buy the capital that we are subject to, our homes, our employers, and suppliers of products we need (and wants if it grows enough). We never sell capital, but we redistribute the proceeds from the capital (rents and dividends), to all members, with the payment reflecting the length of their membership and other qualifying criteria, not the pounds and pence amount of their contribution.

As the amount of capital the fund owns grows the organisation will have greater power to affect change.

this is a brief outline of what I have proposed. Please keep talking to me about it.

Also, while I admit that a number of the elements of my proposal have been tried, I have found absolutely no examples of someone trying to integrate different elements in the way I have. Nor have I found anyone trying to create a socialist group that can operate under a capitalist paradigm.

[HEDD]

I thought of one thing that is unique about my proposal. It doesn't need popular support. as few as 1000 people would be enough to make it work.

[WideAwake]

HEDD: That idea is great. But look what happens in this world. From a realistical point of view, that idea is very hard to apply, because from realistic point of view, (in the spirit of the political realism of Machiavelli's The Prince), humans poor and rich are not a piece of cake, humans are not a walk in the park. And from a Theodor Adorno's point of view, humans behave by habits, and even Machiavelli wrote in the book The Prince, that it is very very hard to introduce into a society new political systems.

What I am trying to state, is that because most people are so hard-headed, specially in USA, where most poor americans and even homeless americans are very far to the right-wing ideologically, where Donald Trump is a super-god. I think that the best way to see socialism in America is really the only realist way which is the theory of The Dictatorship of the proletariat. Which is literally a dictatorship of forcing socialism on the society, forcing socialism as the new way of life, in the whole society (which is still would be a right-wing Ayn Rand individualist society). And exercising military repression and abuses specifically directed against the right-wing wealthy rich class (business owners).

It is almost impossible to destroy old values and to apply new values, new laws new political systems with the support of the whole society. Most humans are hard headed, and that's why a dictatorship is necessary in order for the communist radical party in the government, to use the military powers of the government to destroy capitalism totally

PS: I think that's why Kennedy was killed, because he was trying to make radical changes within a liberal system, without the use of force and without being backed and without military, political support and without power. That's why Tony Montana in the movie Scarface said: "In life first you gotta get the power". Without power in this world we cannot do any thing. So the first goal of leftists should be a will to power, a will to be the dominating ruling class


.


Over a number of years I have been developing an idea that essentially involves implementing a form of socialism on a limited scale.

The idea is to start a completely new, and truly democratic organisation (constant, responsive, dynamic, liquid-democracy), entirely independent of the existing power structures, that will potentially combine some of the functions of a trade unions, recruitment agencies, credit unions, mortgage lenders/landlords, pension providers and employers, as well as food, energy, water, healthcare, and security providers, and perhaps even the media; and give people more direct control over the things that they need or that affect them. It also has the capacity to correct massive income inequality, and has redistribution built into it. Furthermore it addresses heritability to some degree, meaning that family dynasties will be impossible within the organisation (though outside of the organisation they will still be possible).

The democratic processes involved would give equal weight to all members and will pay no heed to the wealth of individuals.

It can and will operate within existing structures of organisation, but as it grows will develop a greater capacity to change or circumvent those elements of the existing structure that inhibit it or are not in keeping with the spirit of the new organisation. Where the circumvention is of existing democratic structures, even this will be enacted democratically.

The fundamental reason for the organisation is to provide a mechanism for a shift toward truly democratic and socialist society.

Eventually I think that with enough support that it could become a kind of substate. A group of people with a common ethos who operate collectively as part of the democratic whole, while retaining their autonomy as much as possible. What’s more there is no need for geographic proximity of members; so the organisation has the capacity to transcend existing divisions between people including international borders, differences in race, religion, gender, sexuality, and any other way people are being divided.

It’s also hoped that such unity among such different people will help foster a spirit of community that seem somewhat lacking in our fast-paced, consumption-driven society. It will mean that rather than operating under pure self-interest, all members of the group will have not only their own interests to motivate them but the interests of each other member individually, as well as the group as a whole, and both individuals and the group will have their interest at heart in return.

The idea itself, while not yet complete, is currently detailed in a document that is over 10,000 words long (and increases every time I have a brainwave).

I have started this thread to see if there is any interest in such an idea.

If there is I would very much like to discuss the idea.

EDIT by moderator Tim Cornelis: I removed the distracting html codes

[HEDD]

What you seem to be talking about is transforming all of society into something that it doesn't want to be. My idea is for those who already believe in such ideas, and doesn't need popular approval. In fact it would work with as few as 1000 members (perhaps fewer). Obviously the more members the more affective it would be. What I am trying to create is an outlet for those who believe in something better, something that will be able to work under the existing system.

Socialism advocates generally think about revolutionary action, whereas my idea will act more like a parasite, feeding off of the current system until it is big enough to eith kill the existing system, or separate from it.

[Tim Cornelis]

First, you have unrealistic expectations about the willingness of people to put in effort, let alone finance. 10% of their income is a lot. Secondly, putting in all your spare time will only realise 1 aspect out of the many that you've listed, it will not accomplish the entire project. Thirdly, your project seems to be about becoming social capitalists rather than overcoming capitalism. But your proposal still seems vague -- you've only shared bits and pieces of it. But ultimately, it seems you have unrealistic expectations. There've been similar proposals in the past on revleft, where someone proposes a transnational corporation type movement, and he had a kickstarter or something, raised 0 USD (apart from his 20 USD iirc).

But crucially, why would people join your organisation? (And an abstract 'change the world', etc. is not satisfactory, the emphasis is on your organisation, and ordinary semi-politicised workers).
In what way does your strategy differ from that of other socialist organisations, in other words, what makes you think yours will succeed where so many people, with possibly more resources, have failed?

I mean, how are you going to get me excited for your organisation?


the only realist way which is the theory of The Dictatorship of the proletariat. Which is literally a dictatorship of forcing socialism on the society, forcing socialism as the new way of life, in the whole society
.

That's Blanquism, and has nothing in common with Marxism. Seems like you've missed out entirely on the whole 'self-emancipation' thing about proletarian revolution. Proletarian revolution is the result an internally unfolding process of overcoming (aufheben) of the primary contradiction of capitalism (socialised production, private appropriation of wealth), not an externally engineering or moulding of society.

-----
A thousand members for an organisation with no roots in the labour movement or even fringe far-left movements, originating from some guy on the internet, it's not gonna happen mate. Be glad if you can find ten people in one city area, very glad.

Your strategy: utopian socialism, something left behind in history with good reason.

[Antiochus]

No. I am sure you have good intentions but simply put: Socialism cannot exist outside of the context of modern day (Capitalist) society. If it did, you would (best case scenario) end up with something like a religious colony or whatever, "socialism".

Socialism must be built by burning down the existing order and using its ashes as fertilizer for a new one, not by 'creating an alternative'.

[HEDD]

Hi tim, I agree that the idea will not grow from a guy on the internet, and I am speaking to a number of people irl who have shown interest in the idea. The reason I have taken it to the net is that I want to try to deal with the problems the ffund might have before trying to mass market it.

The reason people would join my organisation, is that they see a significant portion of their income going to mortgage lenders, landlord, corporate profits and they want a share of that massive pile of money. or at least they a want it distributed equitably rather than seeing it going to the already well off.

[HEDD]

Antiochus, why does the existing system have to burn? Couldn't we create a parasitic organisation that will grow inside the existing system until it is big enough to either separate itself, or take over?

[noble brown]

I think if you have a clear cut premise and only a few fundamental goals while keeping the strategy dynamic and responsive, you may be onto something. Details are only important in the moment and goals are important in the big picture so I'm less concerned with the details as I am interested in the fundamental goals or rather the premise of said organization

[HEDD]

Oh and Tim, I know 10% is a lot, but pioneers often endure hardship and have to make sacrifices, but they pave the way for a better life for those that follow.

[HEDD]

I think if you have a clear cut premise and only a few fundamental goals while keeping the strategy dynamic and responsive, you may be onto something. Details are only important in the moment and goals are important in the big picture so I'm less concerned with the details as I am interested in the fundamental goals or rather the premise of said organization

The fundamental premise is to remove as much capital as possible from the control of economic masters and deliver it into communal ownership

[Sewer Socialist]

This enterprise - which people buy into, paying the money they have earned through exploitative jobs, possibly even exploited others for - will presumably interact economically with other enterprises which were created in the same way. As the size of the enterprise grows, it accumulates more capital, it interacts more and more with other forms of capital, buying and selling, and it will need to serve the interests of this external capital to make these sales. It will need to compete economically, and offer similar prices and quality as these capitalist enterprises.

And so, our commune workers will come home exhausted from a day of commodity production, with the knowledge that they're helping to fund reinvestment, serving the interests of capital, and they will feel good about making a positive change in the world, just like the people who stock shelves at Whole Foods, or are tellers at a credit union, or who serve the lovely customers at the local worker-owned coffee shop. This is meaningful work! And one day, if I play my cards right, I'll be free of this job altogether!

[Tim Cornelis]

The reason people would join my organisation, is that they see a significant portion of their income going to mortgage lenders, landlord, corporate profits and they want a share of that massive pile of money. or at least they a want it distributed equitably rather than seeing it going to the already well off.

You want to mass market it, etc., but your business plan isn't good. If this were Dragon's Den you'd be shot down in a minute. Your business plan is to offer a service that other organisations offer but that the other organisations have more experience with, and more resources for. When I ask why people would join your organisation I don't mean vague, abstract reasons, as I said. This is not a satisfactory. If I want to start a new smartphone business and I ask for investors, and the investors ask "why would I buy your smartphone?" answering with "because smartphones are convenient tools to connect to the internet, listen music on, connect with people via chats" is really off the market. It's asking why specifically your brand of whatever you're marketing. Okay, so they want a more equitable distribution of wealth, they are socialistic of some sort, possibly not well defined, but socialistic leaning.

Why would they join your organisation and give 10% of their cash to some project instead of voting Labour for free? ("because they don't believe in the empty promises of politicians")

Then why wouldn't they join the SWP? The CPGB-PCC? The CPB? SolFed?

Why wouldn't they go to an establish resourceful credit union for credit?

So far I've seen nothing enticing about your project. I mean, I wouldn't join, and I'd be a perfect candidate, so forget about less than perfect candidates/clients/whatever.


Oh and Tim, I know 10% is a lot, but pioneers often endure hardship and have to make sacrifices, but they pave the way for a better life for those that follow.

I'll let others do the suffering, I'm keeping that 10% -- everyone

[WideAwake]

Sewer: I agree with you on this specific comment about the sadness, physical tiredness, and the sadness in the facial expressions of the workers we see every day at Wal Marts, Publix supermarkets, Target stores, Kroger supermarkets, K-Marts. One doesn't need to be a psychoanalyst, a psychologist to see how sad, bad, and uncomfortable and in pain most workers of low-wage retail store workers feel every day, when we shop at those grocery stores. You know many people out there cannot really feel the pain and sadness of most low-wage supermarket workers but I think that it is very easy thru observing the faces and the physical gestures of most low-wage retail store workers feel. They do not feel happy, self-realized and good at all, and that's real dangerous, because I read in a psychology book that negative feelings, depressive moods and sadness can even cause cancer, heart disease, increased cholesterol levels and many other physiological problems. Only communism can really cure all the underlying roots of cancer, and many other problems caused by the dictatorship of sadness, a dictatorship of depressive moods, a dictatorship of boredom, a dictatorship of daily routines without pleasures for most low-wage workers which is capitalism.

PS: but, but if you say to any of those workers who feel sad and very depressed that communism, a radical leftist party in the US government is the only solution for their sadness. They will tell you: "Move to North Korea" or "Socialism failed in USSR" "America is the best country of the world" "I don't want to share my wealth with others". So what we have is millions of poor low-wage passive-nihilist workers. Workers who are destroyed by capitalism but who hate political activism



And so, our commune workers will come home exhausted from a day of commodity production, with the knowledge that they're helping to fund reinvestment, serving the interests of capital, and they will feel good about making a positive change in the world, just like the people who stock shelves at Whole Foods, or are tellers at a credit union, or who serve the lovely customers at the local worker-owned coffee shop. This is meaningful work! And one day, if I play my cards right, I'll be free of this job altogether!

[Sewer Socialist]

I am more trying to make the point that this commune, or whatever it is to be called, would not operate independently of capitalism but as a part of capitalism, buying and selling commodities with other forms of capital, reinvesting in its own expansion, and as such would not be fundamentally different. Sure, misery is a part of that, but there's much more to it than that.

And regarding investment: what of workers who can not afford to buy their workplaces? What of workers who live in plywood shacks on landfills and earn $0.30 / hour in some plant in a "free trade zone"? What of unwaged workers, who have no monetary income? Or is this a movement for the wealthiest workers? Wealthy workers unite, even though you have things to lose, like your stock portfolio, your 401(k), and your child's tuition? Doesn't quite have the same ring, though. I guess that's another thing to work on.

[HEDD]

OK so these attempts at discussing the idea have borne little fruit, perhaps because I have been to cagey about the details so I am going to start another thread that ask for e-mail addresses so I can forward you the full 10,000+ document detailing the idea. I think then we might make a little more progress.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Hi OP: typically you might find more success joining an existing organisation. One of the great consequences of the decline of the old 'Leninist' parties in the west has been the rise of exactly the sorts of non-hierarchical, independent, organic organisations you seem to be in favour of.

You might want to google some of the following, to help you to start taking actions with like-minded people in a non-hierarchical grouping:

UK Uncut
Radical Assembly
Class War
CalAid
Radical Housing Network
London Palestine Action

There's loads of other small- to medium-sized groups (i.e. a few dozen up to several hundred/a thousand or so) that have formed/are forming around London and the surrounding areas (As you say you're in Hampshire) that meet, discuss, and take actions on either specific issues or more generally as anti-capitalist formations. Get involved and see what you think :)