Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist' Watch

This discussion is closed.
RoryS
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#4901
Report 6 years ago
#4901
(Original post by paperclip)
"We are sorry, but the page you are trying to view does not appear to exist. Please check that you have the correct link in your browser address bar."

Also, can you not just give us the questions and we answer as a collective? It would be a lot more socialist-esq :p:
Ermm I don't think that's possible. Everyone will then see your answers then what's the point of creating a newspaper.

Try this: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1978688 or just search 'Ad HOC'
0
paperclip
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4902
Report 6 years ago
#4902
(Original post by RoryS)
Ermm I don't think that's possible. Everyone will then see your answers then what's the point of creating a newspaper.

Try this: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1978688 or just search 'Ad HOC'
Got it. Why can't the questions be PM'd to one of us and then we can discuss them as a party and respond. Whilst we're all Socialists, we have a number of varying interests, for example, if a question about the environment were to come up, i would only be able to give a really generic response, but we do have other members who would be able to elaborate in greater detail. If these interview questions are to gain party-specific views, rather than individual views, surely this system makes more sense?
0
Drapetomanic
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#4903
Report 6 years ago
#4903
(Original post by PoGo HoPz)
I'm gonna go ahead and quote IFondledAGibbon, because I think he's absolutely right on the money (obvious pun, I know :rolleyes:):



I hope this answers your question.
Gee whiz, that there IFondledAGibbon sure is one sharp son of a gun!



Still kickin' it socialist style 2k12.
0
RoryS
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#4904
Report 6 years ago
#4904
(Original post by paperclip)
Got it. Why can't the questions be PM'd to one of us and then we can discuss them as a party and respond. Whilst we're all Socialists, we have a number of varying interests, for example, if a question about the environment were to come up, i would only be able to give a really generic response, but we do have other members who would be able to elaborate in greater detail. If these interview questions are to gain party-specific views, rather than individual views, surely this system makes more sense?
Great . I'm very happy for you to discuss the answers to the proposed questions in your Socialist private sub-forum, but the idea is that it's a more personal interview about the Party Leader (in this case/issue 2 of the paper) rather than an open interview representative of a political party.
0
ahq
Badges: 13
#4905
Report 6 years ago
#4905
(Original post by RoryS)
Great . I'm very happy for you to discuss the answers to the proposed questions in your Socialist private sub-forum, but the idea is that it's a more personal interview about the Party Leader (in this case/issue 2 of the paper) rather than an open interview representative of a political party.
I suppose I'd be willing to do an interview if nobody else will. :grumble: Last-ditch scenario and all that.
RoryS
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#4906
Report 6 years ago
#4906
(Original post by Abiraleft)
I suppose I'd be willing to do an interview if nobody else will. :grumble: Last-ditch scenario and all that.
Great - that's what I need. Thank you.
0
obi_adorno_kenobi
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4907
Report 6 years ago
#4907
(Original post by toronto353)
Though I perhaps shouldn't derail this thread, given Rakas' comments, could you please explain exactly how the Socialist Party leadership works?
Insofar as you would consider a TSR political party to have a leader, the TSR Socialists have none. This was a mechanism that I, along with Alasdair, Grape, and a few others, came up with to balance a group of rather large egos. It was modelled, essentially, on a quasi communist/POUM-esque form of democracy which spread the workload and the power amongst three people thereby ensuring neither one of them had any dominance over the other. In practice - certainly after the original group left - the power has largely fallen on the C1 (currently Abiraleft) and so the Socialists have a relatively ordinary power structure, just like the other parties. What might be the case in the future, who knows.
0
toronto353
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4908
Report 6 years ago
#4908
(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Insofar as you would consider a TSR political party to have a leader, the TSR Socialists have none. This was a mechanism that I, along with Alasdair, Grape, and a few others, came up with to balance a group of rather large egos. It was modelled, essentially, on a quasi communist/POUM-esque form of democracy which spread the workload and the power amongst three people thereby ensuring neither one of them had any dominance over the other. In practice - certainly after the original group left - the power has largely fallen on the C1 (currently Abiraleft) and so the Socialists have a relatively ordinary power structure, just like the other parties. What might be the case in the future, who knows.
Two further questions, how does the leadership come to decisions then in areas which don't fall into any category? Also, what power structure would you now support for the Socialists?
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4909
Report 6 years ago
#4909
(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Insofar as you would consider a TSR political party to have a leader, the TSR Socialists have none. This was a mechanism that I, along with Alasdair, Grape, and a few others, came up with to balance a group of rather large egos. It was modelled, essentially, on a quasi communist/POUM-esque form of democracy which spread the workload and the power amongst three people thereby ensuring neither one of them had any dominance over the other. In practice - certainly after the original group left - the power has largely fallen on the C1 (currently Abiraleft) and so the Socialists have a relatively ordinary power structure, just like the other parties. What might be the case in the future, who knows.
Your actually not the only party with three at the top as the Tories have a Leader, Deputy Leader (and Chief Whip) as well as a party chairman, whilst i do wield a significant amount of power (at least compared with how it may be divided in the Socialists) we do have a three pronged structure (DL being above Chairman).

I suspect some of the other parties probably have differing leadership structures as well, quite interesting really.
0
obi_adorno_kenobi
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4910
Report 6 years ago
#4910
(Original post by toronto353)
Two further questions, how does the leadership come to decisions then in areas which don't fall into any category? Also, what power structure would you now support for the Socialists?
On your first question: through a process called internal democracy. The Commissars don't make decisions except as a representation of the will of the party as a whole.

On your second question, that's really all dependent on what the party intends to do with itself in the second half of the year and is not really a topic for open discussion here. Suffice it to say that I've never been a communist or an anarchist.
0
obi_adorno_kenobi
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4911
Report 6 years ago
#4911
(Original post by Rakas21)
Your actually not the only party with three at the top as the Tories have a Leader, Deputy Leader (and Chief Whip) as well as a party chairman, whilst i do wield a significant amount of power (at least compared with how it may be divided in the Socialists) we do have a three pronged structure (DL being above Chairman).

I suspect some of the other parties probably have differing leadership structures as well, quite interesting really.
Yes, well that's a relatively recent phenomenon. I'm talking about a leadership structure that has been in place for the best part of 6 years.
0
toronto353
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4912
Report 6 years ago
#4912
(Original post by Rakas21)
Your actually not the only party with three at the top as the Tories have a Leader, Deputy Leader (and Chief Whip) as well as a party chairman, whilst i do wield a significant amount of power (at least compared with how it may be divided in the Socialists) we do have a three pronged structure (DL being above Chairman).

I suspect some of the other parties probably have differing leadership structures as well, quite interesting really.
It is quite fascinating really. TSR UKIP has just the Leader and Deputy Leader. All votes are free votes for our MPs and so we don't have a Chief Whip at all. Members are also free to hold whatever policies and beliefs they wish to so in many ways, the leadership is purely symbolic merely enacting certain clauses of the Constitution where needed and helping members with their Bills. Most, if not all decisions, are taken by the party as a whole with the leader responsible for ensuring that the decisions are adhered to.

It hasn't always been like that though. In the very early days (before I joined), the leadership seemed to take all the decisions. In fact, I would say that TSR UKIP now is unrecognisable from its early days.
0
toronto353
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4913
Report 6 years ago
#4913
(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
On your first question: through a process called internal democracy. The Commissars don't make decisions except as a representation of the will of the party as a whole.

On your second question, that's really all dependent on what the party intends to do with itself in the second half of the year and is not really a topic for open discussion here. Suffice it to say that I've never been a communist or an anarchist.
Well I look forward to trying to get my head around the new system.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4914
Report 6 years ago
#4914
(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Yes, well that's a relatively recent phenomenon. I'm talking about a leadership structure that has been in place for the best part of 6 years.
Indeed, it was one of my first acts as leader although Indie laid down a lot of the ground work before he left.

Fair enough.

Does complete internal democracy not take a lot of time? With that being said the Lib Dems seem to act in unison most of the time though.
1
obi_adorno_kenobi
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4915
Report 6 years ago
#4915
(Original post by Rakas21)
Does complete internal democracy not take a lot of time? With that being said the Lib Dems seem to act in unison most of the time though.
Yes, it does, and that's one of the major reasons for the Socialists appearing to be dormant quite a lot of the time. The processes of the House are much faster than our/their internal democratic processes. That is largely due to the fact we/they act multilaterally rather than unilaterally.

What the Lib Dems do or do not do really is of no concern to me.

(Original post by toronto353)
It hasn't always been like that though. In the very early days (before I joined), the leadership seemed to take all the decisions. In fact, I would say that TSR UKIP now is unrecognisable from its early days.
I should hope so. You were the Patriotic Conservative Party and various shades of Ham & Cheese fascist before Paddy modernised you.
0
Faland
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#4916
Report 6 years ago
#4916
(Original post by Keckers)
Under capitalism, man exploits man.

Under socialism, it is reversed.
Practically all socialist theory is built around the eradication of exploitation from society. Coercing one group into acting humanely is not exploiting that group.

What that maxim alludes to is the idea that "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" somehow penalises those with more ability. This would only be correct if judged by the flawed morality of capitalism, where a person's societal value is measured by the wealth they accumulate. Socialism obviously aims to supplant this system, recognising that true freedom derives from positive relations with each other as communal beings.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4917
Report 6 years ago
#4917
(Original post by toronto353)
It is quite fascinating really. TSR UKIP has just the Leader and Deputy Leader. All votes are free votes for our MPs and so we don't have a Chief Whip at all. Members are also free to hold whatever policies and beliefs they wish to so in many ways, the leadership is purely symbolic merely enacting certain clauses of the Constitution where needed and helping members with their Bills. Most, if not all decisions, are taken by the party as a whole with the leader responsible for ensuring that the decisions are adhered to.

It hasn't always been like that though. In the very early days (before I joined), the leadership seemed to take all the decisions. In fact, I would say that TSR UKIP now is unrecognisable from its early days.
We had the same system until Indie took over and first decided that a whip/party stance on most bills would be helpful, since that time we a whip from time to time until i became leader and instituted an all whip policy (though one lines are not really whips anyway). Whilst very united economically (find me a Tory who does not want lower taxes and an increased private sector provision in public services) as a large party there is a vast swathe of social views ranging from death penalty supporting TehFrance to borderline Libertarian Jarred and hence i do think that a leader should act as unifying force, members are however encouraged to hold their own views and i think that on social views especially we actually get a very unique prospective seeing the argument from both sides. There are some things which are decided as a party (coalitions for example) but to be honest i am far too decisive to work in an environment in which we would have to wait days for a decision to be made as in the case of the Socialists and i largely think that i represent the views of the party fairly well on most issues which prevents alienation.

Member and MP feedback is still very important, i actually have a policy whereby if just 3 MP's are against a bill, then the party will not back it.

Fascinating indeed.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4918
Report 6 years ago
#4918
(Original post by JPKC)
Practically all socialist theory is built around the eradication of exploitation from society. Coercing one group into acting humanely is not exploiting that group.

What that maxim alludes to is the idea that "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" somehow penalises those with more ability. This would only be correct if judged by the flawed morality of capitalism, where a person's societal value is measured by the wealth they accumulate. Socialism obviously aims to supplant this system, recognising that true freedom derives from positive relations with each other as communal beings.
I prefer Spock.. "Superior ability breeds superior ambition".
0
Alasdair
Badges: 14
#4919
Report 6 years ago
#4919
Hrm. I'm not sure I 100% remember how I/we came up with the structure. I suspect it was mostly about doing the things I enjoyed doing myself, while farming out the bits I wasn't good at/didn't really like...

Adorno's right about the large Egos back in the day though - but I think more often than not, it led to a more active, engaged party...
TopHat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#4920
Report 6 years ago
#4920
(Original post by Alasdair)
Hrm. I'm not sure I 100% remember how I/we came up with the structure. I suspect it was mostly about doing the things I enjoyed doing myself, while farming out the bits I wasn't good at/didn't really like...

Adorno's right about the large Egos back in the day though - but I think more often than not, it led to a more active, engaged party...
You should make a return; a few more big egos will make this place even more...

...fun.
1
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (280)
27.56%
No (736)
72.44%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise