The Socialist Cause
- This topic has 65 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
so we have to basicly fight the capitalist propoganda with our propoganda. It seems pretty impossible but hey it can be done. We just have to start on a small scale and work our way up. The financial crisis helps alot ironicly so that people ask themselves: is what we have working for me? We have to use all the oppertunities given to us
Part of the problem is that people are wrapped up in their everyday lives, trying to get through the next day, and mostly don't want to assimilate big ideas, especially when they think they might 'lose all they've worked for' when private property gets abolished. The idea of socialism either seems absurd or too invasive. It makes people insecure, and they back away.But it will happen, one day the tide will turn and people will wonder how on earth they could have been so stupid for not seeing the bleedin' obvious. Just keep plugging away.
Hi Capitalist Pig, as 2015 is an election year and we have candidates in the field, questions like yours are very welcome. Capitalism did not just happen overnight. In these british isles, it started (apparently) in the early 14th century and was a "work in progress" for the next 300 years or more, when the Enclosure Acts drove the bulk of those rural dwellers left on the land, into the towns. Christianity started slowly, languishing in obscurity for 300 years, until Constantine the Great, emperor of Rome, dreamt his dream, won his battle and legitimised the christian faith. Even then ( notwithstanding the cruel persuasive methods of the teutonic knights), it was not until 1413, that the pagans of Lithuania finally succumbed to christianity, embracing all of Europe in that faith. Karl Marx died in 1883, some 132 years ago, so if the two examples of events given above are anything to go on, have faith, World Socialism (as we understand it) is still in it's infancy. As for the second part of your opening post, my socialist mentor and good friend, Bob Gleghorn told me this tale. Bob and his wife would visit his father-in-law every week. The old man was a life long Labour Party supporter and in his own words, a good socialist. He would pick a fight with Bob, every week, on politics and socialism. Of course the old guy would not bend, his Labour party version of socialism was correct and this little upstart who had married his daughter didn't know his left from his right. One day Bob called in on his father-in-law unanounced. The old man was leaning on the garden fence, arguing the case for World Socialism, with his neighbour.I guess we just have to keep plugging away, hoping that some messages hit home. While I am on this subject, none of us will probibly ever hear the likes of this again, at least not in this country. Being a coal miner, Bob used to take every opportunity to"" talk shop" to his fellow miners. While waiting at the shaft bottom for the cage (lift) Bob might have a captive audience of 40- 60 men. When the subject turned to politics (and it did) Bob was king.
Maybe a good way to advance the cause of socialism is to point out the myriad problems that people encounter every day in the capitalist system.If someone can't afford medicine for their child then just ask the rhetorical question: "I wonder if there's a better way to help sick people? The system we have doesn't seem to work unless you're filthy rich!"If a friend is worried about credit card debt ask them why they feel the need to keep buying stuff they don't need.If you pass by a homeless person ask your friends why they think people are homeless and don't settle for the usual answers like "They want to be homeless" or "They're all drug addicts".When the next war starts just ask your friends and family who benefits from wars. Steer the conversation to point the finger at large corporations like Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Boeing.Don't just blurt out that we need socialism because people have been bombarded for generations by capitalist propaganda. Turning things around will be like turning around a supertanker. But we can do it if we chip away at people's belief in the current system which is riddled with inequality and corporate corruption. The inhumane faults in capitalism need to be highlighted at every opportunity before we can propose humane socialist alternatives.
Richard wrote:Don't buy anything beyond what you need for basic comfort. If we could all do this then capitalism would collapse overnight!Not too sure about that, Richard. And if it did I don't think the result would necessarily be socialism.If we did it, more likely that capitalist employers would say "good, now we don't need to pay our workers so much" !
Besides, what is basic comfort? Would it include a car, a TV, a games console, ready meals, washing machine, etc,etc? And hence regular purchases of petrol and accessories, subscriptions to quality dramas, washing powders, etc, etc? Seems to me that capitalism could and does thrive on providing basic comforts!
ALB wrote:Not too sure about that, Richard. And if it did I don't think the result would necessarily be socialism.If we did it, more likely that capitalist employers would say "good, now we don't need to pay our workers so much" !Isn't that what they're doing anyway? Wages have been stagnant here in Canada and down in the States for 30 years. I suspect the situation is similar in the UK.In a capitalist system workers are simply a part of the cost of production, like office furniture or overhead lighting, and if corporations can pay us less then they will. All of these "free trade" deals that we've seen since the 1980s have been about allowing capital free movement around the world while restricting the movement of labour. This allows corporations to control the cost of labour on a global basis.Capitalism thrives on consumption. If you want to fight capitalism, fight the consumer culture it has spawned. Don't worry about your wages cause they're being slashed anyway! Capitalism will always find another middle-class market (e.g., China).
stuartw2112 wrote:Besides, what is basic comfort? Would it include a car, a TV, a games console, ready meals, washing machine, etc,etc? And hence regular purchases of petrol and accessories, subscriptions to quality dramas, washing powders, etc, etc? Seems to me that capitalism could and does thrive on providing basic comforts!What you're describing are not basic comforts. You have to decide for yourself what "basic comforts" means. To me, the term means a roof over my head, nutritious food, good books to read and an Internet connection. I don't own a car (I live in Toronto and use public transit), I don't own a cell phone and I haven't owned a TV since 2007.Think about what you need to live comfortably (i.e., be well nourished in body and mind) and just cut out the rest. Marketing does a wonderful job of telling us what we want. We have to start tuning out that barrage of propaganda and deciding for ourselves what we need – as opposed to what we are told we "want" through marketing. Do you really need to watch the next episode of "Coronation Street"? Do you really need a car? Do you really need an iPhone? A game console?I've found that I'm a lot happier with a basic lifestyle and being self-employed than I was when I worked in an office environment and was "plugged in" to the consumerist machine. I have more time and less money and I'm happier.
Richard wrote:What you're describing are not basic comforts. You have to decide for yourself what "basic comforts" means...So long as your definition agrees with yours right?
DJP wrote:..So long as your definition agrees with yours right?So long as you feel comfortable with your definition of basic comforts. I'm just highlighting the fact that we're all subject to manipulation by marketing and I think that's the source of a lot of stress in society. Consumerism keeps capitalism humming happily along. If you're comfortable with that then go forth and consume!
jondwhite wrote:The focus on consumption is not socialist. We are concerned with production.I agree with you. However in order to increase profits through higher production and higher sales the capitalist system has to encourage greater and greater consumption. Under the current system we all fulfill two roles: worker and consumer. It's two sides of the same coin. The corporate capitalist system is designed to create consumer wants and then employ workers at the lowest possible wage to produce the goods to fulfill the wants created by marketing. I really don't believe that you can be concerned with production without taking consumerism into account.
Richard wrote:Consumerism keeps capitalism humming happily along.Isn't it rather the other way round, i.e that capitalism keeps consumerism humming along? After all, the aim of production under capitalism is not to meet consumers' needs but to make profits from which to accumulate more capital. Given this, consumption is a by-product of the accumulation of capital not its driving motor. What would cause capitalism to collapse would be if capitalist firms refused to invest for profits but there's a fat chance of that happening, though it does happen from time to time. Hence the regular occurence of slumps, some big, some small.Incidentally, the term "consumerism" has a dubious origin. It was first put forward as an alternative name to capitalism for the present economic system:
Quote:In a 1955 speech, John Bugas (number two at Ford Motor Company) coined the term "consumerism" as a substitute for "capitalism" to better describe the American economy:[7]“The term "consumerism" would pin the tag where it actually belongs—on Mr. Consumer, the real boss and beneficiary of the American system. It would pull the rug right out from under our unfriendly critics who have blasted away so long and loud at capitalism. Somehow, I just can't picture them shouting: "Down with the consumers!"[8]Bugas turned out to be wrong as there are now people who are saying "Down with consumerism" if not "Down with the consumers". Having said this, it is true that under capitalism there is a lot of wasteful consumption.
If I want a big car, a big house and expensive holidays, does anyone think that makes me a bad socialist?
My point was that what counts as "basic comfort" is a socially determined thing. Richard wants his internet connection – something most of the world does not have, and that capitalism is all too eager to scramble to provide, and which presupposes a vast capitalist infrastructure, including mines. Having decent food produced by modern methods, even the greenest ones, presupposes oil – and hence the Middle East. Richard assures us that he doesn't need a TV or Coronation Street and is quite happy to live by books alone. But it's far from obvious that there's anything more to object to in a TV than in an Internet connection. Maybe I like Corrie, and am able to enjoy both that and Dostoevsky. What's wrong with that?In short, I agree with the implication made by others. Ethical consumerism makes no difference – except maybe to make its practitioners feel better about themselves. Nothing wrong with that – but it will not lead to the collapse of capitalism. And a damn good thing too since capitalism is how the world makes its living, and no alternative is on the agenda nor will be for the foreseeable future.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.