ActualSocialist10
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hey guys
ALB your description of how money would become superfluous is (ironically) bang on the money đ
However people really do find it hard to grasp, and as we are both aware that this will not be done by decree, we should sincerely remove the “we are for abolishing”, it just does more harm than good making people envision it as a decree (even after we explain it’s not).
Hey Paula,
Thank you, I feel maybe I should make a video showing how people might live and then we could hyperlink it to the bit about what socialism is and what we are for (I’d just really like to show people that we might go through a period of using money/labour vouchers even after a SPGB victory.
That money will be done away with as a natural process, not forced).ALB in regards to Palestine the truth is most Muslims/liberals would back it.
I talk to people in Palestine strikes, leafleters, organisers and they really, really care.Furthermore my point is that it would also generate incredible visibility for the party.
I am quite certain that Galloway’s defense of Palestine is the core reason why his party got 200’000 votes!
On the back of that they have gained many, many members.
This is what we need to be doing!
Things that get us noticed!
For example after Palestine, I personally don’t mind standing outside of an Apple store holding up a sign with the SPGB logo saying “Apple uses slave labour”, this gets attention, this gets people talking, this generates interest.
YFS
Ruben
Hey DJP
<But this is all stuff youâd have to raise through your branch rather than post here with the vague hope of it being actioned.>Hmmmm good point, I really just wanted to get a feel for how the party feels in general, I did email also tbf.
Hey ALB.
We actually do in our about https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/who-we-are/
“socialism will be a moneyless” and “SPGB (WSM) advocateâŠ
Abolishing money, markets and banks”.Show me where I advocated for a minority revolution?
In regards to the other two points I believe I made my reasoning quite clear for supporting such actions.
<are you sure youâre a member of the SPGB>
Not for much longer if this is the type of response I’m going to get…
Personally I’m against all tactical voting unless it’s to go against fascists and even then it’s a maybe.
Tactical voting introduces a lot of problems as it can be used by the ruling class to subjugate us at every turn.
I.e. “you don’t like what we’re doing huh, well it’s either that or you get HIM!”
Okay, apologies for my previous misunderstanding, I think I fully understand what you mean now.
It’s true, things do not happen in a vacuum and as ALB put it, even worst case scenario that could be easily removed.
Sorry it was just I was asked about our policy regarding refugees and my response was obviously “let them in” and then the discussion just got into the nitty gritty of the cultures, current integration problems and I couldn’t think of a good response, but I am glad that has now changed, thank you guys truly!
I wouldn’t ban them coming in but I’d have a bill of rights that cannot be repealed.
If any location does try to repeal any points within the bill, either implicit or explicitly they would face criminal charges.
I see what you’re saying that’s the same answer I got from the anarchists tbf.
To me that is highly insufficient.
Not even talking about just refugees now, we know that reactionaries are extremely well organised.
Even if we had the overwhelming majority of the UK’s workforce behind us, for example 75% which would be unprecedented in history (not even this many were against slavery), that still leaves 25%.
That’s millions of people.
If they organise, i.e. go into locations to become majorities for example and start rolling back human rights, then your answer would be to try to debate them out of it.
Surely wouldn’t a better system be, we have a bill of rights that cannot be rolled back and anyone who tries to do so gets arrested?
I’m sorry but noone is even addressing my question and the evasions are actually starting to become quite disturbing.
For reference all polls from Muslim majority countries show you what they think of women’s rights, LGBT and apostasy.
The climate research shows we’re going to have hundreds of millions of refugees unless we cut emissions dramatically by 2030.
I LIVE in an area where there is a lot of a Muslims and we couldn’t put up a Christmas tree in public because they got violent over it.
As previously stated in some areas of the UK they’ve even tried to patrol the streets to police what women can and cannot wear.
I’m going to ask this one last time in the simplest way possible.
Imagine after the initial revolution the UK, France and Spain have elected SPGB like parties, and we’re still waiting on the other states to have their revolutions.
Many refugees go into Bath for example and they become a majority there, then start voting to ban LGBT, alcohol and women’s rights, how would we respond?
I see what you’re saying ALB.
I’m not denying that the revolution won’t spread, that is the only way it can happen.
I’m just pointing out that currently the EU has around 800’000 asylum seekers arriving per year (the average is more like 500’000 if we take previous years into account) https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Asylum_statistics&oldid=558844#:~:text=The%20number%20of%20first%2Dtime,in%20a%20given%20EU%20country..
With climate change this is set to rise exponentially, even if we say best case scenario, the climate only warms by just under 2C and that number is raised by x10, that is 5 million new people with reactionary views arriving each year on average.
With open borders that means they are bound to end up as majorities in some cities they migrate to.
So my question is what do we do if they vote to ban LGBT in an area that previously had it legalised? How do we react if they do not respect the rights of women or actively roll them back?
I think you misunderstood me.
Yes when we have worldwide socialism there literally will be no problem of refugees as the reactionism would have been done away with, at least in the vast majority.
What I’m saying is, say Britain elects the SPGB in 2050, right when climate change is causing millions of climate refugees.
What do we do?
These people are coming with very reactionary beliefs, if we give them democracy in our decisions, then we’d have to accept that in areas where they inevitably become majorities because of the sheer numbers climate change will turn into refugees, that womens, LGBT and other rights are going to evaporate.
See what I’m saying?
Personally I think in socialism we would let as many refugees as we can sustain enter, allow them to enjoy the same benefits we get while allowing them to work.
None of this stick em in ghettos/camps/containers and not let them even have a job nonsense.In the meantime we would donate as much a possible to build up the means of production in their origin countries if they are democratic.
However we would not allow them citizenship meaning decisions like what schools teach are out of their hands.
Maybe their descendants can have citizenship depending on their integration.
Well already millions want to come here, they actually reject countries like France to come here, so forgive me but your assertion that they will not because of weather is unfounded.
We have a good quality of life which would be undoubtedly better under socialism, that is a huge motivator for refugees.
Hi ALB,
I disagree with that article.
It only takes one mad man like trump to get into power and it can have the potential to reverse any progress we’ve made.Furthermore even 2C to 3C will still create millions of refugees and wars.
Think the recent refugee crisis but times 100.The relatively small refugee crisis Europe had because of the Syrian civil war was enough to bring near fascists into most European governments.
What do you think a much larger one will do?
This is why I think we as socialists need to warn people of the potential coming catastrophes and dangers of capitalism.
Capitalism has done this in the past by the way, before both the first and second world wars, it promoted things such as “tensions will work themselves out” and they highlighted treaties as examples, we all know where that led.
Also once the wars did break out much like with climate change, they will try to tell us “it’s not that bad”, as they say stuff like “over by Christmas”.
Yeah that makes sense and that’s what helped me understand, we’d have clear goals in mind, ie we need x amount of hospitals.
On the software side of things, specially the algorithms, I dare say we are already making great strides into this system anyway.
Even if socialism doesn’t need it per se, looks like it’s coming and will make our job much easier and economy much more effective.
It really feels like in the near future society will either evolve to socialism or descend into a feudal like society where machines produce the large sum of products while most people get by on some sort of UBI plan or become mere entertainment for the lords.
I don’t forsee capitalism surviving automation.Worse yet because of climate change and the coming refugee crisis we could see a fascist rise which starts a nuclear war, but this seems least plausible to me.
Yes that makes perfect sense thank you!
I was having an issue understanding it to be honest, as I like to explain it to someone else in order to confirm I understand myself and I couldn’t.
But the way you put it clarifies it for me perfectly.Also very true on the last points, I’ve always said myself “production for use won’t solve everything, but it will do a lot better at ensuring everyone has a chance at a normal life that’s for sure!”
