Alex Woodrow
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB, people who advocate a society of globalism aren't socialists, because globalism has forms of hierachy and thus this always leads to corruption. How would your sort of idea of delegates be any different to this oligarchy which we have at the present day.Each local community can create internets. Are you looking down on local communities?
DJP, may I ask, where across the globe are raw materials needed to produce goods and facilities not available?In terms of being primitive, I do like nature and the environement because it is great for the world and looks beautiful. So maybe I am some kind of primitivist.
Well first off ALB may I say that I should have made it more clear regarding what resources local communities are able to produce. All local communities can produce enough resources to survive, and depending on issues such as the volume of certain materials some communities will create an abundance in certain things while others will create enought o survive on, nevertheless everyone will still lead a happy and healthy life, and we shall all just work according to our ability, take according to our need, and the abundance of resources which we produce we won't need so can be saved for future generations.Your examples of cars is irrelevant to a world of localism, as localism is environmentally friendly and, if people live in their own community, there won't be any need for them to travel thus they won't need cars and can be occupied doing other jobs.May I ask though how do you know that some local communities can't be "self-sufficient"? Do you have any evidence for this?
Well first off alanjjohnstone why can't there be specialised treatment in every local community?Also, duplication is just a minor issue and also occurs under this current globalized world anyway so it makes no difference.What is stopping us from getting rid of all social hierachy and giving all power to the people, as the vast majority of people hate government but love democracy so localism doesn't sound like at all a bad idea."Society will be a mix of overlapping local, regional and global as it is more or less structured now." I cant believe I am hearing this from a supporter of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, as the SPGB stands for revolution. Unless, that is, you are not a supporter of the Socialist Party of Great Britain.To an extent Geography should define an individual, because where one is born should stay for the rest of their life since, in an ideal world, there will be local people running their local communities and thus no one would need to travel.Local is a village or town community, anywhere between a population ranging from, at the very lowest 100 to the very highest about thirty thousand.The boundaries is outside of that local community, so basically going into another local community."How does one local community access needs that are not produced locally? " So let me get this right, you are saying how we are all one world yet, at the same time, you say how some communities can't stand on their own two feet while others can. What even makes you think that not every local community can stand on their own two feet? I mean workers are intelligent, hard working and have a range of skills so are capable of producing anything in their own local community. This just shows the utter hypocrisy of globalism, looking down on ordinary workers saying that they can't stand on their own two feet, hence why I am a supporter of localism.
Hold on twc. We, as human beings, are capable of producing an abundance of resources all in our local communities, hence every local community worldwide can stand on their own two feet. Don't know where you got the idea of localism being like nationalism, as localism is just a society of where people in a local community work together and a society which has good ethics, a society which gives all power to the people."Global capital mercilessly plunders local labour" what and you want that to continue? Do you even know what revolution is? What bringing justice to workers is?Under your world system there would be no revolution, just the same old global capitalism exploiting people. Under the system in which I advocate there would be no exploitation, as I said all power to the people.Localism is hardly a nationalistic system, as nationalism is imperialist thus capitalist. Localism, on the other hand, puts the interests of the community first, and it does not have central authority as the people are in charge, as well as the fact that local communities are against imperialism because they just want to live in harmony in their own community while, at the same time, respecting other communities and having a peaceful world.I completely agree with you that humans do need each other however your world system won't do this, only localism will. For example, there are, lets say, doctors and nurses within each local community, helping to take care of the most vulnerable. In localism these doctors and nurses stay in their local communities and thus we have a world with good health for all. In the globalized world, on the other hand, doctors move around, such as many doctors coming into the UK from India and Africa in the 1960's and I wonder why those parts of the world are suffering from huge health issues?Finally, how is localism against capital? Local communities want to live a happy and healthy life by where they have enough resources to survive, I really don't get what you are on about here regarding localism and capital.
Yeah I agree with you there SocialistPunk. There are some who idolise Marx so much almost like he is a god to them.
ALB I must say that I for one consider myself a person who believes in equality, and thus you can call me a socialist, communist or anarchist because any one of these three words fits my description.Though maybe I am not a marxist, as I feel that jumping straight to socialism is possible regardless of what material conditions are like in a certain community because localism will solve these problems.Anyway, if anyone here has examples of problems that may occur in a society of localism, then would it be all right if you could please say, as I really don't see any problems of localism.
Sorry Steve I didn't make it clear. What I was meant to say is that localism is an option and I believe it can work, however it is up to the people in any society to choose how they want their community to be run.
Localism does have all of the solution ALB and gnome, and socialism and localism very much go together because the whole idea of socialism is being anti-Globalization so that workers have local communes and enjoy the fruits of their labour which they locally produced. Also, this is environmentally friendly with there being much less travelling around, hence far less pollution as well as appealing to any society regardless of its material conditions. By the way gnome, saying that socialism has to be a for the world is true, and no one is denying that. However we need to start somewhere, and thus we need to spread the word of localism so that, overtime, more and more communities implement localism until, eventually, the whole world has localism.Just look at Tristan Da Cunha, before being invaded by imperialists they implemented localism and it worked out very well for them, they certainly used to set an example for the rest of the world.
Jumping to socialism straight away is possible regardless of what material conditions there are in a certain community due to the fact that there is the great idea of localism by where each community has local residents working together. This is why localism is so great, it has all the solutions. A world against globalization, by where there is peace and justice for ecology so every human being can live in harmony with one another.Also, is it all right if I say, I may be getting the wrong impression here but, the way in which some people on this forum are saying how some countries e.g. Russia back in 1917 weren't or aren't economically developed enough to have a revolution tomorrow sounds kind of Leninist, and I thought this party supported the revolution of tomorrow and was anti-Leninist?However maybe I am getting the wrong impression, though I am just not sure.
You may all I think I am unrealistic then but I think you can jump to socialism straight away. Material conditions has nothing to do to whether we have capitalism or socialism.The quicker the better I say.Oh and I know I will now get a lot of criticism for this comment, but democratically turning any society into socialism is what I believe in regardless of what that society may be, and that is what Marx would have wanted because he would have far rather seen socialism in his lifetime instead of having to suffer his final days under the vile capitalist system.
Completely agree with you there Ed. Couldn't have put it better myself mate.Trotskyism is an ideology based on hypocrisy, very similar to that of the present system of which we have in the western world.Economic democracy/equality of opportunity is the only way forward.
What!When have material resources ever been scarce?We, as human beings, have always been more than capable of creating an abundance of resources to provide enough for all. For example, we have enough arable farmland to produce enough crops to feed that twelve times the size of the world population. So material resources are hardly scarce celticnachos. Saying things such as "although, if material conditions are too scarce, complete democratic planning is impossible, because there wouldn't be enough resources to provide for all" this is exactly what a capitalist would say, as if you asked a capitalist a question such as why is capitalism so great if there is so much dire poverty around the world, this would be their exact answer. Also, if Trotskyism isn't hypocritical, then how is it Trotskyists claim to believe in permanent revolution though always want a corrupt Central Government to be running things? I am sorry but can you please explain this to me because I really don't understand.Anyway, below is a link to this you tube video which I think you need to see mate, called capitalism and other kids stuff.Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88f6QF3R_vo
Maybe I should have been a bit more constructive, however my point is still right that Trotskyism is not socialism.
Erm, celticnachos you do realise that the WSM is against Trotskyism due to the fact that the core belief of Trotskyism is putting a vanguard party before a people's democracy. Surely if you call yourself a socialist then you can't be a Trotskyist, as Trotskyism is state capitalism and is an ideology that believes that the minority of people in Central Government are entitled to control everything, kind of contradicting with the idea of "permanent revolution" as since the status quo in Trotskyism is state capitalism then how the hell can they have a "permanent revolution."Anyway, I am not criticising but it is just that Trotskyism is up there as one of the most hypocritical ideologies in history and, if you really call yourself a socialist, then you would no longer be a Trotskyist and support the ideas of democratic socialism. Though this is your choice mate, as you decide what ideology you want to support.
