rodmanlewis
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:Comparing ourselves with the DSA is apples and oranges.There are various membership options – 8 of them, including family memberships. You can even purchase membership for other people to give as a gift.https://dsausa.nationbuilder.com/join
Not even Bob Hope's gag writers could've come up with this one!
alanjjohnstone wrote:RIP is the abbreviation of the Latin phrase requiescat in pace, or rest in peace.How should socialists mark the demise of a comrade with respect? What should we say or write to offer our sympathies?Perhaps avoid the usual cliches such as "after a long battle with…"; "with sorrow"; "much missed" etc.
Which is heavier a pound of feathers or a pound of gold? Everybody knows it's feathers. Seehttps://www.govmint.com/coin-authority/post/troy-ounces-vs-avoirdupois-ounces/
alanjjohnstone wrote:Another example of suppression of free thought.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/richard-dawkins-islam-muslims-islamophobic-row-twitter-tweets-atheist-kpfa-us-university-of-a7854751.htmlI suspect Dawkins will get more publicity out of the ban than by turning up to give his lecture. That's the sort of publicity the SPGB could do with! Perhaps it's better to be banned than ignored.
Matt wrote:[qoote]I think they hope to achieve more than simply marching A to B or the Grand Old Duke of York strategy as it is derisively known.What torching workers cars and get the other marchers bludgeoned and shot? They have a good Jaconinist conceit for themselves.[/quote]Like trots they offer themselves as willing truncheon fodder…
jondwhite wrote:rodmanlewis wrote:Vin wrote:Example: Removal of public service pay cap? Is this an example of a reform socialists can support?We won't be in a practical position to support (or oppose) such a reform until we have delegates in parliament.
That sort of runs the risk of implying socialist delegates might act against what is said in party literature including the Standard every month. We're against war, religion and exploitation, elected delegates will act accordingly and this can be stated in advance.
Socialist delegates will need to consider the whole bill before voting on it. It might appear appetising on the surface, but not inside.
Vin wrote:Example: Removal of public service pay cap? Is this an example of a reform socialists can support?We won't be in a practical position to support (or oppose) such a reform until we have delegates in parliament.
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:This article on individualized perfect price description might help explain things to some. For those who don't know capitalist speak, individualized perfect price descrimination means something like socialism. https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_developing-new-products-and-services/s05-02-first-degree-price-discriminat.htmlA late member of the SPGB related that when he was working in a sardine-packing factory in the 1930s, the tins had different price labels on them depending on where they were being sold: It was something like 3d in the corner shops, and 1/6d in Harrods! I don't think it made the rich that much poorer…
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:Hello, I have a novel solution for reducing financial innequality that implements communism on a per transaction basis. So in a capitalist marketplace, this allows you to charge someone as if everyone got paid according to their means and everyone charged according to their need. It's a pricing scheme that adjusts the price higher for people who have more money. So Effectively, the rich have an equal amount of buying power as the poor in this currency and rich or poor will still cost the same number of hours effort working to buy a car or pay for movie ticket or get your hair done. It's basically a method for normalizing wages at the cash register.So, what's the point of being rich? Of course, the rich won't be working, so how do you measure their "contribution"? They have the state to look after their "needs" which is to accumulate more wealth, so who is going to implement these measures?And for those who are working or not, you will have to inspect their bank accounts, and how much cash they have under their mattresses.
ALB wrote:Apartheid impeded the normal development of capitalism in South Africa by reserving certain jobs for certain population groups and by segregating population groups. This was against the logic of capitalism which is colour blind and is only interested in exploiting labour-power and is not interested in the characteristics of its bearers. Apartheid went against this logic. It tried to ignore this but couldn't stop the logic of capitalism getting its way in the end. It did, though, delay this for over 40 years.[/quote]There are other examples of states not functioning in an efficient way for capitalism to function fully. North Korea, where so much effort is tied tied up military and "security" matter, rather than in production for profit. This applies to many dictatorships. So what benefit does a dictatorship have in running capitalism?Yes, i know that some dictatorships are used for the purpose of "balance of power".
robbo203 wrote:Really, what lies befind the controversy over free will is the theory of causation. The classical precept of mechanical philosophy was articulated by the philosopher David Hume – namely that causes always precede effects. Causation is thus unidirectional in this view of the universe. You strike one bar billard ball with a cue and the ball collides with another which then collides with another causing the last to sink into the pocket at the far end of the table. It is purely mechanical and in theory entirely predictableWe may think we have free will, but advertisers know better–they know what will pull at our heartstrings, tickle our fancy, make us desire things we thought we could do without, and leave us with the feeling that we have complete control over our decisions.We are either manipulated by agency, or by sometimes motiveless societal pressures. Capitalism doesn't function in the interests of society as a whole, but because there are so few of us who have considered a fundamental change, capitalism has to justify its continuation and is rationalised into staying put, regardless of the consequences.
meel2 wrote:Good one, James.This man has been having a bit of a rant:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRNXff_HHuUWhen I first heard the news and that it was in North Kensington, that told me everything I needed to know.
meel2 wrote:Not a lot of discussion on this forum of “hot” topics in the news where workers have been treated like dirt under the shoes of their masters yet again – I’m talking about Grenfell Tower.I can understand it in a way – so what, capitalism craps on workers yet again, so what’s new. I do think that possibly more topical items of discussion might engage people straying onto this forum, though.Aditya Chakrabortty has written as follows in the Guardian: “While in Victorian Manchester, Friedrich Engels struggled to name the crime visited on children whose limbs were mangled by factory machines, or whose parents were killed in unsafe homes. Murder and manslaughter were committed by individuals, but these atrocities were something else: what he called social murder. “When society places hundreds of proletarians in such a position that they inevitably meet a too early and an unnatural death, one which is quite as much a death by violence as that by the sword or bullet; its deed is murder just as surely as the deed of the single individual,” he wrote in 1845, in The Condition of the Working Class in England.Over 170 years later, Britain remains a country that murders its poor. When four separate government ministers are warned that Grenfell and other high rises are a serious fire risk, then an inferno isn’t unfortunate. It is inevitable. Those dozens of Grenfell residents didn’t die: they were killed. What happened last week wasn’t a “terrible tragedy” or some other studio-sofa platitude: it was social murder.”https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/20/engels-britain-murders-poor-grenfell-towerHe also mentions the fact that many disabled people have killed themselves rather than go through more indignities trying to get hold of their benefits.This happened under a PM who saw fit to introduce a manifesto pledge to give MPs a free vote on repealing the fox hunting ban – so that a few toffs can dress up in silly clothing, blow a bugle and let hounds rip some small furry creature to bits.…and yet the crapped-on workers still vote for it…
alanjjohnstone wrote:Probably presented with Irn Bru and Vegetarian Haggis http://www.macsween.co.uk/products/delicious-every-day-vegetarian/Vegetarian haggis is a contradiction-in-terms like "drunken Muslim" or "reformist socialist".
