rodmanlewis
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I have no problem with members becoming inactive through outside commitments, but that doesn't mean they have to resign. They can still remain members, therefore maintaining our membership numbers and contributing financially where they are able.If they choose to resign and are discussing the socialist case with another member of the working class, and they tell that member that although they agree with the Socialist Party's case they are no longer a member, this is going to plant doubts in the mind of that worker who is likely to think "If you choose not to be a member, then why should I join?"
It would only be null and void if it was their stated intention at the time of their marriage not to have children. Again, I'm not saying I'm supporting or opposing these institutions. It's a question of definition.
Just because he has the image of a "regular guy" (he doesn't wear a tie at shadow cabinet meetings!) doesn't make his utterances any more valid.Anyone can be corrupted by the overpowering mores of capitalism (including socialists), and I'm not talking about brown manilla envelopes.
Do I sense some "straw-grasping" here? Some members did it with Noam Chomsky, Zeitgeist and Russell Brand because some of their utterances hewed close to what we say. However sincere they are, if they hold an incorrect theory of the nature of society then you are just as dangerous as those who hold pro-capitalism views.Do you think Corbyn is going to abandon his comfortable salary and pension to become a socialist?
Same-sex marriage is even sterile on the property front. If partner A dies, their property goes to partner B. When B dies without "remarrying" what happens to their property? Even if they leave a will their estate will still be taxable–they're back to square one.It's a bit like the old days when people got married just before the end of the financial year, so that they could gain the greatest tax benefit.
Heterosexual marriages exist to establish property rights, and to indicate the lineage of any children. These days, it may be useful to highlight inherited medical problems. Historically, it also had the effect of gaining societal approval of activities you otherwise didn't talk about.Same-sex "marriages" are biologically sterile unions, and seem only to exist to establish property and inheritance rights with the maximum tax avoidance on the same basis as heterosexual marriage.And why stop there? How about bisexual (i.e. three-way) marriage? Or four-way?Same-sex "marriage" is no more marriage than nationalisation is socialism.
I, for one, don't recognise same-sex "marriages". I'm not opposed to or support these now state-approved arrangements, but it is not marriage in any meaningful sense of the word, apart from the inheritance factor. Seems to be something of an affectation. A sop to a section of the working class by the state to keep 'em happy for a while, and to make them feel as if they've made "gains".To be clear, I don't support or oppose conventional marriage either, but I recognise the function they serve in a private property society.
ALB: "What a load of bollox but I don't suppose the ordinary, nominal Muslim believes that any more than the ordinary nominal Christian believes that at the end of time their bodies will be resurrected."You could also argue that the "ordinary nominal 'socialist'" doesn't support the idea of common ownership. If you have a religion that you wear, if not on your sleeve but on other parts of your body, then you should be prepared to stand by it. Otherwise it makes you a fairweather religioso.
I think that "moderate" Islam has to bear some of the responsibility for what has happened. A religion (any religion) that promotes life after death is not a good starting point. It encourages the perpetrators to be more reckless that would otherwise be the case, preparing to die for their "cause" and taking as many others as possible with them. And there is the promise of 21 virgins for the men. I don't know what the women are promised!I notice that these killers had been eating pizza in their hideaway. It would be interesting to know the contents of those pizzas. Did they include ham?
The battle cry of the Left seems to be:"WHAT DO WE WANT?SOCIALISM! [sic]WHEN DO WE WANT IT?ER, NOT YET?!"
When the Labour Party supports a strike, when they are in power, then I might have some respect for them. Only respect, not support.
But he could use his position in the Labour Party to expound his "socialist" solution to capitalism, but somehow I don't think he will. I hope I'm wrong. The "gradualness" of bringing about socialism is not by piecemeal reforms, but by persuading the working to bring it about.
I made that comment to Walford, though it seems other members did similarly. I never suggested that we couldn't learn from others.What I was attempting to convey to him was that these particular workers, by their responses, hadn't understood, fully or in part, what we were trying to communicate to them. Of course, that may be because of our inability to communicate properly with other members of the working class.In other words, most workers reject what they think is our case.
