rodshaw
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I have had similar reactions – life is just too complicated, and there are too many points of view and ways of life, for us all to live in a single world-wide system. Disregarding a) that's what we do now under capitalism and b) most of life's complications are a result, not a cause, of class-divided, money-based society.Who would live in the local stately home or the grander houses? I think this kind of criticism can partly be addressed by saying that it would be up to the local community – via the socialist equivalent of the local council or whatever – to decide collectively, with everyone of course having a say.I think people living in grander houses would be generally left to live there unless demand was so great that they needed to be broken down into smaller units. Maybe the current 'owners' of large piles and their former staff would be willing to continue to manage them just for the love of it. Maybe it would be decided to convert them into apartments. Or maybe people who wanted could take turns at living in them or looking after them. Or maybe it would be decided to dismaltle them and build something more appropriate.It's not as if anyone would be turned out onto the street.And yes, it's worth turning the question round to see what they think should happen – get their imagination going.
rodshaw wrote:Par for the course for Liddle. As a self-confessed ex-leftie, he is now a firm apologist for the capitalist system.If capitalism is lifting us out of poverty, why is he giving money to charities that try to alleviate poverty?Mind you, even as a leftie he would have been a supporter of capitalism, although he wouldn't have realised it.He also writes for the Sunday Times and I must say I like the way he speaks out against the right-on PC brigade who want to muzzle every view they find offensive. I'm sometimes surprised they let him say the things he does.All when the mood takes him, though.
Par for the course for Liddle. As a self-confessed ex-leftie, he is now a firm apologist for the capitalist system.If capitalism is lifting us out of poverty, why is he giving money to charities that try to alleviate poverty?
Far from considering themselves to live in any kind of poverty, a very large proportion of what we socialists term 'workers', probably a majority, would think themselves somewhere in the 'middle class' bracket and consider themselves to have done ok out of the system. Not necessarily in a smug way, but they certainly see no need for any kind of major social change. I think this is the greatest stumbling block we face to a majority gaining socialist consciousness.
One of her quotes:"We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings."
The I'm-all-right-jack attude of a large section of workers is a real problem for the socialist movement. Despite what we say about the basic division between worker and capitalist, many members of the working class consider themselves to have done pretty well out of the system and see no need to change it. In fact some regard the better-off socialists as two-faced, as if they aren't entitled to want a better world just because they have done ok.
Thus encouraging workers to buy into the corporate ideology of profits being good for the business and therefore good for all. See it all the way your bosses see it! A happy workforce is a compliant workforce.But it won't stop them laying you off when you're no longer needed.
Perhaps to give a brief overview of their life, particularly how they were influenced by socialism, and to say our sympathies are with their family. The person who has died will neither know nor care.
Whether such a group or list is desirable depends partly on what is meant by sympathiser. Is it people who agree 100% with the Party case but for whatever reason don't join, or would it include people who disagree with some aspect or other of the Party's case? Eg our stance on religion, the use of Parliament, outright opposition to reformism, etc?
A very good video.As to a title, I think 'An Introduction to World Socialism' is fine. Certainly the words 'World Socialism' should figure, they encapsulate what we're all about. And the word 'Introduction' suggests that it's something new for people to think about.How about having a subsidiary bit, something like 'An Introduction to World Socialism…and how we can take the whole cake.'
Vin wrote:In stark contrast to LBird's view of communism as a Borg take over. Where there will be no local communities or individuals making decisions. Issues will be decided by the global community(Borg) and imposed on local communities. Sends a shver down my spine.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsUndkXAQ_8LBird ensuring the global extinction of the individual and the establishment of his communism. Decisions are made by the collective. brrrrrrrrrAs I understand it, in this monolithic view of communism, all the world's population will all be equally educated and will be equally informed on every single issue. In fact, they will seemingly be expected to vote on every single issue, whether global or local.Such a thing could only happen if we were all telepathic and could all communicate with one another more or less instantly. Which, by the time this monolithic socialism comes about, we might be.But barring this eventuality, it raises the question who proposes what to vote on? Surely anyone individualistic enough to suggest a new idea isn't playing the game, so nothing will ever change because there's nothing to vote about, and society will quickly stultify.Unless, of course, there's some kind of elite making all the proposals "on behalf of" the community, and the community vote in line for fear of being too individualistic.
robbo203 wrote:I guess "earned income" would cover every contingency but then "abolition of earned income" doesnt have quite the same ring to it as "abolition of the wages system"…And it implies that unearned income is ok!
I think that wage and salary are commonly understood to cover different types of income, the latter being more 'middle class' than the former, probably paid monthly rather than weekly. By using both we include both types of worker.Self-employed income is a bit more problematic and to include it we'd probably have to use more words not less. Unless we used 'income' to cover everything. But then we'd probably have to use more words explaining that we excluded capitalist income, or income from shares etc.Pensioners are another category not strictly being paid a 'wage or salary' (although we regard a pension as deferred wages, which in itself takes more explaining).Rod
I've always struggled with the notion that the working class as a whole don't have a significant tax burden. It's a very hard idea to sell. The amount workers pay may be insignificant compared to the capitalists, but there again so is what they receive.Payslips show a deduction for tax. There's council tax to pay, water rates, and heaps of indirect taxes. The self-employed don't get tax deducted at source but have to put money aside to pay it later on.And council tax isn't deducted by employers but comes out of net wages. Ok, you can budget for it, but you still have to pay it, or apply for relief.
As regards costing money, I think it fair to point out that until recently, although it didn't cost anything to join, it did cost an annual fee (dues) to stay a member, subject to applying for exemption if you were unwaged or for certain other reasons. At the moment there are no dues and contributions are voluntary but there is a move within the party to re-introduce dues in some form.
