rodshaw
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
rodmanlewis wrote:When, or if, socialism is established these people will climb out of the woodwork and declare they were 'with us all the time'! Meanwhile we continue to do the donkey work.
Interesting that. At one SP public meeting I went to there was a staunch Labour supporter saying that when socialism is finally established, up will pop the SPGB to take all the credit.But either way – as long as we get socialism, who cares?
One thing that might make us stand out a bit more would be for us always to use the term 'world socialism' rather than just socialism when talking about our case. In the Standard, in interviews, in debates, in conversations, at elections. It immediately takes things to a different level and it's really what we're about. Ok, it might conjure up images of a world government but at least it would emphasize the global aspect and differentiate us from the nation-oriented rest.
I know what you meant Vin, and I think johndwhite misunderstood if he thought you meant that awareness is the only thing we need. Of course it's not, but it's a prerequisite – not necessarily awareness of the SPGB as such, but of the idea of world socialism.Workers who hear the case reject it because it's not respectable, it hasn't got critical mass. I think that if any high profile celeb started advocating socialist ideas, and specifically joining the SPGB, it would be bound to make more people prick up their ears. The important thing would be whether they could retain their socialist ideas independent of the celeb, detach themselves from being a follower.Having said that I can't see any such celebs doing anything as infra-dig as joining the SPGB. It would probably send their careers plummeting.
I think once the number of socialists reaches some kind of critical mass, there will be a snowball effect and it will become virtually unstoppable. The only thing is what that critical mass will be.
The Times on Saturday reported that greenhouse gas emissions are reducing. It put it down to cleaner forms of energy and less emissions from China.What are we to make of this? Is it just propaganda? If true, how will it affect the overall picture?I suppose, to partly answer my own questions, it's a bit like decreased pollution in rivers leading to a revival of some wildlife. Too little too late, and it doesn't greatly improve life under capitalism.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Man killed for supposedly eating beefhttp://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34398433Less to do with vegetarianism but more to do with Hindutva – right-wing Hindu nationalismhttp://www.countercurrents.org/cc300915.htmQuote:It is ironic that India is the largest exporter of beef in the world! According to data released by U.S. Department of Agriculture India exported 2.4 million tonnes of beef and veal in FY2015, compared to 2 million tonnes by Brazil and 1.5 million by Australia. India accounts for 23.5 per cent of global beef exports. This is up from a 20.8 per cent share last year.As a good little Catholic boy, I was banned from eating meat on a Friday. Otherwise I'd go to hell. Unless I confessed it, of course, and said a few prayers.
Excellent. But I think the Tory stuff is a bit wacky, however tongue in cheek, not really consistent with the party approach.
robbo203 wrote:Ah sorry the figure should be 32K US dollars not pounds. So the threshold of entry to the top 1% in global terms is even lower than the one I citedI couldnt find the orginal FB article but found this instead which corrobrates what I said above"According to the Global Rich List, a website that brings awareness to worldwide income disparities, an income of $32,400 a year will allow you to make the cut.Using current exchange rates, that amounts to roughly:29,100 euros2.1 million Indian rupees, or200,900 Chinese yuanSo if you’re an accountant, a registered nurse or even an elementary school teacher, congratulations. The average wage for any of these careers falls well within the top one percent worldwide"Read more: Are You In The Top One Percent Of The World? http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp#ixzz3salV7NLiFollow us: Investopedia on Facebook As an afterthought I suppose it could be argued that wjat essentially characterises a member of the capitalist class is the possession of capital rather than a high income stream as such. This is true but I would imagine there is a significant degree of correlation between these two things…Yes, but shouldn't the absolute income value be related to prices? 32k dollars is a lot more for someone in a 3rd world country. Or is this figure somehow smoothed – an average, net disposable income figure? Obviously it makes no sense from a capitalist/worker point of view.
This article, and the editorial, take the view that scientists generally agree that climate change is mostly caused by humans (=capitalists).Can someone point me to some references? I ask because there is a discussion on another forum I belong to which has a number of people saying they agree global warming is happening but don't think there's enough evidence that it's caused by human activity. So basically they don't care. (Some of them think we're actually on the verge of an ice age.)I'm not looking for mere assertions, but some sources for the scientists' views.
Meanwhile, Liverpool's new manager Jurgen Klopp says he will not tolerate individuals veering away from his methods and demands total obedience. Players must feel they are ready to die in the game.Would athletes in a socialist society tolerate talk like that? Would they need a manager at all?
I think the crux of the matter is our use of the word 'World'.Maybe we can make ourselves stand out better by trying always not to use the word 'socialism' on its own but by emphasizing that we stand for World socialism. We may stand a better chance of getting our point across, especially in the face of the likes of Corbyn and how he's being branded, if we always use the words World Socialism together, as our brand, rather than just saying our socialism is not the same as theirs. In effect, use World Socialism as our USP in leaflets, slogans etc. more than we maybe are doing.After all, we say that socialism can't be established in one country, so in a sense it doesn't matter what 'nation-oriented' advocates of so-called socialism mean by the word. So we could say things along the lines of 'not Corbyn socialism but World socialism'.'Are you a World Socialist or just a pretend socialist?'.Etc.
From what I remember of the book, I agree with the reader's view of The Dispossessed. Hardly shows socialism in a good light. There is no 'world of abundance' there, just scarcity shared out. And everyone seems so humourless and impersonal.But there again it's a long time since I read it, so maybe I should look again.
Women's football is a joy to watch. Very skilful, and no cheating, diving or play-acting like in the men's game (well, very little anyway). And usually more goals.But it could be argued that the strong desire to win trophies that competitive sportspeople have, regardless of the money involved, i.e. the very thing that makes some sports so exciting to watch, is itself instilled by the competitive nature of capitalist society.My main fear for women's football is that the more popular it gets and the more the money men get their hands on it, the more it will become like the men's game.
stuartw2112 wrote:Some funny stuff in that link! The left constantly and consistently underestimates the power of capitalism to innovate and continue. I'm reasonably confident it'll survive free software and kids that tweet.It certainly will unless people realise that it's the political control by the ruling class that needs to be got rid of, not the act of payment. Certain things have always been "free" in capitalism at the point of consumption.
