rodshaw
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
As to your question about China etc. – we refer to them as state capitalist because they had all the features of capitalist society – a state, production for profit, money, buying and selling, an exploiting and an exploited class – the same as all avowedly capitalist countries do. The difference is that in the so-called communist or socialist countries, effectively the state and the ruling class were one and the same set of people, rather than the state acting on behalf of a private capitalist class.So what we see with these countries, rather than the demise of real socialism, is the move from strictly controlled state capitalism to private capitalism.For members of the World Socialist Movement, real socialism (or communism) entails the abolition of the ruling class and the state – in all countries – and its replacement with worldwide common ownership of resources.
The strapline to an article in The Times today:'Wealth gap shows that capitalism is failing'.But it was only Matthew Parris saying there really are some poor people about, the very rich are too rich and the free market needs reforming.
Interesting.The day after Bowie died I went to have my hair cut and my barber, in his early 70s so not much older than Bowie, said (and I paraphrase), 'What's all this fuss about David Bowie? I've never heard of him'. Then Barry Manilow came on the radio and he said, 'Now that's what I call music'.I was never a big Bowie fan actually (only really know the greatest hits, and only then because one of my daughters (!) bought the CD), but in the few interviews I saw he did come across as very articulate and intelligent.Did he have anything to say about socialism? Guess I'll find out next month.He certainly attracted a lot of hero worship and adulation. What are we to make of the outpourings of grief at his death? Some social media commentators who dared to suggest they were over the top became the subjects of the now almost standard vitriolic remarks, death wishes etc.
I'm not a scientist but am very interested in science programmes on the telly. In particular, there was one on recently about Einstein and discoveries since his death. At the risk of repeating some of what's already been said, let me give my own slant on them.Einstein showed theoretically that there is such a thing as space-time and that it gets warped near large objects. He couldn’t prove it in practice, but scientists since then have found examples of this warping in the universe.Einstein also did the maths to show that time travels faster the further away you are from a large object. Again he couldn’t prove it in practice but it has since been found to be so because the clocks on satellites have to be updated periodically to keep the same time as on earth.Einstein knew that his view of the universe doesn’t apply to the quantum world, where particles behave very unpredictably indeed, and a unified theory to explain both the Einsteinian view and the quantum world has yet to be found. In time, I daresay it will.Of course, all the above has been determined by a small group of scientists living in capitalist society, and ratified more or less only amongst themselves. There is no way that more than a handful of people, with specialised training, a certain aptitude, and the time, could do the maths and go through all the experiments needed to arrive at conclusions like the ones above. The rest of us can either accept it or look on sceptically when we’re told about it. Or not give a shit, as may be. That is, if we know about it at all. There are people in all four camps. I can’t imagine it being different in a socialist society.So how is all the above knowledge, whatever we think of it, inextricably linked to class rule?In a socialist society, knowledge would be a common resource. Scientists would not be an elite group with any special hold on it, or in thrall to a ruling class that would manipulate that knowledge for their own ends. They would be regarded as people with a particular interest or mandate to study their specialisms and presumably report on their findings. But would all scientific knowledge to date have to be considered unsound, because it was decided in a class-based society? I think not.If applied to all aspects of scientific knowledge, for example how a steam engine or an iphone works, the decision-making process could otherwise take a very long time indeed.
Rocks are matter.Humans are matter.Rocks do not create.Humans do create.Therefore (and you can call me picky if you like), humans are a different kind of matter from rocks, a kind which embodies creativity.There's a certain amount of deliberate obfuscation going on in this thread, but so many seem to go that way eventually.Have an idealist-materialist new year one and all, and let's hope we material beings get nearer to creating socialism in 2016.
Damn! How wrong could Madonna be? All together now…'cause we are living in a material world, and I am a material girl.
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.
