rodshaw
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
No such thing as bad publicity, they say. It would be ironic if this sparked a real surge in interest.
By that reckoning, a substantial number of London householders would have properties of similar value and be capitalists according to the BBC.
I think "The problem is not Austerity … it's POVERTY" could be kept, and the text following be edited to say something about soup kitchens etc. but also relative poverty compared to the super-rich elite. The theme of the whole thing, rather than austerity, could be single-issue or reformist politics.
You say "We want control over our money /resourses so that it can make the NHS -SCotland FULLY Nationalised".We in the World Socialist Movement certainly don't, we want a world based on common ownership of resources where money has been got rid of, along with our beloved leaders who constantly lead us up the garden path.And we don't stand for nationalism, we want national boundaries to become obsolete, as they will in a real socialist world.
The picture with captions could go on the front of the next Standard, with the text as the editorial.
It's impossible to prove the lack of existence of a god. Similarly, if I believe in a fairy at the bottom of my garden, nobody can prove it isn't there.A few points to consider, though.Believing in something, however passionately, although it may make you feel better about the world and your position in it, doesn't make it true. I would say the existence of a god or an afterlife can be speculation at most.What form does your faith take? Do you go to church? Do you believe in heaven as well as God? What about the soul?Does a stone go to heaven when it’s crushed? Or a house when it's demolished? What about a woodlouse or a dog? Did Neanderthal man? Do any of them have souls? If not, at what stage of evolution did the soul come into being, and what is it?Are the people who died before Christianity saved? Where are they? Are the Vikings still in Valhalla or did they get a transfer to heaven?Why can a person who has had a religious revelation never get anyone else to corroborate it? Catholics weren’t allowed to eat meat on certain days of the week. Then on Fridays only. Then they were. God’s will is continuously being re-invented by humans (what happened to the Divine Right of Kings?) So why not the same for God himself? God does not appear in any mathematical equation or scientific formula that I'm aware of, and belief in one is not necessary to explain the physical workings of the world. Or, for that matter, to explain human creativity and invention. So why bother? And even if there were a supreme creator/prime mover, a head honcho manifesting itself variously in all these religions, alone or with a host of cherubs and angels, why should anyone love it, worship it or want to do its will?
Universities being increasingly run on business models goes hand in hand with the direct encroachment of businesses themselves.How long before we see the Tesco Manchester Met or King's BP College London?
I like this bit of doublespeak:"Any man who so desires may take an oath to obey the commands of the twenty-five barons…We give public and free permission to take this oath to any man who so desires, and at no time will we prohibit any man from taking it. Indeed, we will compel any of our subjects who are unwilling to take it to swear it at our command".You're free to say what you like or keep quiet but if you don't say what I want I'll make you. A bit reminiscent of the two-faced posturing in some quarters post Charlie Hebdo.
JordanBI think you have a point when you say that many in the 'first world' are too caught up in their life cycles to want to be bothered about socialist politics. Or any politics for that matter. It could be said that many of the better off are downright complacent and see themselves as having done very well out of the current system.But if you have to be hungry and impoverished to want socialism, then by implication there would be more socialists in the third world than there are in the developed countries. But looking at the SPGB and its companion parties, I would say the opposite is the case (even though there aren't many of us).Members of the World Socialist Movement come from all walks of life. Anyone can get the message, it's just a pity so few have.
When education is freed from the constraints of capitalistic, profit-based demands, it's bound to become a lot more fluid and amorphous. Those who enjoy teaching and mentoring would no doubt enjoy their new liberated roles in a socialist society.But I think a distinction needs to be drawn between education and training. 'Vocational' training will still be required in a socialist society, and will be as strict as necessary for the job in hand. Nobody wants to be flown by a half-trained pilot, or advised by an incompetent surveyor.Education – which could broadly be thought of as self-improvement – I see as being much more fluid than at present. Would there be a set of commonly-agreed targets to achieve, like the three Rs, which were seen as needing to be taught in some kind of school? Possibly, but I think this kind of stuff, and other 'basic' things that were useful to know, would be mostly soaked up from a person's environment as they grew.I would not envisage the type of formal schooling that drills into unwilling pupils by the hour the laws of physics, the rules of grammar, the history of kings and queens or the differences between different kinds of rocks.It's only in the capitalist era that our industrial-style schooling system has existed.
A similar question often occurs to me.Of course it's important that we recognise the current power of the state as the enforcer of class rule and that socialism will mean its disappearance.But once socialism is on the horizon as a realistic proposition, and the majority of the police and the armed forces have come over to it, a lot of democratic 'socialistic activity' will be taking place at local and regional levels without a state to get in the way much. There will be enough people simply to refuse to do its will, if it still has one. Much of the activity will involve finding practical solutions to problems hitherto unsolvable. Much of it will entail simply not doing things that are done in capitalism – things mostly to do with money and/or coercion, such as not paying for things, not sitting school exams, not putting people in prison, and so on. The state machine, as I see it, won’t as much be conquered as dispersed. Once the collective will is a socialist one, the state will already have gone.What is left of the police and armed forces, that a socialist society can use, will be those elements involved with logistical organisation, say for organising food banks and relief operations. Former judges, JPs and ombudsmen may be useful at helping to moderate meetings and settle arguments. Former schoolteachers will still have an educational role. And so on.
Is supporting or paying money to a charity reformist? Is it always pointless from a working class perspective?I don't mean as an organisation or as a policy, but as an individual.
He then presents a string of reformist proposals. Maybe he's been put up to it! As if it would make any difference what background the people in charge came from.The Tories have said themselves that they want to reverse this image of a privileged elite always in charge. The article itself says they have introduced more cabinet members from comprehensive schools in an attempt to counter the impression.But whatever the 'impression', of course it's all a smokescreen. They could all be wearing flat caps and come from oop north, as we know it wouldn't make a hap'orth of difference.
