rodshaw
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
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.
