[rodshaw]

I think it would be more a case of no market developing because we no longer needed one – the concept would be obsolete.So to deal with possible shortages or scarcities we could have waiting lists, doing without, rationing, or taking turns. Just to add two more – find another way of doing the same thing, or first come first served. Nothing to say a socialist society couldn't handle all or any of these methods if it had to. Even now, with all of us being allegedly so greedy and acquisitive, many people are happy with these methods (think, say, of ticket allocations for a popular rock concert).Roll on the day. It's a sobering thought that I've been a member of the Socialist Party since 1977, or for one third of its entire existence. If only I could see the beginnings of it happening in the next 20 years or so, assuming I live into my eighties, I'd die happy. So by all means get promoting!

[rodshaw]

How do you handle demand for a particular surgeon's skills? A waiting list.How do you handle shortages? Either do without, or ration, or have people take turns, on a democratically decided basis. I don't think we'd be talking about life-threatening stuff here. There'd be plenty of food, clothing and housing for all.Don't forget that the machinery for some to have more political or economic clout than others simply won't exist, and society as a whole will make sure it stays that way.

[rodshaw]

I don't think that any kind of violent action will serve to increase the ranks of socialists at present. It will just serve to give socialism even more of a bad name.I see the biggest danger of violence arising when the socialist movement has gained more momentum but is nowhere near a majority. Say 5-10% of the population. It's then that the state will see it as a real threat, rather than something of a joke, but will still have the power to curtail or even crush it by various means. In the more 'civilised' countries this could mean a curtailment of liberties, which in itself would give rise to bitter struggles. In the more volatile or 'repressed' countries it could mean severe police and army brutality, even assuming that some members of the police and armed forces wouldn't take part, or would take the socialist side. In such circumstances socialists may well be drawn into violence, but even then would be unlikely to be the instigators.

[rodshaw]

steve colborn wrote:

Moderation, surely not! Stevie C.

Well, of course, in all things – bar revolution!My post has now been 'passed', you can find it in this thread:http://capitalismisover.com/manifesto-in-progress/

[rodshaw]

Don't speak too soon – my comment is still awaiting moderation…

[rodshaw]

I've posted the following comment on their website:'According to your manifesto you are basically advocating local capitalism as opposed to global capitalism.I fully agree that we need to establish an alternative to capitalism. But that doesn't just mean big business – the answer is not simply to rein in global corporations and 'Buy Local' – all capitalism needs to go, and be replaced by a world-wide society based on common ownership of the world's resources in the interests of all. This entails the abolition of the entire capitalist class and the establishment of a classless, moneyless society – world socialism. It's the only way. For more information see http://www.worldsocialism.org.'

[rodshaw]

I think we've been spammed – see post above.

[rodshaw]

steve colborn wrote:

I think the least we can do for the old chap, is send him a bunch of Standards, so that he has some info to broaden his attacks on Capitalism. You never know, he may even send a donation as a thank you! Or, heaven forfend, attend a meeting. Steve Colborn.

I can see it in a year or so – Russell Brand and Prince Charles on the EC.

[rodshaw]

But all credit to the guy for getting people to talk about revolution, and not being intimidated by the likes of Paxman, who wouldn't recognise a socialist revolution if it hit him in the face. (And, you never know, it might.)Brand undoubtedly has the personality, and the popularity, to get the message across even more – all the better if it were to be 100% socialism, not mixed with airy-fairy nonsense. So I think it is worth trying to contact him. And there's absolutely nothing to lose.

[rodshaw]

An article by one John Bunzl about the Brand interview here:http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/john-bunzl/russell-brand-new-revolutionary_b_4170644.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics&ir=UK+Politics

[rodshaw]

Wow, not bad, apart from the Leninist bit.But is this one person or two? Halfway down it says 'Sir/Madam', as if another letter is starting. And presumably we are going to contact them?

[rodshaw]

And to think I've always regarded Russell Brand as a bit of a prat without two political ideas to rub together. With a bit of tweaking he could be a perfect spokesman for socialism but I rather suspect he is rather too diffused for that. But we won't know if we don't try.

[rodshaw]

LBird wrote:

Given that we usually claim that Communism will involve a 'coming-to-consciousness' of the proletariat, so that we humans consciously start to take control of our lives, I'm not sure how this 'natural springing' will happen.Surely the 'first generation to be born into a socialist society' will be inculcated with our Communist ideals?

I'm not sure what you mean by ideals.We want to see the end of class-divided society and the establishment of common ownership. We see that as being in the interest of the overwhelming majority. We don't see it as an ideal (at least I don't), but as necessary for our emancipation.A future socialist society will have freed themselves from the stranglehold of capitalism, and all the oppressive anti-working class wars, deprivations, laws, rules and restrictions that dog our lives now. Of course they will have taken control of their lives, and if that doesn't give rise to a radically different mindset and behaviour patterns, then I don't know what will. But whatever 'ideals' they hold, won't they be their ideals, not ours?

[rodshaw]

LBird wrote:

All societies enforce 'ideology', and personally I think that the contents of this 'ideology' should be discussed and voted upon by all of humanity. Someone or something has to set limits – if it isn't us, it'll be 'god'.In that case, I wonder who'll interpret his/her/its thoughts?

I take it the references to god are tongue in cheek. Or are you suggesting that people in a socialist society, having collectively rejected gods, will re-invent one to justify some form of social control? I don't think so.The first generation to be born into a socialist society will have an outlook on life that is radically different from ours. Any forms of social control or conditioning that are seen to be necessary will spring naturally from collective ownership and control of the means of production. I suspect they will be kept to a minimum.

[rodshaw]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The latest video on SOYMB blog is relevant to Goldacre and  this thread too. http://www.socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2013/09/science-video.html

That's a cracking video.

[Author]

Posts