rodshaw
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
mcolome1 wrote:Some small business owners fall in the category of workers
Yes, exactly, even though they're not working for an employer for a wage or salary. They no doubt have dreams of expanding their business to become capitalists – but of course the vast majority never do.
I, too, sometimes wish there were better words for some of the things we are trying to describe. We have enough trouble with the very words 'socialism' and 'communism' because of how they have been hijacked. But they're the best we've got. It can be difficult for non-socialists to grasp the party's notion of a worker, or being working class. There are certainly grey areas. What about, say, an ex-middle manager who has retired on a reasonably comfortable pension and may have another 20 or 30 years to live without actually having to work? Or a highly paid lawyer in a big firm who works 12 hours a day and has a fat bank account but doesn't employ or exploit anyone? What about a self-employed small businessman, say a builder, who employs a few workers himself and isn't relying on a wage or salary as an employee but on his own small profits to make the business tick over? Or what about people who are on benefits (and may actually be perceived as scroungers) because they can't find work?Despite these grey areas, the general position holds true. So it's not really about whether you actually go to work for an employer on a daily basis (although it is mostly). It's a question of economic dependence. The comfortably retired pensioner is effectively living off deferred payments from his employer, the amount of which was calculated in a very hard-headed way while he was employed. The housewife and children depend on the husband's income (or vice versa). The small businessman would have serious problems if he stopped getting customers.Some people are certainly luckier or more able than others and this in itself breeds resentment or a feeling that the better off are a different class, or that anyone can make it big if they try hard enough. We know it's all smoke and mirrors.
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!
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.
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.
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/
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.'
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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?
