rodshaw
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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?
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.
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.htmlThat's a cracking video.
Rule 1 doesn't actually give reasons why an application may be rejected. In fact, it doesn't mention the questionnaire as such, it just refers to signing a form. I presume the form and the questionnaire are the same thing?
Alex Woodrow wrote:Just referring to people as men and women is oppressive, we are HUMANS!Out of interest, does anyone know of any societies whose language doesn't differentiate between the sexes? No 'he', 'she', etc?
Capitalism is forever re-inventing the past by imposing more recent ideology on it. I find the idea that any particular type of perceived transgressor from the past should be posthumously 'pardoned' or honoured by a capitalist state as daft. Does it mean that society as a whole is more civilised? Not from our standpoint. It's still being done by a capitalist state to make some kind of statement for itself and, to my mind, is neither here nor there for socialists.Would a socialist society posthumously pardon past criminals?
There was a recent article in The Times arguing that the reason middle eastern investors buy British football clubs is not to make money (and football is so volatile financially that I can see this) but to 'buy in' to the west and thereby give themselves more credibility, and maybe a bit of 'protection'. All very capitalistic, all the same.But as for making money from buying individual players – apparently, after Real Madrid paid £20 million or so for Beckham some years ago, they made over £100 million in resulting shirt sales. I wonder how many Bale shirts they've already sold?
Could the door be given a few coats of paint (red perhaps, for those who think choice of colour is important) to stop it needing so much maintenance?
I really wonder whether football will be so popular in a socialist society, at least in its present form, whose strict rules were devised exactly at the time capitalism was becoming more regimented and 'Victorianised', along with, for example, the rules of grammar, and working practices in general.Obviously there'd be no club owners, and no huge financial stakes involved, and less pressure on players to perform. This would rub off on spectators.So for example, there wouldn't be nearly as much vitriol hurled at refs for bad decisions.I wonder whether there would be that many spectators at all (or referees for that matter) – it would be far more a game to play, in local parks and recreation grounds, rather than watch. The football grounds we associate with towns and cities might become abandoned. Or, conversely, used by multiple local teams.At least those that were watching wouldn't be bombarded with sponsors' logos and crass messages from advertising hoardings.
Might be a bit tricky trying to claim red as our colour without a significant rebrand – the WSM logo and the SPGB caption accompanying it on this website are very, very blue.
I envisage all types of living arrangements in a socialist society. The priority of such 'family units' as exist will presumably be to look after and bring up children; some may choose to do this in large groups, others in smaller groups or as couples. The key point will be that nobody will be financially dependent on anyone else – children on parents, or one partner on another.We can only speculate how children will develop in this type of environment. One thing is for sure, the first generation to be born into a socialist society will have a completely different outlook on life from us!
