SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yeah, I thought the parody was quite appropriate, homogenized politics for an homogenized age. Shame the Greens can't see their politics as the rebranded reformism they actually are.I saw the Labour advert with the comedian/actor Martin Freeman and thought he was spouting on about a different political party to Labour.He must have been hitchhiking in space when the last Labour government decided to help the US, Bush family business, invade Iraq.I think it's his best comic role yet. Hilarious stuff. I nearly threw up laughing, or was I laughing as I threw up.
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/depth-articles/state/taxation-myth
Quote:In recent years many politicians have argued that if income tax is reduced "we will all be better off". However, this is incorrect and can be demonstrated to be so with a simple example. Say a worker's nominal wages are 200 a week, 50 of which is taken in income tax. If the income tax rate was halved and the amount taken in tax was reduced from 50 to, then Conservatives would presumably argue this would lead to an automatic rise in the worker's take home wages from 150 to 175, thereby making him or her "better off". But this is not what will happen in reality. The worker's wage, remember, is the price of his or her labour power, which, all other things being equal, will tend to gravitate around the 150 mark in this instance, which is the real sum received all along. The 'benefit' from the tax cut goes to the employer. If the situation was reversed and the income tax rate was doubled, the 'nominal' wage would then have to rise from 200 to 250 if take home pay was to remain around 150. The increase in this case would be borne entirely by the employer and would come out of surplus value.The bit I've higlighted suggests the capitalist employer would reduce the wages of the employee to keep the wages around the 150 mark, though it doesn't actually explicitly state it. "tend to gravitate" is the term used. However the opposite example does state that wages "would then have to rise".I was wondering if any examples exist to show that tax cuts for the working class lead to direct wage reductions. Examples of this would be very helpful in explaining this idea, as simply saying it without any examples proves little.
ALB wrote:Editorial from the Abingdon Herald (1 April):Quote:The Greens, the Labour Party, the National Health Action Party and the Great British Socialist Party are all fielding candidates for the same "ultra-marginal" seat.Unfortunately, it wasn't an April fool.
Ooops! Patriotic name confusion. Well I never!
What use will the state machinery be in a socialist society?Surely the "state" is not a reference to the social production of services such as education and health provision. The state is a restricting political force that limits social productive services to those that are necessary for the continuation of the status quo, ie the pursuit of profit.The state is a governing force.For example in Britain the NHS is essentially a self regulating body. It is hampered by state interference in the form of rationing of financial resources. Once freed from financial restriction it would be free to develop into a suitable health provider for the people of this island. The same goes for education, transport, road maintenance, utility provision, they are all self regulating.For socialism to work a mass movement would need to arise. The people creating that movement would know what is involved in creating a socialist society. As has been pointed out the SPGB/WSM already has a fully democratic leaderless structure.The way I see it, the gaining control of the existing parliamentary democratic structures is simply a formality of removing the ability of capitalists to control the coercive elements of the state.
Hi Richard,The "Red Innovation" article is very interesting.How many of us realised that so much of the technology we take for granted today, was actually state funded.So much for the favourite complaint of the "right wing" about too much State intervention in the marketplace.
I take it the geezer doesn't know the SPGB formed in 1904? About 54 minutes in he said something along the lines of them not wanting to jeopardize a Labour Party victory in a constituency where there was a possibility of a Tory win?
Perhaps a minor point to some, but the name of the organisation has been misspelled in the title of this thread.It should be Critisticuffs.
Young Master Smeet wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:And if friends won't sign, get some better friends.That's a pretty scummy opinion.
Not really. Steve has asked me to sign his nomination paper, I'm an ex-Party member socialist and a very good friend of his, so that's obvious. However I've asked my partner to sign, despite her lack of interest in politics she is willing to sign also. She is under no obligation to do so.If I was a Party member I would not hesitate to ask my friends to sign Steve's paper and I would expect them to do so, because they are friends who know my views and how important they are to me. Friends don't have to agree on evertything but they should be willing to help one another.
Young Master Smeet wrote:SP,it's better, IMNSHO, to go knocking on doors, as it's a way of raising awareness that there is a campaign going on,. In London it's difficult to get the right number of people in the same constituency. And, to be frank, I'd rather not put friends on the spot and ask them (and risk perfectly reaonable refusal).YMSI said "Needs must when the devil rides". In case you don't know, it means if you've got no other choice, you gotta do what it takes.This raises an raise an interesting point about promotion tactics. If knocking on doors is a way of raising awareness, as you say, then why doesn't the SPGB use that as a regular tactic. As far as I can tell, knocking on doors during an election time falls into the old cliche that everybody knows about politicians and elections, "Typical of politicians, they're only interested in you when they want your vote."Maybe the SPGB should consider knocking on doors as a way of getting the message out?And if friends won't sign, get some better friends.
Just a bit surprised to hear that four or five branch members can't muster ten signatures from family, friends, neighbours, work colleagues, social groups etc."Needs must when the devil drives"
YMS and Steve,I knew what the signatures were for I just wasn't aware it was SPGB policy to hassle people by knocking on their doors and asking for their support etc.Surely it must be known that most people do not respond too favourably to strangers knocking on doors, presumably early evening, when the family are most likely to be trying to unwind from the stresses of the day? What about friends and family members signing the election form?
Mcolome1Brainwashing does not concern the tools used for the recruitment of young individuals into the armed forces, though I have read that many of the techniques used to attract the vulnerable are similar to those of cult groups. The process of brainwashing starts once they are in.For starters it requires the isolation of a person from their family and friends.The recipient must be totally reliant on the brainwasher, to the degree that everything is controlled by the brainwasher, when to eat, sleep, use the bathroom, what to wear etc.The aim is to break the recruits identity, using control, humiliation and ritualizastion, to the point where a new identity can be imprinted on the recipient in the form of a belief system, attitude, behaviour.I remember as a young lad, I was very much interested in joining the army. I knew I couldn't, due to health reasons, but I jumped at the opportunity to go to a day camp organised by my school. A taster session. What an eye opener. Humiliation and verbal abuse started early, much to the surprise of our attending teachers.There was one lad, I'll never forget to this day. He flat out refused to take part any further in an assault course. He was ritually humiliated like it was going out of fashion. The military instructors tried everything short of violence to make him join in, screaming in his face, calling him a coward prefixed by every vile word they could think of, all to humiliate him into obedience. I could see our teachers squirming.He stood his ground.If he'd been a recruit, there is no doubt in my mind he would have been on the receiving end of some form of low level violence. It was then I really saw what was going on. They were trying to crack us, make us conform to the group mentality, to their mentality. That is brainwashing.
Hi Meel,I did say you have a point, regarding the term "working class". Surely if you can get people to even come close to some agreement with socialist ideas, then they will understand what economic class they belong to?But for propagation purposes, it wouldn't harm to stay away from the "working class" label. Although Alan's "working people" is a wee bit close to the English politicians new patronising catchphrase "hard working people".
Hi Mcolome1There's already been a discussion about workers consciously choosing capitalism and rejecting socialism, though there's no harm in doing it again.I think the term brain washed is a little excessive. Brainwashing is a particular type of psychological manipulation technique that requires certain physical conditions to be met in order to produce results. The techniques used on recruits in the armed forces is a classic example.The process of socialisation is more accurate. You are spot on when you say we are born into it. A world where leaders and countries are commonly accepted concepts, so for most of us this is the way it is. No thought is needed to identify with those concepts because we are surrounded by them as we grow up. This is why so often our concept of socialism is seen as alien.
