SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi AdamI thought that parliament is the legislative body of the state in this country. So given it is such it would surely be dismantled (not the building) as there will be no need for capitalist laws in a fully socialist society?The best use for that place in a socialist society would be a museum.
LBird wrote:Those who argue that there will be 'limits on democratic control' must specify who determines this argument. I think that it's those with a 'fear of the mob'. They don't really believe that the vast majority of our society can really be trusted to make decisions that affect them as individualsLBird, I think you've just out out democratized the most democratic party in the country.I do recall on a thread about morality, ALB referred to the process of socialisation.
Well Northern Light and DJP, that's you two told, a side discussion regarding the processes of the human brain leading to thought has no place on a thread titled "Science for Communists".There have been a dozen times this thread has veered "off topic", yet now a bit of harmless discussion of actual science by a couple of socialists/communists appears, it's "off topic"? Weird.
Considering that socialism as a human concept, contains within its anti capitalist arsenal, views or positions on politics, social organisation, economics, surely socialism/communism comes under that banner?
pgb wrote:For Marx, opinions, points of view, political programs etc are "ideological"…….How can a set of principles aimed at achieving a goal, such as bringing about the the end of capitalism, not be an ideology?Unless the answer is something along the lines of, socialist/communists realise they are not privy to some delusion about where their ideas come from and so don't fall for the temptation of holding to an ideology.
pgb wrote:……where those who hold them imagine them to be the result of intellectual reasoning, or logic, or divine revelation etc, and are unaware of their origin in social conditions and the part they play in justifying and maintaining those conditions.Please tell me I've got it all wrong.
Ozy mate, you are a socialist. If you didn't have doubts, fears and frustrations that bubble up to the surface in the form of anger and disgust with fellow humans, you wouldn't be human.My contact with socialism was from a young age as well. and I often ask myself, if I had a choice now, would I take the red pill or the blue pill. My answer to myself is about fifty fifty either way, sometimes I would gladly take mindless contentment and other times I'm glad I can see through the lies and bullshit. When in one mood or the other it's hard to see the flip side.At the end of the day, if humanity goes up in a radioactive ball of flame or under an ice sheet, "So What!", we're all walking worm food anyway. The way I see things, we are either part of the problem or part of the solution?As a socialist, you are part of the solution.
I should have made clear that my previous post was not a criticism. Merely an example of the hidden complexities that would need to be addressed within socialism.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:So, if the baker insists that "it's tasty bread, and good for you", that's it, is it?The eaters of the bread are not allowed a collective opinion about the baker's recommendations?It doesn't sound very democratic to me, YMS!Just time for a quick one. We're allowed an opinion, but since the labour of the baker is free, we can't force them to do any specific baking, nor can we vote for a recipe that simply won't work. "We demand bread without flour, yeast or water" (There you go, have some nice lard). I can discuss with the baker, or take up baking myself, but for the most part, I'm free to leave it to the baker. It's not rocket science.
An interesting one this, that belongs on the other thread about the limits of democracy, but as it was posted here…..There is a lot more fat and preservatives thrown into bread recipes to extend shelf life, than is needed to produce tasty bread. So things like sugar, salt and fat not to mention potentially carcinogenic preservatives, would need to be regulated by someone other than the baker. If health is not our concern then it would be bread as usual. If health is important then a collective decision would need to be made as to what recipes satisfies the need for sustenance, taste and health, based on best information from a variety of sources.
An interesting discussion, and one that has been touched on before.It is likely that if world socialism ever came into existence different communities around the world would still have remnants of cultural beliefs and practices. So for instance the issue of age of marriage and consent etc may still differ from culture to culture. We might find that different communities tackle the issue of anti social bahaviour in different ways. There should be no reason to think that the basic guide that our view of socialism advocates, will lead to any kind of sterile social uniformity throughout the world. But this does present it's own set of problems, as to where the democracy of world socialism begins and ends.
Hi OzyI left the party a little after you, probably 13 years back. But hey, we keep getting drawn back. Why? 'Cos we can't find another group of people with any better solutions, like it or not we are socialists through and through. The Socialist Party is our political home.I agree with you, I don't think socialism will come into existence in my lifetime. I never thought it would even when I joined, though having Cystic Fibrosis always meant I wasn't likely to be a candidate for a birthday card from our beloved monarch.I know one thing, if I can grasp the concept of socialism, then anyone can. Dormant is a good word to describe the working class, ('cos one day they will wake up) but I don't go along with the idiot bit.
I noticed this slogan on a banner in a photograph on the website provided by Alan."The best way to predict your future, is to create it"I don't know much about the arguments each side of the campaign are using, but from this slogan I assume the SNP are offering more power to the Scottish people. Perhaps the SNP will seek out the views of people and base their decisions on what the people want rather than pandering to the whims of business. Perhaps Scotland will become a shinning light of true democracy. At the very least the nationalists offer rule by corrupt Scottish politicians instead of English ones.
Vin, I've clicked on the SPGB twitter link and in the top left of the page is a red flag with the words Great Britain above it and "workers of the world unite for" below.Only when I click on the flag does the full name of the party appear, everywhere else is the abbreviation SPGB.I don't have a twitter account, so am not sure if I am seeing everything, but what I am seeing immediately is unspecific regarding identity.
Hi jondwhiteWith all due respect that is not an answer to the question that Alan and I posed. We asked how the WSM identity came about, how it was decided, when etc. The WSM companion parties from India and New Zealand could have simply named themselves, The Socialist Party of India, The Socialist Party of New Zealand, instead World is given a significant place in the title, exclaiming without any doubt whatsoever the aim is global socialism.I'm already aware that tradition is the main reason the SPGB and SPC cling to their names, but tradition is no real reason to cling to anything that is out dated. I understand the members reluctance to face change, change is scary and as has been pointed out, the SPGB using the tag The Socialist Party did not see a change in fortunes.Alan has already pointed out simply changing names is not the magic bullet, and emphasises the importance of utilizing the global potentials of the "world wide web", in a major rebranding.
alanjjohnstone wrote:No, a re-naming of ourselves is not suffice in itself to re-kindle our hopes. We need a new image, a re-branding of our content and ideas, and a new way of organising that goes beyond the parochial geography of whatever state we happen to be resident in and a movement that encapsulates the politics beyond borders that the internet has technologically offered an opportunity for us to utilise.Some will say there is no evidence that a name change will have any positive effect. And how often have we heard the words "where's your evidence", when discussing how socialism could improve the lot of humankind?But the issue of a name change is not about evidence of gaining more popularity etc. It's about declaring outright in one sentence that you advocate world socialism. No more petty arguing with other British socialists about who has or hasn't been socialist for longer, let those nationalist Leninists argue amonst themselves over a nationalistic image of socialism, while the world socialists get on with the job in hand.
Hi RodshawA little late in replying to your post concerning my use of the term international socialism. It was simply an oversight on my part. I did mean global, world socialism. It was the reason I set this thread up, as the view of the SPGB and SPC is that socialism must be global. Yet party members seem highly attached to an identity that suggests an internationalist flavour.Just in case I am accused of distorting the truth,I know the two parties are world socialist parties.What strikes me as odd regarding this discussion is that a question regarding the emergence of the WSM identity has now been asked three times and still no reply has been forthcoming. I had thought that someone in the SPGB on this forum would be able to shed some light on this. Seems not.
