SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The realities of war in capitalism.The British government have a go at the French for supplying Russia with weaponry during the Ukraine crisis, (while British weapons firms are doing the same) with British PM Cameron calling it "unthinkable".No mention from Cameron about the lucrative weapons deals with Israel.
Quote:The Government has been accused of failing to regulate arms sales to Israel following evidence that weapons containing British-made components are being used in the bombardment of Gaza.Documents shown to The Independent reveal that arms export licences worth £42m have been granted to 130 British defence manufacturers since 2010 to sell military equipment to Israel. These range from weapons control and targeting systems to ammunition, drones and armoured vehicles.Among the manufacturers given permission to make sales were two UK companies supplying components for the Hermes drone, described by the Israeli air force as the “backbone” of its targeting and reconnaissance missions. One of the two companies also supplies components for Israel’s main battle tank.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-britains-role-in-arming-israel-9643902.htmlThere is some suggestion that the figure of £42m is a far from the truth.
Quote:The countries for which the largest numbers of licences have been issued include China with 1,163 with individual licences worth £1.4 billion, Saudi Arabia with 417 licences and a value of £1.8 billion, and Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories with 381 licences and a value of £7.8 billion.This one licence to Israel, granted in February 2012, accounted for well over 50% of the value of all existing licences to the countries in questionhttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/17/uk-sells-arms-to-worlds-w_n_3608760.htmlPerhaps the British government feel a pang of remorse about fueling a warzone because they are increasing their humanitarian aid package for Gaza.
Quote:Britain is making a further £3 million available to allow a rapid response by aid workers in Gaza to what International Development Secretary Justine Greening described as "nothing short of a humanitarian catastrophe".The cash – which brings UK humanitarian support during the current conflict to £13 million – was released as Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg issued a plea for the Israeli Government to halt its military operations and talk to Hamas.http://www.talktalk.co.uk/news/uk/article/uks-extra-pound-3m-for-aid-in-gaza/138799/On one hand the British government, while selling arms to Russia, have a go at the French for doing the same during an escalatinng military situation in Crimea and on the other they arm the Israelis during ongoing conflict in Palestine, making a nice little earner for British weapons manufacturers, Then they throw a few quid to the victims of the conflict.You couldn't make this stuff up..
Young Master Smeet wrote:2) Even if a joiner is broadly in agreement but has some quibbles over some parts of party policy, asking them to indicate agreement is encouraging a "pro-social(ist)" lie, that, again helps the network to grow.Could this relate to socialists with spiritual beliefs?
The definition of a troll means we have a lot of them on this forum, as many of us are guilty at times of personalising posts with comments that poke fun, sneer and belittle others. I guess that is the nature of online forums.
I don't bother with management manuals, but I did figure out what "Blue sky thinkers" referred to.I still think the party line of "don't vote for us if you don't fully understand" clashes with this idea from a management manual of accepting people who are not fully on message. The reason I say this is because this concept of the spread of ideas is essentially a numbers game, the same as people voting for the SPGB at elections. Not everyone voting will be fully on board and telling them not to vote socialist unless they fully know what they are voting for is in direct conflict with the idea being presented here.I essentially go along with this idea, it matters not if the next wave of people are 100% on board, the more they rub shoulders with the ideas the more aware they will become over time and the more the idea is likely to gain acceptance further afield. But the SPGB policy of trying to turn away potential voters sends the wrong message and needs addressing But I think this a good topic to discuss as it moves the discussion of socialist ideas closer to putting some meat on the bones of our theoretical goal.
My above post wasn't a dig at the SPGB or anything like that, just a genuine enquiry about how certain attitudes or approaches would interact with the idea of non socialists "coming on board".I can understand party members reluctance to discuss such delicate issues, fair enough.
Hi YMSThe SPGB insist on turning away those who do not fully understand the case for socialism. We all know how it goes, "We don't want your vote unless you fully understand…" etc etc.Where would that principle fit in?
Hello Socialist CenterWe socialists here on this platform want the same things you do, an end to poverty, homelessness, needless disease, starvation, and war. We have identified the cause as capitalism. It can sometimes look like isms are all important, but we are not really that bothered what you want to call it so long as it has a realistic chance of success. But we can't do it alone, a few hundred socialists in a sea of apathy, ignorance and misdirection have no chance of changing the operating system of capitalism. It's been tried time and time again and failed.We can only bring about a positive lasting change to society when enough people understand and want to bring such a change into existence.If you wish to attempt to turn the existing system, capitalism, into something it can't be, that is your choice. Should you decide to go down that road you will meet with failure.The alternative, if you are serious about real change, is to join with the World Socialist Movement and help swell the ranks of a movement that wants and works towards an end to the obscenities of capitalism.I believe there is a group in India. I do not have contact details but perhaps someone on this forum may be able to provide them.
Hi again Paramjeet,
Paramjeet wrote:What is ‘Greed’? We all know it. It is something inherent in human beings: “affinity to wealth” and “a basic instinct to amass more and more wealth”Instinct, inborn complex patterns of behaviour that must exist in every member of the species and that cannot be overcome by will. Or simply put, non-learnt, unalterable behaviour.A good example is in male dogs, they are compelled to ascertain whether a female dog is ready to mate. Such instinctual behaviour sees the male dog sniff the genitals of the female and sample her urine for chemical indicators. My mum and dads male dog would do it all the time to his female companion, it was hilarious to see as he was oblivious to the fact she had been neutered.If human greed is instinctual, it would mean all humans would seek to, as you say, "amass more and more wealth" but there are plenty of examples that go against this so called instinct. I for one am not interested in amassing more and more wealth, nor my parents, my partner or most of my friends. Are they and myself somehow through sheer force of will overcoming an inbuilt instinct? I don't think so.So what you describe as an instinct for greed, is in fact learnt behaviour in response to environmental prompts.Once that fact is accepted, a constructive discussion can take place on how best to achieve a socialist society. As for the idea that if you elect "good" people into power society will be fairer, well it has already been tried in a few countries including Britain. Guess what! It didn't work. The only way for the people to be free from the injustices and horrors of capitalism is if they do it themselves, in a mass working class movement. We here happen to call it socialism.
I think we are starting to get somewhere.It is such a refreshing change to here party members give their socialist views about how a socialist society could function instead of just deferring it to the revolution and the future.As a socialist you need to have an idea of how things should work. we have a framework with the aim, definition, bias, ideology of socialism, but we have no flesh on the bones, it's always passed on for future consideration.Are we sure ideology or bias will cease to exist in a socialist society? History will be taught, will it be taught in a sterile objective non human way or will the contadictions, mistakes and horrors of capitalism be discussed?Even if socialisation is the driving influence, as has been mentioned before, it will still have a bias. How could it not? We are not logical based machines, we are thinking, decision making, opinionated, emotional creatures and as such our ideas will always have some sort of bias.I think this area is one where the WSM, SPGB fails. Always deferring socialist construction to the future socialists. Removed from the fact that over the years we are the future socialists, forever deferring to the next generation.
DJP, if as you say no one has a monopoly on meaning then why do socialists bother to attempt to explain the "truth" regarding socialism to those who think Labour and USSR was or is socialist?Just ditch the words communism and socialism and move on to another definition.I suggest the reason could be that socialism once did have a common definition and was distorted. So if socialists allow that distortion to become the accepted definition without any attempt to hold onto the original meaning then any other definition could just as easily be lost and so on etc etc.Not all words change meaning over time, the ones more likely to change or disappear are ones that are not commonly used. So if ya want a specific meaning attached to a word ya gotta work at it.
Hi DJPI did say that "us socialists" see no ambiguity in the word socialism. Obviously the examples I gave about Labour party socialists and the former USSR mean there is in wider society.
Something I find extremely amusing here. The ambiguity of ideology and truth.Yet if we take the word "socialism", to us socialists there is no such ambiguity. We don't say it is a difficult meaning to pin down and waffle on aimlessly. We don't change its meaning to suit different discussions. In fact we get quite irate when Labour supporters call themselves socialists and talk about a socialist government, or when people claim the USSR was a socialist country. Sometimes if we are honest, we even take pride in being true socialists even though we hold a minority view.Why is that?
Hi LBirdI'm not here to have a go or try and derail this thread. I'm genuinely interested in your view as to how this lack of scientific "truth" could or will impact on a socialist society or even the attempt to bring it into existence?
Hi ParamjeetWhat you advocate has been tried over here in Britain and started off with good intentions, by most involved, in the trade union movement. The result was the Labour party, one of the 3 major political parties in Britain.Those early Labour party members had the same idea you propose, to get decent minded people from working class backgrounds in positions of power, in order to make capitalism a nicer system.To put it bluntly and simply that aim, as laudable as it was, failed miserably and the Labour party are yet another political party willing to manage capitalism, warts and all.What essentialy happened is the idealistic "good people" found they could not manage capitalism in the interests of the people and gradually the party became a distortion of what it intended to be. Along the way a few reforms were won for the workers but most of them have been eroded and the remaining few are under constant attack.It could almost be a book by J R R Tolkien. The "good people" got power but found they could not bring the beast of capitalism under their control and soon became the servants of capitalism.By all means Paramjeet try and tame the capitalist beast, get as many "good people" into positions of power, but you will soon find your hands are tide when you try to alter the natural course of capitalism.Global Socialist revolution is the only way to avoid the mistakes of past reformers,. At present all socialists can do is try and educate and persuade as many members of the working class as possible in the hope that the more people agree and work towards true lasting socialist change the quicker it will come about.
