[SocialistPunk]

Hi james19,This had been brought up by ALB on a previous thread by. http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/mind-capitalistBut it is worth a thread to itself.Even more relevant seeing as there are one or two Russian capitalists attend these Tory fund raisers. "Money talks" as the saying goes, I wonder what it's telling Cameron.

[SocialistPunk]

Steve, ya forgot to provide a link for the article. Here it is.http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/all-news/gunners-parade-through-sunderland-will-celebrate-40th-freedom-of-the-city-anniversary-1-6738085

[SocialistPunk]

A piece I found while digging about. I think it is of interest to this thread as it highlights issues within the scientific community that we as socialists would say are a result of the pressures and constraints of capitalism.http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong

Quote:

What a load of rubbishEven when flawed research does not put people’s lives at risk—and much of it is too far from the market to do so—it squanders money and the efforts of some of the world’s best minds. The opportunity costs of stymied progress are hard to quantify, but they are likely to be vast. And they could be rising.One reason is the competitiveness of science. In the 1950s, when modern academic research took shape after its successes in the second world war, it was still a rarefied pastime. The entire club of scientists numbered a few hundred thousand. As their ranks have swelled, to 6m-7m active researchers on the latest reckoning, scientists have lost their taste for self-policing and quality control. The obligation to “publish or perish” has come to rule over academic life. Competition for jobs is cut-throat. Full professors in America earned on average $135,000 in 2012—more than judges did. Every year six freshly minted PhDs vie for every academic post. Nowadays verification (the replication of other people’s results) does little to advance a researcher’s career. And without verification, dubious findings live on to mislead.Careerism also encourages exaggeration and the cherry-picking of results. In order to safeguard their exclusivity, the leading journals impose high rejection rates: in excess of 90% of submitted manuscripts. The most striking findings have the greatest chance of making it onto the page. Little wonder that one in three researchers knows of a colleague who has pepped up a paper by, say, excluding inconvenient data from results “based on a gut feeling”. And as more research teams around the world work on a problem, the odds shorten that at least one will fall prey to an honest confusion between the sweet signal of a genuine discovery and a freak of the statistical noise. Such spurious correlations are often recorded in journals eager for startling papers. If they touch on drinking wine, going senile or letting children play video games, they may well command the front pages of newspapers, too.Conversely, failures to prove a hypothesis are rarely even offered for publication, let alone accepted. “Negative results” now account for only 14% of published papers, down from 30% in 1990. Yet knowing what is false is as important to science as knowing what is true. The failure to report failures means that researchers waste money and effort exploring blind alleys already investigated by other scientists.

[SocialistPunk]

SocialistCenter wrote:

In fact, Gordon will tell all his workers that “if you work like hell you can be another Gordon”. Can this happen? Well, we all know that it can’t happen. But the result is that every worker/serviceman/professional working under Gordon will end up struggling all his/her life harboring that ‘hope’ and then, ultimately, die with an unrealized dream that was sold to them by Gordon who represents neoliberalism

So what we have is a situation where everybody knows hard work of itself won't make you rich. Yet they go along with the lie anyway, in the futile hope dreams can come true if you wish (work) hard enough. All that happens is they end up working themselves into an early grave while making their boss richer as a result of their extra aspirational effort. 

Socialist Center wrote:

This gradual advancement towards the higher economic development levels (money) becomes a ‘race’- a race that everyone of us wants to win; a victory for which the most will break the rules and the law

In Britain it is refered to as the "rat race" because of the futility of it. Some people choose to quit the "rat race" and opt for a simpler life with less stress, knowingly accepting less wealth in the process. Most people, in Britain at least, don't  take to breaking the law in order to obtain more and more wealth.

SocialistCenter wrote:

This is in line with the basic human nature that is characterized by ‘affinity to wealth’ (‘amassing wealth’).

Now we have the core of the thread, human nature or to put it more accurately a fragment of it. The greedy aspect of our nature. Yeah sure people can be greedy, but I have never come across hard work and greed working so harmoniously as to drive people to strive for something they know they will never be able to achieve. This can only be the case if human nature propels people along this pointless route against their better judgment. Then we get into the realm of instinct.

SocialistCenter wrote:

Thus, the ‘hope’ gifted by neoliberalism to the mankind along with inherent greed of the human beings will make it “almost” impossible to bring democratic socialism into the world. However, Socialist Center and its friends will continue striving for a solution to the same.First, Wake Up and Realize The Reality. 

 I would agree on this point if we have to work against instinct. In fact I would go further than saying it is "almost" impossible and say it would be absolutely impossible and therefore a waste of time. Luckily, as it turns out, all that is being described in the opening post is human behaviour, moulded by a mixture of social pressure, and financial necessity.  As human behaviour is adaptable, it means socialism is a viable possibility.

[SocialistPunk]

Am I the only one here that thinks this thread is a little on the weird side? I've never come across a thread set up like this, specificaly aimed at a forum member.Is this the SPGB version of the Spanish Inquisition?Lets hope this thread doesn't disintegrate into a personal attack.

[SocialistPunk]

Hi AdamI take it this side of Stalin's concept of socialism, being in agreement with ours, is little known and easily forgotten?

[SocialistPunk]

Sorry about my last post perhaps being only slightly relevant to the main theme of this thread, as it concerns Saville and not politicians.My point is that if a media figure like John Lydon, who at that time in 1978 would have been on the fringe of the entertainment industry, was aware of certain rumours, then it is a certainty that those at the heart of the establishment in this country would also have been aware.

[SocialistPunk]

Hi LBird,Is the quote regarding science you use, referring to the classic Newtonian ideas about scientific fundamentals, in the face of the discovery of the quantum world and the weird paradox of classic physics still at work on the macro level but falling apart ,or not appearing relevant, at the quantum level?

[SocialistPunk]

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rjy8oLVOvi4   ……about 50 seconds in."John Lydon talks about Jimmy Savile and his 'seediness' during an interview recorded for BBC radio in late 1978, this excerpt was not broadcast but has just been made available as part of the reissue of the first PIL album. Interviewer: Vivienne Goldman."To think the establishment branded the punk rock explosion and its figureheads as corruptters of British youth."Ah, ha, ha! Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?" Johnny Rotten, Sex Pistols last gig, Jan' 1978.

[SocialistPunk]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Alex Woodrow wrote:

Capitalism is awful but one thing I wouldn't blame capitalism solely for is child abuse. Unfortunately there will always be child abusers, as well as capitalist paedophiles I am pretty sure there are one or two communist paedophiles out there.  Though I do think child abuse will be reduced in communism, however unfortunately it will never completely go away.

Not sure how things like that will be dealt with in socialism but we will be in a better position to deal with such things when capitalism (with its property laws)  is abolished.   

There are studies that show "specific developmental experiences" have a tendancy to distort a persons sexual awareness. In a nutshell it would seem that most child abusers where themselves abused. The issue then becomes, how to break that cycle of abuse.I wouldn't go so far as to say a socialist society could eliminate all such abuse, but a socialist society has to be based on voluntary, community involvement. Or to put it very simply, watching out for one another. So if a family was struggling for whatever reason, the community could and would make themselves available for support etc. Unlike today where we are essentialy encouraged to isolate ourselves and look to authorities to solve every problem and we all know such problem solving is limited due to the constraints of available financial resources.I would also say that at times it may be necessary to remove individuals from the community for the protection of the community.However that is my way of seeing a socialist society trying to tackle difficult and very unpleasant issues. We may find that the different socialist communities take a harsher approach and simply hang such offenders. Who knows what the future might hold.

[SocialistPunk]

Steve, I was pleasantly surprised to see someone taking an anti war stance on the comment section of the story you highlight.I had expected to see a load of comments having a go at you for daring to tell it like it is. I signed up yesterday, so I might leave a comment.

[SocialistPunk]

Alan, "ramble" it isn't. I think you make some very good points. I've gotta get some stuff done now but I'll think about your points and maybe get back a bit later, as it's and interesting and important subject.

[SocialistPunk]

Hi VinFor me the word neutralise in this instance has several aspects. Coercive elements of the state can be democraticaly captured and dismantled, leaving the useful administrative elements (not Parliament or government). Also if the dwindling capitalist machinery sought to use force against a democratic revolution, to regain control, legitimacy of their version of democracy is exposed or neutralised by their desire to destroy a genuine democratic movement in order to protect their minority ownership privilege. In essence we both agree with using the existing democratic framework, would be an advantage.All real socialists know the damage the former Soviet Union and Labour party have done to the identity of socialism and I agree that the media have taken full advantage in order to discredit socialism. Thats why earlier I mentioned capitalism having one accepted meaning yet socialism has as many as people can invent.  Perhaps the direction of the "left" over the course of the last century reflects the generational divide that seeks to reinvent itself every few generations or so? Couple this trend with continual media misdierection and bias, it's no wonder most on the "left" cant see the wood for the trees.As usual with us humans things are never simple. 

[SocialistPunk]

Up until the last couple of years, I've been off the socialist scene, so to speak, and recent events look to keep me away from any serious involvement. So my experience with the "left" is lacking.Given that it looks as though there was a concensus, at one time, as to the aim of socialism. My question is how have the "left-wing" socialists usually responded to the reality of the history of socialist thought. Are they in denial of the history of socialism, or is it as simple as an inability to distinguish aim from the method of getting there?I know there is a lot of scorn poured over the WSM method of advocating using existing democratic institutions (such as Parliament here in Britain) as a means to neutralise state powers.    

[SocialistPunk]

Interesting to note that when you search online for the definition of capitalism there is a concensus. Compare the definitions for socialism, some mention community ownership of production and distribution, usually throwing in exchange and capital. Some explicitly link common ownership with government control and some claim there are many variations of socialism.Two of my favourites.http://www.yourdictionary.com/socialism

Quote:

Socialism is defined as an economic theory, system or movement where the production and distribution of goods is done, owned and shared by the citizens of a society.Facts About SocialismIn theory, citizens have equal access to the products and resources and are compensated based on the amount of work performed.Under the ideals of socialism, there is no motivation for workers to excel at their jobs because there is no benefit to the worker.Friedrich Engels, a French social theorist, developed modern socialistic theory in the late 18th century when he advocated the elimination of production methods based on capitalism.Karl Marx described socialism as a lower form of communism and held the opinion that socialism was an intermediary step in moving from capitalism to communism.Many movements across Europe embraced the Marxist view of socialism and this led to the protests and uprisings of the working class, including the labor unions.The two largest "socialistic" systems are the former Soviet Union and Mainland China. Each of these began with the ideals of socialism, but ended in becoming totalitarian in nature. An example of socialism is the Mainland Chinese economic system.

And…….the best for last.http://usconservatives.about.com/od/glossaryterms/g/Socialism.htm

Quote:

Definition: Socialism is a political term applied to an economic system in which property is held in common and not individually, and relationships are governed by a political hierarchy. Common ownership doesn't mean decisions are made collectively, however. Instead, individuals in positions of authority make decisions in the name of the collective group. Regardless of the picture painted of socialism by its proponents, it ultimately removes group decision making in favor of the choices of one all-important individual. Socialism originally involved the replacement of private property with a market exchange, but history has proven this ineffective. socialism cannot prevent people from competing for what is scarce. Socialism as we know it today, most commonly refers to "market socialism," which involves individual market exchanges organized by collective planning. 

[Author]

Posts