SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thanks for the link Adam.
Quote:How much agreement there was about the nature of the transformation they hoped to bring about by their different policies, can be seen for example in the Manifesto of English Socialists issued jointly in 1893 by the Fabian Society, the Social Democratic Federation and the Hammersmith Socialist Society. The signatories including William Morris, George Bernard Shaw, H. M. Hyndman and Sidney Webb, were able to agree on the following declaration which appeared in the Manifesto:“On this point all Socialists agree. Our aim, one and all, is to obtain for the whole community complete ownership and control of the means of transport, the means of manufacture, the mines and the land. Thus we look to put an end for ever to the wage system, to sweep away all distinctions of class, and eventually to establish national and international communism on a sound basis.”Keir Hardie, later to be prominent in the formation of the British Labour Party, did not sign the manifesto but elsewhere declared as his objective “free Communism in which… the rule of life will be – ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’.” (‘Serfdom to Socialism’, 1907, page 89.)It would seem the split in the aim, came about as a result of the disagreement about the best way to achieve socialism.
Recently I've been wondering about the idea of socialism and what it means to differing groups or organisations. I don't know much about the history of the SPGB, but I'm sure some out there do.I'll get to the point.Has there ever been an agreed definition of socialism?
I got what you intended Vin. It worked.The actual human story behind this thread is a tragic event, but pales in comparison to the horrors being inflicted upon too many people on a daily basis in the name of profits and nationalism.The superficial political story of this thread is yet more bashing of the SWP. "Scum" being a bit strong a word to label all members of the SWP.
Vin Maratty wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:Just clicked on the Facebook link, provided by Vin, of the latest round of Israeli airstrikes on Gaza…..Why?Why Israel is attacking Gaza or why I posted it?
Hi Vin, the answer is neither. It was a rhetorical question, I couldn't find the words to addequately express the horror of those images. I tried, but in the end all that seemed appropriate was that one word.
Just clicked on the Facebook link, provided by Vin, of the latest round of Israeli airstrikes on Gaza…..Why?
Hi AliceBrian summed it up quite neatly.I would say that the WSM and ZM are pretty close in advocating what I and most other socialists would call a shift in concioussness. It takes a big shift to imagine a world without leaders and money where things are produced soley for need with a view to eliminating waste so that the worlds resources cease to be squandered on profiteering. Something socialists within the WSM desperately want, as do people in TZM.There is a problem I see with TZM, in that is has no single focus as to how to achieve such a massive change in how society functions. As you say some think in terms of adapting capitalism, a processs that has been ongoing for well over a hundred years, with gains and losses in equal measure.Seeing as TZM and the WSM are very similar in aim, may I ask how you see such a change being sparked off.
This question is to those who are reading Piketty's book. Does he at all suggest why the rich seem to be getting a lot richer?I'm referring to the possibility it might have a little to do with the deregulation of the finance industry that happened in America and Britain in the eighties. If I am not mistaken it allowed vast sums of wealth to be stashed away in untouchable investment options and offshore banks. There was a free for all in setting up firms specialising in such investment plans and tax dodges. A few of which have made it into the headlines recently with celebrities being nobbled.He is obviously aware of these schemes, as it's been pointed out here, he has little faith in his suggestion of a global tax ever making it into existence, because of the reason these schemes exist in the first place. Tax avoidance.
Adam, I could be wrong, but when I saw Piketty on the BBC HardTalk program I got the distinct impression that he did indeed want to salvage capitalism from itself.However I haven't read the book and I don't fancy watching the interview again, so if anyone has seen it recently, (I beleive YMS posted a link earlier in this thread) they could shed some light on this.
Interesting one Adam.I've just seen Michael Howard on the BBC Daily Politics program, (one time leader of the Tories) deny that the attendees of the fundraising dinner party tonight have anything to gain from sipping champagne with government officials. Yet he claims Labour is in the pockets of the unions. According to Howard the guests simply see the Tory party as the best party for governing Britain.Shore Capital, the main sponsors of last years event had the following to say. “Shore Capital supported the event and made a financial contribution as they believe that the Conservative party, led by the prime minister, are the best party to govern the country.”If we believe the likes of Howard, all we have here is a pleasant dinner party where billionaires pay thousands of pounds a table to exchange pleasantries with government ministers, with the added privilege of donating large sums of money to the Tories, in exchange for doing the right thing for Britain.Seems they do care after all.
stuartw2112 wrote:I agree with SocialistPunk that religious preaching may have a more positive effect on the ignorant unwashed than scientific argument. It's a departure from Marx's own way of doing things, but maybe that's a good thing.I think Piketty ignored the Forbes question because he didn't regard it as serious. He deals with "churn", people moving into and out of the rich, in his book, though people who haven't read it no doubt consider it a killer point.I hope you are being a bit naughty on purpose there Stuart, 'cos I don't think that "preaching" to the "ignorant unwashed" gets the case for socialism one bit closer to fruition. Most people are capable of understanding the case for socialism, it isn't that difficult a concept, but it does get tied up in knots when using so called "scientific argument." Like I said, it's great for a sophisticated, liberal, middle class dinner party, (with people who have no interest in socialist revolution) but that isn't where the revolution will kick off.I think Alan and I are on the same wavelength here, that socialism will only come about once enough people change their mindset, consciousness, or whatever term ya fancy. No amount of Marx or Piketty will do that for most people. If the "scientific argument" is so powerful, why not try it on the guy from the Socialist Center.I'm not saying complex anlaysis doesn't have its place, but it should be given priority according to its effectiveness.I accept your point about Piketty ignoring the question, as he knows the rich list is not static year on year, so the fact that one year sees a lot of self made capitalists up there doesn't affect the overall picture.
When I watched the interview with Piketty on BBC HardTalk, the interviewer brought up the Forbes rich list, stating that most at the top were self made, rather than inheriting their wealth. I'm not 100% sure (without watching it again, something I wish to avoid) but I seem to recall Piketty not challenging the interviewer on that point.It allowed the interviewer to make a blanket statement that capitalism was doing a good job.The real interesting point about this Piketty thing is that he, a supporter of capitalism, is coming under fire from fellow economists, for daring to tell some of the truth about how capitalism functions.Alan has a point, about it making little difference to "the man in the street", that a leading economist admits capitalism has a tendency towards inequality. Great for the sophisticated, liberal middle class dinner party, but sod all use in the real world of winning over a confused working class.
I'm discussing very similar things with a socialist on YouTube.Good luck all, in convincing real people that SPGB socialism is better than theirs..
mcolome1 wrote:Even that Marx was mistaken about the use of labor voucher, he never said that it was money, and many so called Marxists that are still advocating for labor voucher, they do not consider it as money. In the Socialist Party/WSM we do not support labor voucher. That professor must become a student againHi again mcolome1The link you provided didn't work.I was already aware that the WSM/SPGB don't advocate labour vouchers.Perhaps the guy I'm discussing with gets his idea of socialism needing a regulatory, rationing tool for consumption from Marx and labour time vouchers. Who knows. But I don't think it would be enough simply to say to the guy, that he needs to get educated. That isn't exactly very helpful.I've already mentioned that he seems to be tied up with the ideology of today, thinking that people need some sort of financial incentive to produce the things we as humans need and want. The fact that we have the ability, technical and social to regulate and manage consumption of the planets resources in an intelligent and considered way, without the need for a crude regulatory system such as money, seems to go right over his head. He fails to grasp that people are capable of understanding and wanting what we advocate. I mean, if I can grasp it then anyone can.I could point out to him, til the cows come home, that his idea of utilising money as a consumption regulator is so convoluted, that it would likely be much more cumbersome than the monetary system is at present, and he still would fail to grasp it. Yet this guy is cleary intelligent.Have other members come across this type of thinking before, the use of currency to regulate consumption within a socialist society? Would it come under the heading of currency crank theory?Like I said I had expected this thread to be buzzing with discussion on the subject. Or is this subject a little too slippery to pin down for party members to bother with?
Hi mcolome1You are right about Marx detesting wage slavery, in his earlier writings before his "greatest hits" he wrote in an almost poetical, philosophical way regarding the degrading nature of wage slavery. He quite clearly thought it had no place in any society of free people.I stay well clear of using him as a source of proof, as inevitably you can end up trading quotes til the cows come home and still get nowhere.The discussion I am involved with concerns not wage slavery as is commonly defined within capitalism but the use of money as a means to ration and regulate consumption, within a so called socialist society.
Can't be as bad as this.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55fqjw2J1vISorry about that, just couldn't resisit it.
