SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Very good links there Alan, thanks.I urge everyone to check them out, and check out the further links to the related topics on the site. An interesting one is the links between Monsanto and the Gates Foundation.The following exerts come from a link on a site I found while investigating this issue, it is an interview with Bill Gates.http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_gates.htmlMOYERS: You were clearly competent at making money. Did you doubt your competence in giving it away?GATES: I actually thought that it would be a little confusing during the same period of your life to be in one meeting when you're trying to make money, and then go to another meeting where you're giving it away. I mean is it gonna erode your ability, you know, to make money? Are you gonna somehow get confused about what you're trying to do?MOYERS: It's a nice confusion. It's a very nice confusion.GATES: So, you know, I didn't want to mix those two things together. The big milestone event for me though was… a report was done, it's called "The World Development Report 1993" that talked about these diseases. And I remember seeing the article and it showed that Rotavirus over a half million children per year. And I said to myself, that can't be true.You know after all, the newspaper, whenever there's a plane crashing and 100 people die, they always report that. How can it be that this disease is killing a half million a year? I've never seen an article about it until now. And it wasn't even an article about that. It was just a graph that had you know these 12 diseases that kill, most of which I had never heard of.And so I thought, this is bizarre. Why isn't it being covered? You know, and there's a mother and a father behind every one of these deaths that are dealing with that tragedy.And so then I got drawn in a little bit. Clearly making money (or mistakes) is important to him. Notice his incredulity at the fact these issues are not being reported in the mainstream media.But check out the following little pearls. MOYERS: What does it say to you that half of all 15 year olds in South Africa and Zimbabwe could lose their lives to AIDS? What does it say to you that 11 million children, roughly, die every year from preventable diseases?What does it say to you that of the 4 million babies who die within their first month, 98 percent are from poor countries? What do those statistics tell you about the world?GATES: It really is a failure of capitalism. You know capitalism is this wonderful thing that motivates people, it causes wonderful inventions to be done. But in this area of diseases of the world at large, it's really let us down.MOYERS: But markets are supposed to deliver goods and services to people.GATES: And when people have money it does. You know when our foundation is not involved in the diseases of the rich world. Not, you know, those are very important, but the market is working there. Between the basic research that the government funds, through NIH. The bio-tech companies. The pharmaceutical companies. You know incredible things will happen with cancer and heart disease over these next 20 or 30 years. Because that's a case where capitalism is at work. Capitalism certainly is a wonderful thing when you happen to have so much money, you have a non too easy task of giving it away. MOYERS: What is your answer to how it is that the resources of the world are so misallocated?GATES: It's a mistake. So the failings of capitalism are merely a mistake, and nothing to do with the fundamental nature of a profit driven economic system? The fact Bill Gates is one of the richest people on this planet, is the result of "a mistake"? He and his peers must be very good at making mistakes, the same "mistake" over and over again!Here we have a mega rich bloke thinking capitalism is failing, or making mistakes, only in the "poor" parts of the world. He obviously has trouble seeing the effects of the mistakes in the USA, and the other "rich" countries.The information is out there, (Gates should be more aware of that fact than most) you just have to be interested. But so often the way with rich philanthropists, they become interested in the plight of others once they have kicked and clawed their way to the top of the shit pile.
Thanks Adam.The links are good.I still don't get those people. They seem to think capitalism can be made to work fairly. In fact, many supporters of capitalism think that way. How often have we read or seen an interview recently with some one rambling on about how a level playing field will sort the woes of the system out. These people really believe their own bullshit, they have not attempted to avail themselves of any real history. If they did they would be able to see history of reformism repeating itself over and over.On a similar note. Can I ask if anyone has any info or links on the subject of Bill Gates and his charitable foundation stuff. I am aware there is some controversy about what it does and whom it does it with, in other words it isn't necessarily purely altruistic.Anyone?
Good stuff from all.Labour stalwarts who claim the credit for what's left of the welfare system in this country, should take note.It is also interesting to note the views from Republican Bruce Bartlett, that poverty breeds support for radical political movements. This country has seen the gradual reduction in working class political awareness, probably due to the relative comforts of the welfare system.Today's politicians may actually be doing capitalism a disservice in dismantling the welfare system in this country.But that would be no surprise, as generally speaking most politicians are thick as pig shit.
Some members of this forum insist that off topic as well as abuse is removed. But off topic is not easy to define in simple terms, as some seem to suggest. It can appear in a number of different variations. I will attempt to identify some here.1) Off course some off topic can be deliberate and obvious, soap operas on a physics forum for instance. But care should be taken to condemn even such an obvious example as sometimes light banter can be beneficial for the gelling of members and will likely revert back to the issue at hand.2) Sometimes in the unfolding complexity of debate, a person may inadvertently lose focus and introduce an out of place element.3) Topics can evolve, often from related side issues. On this forum the thread on religion evolved into a discussion on morality and then back again.4) Sometimes a person may feel something seemingly a little unrelated needs addressing, rather than set up a separate thread for something that could be clarified from several posts etc.There are probably more examples of off topic. But it is clear, or at least it should be, that off topic is not an open and shut issue.So what to do about it? Do we attempt to define every case of off topic?Perhaps define what off topic is acceptable and categorise every off topic post or section of a post, to see if it is acceptable or worthy of deletion?I think off topic can be left alone as part of the eb and flow of democratic, open discussion. After all off topic can be ignored.Or perhaps we are children who can not work around it?So and so is derailing the thread, tell them to stop it! Boo hoo!
I was wondering if anyone has any possible idea why Oxfam and the like, while seeming to accept the fact the system is rigged in the interests of the rich, think it can be made to work for the benefit of all?How long have these charities been calling for the same things now? Surely there must come a time when (and now would seem overly ripe) these people can see their calls fall continually on deaf ears? I mean calling for a return to the poverty of a previous decade is self defeating for an organisation that claims to want to eliminate it?What is wrong with these people!?
I wonder if the party where ever to get hundreds of votes, would there be any voices questioning as to whether that is actually what is wanted?Perhaps some would say something along the lines of "I bet not all the voters are socialists, so do they really count?"Numbers are important, whether or not every single vote cast for the party is from a devout socialist at such a stage is irrelevant. The more votes the party can attract, the more people will start to listen to what is being said. Unfortunately it is a numbers game.
I couldn't agree more.Much better to show pictures of socialist kittens and puppies, rather than the true horrific nature of capitalism.
TomOuch!I was under the impression this was a forum that was open to discussion from anyone. How would I have looked if I had said that my original comments were not addressed to you when you first entered this discussion? And I don't recall telling any lies about you, nor claiming "I" have beaten you?Now "race" is not subjective like the issue of what religious belief is correct, or how to interpret Marx. The issue of human "races" is either a biological fact or a social construct.If it is a biological fact it could be proven much easier in todays advanced scientific community, than it was when the concept first reared it's head two or three hundred years ago. Proven and defined, so then that definition can be used to effectively categorise every single human on this planet into a specific "racial" group.If on the other hand it is a social construct, then there will be much subjective disagreement, opinion and political fashion brought into the arena of debate. Much as there is today.You invented your own definition of "race" so you should be able to at least attempt to classify humans into racial groups. Much the same as the early "racial scientists", mixing observation with prejudice. Yet I have asked twice for you to attempt to provide an answer, and still you refuse to answer. But still you cling to the following.
Tom Rogers wrote:Race is apparent from walking into any cosmopolitan town, city or university,So here we go for the 3rd time. How many "races" of human do you think their are?If you took up Ed's invitation to try the "racial" quiz on post #62, you should have had no trouble placing the people in their appropriate "racial" groups. However to those who bothered, the quiz shows perfectly the difficulty in trying to categorise people using even the obvious evidence most commonly used.Now you criticise TWC for using academic language to dissect your points. Unfortunately sometimes in certain discussions it is often necessary to cut through the opinion with cold scientific analysis. So often this approach shows up the weak arguments, points, position of the other side of the debate. But your objection is sounding very similar to the right wing position of distrusting intellectual analysis. A position held, as so often such analysis shows up the prejudicial opinions of others for what they are.As TWC had the courage to analyse your points, dismantling them as he went (for the record I was able to follow and understand) why not do the same? We on the forum could compare them and come to our own conclusion as to who is wrong. Debate is not about changing the mind of the debaters, all too often such minds are entrenched, but about allowing the audience to come to a conclusion. It is the essence of democracy. If you can not refute TWC's dissection of your position then the audience can only draw one conclusion.As for your question of what a racist is if "race" does not exist. A simple dictionary definition should suffice.The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.Please do not take that as an accusation you believe in "racial" superiority, only that you accept human differences based on "racial" lines. Lines that you are unwilling to commit to by explaining to us misguided people, the obvious "racial" groups you see every time you walk through a busy cosmopolitan town.
TomI thought you might have the decency to admit when you were beaten by a much better argument. It seems not .TWC had the decency to consider your arguments carefully and he came back with a reply. His reply is not to your liking, because he takes your argument apart.As for your claim not to be an academic. You seemed quite confident in your own knowledge, to be able to dismiss every other point put to you, while putting forward your own definition of "race". Now you claim TWC is too academic in his approach.Some people just don't like to admit when they are beaten. Sad really.
The Sex Pistols were closer to the truth than most thought.A family subverting even the limited democracy of this country for their gain.Gawd bless em. They do a grand job, aint no mistake. God save the queen The fascist regime They made you a moron Potential H-bomb God save the queen She ain't no human being There is no future In England's dreaming Don't be told what you want Don't be told what you need There's no future, no future, No future for you God save the queen We mean it man We love our queen God saves God save the queen 'Cause tourists are money And our figurehead Is not what she seems Oh God save history God save your mad parade Oh Lord God have mercy All crimes are paid When there's no future How can there be sin We're the flowers in the dustbin We're the poison in your human machine We're the future, your future God save the queen We mean it man We love our queen God saves God save the queen We mean it man And there is no future In England's dreaming No future, no future, No future for you No future, no future, No future for me No future, no future, No future for you No future, no future For you
Hi AdminYou may find this not to your liking, but I need to ask.Are you a school teacher in the real world? Because the behaviour you are displaying reminds me of my school days and one or two teachers who displayed an unhealthy zeal for control.
Steve, it is a sad day when any socialist thinks it is time to leave the WSM because of internal politics. I understand your reluctance and your reasons, having been a member of the SPGB in the past.The only thing I can say, is that this issue will at some point get sorted out. As with any new method of communication, teething problems occur and unfortunately their are always some who see the need for control at any cost. It was the same for the invention of the printing press.Here we have some socialists who think it vital to control the forums by any means they see fit. If the SPGB is truly open and democratic, and I am confident there are enough members who still hold open democracy to be the corner stone of socialism, those who advocate control at any cost will be put in their place.Patience is the key word here. You have fought to advance the cause for world socialism most of your life. A little extra patience with party bureaucracy, will I am sure see the SPGB return to full functioning status and probably be the better for this issue being addressed and dealt with.However if you feel unable to stay a member of the WSM I hope you will not abandon this forum. All the best.
SocialistPunk wrote:a) If a moderation queue is being operated on this forum, will it be used to replace whatever system of moderation is being used at present? In other words will it replace suspensions?b) And if it is to be the method of moderation used, what is the criteria that is being used to place any one in a moderation queue? Or how many rule breaches before being put into the queue?c) How long is a person to remain in a moderation queue?DJP wrote:Hi SP,The answer to all 3 is "it depends on the circumstances" though if a member thinks they are being treated unfairly they have the right to lodge an appeal as detailed here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum-rules-and-guidelinesIt would seem that the forum is left in the same position as before this mess started. The use of disciplinary measures in an ad hoc fashion to control the forum. We are not informed as to what is being used, and how it is being used.We have seen warnings, unspecified length suspensions, deletion and retrospective removal of posts and now a moderation queue!?If a member has been suspended, has served their "time", it now looks as though their punishment is not over as they can be put on parole and have their posts vetted for acceptable content.If this forum is to be run like a parole service, I think members have a right to be informed.Instead of a simple system of warnings etc, that would allow people to know where they stand, it seems as though an arsenal of control tactics are being implemented. This forum is starting to resembling a war zone, with moderators on one side of the barricade and members on the other.I never thought in my wildest dreams I would ever see such undemocratic, unnecessary, authoritarian behaviour emanating from a part of the WSM. Very sad indeed.
Hi DJP That answer is so vague as to be meaningless. So as a member of this forum I am non the wiser as to whether or not a moderation queue system is in operation, and again have no idea as to what the criteria is to be?I don't think my questions were particularly difficult. So it would be nice to get a straight answer. Please.
Hi AdminPerhaps my attempt at humour to raise a valid issue was not to your taste. I apologise. However a serious question regarding the use of what appears to be a moderation queue to vet a certain members contributions is still relevant to all who use this forum.a) If a moderation queue is being operated on this forum, will it be used to replace whatever system of moderation is being used at present? In other words will it replace suspensions?b) And if it is to be the method of moderation used, what is the criteria that is being used to place any one in a moderation queue? Or how many rule breaches before being put into the queue?c) How long is a person to remain in a moderation queue?
