[zundap]

A vote for all parties except this one legitimizes capitalism and so ligitimizes wage slavery. If you're looking for a better deal out of capitalism, the more workers who spoil their ballot the better. Faced with decreasing legitimacy our owners, in order to keep us descrete will be forced to increase the rate they brush crumbs off the table.

[zundap]

BTSomerset wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I was a convert in the debate, and this recent story about Comic Relief (and previous one about the CofE) convinced me that although there is no reason in principle not to invest, the reputational risk is too great.  Whilst there is no substantial difference between the surplus value we'd accrue through bank interest, there is the matter of directly linking our name with given firms.

I agree.  At first I did think that there could be no objection in principle to investing, after all, we do live in a capitalist society and cannot avoid investment via banks, pensions etc.  However, directly investing in a fund does risk being associated with unsavoury activity, which would tarnish our reputation.  

Unlike bank investments where we have no idea of where our funds are placed, the Party could choose a fund that would be comprised of "ethical" investments.

[zundap]

I attended a talk given by one of their members at this years Anarchist Book Fair on class. It was hopeless, according to them the workers are divided up into a plethora of class subdivisions.I took the speaker to task for calling workers "ordinary" and gave the Party's analysis of class which went down rather well with the forty or so there.

[zundap]

To invest or not to invest? That is the question.The argument against, taken to its logical conclusion would have the us metaphorically stowing the Party's funds under a loose floorboard somewhere, or the like. This would leave it to the mercies of inflation and of course loose over time some of its value. This value does not evaporate, it would accrue to that section of the capitalist class that inflation rewards.The question as I see it resolves to this; do we invest and use the return gained from surplus value to enhance our reason to be, the abolition of the system that extracts surplus value, or do we agree to what amounts to a whip round from our wages and present it to the capitalist class? 

[zundap]

northern light wrote:

But I have never refered to anywhere to a supreme being. I will remind you again what I said ( if you want the whole lot, it is on thread 13) " I believe the Creator is the sum total of all the Universe, the Sun, you, me, your mother-in-law, everything that came from the singularity that caused the Big Bang.  That is my belief in a nut-shell. I am probably wrong, but at this time in my life, the jigsaw pieces fit. "

The universe is obviously a creation, so perhaps instead of referring to a "creator" how about an impersonal creative force?

[zundap]

SocialistPunk wrote:

To be moral is sentimental, of course it is, morality is concerned with emotions. Emotions are often imprecise, they make us human. Morality does not automaticaly imply self sacrifice, or self denial. I don't get that? How is concern for the welfare of starving children in a world of plenty, self sacrificial? I see sorting out society from a socialist perspective, not only logically sound but also from a moral standpoint, the right thing to do

Because it implies that we do what we do for others and not for ourselves. The fact that unnecesary mass privation and suffering exists pisses me off, if it didn't I wouldn't give a toss.Perhaps you could answer the question I put to Robin: you say that desire for socialism is motivated by morality, so can you foresee an aspect of socialist society that would be counter to your self interest, make you unhappy?

[zundap]

[quote-robbo203] 

zundap wrote:

 The advent of socialism presupposes the discovery and acknowledgement of a common identity by an overwhelming majority of us humans, so to suggest that we who claim socialism to be purely in our self interest should therefore try to become capitalists is absurd, because we couldn't exploit, oppress or coerce those that we identify with, the working class, to do so would make us miserable, so not in our self interest. 

And there M'Lud I rest my case….[/quote]Knowing you Robin, I bet you won't.

robbo203 wrote:

The witness has just admitted that in  "identifying" with others and being concerned with the wellbeing of these others in the working class who he would feel bad about exploiting (it "would make us miserable")  he is adopting a moral position and that such a moral position is fully compatible with, and runs alongside, his self interest.   Just like I've said all along as a matter of fact

This a practical position not a moral one, being miserable is not in my self interest. I want the maximum happiness through self fulfillment as possible, being surrounded by wage slaves who accept their servile social position in capitalism aint going to cut it for me.All societies have been, are, will be social relationships, so the more we know about what we are relating with and who we are relation to the more human, the more functional that relationship will be. So is it not in the self interest of Humans to discover more about what it is to be Human? How we identify ourselves determines what we want, what we do, I see myself because I share the same ancestors as every one else, as a member of the human family, so to be true to my self I need a society based on a familiar relationship, bringing and taking according to ability and need, so it's in my self self interest to work for socialism. Marx wrote "we shall have an association where the free development of each, is the condition for the free development of all". Is it not in the self interest of the individual to inhabit a society where every one was encouraged to develop their personality, their creativity and discover their potential?The problem with the concept of morality as I see it is that it's imprecise, sentimental associated with self sacrifice and self denial, whereas self interest is exact, material, is about fulfillment and the self.Let me ask you this Robin, you say that desire for socialism is motivated by morality, so can you foresee an aspect of socialist society that would be counter to your self interest, make you unhappy?  

[zundap]

[quote-robbo203] “It so simple and straightforward and yet you make such a big hooha about it as if it were some kind of mystical mumbo jumbo descending from the heavens to baffle and confuse us mere mortals. It’s not.  It’s a completely human made social product designed to ensure people get along with each other in with the business of living in a society”.[/quote]So what does that mean if it isn’t self interest? I suggest you mount up and gallop that moral high horse of yours straight to the knackers yard.The best thing I ever heard that class traitor Neil Kinnock say was “socialism is enlightened self interest” – exactly!The present social code of behaviour reflects capitalist self interest, as to maintain class division and their superior position, in socialism the social code will reflect the self interest of all in a society without classes. The advent of socialism presupposes the discovery and acknowledgement of a common identity by an overwhelming majority of us humans, so to suggest that we who claim socialism to be purely in our self interest should therefore try to become capitalists is absurd, because we couldn’t exploit, oppress or coerce those that we identify with, the working class, to do so would make us miserable, so not in our self interest.  The social code in socialism will be informed common sense, like “Do as you would be done by”, and “If nobody works nobody lives, but if we all work well everybody lives well”; self interest.Socialism will be a socially conscious society, conscious of what it is to be Human, so when we are considering a proposal or an act, we will decide not the basis of morality but our understanding of who we are.        

[zundap]

Fabian wrote:

“The only communism (/socialism as you here define it) that is justified is the one that is voluntary, where the workers by their free choice decide to give products of their labor to the community they belong to”.

The origins of words can be interesting as in the word you used above, community.From wikipedia.The word “community” is derived from the Old French communité which is derived from the Latin communitas (cum, “with/together” + munus, “gift”.So according to this definition capitalism is a false community, on the other hand,socialism/communism with social creativity given freely and free access to social production will be in the above sense a true community. This kind of social relationship will be one where price plays no part and as anything or anyone with a price attached cannot be free, a life without price is freedom.

[zundap]

zundap wrote:

I am socially produced and so socially owned.

Fabian wrote:

So you support the society taking people’s organs without their consent?

 Society could do what it likes with me, it could, if it had a mind, to have my balls for paper weights without my consent. Society could also ‘disown’ me, then where would I be?

[zundap]

I didn’t produce myself, no one does, I am socially produced and so socially owned. I take my part in producing society so I am a (dispossessed) co-owner of society. Everything social is socially produced, anything else is crude egoism.

[zundap]

I didn’t produce myself, no one does, I am socially produced and so socially owned. I take my part in producing society so I am a (dispossessed) co-owner of society. Everything social is socially produced, anything else is crude egoism.

[zundap]

The productive technological potential we have today has been collectively/.socially developed by humans throughout our history, so as we see it this potential should, must be collectively/socially owned and controlled.  As all wealth is also socially produced, this must be socially owned and controlled. The private ownership of the natural and industrial recourses of our world is theft and confines the majority of us to servile wage slavery, living our lives not for ourselves but for our masters.

[zundap]

If there are are all these commited religious socialists out there, why have they not formed their own organisation, or organisations to allow for their differing belief systems?

[zundap]

A couple of Saturdays back I was in Brixton with another comrade manning a literature stall, I was explaining to a guy who was asking some questions about socialism how naturally co-operative humans are, when a gust of wind had leaflets flying all over the place; all those in the vicinity immediately started picking them up and bringing them back to us which was a great help in making the point.

[Author]

Posts