Dodgy investment funds

July 2024 Forums General discussion Dodgy investment funds

Viewing 9 posts - 31 through 39 (of 39 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #99050
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    The morality we are taking about here is capital, surplus value, wages etc.  I don't think the  SPGB's case for socialism is based on a moral objection to capitalism and if it is then best of luck with that one

    #99051
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    In fact, I do believe it was in an article by R. Barltrop in the SS i read: "Morality is impotence in action' '…the argument and struggle had better be for concrete purposes, not for the fantom of moral truth….'Down with justice! SS June 1972! Well worth a read! 

    #99052
    ALB
    Keymaster
    Vin Maratty wrote:
    I don't think the  SPGB's case for socialism is based on a moral objection to capitalism and if it is then best of luck with that one

    Officially it isn't.In 2010 Conference passed the following resolution by 64 votes to 52 "Socialism is both scientific and ethical." Six branches then called a Party Poll to rescind this resolution. The result of this vote later the same year was:

    Quote:
    Results of the Party Poll on the following motion :  "That the 2010 Conference resolution that 'Socialism is both  scientific and ethical' be rescinded on the basis that 'the case for socialism  is one of class interest not one of morality.' Are you in favour? Yes / No"  No of votes cast : Yes      –  81 No         – 39 Abstain –   3 Spoilt    –   2  Therefore the 2010 Conference resolution – Socialism is both scientific and  ethical – is rescinded.
    #99053
    robbo203
    Participant
    ALB wrote:
    Vin Maratty wrote:
    I don't think the  SPGB's case for socialism is based on a moral objection to capitalism and if it is then best of luck with that one

    Officially it isn't.In 2010 Conference passed the following resolution by 64 votes to 52 "Socialism is both scientific and ethical." Six branches then called a Party Poll to rescind this resolution. The result of this vote later the same year was:

    Quote:
    Results of the Party Poll on the following motion :  "That the 2010 Conference resolution that 'Socialism is both  scientific and ethical' be rescinded on the basis that 'the case for socialism  is one of class interest not one of morality.' Are you in favour? Yes / No"  No of votes cast : Yes      –  81 No         – 39 Abstain –   3 Spoilt    –   2  Therefore the 2010 Conference resolution – Socialism is both scientific and  ethical – is rescinded.

     Well in that case I think the SPGB merely succeeded in shooting itself  in the foot.  It looks pretty damn silly condemning capitalism in strident moral terms and then claiming the case for socialism is not in part a moral one. Class interest by definition entails a moral dimension since its implies a concern for the welfare and wellbeing of others (in the working class) which, actually, when you think about it , is what morality is about

    #99054
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    robbo203 wrote:
    Well in that case I think the SPGB merely succeeded in shooting itself  in the foot.  It looks pretty damn silly condemning capitalism in strident moral terms and then claiming the case for socialism is not in part a moral one. Class interest by definition entails a moral dimension since its implies a concern for the welfare and wellbeing of others (in the working class) which, actually, when you think about it , is what morality is about

     Hi Rob I think the party is saying what both Marx and Engels said: The case for socialism is not based on morality, justice or ethics but is based on the class interests of the working class. It does not need appeals to 'right' , 'justice' etc.  If all we have is that exploitation is immoral, we will have a long time to wait for socialism 

    #99055
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    The seemingly different results as indicated by the 2010 Conference resolution and the subsequent Party Poll later the same year merely serves to indicate that within the Party, as elsewhere, providing the 'right' question is asked the 'right' answer can be obtained.

    #99056
    LBird
    Participant
    gnome wrote:
    The seemingly different results as indicated by the 2010 Conference resolution and the subsequent Party Poll later the same year merely serves to indicate that within the Party, as elsewhere, providing the 'right' question is asked the 'right' answer can be obtained.

    Yeah, it's the old 'plebiscite' problem. And proof that 'theory determines what counts as a fact'!Humans, eh? I'm sure that we Communists are going to have to factor them into our considerations one day.

    #99057
    Ed
    Participant

    Sorry for the belated reply I've been busy.

    DJP wrote:
    Does drawing an income from a pension that is derived from investment funds make one a capitalist?

    A pension is an insurance policy which you purchase. The money you pay into it, is no longer your money, it is the policy providers money, which they are free to do with as they wish. Owning an insurance policy does not mean you personally own any shares in anything, it simply means you own a policy. Same with bank accounts.

    DJP wrote:
    Does owning a paultry amount of shares make one a capitalist?

    No, but we're not talking about paltry sums are we.

    DJP wrote:
    Does the fact that the socialist party now (or soon will have) has funds in investment banking mean that it's members will no longer have to sell there labour-power in exchange for a wage?

    No, but the party's money does not belong to the individual members but to the party. Otherwise people would be making a withdrawal every time there's a form f. If what was proposed at ADM, a highly ambitious estimate of covering our annual deficit,  then the parties primary income will be from the forced labour of workers rather than voluntary contributions of the membership.

    rodshaw wrote:
    And how can you possibly think that by investing in stocks and shares some money which would otherwise sit in a bank account (which the bank invests in stocks and shares anyway), the party suddenly owns the means of production and exploits the working class? It beggars belief. We'll still only own the current value of the money we invested.

    I assume you weren't at ADM Rod, it was conceded that owning shares was indeed the same as outright owning a company by the main proponents of the yes vote. So I'd like to hear your reasons as to why you disagree. There's a chance that interest rates will recover in the future to a degree where depreciation will effect us less, certainly by a year or two down the line when we could actually implement this. What strikes me as really odd though, and particularly concerning, is that you and presumably many others seem to see only two options. Invest in stocks or let the money sit in a bank account. There is of course the sure fire way to beat inflation, and that's to spend it, what with the upcoming elections. But why are we hearing of no other alternatives? Perhaps it's because no alternatives have been looked into?

    #99058
    alanjjohnstone
    Keymaster

     "There is of course the sure fire way to beat inflation, and that's to spend it" I heartily agree but i suppose some also consider the HO as a mill-stone around our necks since it require regular injections of cash for its up-keep. Could i perhaps suggest an alternative is that some money is placed in a trust for its maintenance – and its return is use to pay the rates and utility bills and a little set aside each year for repairs such as the CH boiler.  Not sure of the in ands outs but it is the middle way. The main bulk of our money should be spent on activity and propaganda.  

Viewing 9 posts - 31 through 39 (of 39 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.