ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Silly title because you can support a war without thinking that it's glorious and I bet some of them think that World War Two was glorious.
admice wrote:Did I miss it or do they not quote their sources?I assume you mean for the claim that the resources exist to more than adequately feed the present world's population (since Young Master Smeet has provide those refuting the "overcrowding" issue)?The chapter from the pamphlet does give a couple of sources:
Quote:Godwin's point about every extra human being bringing in an extra pair of hands is still valid. The real issue is whether the social system allows those hands to be used to produce the extra wealth. It has long been known that the world can produce more than enough food for all. Lord Boyd-Orr, the first Director-General of the FAO, pointed out: 'There was no difficulty about producing enough food for the present population of the world, or even twice that number, but the problem was, could politics and economics arrange that the food that was produced was dispersed and consumed in the countries that needed it?' (The Times, 22 July 1949). At the second international agricultural aviation conference in Paris in 1962, Dr. Maan, the director of the International Agricultural Aviation Centre at the Hague, was reported as saying: 'The world's population, now a little over 2,000 million was expected to reach 6,000 million in the not very distant future. It had been calculated that the earth could support a population of 28,000 million if food production were organised on lines now known to be practicable' (The Times, 24 September 1962).I know these are dated and that the world's population has grown since then but so has the capacity to produce, if only because of the extra "pairs of hands" that Godwin and YMS have mentioned.The second article was part of a special issue on "A World of Abundance". Here's the accompanying article on Food Production (with more sources):http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1970/no-792-august-1970/food-production-world-can-feed-us-allFor a more up-to-date article (with plenty of sources — 29 in fact!) see:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/depth-articles/resources/how-we-could-feed-world
I'd say the difference would be over campaigning for reforms to capitalism (which they do and we don't) and over the definition of socialism (they think it's got to do with government ownership; we don't), but our companion party in the US should be able to tell you more:http://wspus.org/The wikipedia entry on our companion party there says:
Quote:… they criticize the Socialist Party USA for policies such as advocating full employment rather than dealing with the structural issue of the need for wage labor in capitalist society.The principles of the SPUSA to which you provide a link confirms that this (which is impossible under capitalism and meaningless in socialism) is among the things they advocate.
Dave wrote:ALB when you talk about campaigning for socialism I wondered what you means by this. Is it the same as the reformists or even the so called revolutionary left when they become involved in say campaigns to defend the NHS without mentioning that a true NHS which will deliver quality health care to all is impossible under capitalism and that it's only with ! global socialist society that such a service can be provided.No, not at all ! I meant literally campaigning directly for socialism (as a classless, stateless, wageless society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production, with distribution on the principle of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"), not for reforms to capitalism however desirable these might seem but, as you say, probably won't or can't be.Here's an example of the sort of leaflet we put out for, eg, "Save the NHS" campaigns:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/whittington-hospital
Young Master Smeet wrote:poverty exists because of property distribution and politics, not because of the absolute number of human beings.This is developed in this chapter from one of our pamphlets:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/questions-day#myth_overpopand in this article from the Socialist Standard;http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1970/no-792-august-1970/not-too-many-people
This year's "Nobel" Prize for economics has reverted to form and has been awarded to three professors who have studied something quite useless, and which falls only marginally within economics — stock market and other assets bubbles;http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/business/3-american-professors-awarded-nobel-in-economic-sciences.html?_r=0Junk economics which will have absolutely no relevance in socialism.
We also publish some of the letters we receive on the Comments section here (or rather that's where they end up if you make a comment on an article that appears in online version of the Socialist Standard). Makes for a quicker turnaround than waiting for the next month's issue.
gnome wrote:Turnout was 48.74% which was down on the 2010 election.That's not bad compared with turnout in UK local elections which, in some places, is half that. Even for the high-profile London mayor election in 2012 the turnout was only 38%.
More detailed result here:http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/local-body-elections/9276561/Rachel-Reese-wins-Nelson-mayoraltyI see that in NZ they use the first-past-the-post system for electing mayors while they use some proportional representation system for parliament. The opposite to here, where you can't be elected mayor with less than 50% of the votes (after redistribution of the second preferences of the bottom candidates).By the way, I don't think he was an official Zeitgeist candidate even though he was expressing their ideas. I think they give their members a free hand to stand in elections or even join a party if they want to while as an organisation being "non-political".
Here's something (the bit in bold) from another thread which is better discussed here:
LBird wrote:Our defence of science must rest upon Communist foundations, including the democratic control of all aspects of our future society: economy, polity, science… and ideology (including religion).[emphasis added].I'm not too sure what the "democratic control of ideology" means. On the face of it, this could be interpreted as meaning that in a socialist/communist society people's ideas should also be subject to democratic control, but surely, in a future socialist society, the field of democratic decision-making will have its limits (matters of collective interest). I can't see it extending to such things as the way people dress, what they eat or what they think. In fact, if it did that would be worse than what happens now under capitalism. Surely these are matters for individual choice?.
It wasn't meant as a sidetrack, but did have to be clarified. Glad you didn't mean it literally. Actually, it's not so much religion that I want to discuss as what are the limits to the field of democratic decision-making in a socialist/communist society, i.e what decisions can be left to individual choice and what to be made collectively. I'll post something on this already existing thread:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/what-would-real-democracy-look
You are right. This entry needs correcting on a number of points. It reflects Lenin's, not Marx's, concept of socialism as a separate society (from communism) where the state and the working class will still exist. This was not Marx's view.Writing in 1875 he did envisage a "first stage of communist society" in which full free access to all goods and services might not be technologically possible (perhaps it wouldn't have been in 1875), but it was still a stage of "communist society", i.e a classless, stateless, moneyless society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production. So, for him, even in its earliest days communist society there would be no classes (not even a working class) and no state.In fact, Marx and Engels used socialism" and "communism" (and other terms such as "association") interchangeably to describe the same type of society that would take over from capitalism. He preferred "communism". We prefer "socialism". But, in the end, it doesn't matter which term is used as they are simply different ways of referring to the same thing.For a more accurate description of what Marx meant by socialism see:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1973/no-832-december-1973/marxs-conception-socialismhttp://bataillesocialiste.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/lenin_reads_marx_on_socialism.pdf
LBird wrote:I simply meant that 'religion' would be got rid of by democratic methods.On the face of it, this is a bit worrying, especially as you also said that in future socialist/communist society "ideology" would also be under democratic control.I think we are all agreed that religion will have virtually died out by the time socialism is established, but I'can imagine that a small minority of people might continue to entertain religious views and customs. The way you've put it above could suggest that they will be banned as a result of a democratic vote. Would that not be "thought control" as would telling (even by a democratic vote) people what "ideology" they should hold?Tell me that this isn't what you meant.
LBird wrote:Our defence of science must rest upon Communist foundations, including the democratic control of all aspects of our future society: economy, polity, science… and ideology (including religion).I meant to pick you upon this earlier but got distracted. What do you mean by "the democratic control of … religion" in future socialist/communist society? Depending on your reply might even be the subject for a separate thread.
