rodmanlewis
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
There is no reason why we shouldn't continue discussing the subject just because capitalist politicians have decided, in the wake of Jo Cox's murder, to declare a halt on the subject.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Are we being to Euro-centric and parochial by not discussing how (for the want of a better word because i technically don't think they are) – the peasants are involved in socialism? Didn't Luxemburg have something to say on the issue that could be thought of as a less than a libertarian policy? [/quoteA peasant is not just someone who works on the land.I recall that during the 1956 uprising in Hungary farmers joined in by bringing food into the towns until the Russian authorities clamped down on the whole thing. Presumably they were confident that the workers' actions would succeed. It would be reasonable to assume that when we are on the cusp of socialism, then workers would start co-operating with each other to satisfy each other's basic needs without having to look down the barrel of a gun.Rationing during WWII was caused by the deliberate waste of resources. After the war rationing continued so as to prevent Germany going through the same deprivations after WWI, which led to Hitler and WWII.What shortages are we envisaging? Housing we can do someting about: opening up "second homes" and hotels; converting office premises that have been used for socially useless work can be commandeered for temporary accommodation. Repairs to sub-standard housing can be addressed, with the profit motive gone.We have to reasonably assume that in the early days of socialism people will make do with the basics of life like food, clothing, shelter and medicine, and won't worry about "keeping up with the Joneses"! If people need retraining from producing tat to producing essentials, then that will be done.What we can't foresee is the "mood" of the people prior to the establishment of socialism, or the time factor involved, so we can't say when any or all of the above will start to occur.
You are forgetting that certain transactions in today’s electronic world can’t take place unless a payment is made for goods. In the days leading up to and immediately after socialism it may be necessary to go through the motions of capitalist business practices, paper exercises if you like. Rather like leaving a pile of coins beside a drinks dispensing machine to make it work.
There are more important things to do than making certain politicians squirm, however entertaining that exercise may be.
It may be true that we inherit a “selfish/competitive” gene from our parents which helps us survive. This exists on two levels:The inherited advantages which help us survive in competition with other species.The inherited advantages which help us survive in competition with other humans.I imagine that most people would find the first one acceptable, but the second a flaw in our makeup.Everything we do could be described as selfish: even including giving to charity; rescuing someone at the risk of losing our own life; donating an organ… All these acts can make us feel good. The “selfish” gene could just as easily apply to understanding how to survive through co-operation rather than competition with other humans. If we were as selfish as some would say then why is the working class generous to a fault to their capitalist masters, and allow them to keep a chunk of the fruits of the labours? Is it because they have inherited a "dumb" gene which condemns them to remain within the ranks of the working class for their whole lives, or that they haven't passed the right door at the right time to hear alternative ideas about organising society like socialists have?Many survival acts are pre-programmed (often mistakenly called instinctive), but these are not absolute. We run from danger, but can also override the situation if our reasoning abilities take charge.The ultimate “selfish” would be bringing about a world of co-operation, not competition.Competition grew out of the scarce sources available, and co-operation was probably not an option. Even with a world that has potential abundance and no need for competition, history is still repeating itself, only now it’s on a loop…
rodshaw wrote:Payslips show a deduction for tax. There's council tax to pay, water rates, and heaps of indirect taxes. The self-employed don't get tax deducted at source but have to put money aside to pay it later on.And council tax isn't deducted by employers but comes out of net wages. Ok, you can budget for it, but you still have to pay it, or apply for relief.Payments for council tax, water rates, TV licences etc are not strictly taxes, they are payments for services. OK, they are generally a flat rate, so some workers may benefit more than others. They are no more taxes than flat fares for transport are.Taxes on booze, fags and geegees are taxes, but they don't affect those not into these pastimes. Betting is one service for which the working class, on average, gain no benefit, rather the reverse, unless you consider "the thrill of the chase" a benefit.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Actually, watching it through, I'm seething, not just for the blatant election stealing by bringing in lots of paid workers, but also because at the last election I bust a gut to make sure we declared everything (down to some very small receipts). I know some things slip throuh the cracks, but this is blatant, systematic and appears deliberate…I doubt if anyone would be interested if we exceeded our election expenses. We might receive a few tut tuts from the Electoral Commission, and told not to do it again. It's only if the guilty party actually wins the seat that it matters.
alanjjohnstone wrote:We are anti-Judaism, anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, anti-Hindu, anti- all religion. We are also anti-theocracies and who can deny that Israel is de facto, like all Middle Eastern countries, a theocratic state rather than a secular democracy it claims to be.In other words, we are opposed to all institutionalised ignorance.
SocialistPunk wrote:Hi Rod,At present there are a number of rescue organisations around the world that rescue people who have engaged in potentialy risky activities, organised on a voluntary basis. I doubt that would change for the worse in socialism. In fact these rescue organisations are good examples of socialist style volunteering. People understanding that in order to create and sustain the kind of supportive society we humans thrive in, we have to pitch in and do stuff that is often unpleasant and dangerous.I have a question that I ask people who take part in non-socially useful dangerous activities: "Would you be prepared to take part in dangerous activities which are socially useful, rather than showing off to your mum?" I never seem to get a straight answer.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:If we are going to use the social costs of sport to stop them taking place under socialism are we also going to do the same around alcohol, tobbacco, food consumption, unprotected sex, mountain climbing, canoeing, skin diving, etc. Is this ban goign to be imposed by the "Socialist Police" or are there just going to be disapproving looks from the enlightened.People do, in fact, take notice of social disapproval. Many family members who wish to smoke now go outside of the house to do so.If people wish to go mountain climbing etc they had better make sure that there are rescue teams available to jump in when things go wrong. A sign like "WARNING – BEFORE ENGAGING IN DANGERIOUS ACTIVITIES PLEASE ENSURE THAT AN APPROPRIATE RESCUE TEAM IS AVAILABLE" might be useful. These dangerous activities don't take place in isolation. Apart from rescue teams, organisations like the police (not acting in an coercive manner on this occasion) are required to officiate in an attempt to determine what went wrong and what lessons may be learned.There seems to be a lot of knee-jerking going on on this subject. Socialism won't mean that people will be able to do just what they like, they will be expected to consider the social consequences of their actions.
There's no need to take it away from those who wish to continue to do it. They are welcome to kick the crap out of each other, but they could be forewarned that members of the medical profession may not be there to attend their injuries. Don't forget there is female boxing, but that may just be a way of women trying to "prove" themselves to be as good as men.
