rodshaw
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
When I try and introduce the idea of world socialism into conversations I usually end up using a mouthful. There’s really no other way. E.g. ‘I think we need to abolish the entire capitalist system, world-wide, along with governments, money and national boundaries, and replace it with world-wide common ownership of all resources’.
Interestingly I said something similar to a pair of Jehovah’s Witnesses who came ringing and asked me if I thought the world was getting better or worse. One of them said, ‘Well, I think we could go along with that’. But when I told them what I thought of religion they scuttled on their way.
I’m surprised nobody has mentioned the term ‘world socialism’. I think we should always put the two words together. It may well give some the impression that we’re after establishing a world government but it emphasizes the global element of our case, which is crucial.
It would appear that most governments round the world are genuinely trying to save lives now and acting on the best possible medical and scientific advice. Though somehow in the next few weeks and months I expect a fair number of reports about how more could have been done, too little too late, all sorts of cover-ups, etc.
As regards the NHS, of course, the irony is that it wouldn’t be in quite as much of a mess if it hadn’t been starved of cash and resources over the decades by Labour and Tory alike on behalf of the capitalist class. The same is no doubt true of most countries.
And no doubt the government has an eye to the future and will make political capital later out of what it’s doing if it can be seen to be in any way successful.
As has been said before it’s just a pity that a crisis like this doesn’t induce more socialist-minded thinking in people, beyond the creation of self-help groups and suchlike, commendable though these may be. Yes, there are far more people being co-operative and helpful than there are cynically taking advantage of the situation, but if a worldwide crisis like this, causing so much misery and financial hardship, doesn’t switch on the light showing that capitalism and its money-based constraints should be dead and buried, I don’t know what will.
No doubt the emissions in places where they have dropped will rise again when business steps up again.
In itself, what’s not to like about free public transport? And we can indeed point out that if free access to services is possible under capitalism, there’s no reason why free access can’t work on a wider scale in socialism.
But of course, so-called free transport under capitalism is being paid for in one way or another, and is partly at least being implemented because it’s cheaper than administering the payment systems, and presumably to make businesses more efficient. It can also be used by pro-capitalists to show what a wonderful system capitalism is, especially where, as in Luxembourg, it’s being done ostensibly to make the world a greener place. And further down the line it could lead to local government taxes increasing more quickly, or wages not rising as quickly.
I know our declaration of principles is a historical document and all that (though slightly edited) but it makes no mention of a difference between productive and unproductive workers, and rather gives the impression, rightly or wrongly, that all workers are productive:
“That in society, therefore, there is an antagonism of interests, manifesting itself as a class struggle between those who possess but do not produce and those who produce but do not possess.”
Nor do the explanatory notes. They don’t even use the word exploitation. There is a paragraph about surplus value but without actually calling it such or mentioning specifically that only some workers produce it.
“The workers in the factory…are directly connected to the production. It is the labour of these workers (including the plant management) that creates the profits that keep the capitalists rich. It is vital that the capitalists pay their workers less than the value that their labour produces. It is this difference between the value of what workers are paid and the value of what they produce that is the source of profit.”
And according to the wording of the membership questionnaire there is no requirement for new members to appreciate any difference between productive and unproductive workers.
So we don’t seem to think that appreciating such a difference is a prerequisite for becoming a socialist and wanting to abolish capitalism, and theoretically a majority could establish socialism without having the first idea about any difference. So in what sense is it important? And if it is important to differentiate between different kinds of worker, is it important enough to mention it in our D of P and other publications? Isn’t it simply enough to understand that all workers, whether teachers, professors, council workers, shop workers, factory workers, civil servants, the self employed, and indeed pensioners, are trapped in the capitalist system and have a common interest in abolishing it?
In the editors’ reply to Stephen Murphy’s letter about religion, they comment that ‘religion – of whatever sort – is a matter of personal faith’. But on the WSM website, in the section ‘How the WSM is Different from Other Groups’, we say ‘religion is a social, not personal, matter’.
So how do we square the two statements?
Monbiot on why the setting of targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a nonsense:
Among other things, he says:
“The 2015 Infrastructure Act introduced a legal duty to “maximise the economic recovery” of petroleum in the UK. If drilling companies fail to maximise their extraction of fossil fuel from an oilfield, they will be forced to surrender their licence to operate. In other words, while the government observes a legal minimum (the CCC’s target) for reducing greenhouse gases, it observes a legal maximum for increasing them.”
But then he weakly concludes:
“The CCC’s board should be disbanded and replaced by people whose mandate is rigorously to explore every economic sector in search of the maximum possible cuts in greenhouse gases, and the maximum possible drawdown.”
Oh dear, oh dear. Unsurprisingly, no mention of capitalism itself needing to go.
robbo’s post seems to indicate that the WSM is an ageing organisation with not enough young members who are au fait with social media. Is this true?
Nevertheless I think Ray Carr has a point. I think we should try and use terms like limited democracy in describing what we have under capitalism. As we usually do, of course.
I wasn’t intending the letter to Attenborough to look kindly on him. Usually I want to scream at the telly when he’s on, for not getting the point. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if he’s an overpopulationist – all the more reason to try and put him right.
“I do think there is a debate to be had in this area as formal religious belief makes way for vague notions of afterlife and spirituality.”
If there is a debate to be had, maybe as well as god, the afterlife and an all-pervading otherness, we should push the boat out and include ghosts, clairvoyance, angels, reincarnation and astrology. Not to mention belief in the connection between unrelated events, e.g. eating a curry -> Newcastle United winning.
Mr Murphy says he is a Christian but then also implies that he doesn’t believe in some of the traditional teachings of the faith, such as hell, heaven and virgin births. In other words, religious beliefs change with the times, which suggests strongly that they are all a product of their surrounding culture.
Christianity may well preach love, peace, goodwill, equality and brotherhood, but these have nothing intrinsically to do with the metaphysical beliefs it also likes to profess.
Anyone, including socialists, can have a sense of wonder and fascination with the world. But this does not mean that therefore there must be some underlying ‘otherness’ which is referred to variously as God, the Spirit or the life force. One can speculate on such matters, but as Christopher Hitchens (I think) said, belief without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Mr. Murphy also asks about the possible suppression of religion in a socialist ‘state’. A world socialist society would be stateless, not some monolithic, coercive structure, and those who chose to continue their religious worship would no doubt be left to it.
