rodshaw
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Ed wrote:How does owning the means of production and exploiting the surplus value of workers make us part of the owning class?I apologize, I don't know how to answer this in a way that will not come across as completely patronizing.
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.
How does investing the money to try and get a bit of return on it make us any more part of the owning class than having the money in the first place, sitting in a bank account?And remember, folks, the value of your investment can go down as well as up.
If this post intended to make a point about the ‘ethicality’ or otherwise of investments to be made by the party, in my view it should have said so and it should be in the party business section, not the general discussion section.
So some people will be turned off these charities and look for other ways of wasting their money.'But still', others will say, 'at least some of the money gets to the people who need it'.Quite possibly – and look what good it's done. The relatively poor giving money to the very poor, and the rich onto another good scam.
mcolome1 wrote:rodshaw wrote:He's obviously a Catholic Marxist. What's not to like?A Catholic-Marxist is an incompatible combination, it is like mixing oil and vinegar, religion and socialism are incompatibles, because some reformist leftist groups are supporting him, it does not mean that the catholic church is taking another road, in any way, the left will support anybody, but he does not support the so called liberation theology. …
Er, yes, irony doesn't carry well over the internet.
What about 'full democracy'?We definitely don't want to be talking about the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. People will really think we're stuck in the past. In any case people relate 'bourgeois', if anything, with well-to-do 'middle class', so it's yet another term we'd have to start redefining. Let's not go there.
admice wrote:If it's a true democracy, you can't guarantee it wil be or remain socialist. ^^Hmmm…a post-socialist society…Class-divided society cannot be a true democracy.A truly socialist society would be democratic by definition – nobody would be able to monopolise the means of production and distribution. Everybody would have the same shared access to the world's resources (but, of course, that's not to say they would all be the same or have or want the same – far from it).So think about your own statement – would a socialist society elect to end this state of affairs? If so, why, and what would they replace it with?
mcolome1 wrote:our problems do not start at the point of consumption, but at the point of productionVery well put – says it in a nutshell.
How about The Real McCoy?Presumably Great Britain would no longer exist – time for a name change south of the border as well?
mcolome1 wrote:Some small business owners fall in the category of workersYes, exactly, even though they're not working for an employer for a wage or salary. They no doubt have dreams of expanding their business to become capitalists – but of course the vast majority never do.
I, too, sometimes wish there were better words for some of the things we are trying to describe. We have enough trouble with the very words 'socialism' and 'communism' because of how they have been hijacked. But they're the best we've got. It can be difficult for non-socialists to grasp the party's notion of a worker, or being working class. There are certainly grey areas. What about, say, an ex-middle manager who has retired on a reasonably comfortable pension and may have another 20 or 30 years to live without actually having to work? Or a highly paid lawyer in a big firm who works 12 hours a day and has a fat bank account but doesn't employ or exploit anyone? What about a self-employed small businessman, say a builder, who employs a few workers himself and isn't relying on a wage or salary as an employee but on his own small profits to make the business tick over? Or what about people who are on benefits (and may actually be perceived as scroungers) because they can't find work?Despite these grey areas, the general position holds true. So it's not really about whether you actually go to work for an employer on a daily basis (although it is mostly). It's a question of economic dependence. The comfortably retired pensioner is effectively living off deferred payments from his employer, the amount of which was calculated in a very hard-headed way while he was employed. The housewife and children depend on the husband's income (or vice versa). The small businessman would have serious problems if he stopped getting customers.Some people are certainly luckier or more able than others and this in itself breeds resentment or a feeling that the better off are a different class, or that anyone can make it big if they try hard enough. We know it's all smoke and mirrors.
I think it would be more a case of no market developing because we no longer needed one – the concept would be obsolete.So to deal with possible shortages or scarcities we could have waiting lists, doing without, rationing, or taking turns. Just to add two more – find another way of doing the same thing, or first come first served. Nothing to say a socialist society couldn't handle all or any of these methods if it had to. Even now, with all of us being allegedly so greedy and acquisitive, many people are happy with these methods (think, say, of ticket allocations for a popular rock concert).Roll on the day. It's a sobering thought that I've been a member of the Socialist Party since 1977, or for one third of its entire existence. If only I could see the beginnings of it happening in the next 20 years or so, assuming I live into my eighties, I'd die happy. So by all means get promoting!
