Forum Replies Created
jondwhite wrote:Will fashion exist under socialism?
No, all clothes will be red.
Rule 1 doesn't actually give reasons why an application may be rejected. In fact, it doesn't mention the questionnaire as such, it just refers to signing a form. I presume the form and the questionnaire are the same thing?Alex Woodrow wrote:Just referring to people as men and women is oppressive, we are HUMANS!
Out of interest, does anyone know of any societies whose language doesn't differentiate between the sexes? No 'he', 'she', etc?
The notion that the colour red should, or can, be reclaimed is a pigment of the imagination.
Capitalism is forever re-inventing the past by imposing more recent ideology on it. I find the idea that any particular type of perceived transgressor from the past should be posthumously 'pardoned' or honoured by a capitalist state as daft. Does it mean that society as a whole is more civilised? Not from our standpoint. It's still being done by a capitalist state to make some kind of statement for itself and, to my mind, is neither here nor there for socialists.Would a socialist society posthumously pardon past criminals?
There was a recent article in The Times arguing that the reason middle eastern investors buy British football clubs is not to make money (and football is so volatile financially that I can see this) but to 'buy in' to the west and thereby give themselves more credibility, and maybe a bit of 'protection'. All very capitalistic, all the same.But as for making money from buying individual players – apparently, after Real Madrid paid £20 million or so for Beckham some years ago, they made over £100 million in resulting shirt sales. I wonder how many Bale shirts they've already sold?
I wonder how the council ever let next door get away with that awful black.
Could the door be given a few coats of paint (red perhaps, for those who think choice of colour is important) to stop it needing so much maintenance?
I really wonder whether football will be so popular in a socialist society, at least in its present form, whose strict rules were devised exactly at the time capitalism was becoming more regimented and 'Victorianised', along with, for example, the rules of grammar, and working practices in general.Obviously there'd be no club owners, and no huge financial stakes involved, and less pressure on players to perform. This would rub off on spectators.So for example, there wouldn't be nearly as much vitriol hurled at refs for bad decisions.I wonder whether there would be that many spectators at all (or referees for that matter) – it would be far more a game to play, in local parks and recreation grounds, rather than watch. The football grounds we associate with towns and cities might become abandoned. Or, conversely, used by multiple local teams.At least those that were watching wouldn't be bombarded with sponsors' logos and crass messages from advertising hoardings.
Might be a bit tricky trying to claim red as our colour without a significant rebrand – the WSM logo and the SPGB caption accompanying it on this website are very, very blue.August 29, 2013 at 9:51 am in reply to: Same sex marriage – is it a socialist issue and why not just abolish ALL marriage? #96305
I envisage all types of living arrangements in a socialist society. The priority of such 'family units' as exist will presumably be to look after and bring up children; some may choose to do this in large groups, others in smaller groups or as couples. The key point will be that nobody will be financially dependent on anyone else – children on parents, or one partner on another.We can only speculate how children will develop in this type of environment. One thing is for sure, the first generation to be born into a socialist society will have a completely different outlook on life from us!August 28, 2013 at 4:48 pm in reply to: As a Socialist, should I oppose immigration or not? #95902
Rise above it Ed, he's just another local boy made good by the sweat of his brow. We can all do it, you know.The trouble is that his kind are touted as aspirational figures for the workers to emulate, British and immigrant alike.August 28, 2013 at 3:22 pm in reply to: As a Socialist, should I oppose immigration or not? #95898
Well, capitalist Jamie Oliver has an answer of sorts to the immigrant worker issue:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23860811TV chef Jamie Oliver has said young British people are "wet behind the ears" and European immigrants are "tougher" workers.The presenter, whose restaurants include the Jamie's Italian chain, said they would all have to close if there were no migrants to staff them."There wouldn't be any Brits to replace them," he said in an interview with Good Housekeeping magazine.Young British people were not good at "long hours in hot kitchens", he said.Oliver said that when he was in his 20s, it was normal for him to work 80 to 100 hours a week in the restaurant trade.He added: "But the EU regulation now is 48 hours, which is half a week's work for me. And they still whinge about it!"British kids particularly, I have never seen anything so wet behind the ears!"I have mummies phoning up for 23-year-olds saying to me, 'My son is too tired.' On a 48-hour week! Are you having a laugh?"In other words, immigrant workers are easier to exploit. I wonder how many workers in the catering trade, British or immigrant alike, actually get away with the regulation 48 hours to keep the likes of Mr Oliver afloat!August 28, 2013 at 9:40 am in reply to: We believe that leaders are inherently undemocratic; socialists oppose leadership? How can this work? #96327
WiscalatusIn many ways we can't help but be selfish, as we all have basic needs that have to be satisfied in order for us to live. If we're hungry, we need to eat, etc. No amount of altruism is going to alter that. The problems arise when people can't get these basic necessities.But the only way we can achieve our needs is by co-operating with others. We do this in our family and leisure time and, for the most part, in the workplace.But if, by selfish, you mean antisocial, I would contend that antisocial behaviour is a result, and not the cause, of the restrictive, oppressive society we live in – capitalism.As regards the desire to dominate, and human nature of the base sort, do you think we are all like this, or just some of us? I would contend that the vast majority of people don't want to dominate, but to live peaceful, co-operative lives. This is not totally possible in a world where resources are not owned in common and available freely to all.It may be that those individuals in the top few percent – the rich, ruling elite – love to dominate. And no doubt some of us would like to be in their shoes, because they have all what we don't and their worlds are seen as enviable. But if we abolish the system that produces the elite, we abolish the need to dominate.
If I edit my account settings and click Input Format under the edit box, there's something about filtered HTML with or without line breaks. Is that anything to do with it?I have it set to the first option.