Forum Replies Created
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.Matt wrote:It maybe so, that most Christian religions are attempting to be reasonable as a result of external imposition from wider society,but the minorities within the dominant religions still exert a powerful hold upon them.The Catholic church is one such example.Here is Dawkins at his most reasonable, with a most reasonable priest, Fr. George Coyne ,who still ends up with his head up his own ass,having to implore Dawkins to back off a little and cut him some slack..(My understanding).It is quite a long flash movie, so maybe save for later.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkS1B0huWX4
It seems Fr. Coyne is trying to say he knows it's all nonsense but can't shake off his upbringing. If he went the whole hog he'd obviously have to resign.In short, take the universe, take the laws that describe it, accept the scientific view, then wrap the God you find most satisfying around it all and firmly believe in him, even though you know he's superfluous and it's just because you've been brought up that way.But all credit to them both for standing up for so long.
The example Banks writes of is of a victory for a small section of workers against their bosses, for something they were legally entitled to anyway.But can the 'democratisation' of knowledge and information lead to the establishment of socialism from the bottom up? Will the abolition of capitalist society be a rubber-stamping exercise at the end of it all?The facts and arguments Banks wrote of need to be the type which support the socialist case and lead to socialist consciousness. They need to be somewhat more substantial than obtaining back payments from your employers.
Your average Christian these days is not into bullying. In fact, their attitude to God can be decidedly on the milky side. According to John Cottingham (Credo, The Times 24/08/2013), abstract debates about God miss the point of religion. When one reflects on the nature and purposes of God, he states, people are not likely to be swayed by scientific or philosophical debates about his existence, with the likes of Dawkins et al. Rather, the principal focus of religious belief is on the meaning of human existence, and how we should live our lives, not on finding proofs that God created the world. But as churches empty, it seems people are now even eschewing this approach. Cottingham concludes, ‘we need to ask whether there is any alternative purely secular framework that can nourish the sense of…objective value in human life’. Suggestions, anyone?
Obviously a different bloke from the dyslexic agnostic insomniac, who used to lie awake all night wondering whether there really was a dog.