Only vote for socialism if you are in agreement with our Object and Declaration of Principles.You might have heard of the Euro elections, the biggest in history, 500
million people, 27 countries, June 4th? You’re supposed to choose which
of your local crème-de-la-crème get to go on free holidays to Brussels
and Strasbourg, and the powers that be are a bit worried that you won’t
take it seriously enough to bother voting. Shame on you!...Read more>
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/The_Euro_elections_2009_page.html
Français (French)
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/The_Euro_elections_2009_page_Francais.html
Italiano (Italian)
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/The_Euro_elections_2009_page_Italiano.html
Svenska (Swedish)
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/The_Euro_elections_2009_page_Svenska.html
Español(Spanish)
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/The_Euro_elections_2009_page_Espanol.html
Polska (Polish)
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/The_Euro_elections_2009_page_Polska.html
Türkçe (Turkish)
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/The_Euro_elections_2009_page_Turkish.html
Nederlands (Dutch)
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/The_Euro_elections_2009_page_Nederlands.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download our election leaflets.
1, Manifesto for London Region (where we're contesting) (PDF)
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/Euro09/Euro_09_leaflet_London.pdf
2. Manifesto for outside London (where we're running a write-in
campaign) (PDF)
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/Euro09/Euro09_leaflet_write_in.pdf
3. London manifesto in Bengali (PDF)
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/Euro09/Bengali_Euro09.pdf
( If anyone wants copies of these leaflets to distribute they should
send an email to spgb@worldsocialism.org )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 comments:
I am looking at Our Object and Declaration of Principles, and posting critique.
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/gbodop.html
"The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community."
1. Common ownership might sound nice in theory, but it is impossible to replicate in practice. It inevitably leads to someone having ownership over each good in question.
2. This is scary. This statement would imply that my body is common property.
"Common ownership means that society as a whole owns the means and instruments for distributing wealth."
1. Society cannot own anything. Property is either unowned, or owned by someone.
2. No, this is not what common ownership means. Common ownership implies that a specific good is owned equally by a specific group.
"It also implies the democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth, for if everyone owns, then everyone must have equal right to control the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth."
In practice, this would imply that a. people would be constantly voting on every decision, which is near impossible to enforce, or
b. they would hire caretakers to manage the wealth, in which case, it is not ownership of the commons.
"Common ownership is not state ownership."
CONTRADICTION! It implies/turns into state ownership, unless everyone involved voluntarily chose to adopt such an unrealistic system voluntarily.
"State ownership is merely the ownership by the capitalist class as a whole, instead of by individual capitalists, and the government then runs the state enterprises to serve the capitalist class."
That is not what State ownership is. State ownership implies that certain people in the government can control the thing.
" and the consequent enslavement of the working class, by whose labour alone wealth is produced."
The labor class is not enslaved. If they were, that would imply that every worker was forced at gunpoint.
Second, labor alone does not produce wealth. You need time to use the labor. You need land for production. For production with more than one stage, you need capital goods to apply the labor to. Also, you need the idea of how to produce something.
It also ignores that wealth is subjective. There is no correlation between amount of labor and the amount of wealth produced, it depends on the application of the labor, and the values of the person evaluating it as wealth.
"If decisions were made based upon the needs of humanity then the food that is regularly destroyed by the truckload would instead feed the starving."
It does not logically follow. Also, how do you evaluate the "needs of humanity"?
"Decisions are made based upon the expectation of making a profit. "
Wrong! All decisions are made because the actor seeks to increase his satisfaction ex ante.
"The ecology of the world is being devastated, even though this devastation may wipe out the human race, because of profit. "
You are forgetting that common (*ahem* state) ownership is a contributor. If people owned ecology, and it was being devistated, some would act to preserve it for it to retain value.
"Poor quality goods are produced, not because people want to have junk, but because it is profitable to produce junk. "
If people want to have junk, then others will produce it because it is profitable.
If people don't want junk, but companies are still producing it, then more competent entrepreneurs that have ideas for how to make it less junky will out-compete the existing entrepreneurs.
"Anyone can think of dozens of examples of how decision making puts profit-making before the satisfaction of human needs. "
This ignores the fact that monetary profit is a result of satisfaction of human needs, and the ones who do it worse lose profit.
"The owners of the production and distribution facilities are responsible to no-one but themselves."
But if they don't make decisions that benefit the consumer, they lose profit share to rivals.
"Governments pass laws that maintain profits for the owners as a group."
Not true, when passing laws for business, they usually pass laws that benefit some capitalists at the expense of others.
"While many British people have generally seen the benefits of increased production in terms of material wealth, the decisions are made not to improve our lives, but to improve the lives of those who own the means of production. "
While the statement is arguably true, it is actually a concession that both entrepreneur and consumer benefit.
I will critique more, so be ready!
You can call me simple,but would not a Socialist society in time change the vocabulary and cease to use such words as ownership,mine,yours or any other word that pertains to self and possession.
"You can call me simple,but would not a Socialist society in time change the vocabulary and cease to use such words as ownership,mine,yours or any other word that pertains to self and possession."
Someone's property is simply their right to use something without interference, whether it is their bodies or a tool. In this socialist society, for example, is it wrong for someone to kill another? Is it wrong for people to take food from another's plate? I could list millions of questions, but the point is that if these things are deemed wrong or avoided, the concept of property exists, in spite of no words.
I may be wrong but it seems that you are not swayed by the socialist concept,but seem leaning to right wing philosophy, whats mine is mine, and freedom of the individual right to property and ownership.
"it seems that you are not swayed by the socialist concept"
Because it does not work in practice, and it is either impractical, or necessitates the use of agressive violence.
"but seem leaning to right wing philosophy"
I am not a republican. Even if I seem to come off as one.
"freedom of the individual right to property and ownership."
Correction. The property must be justly accquired.
Purplearcanist how are you.Unfortunatly Socialism to date has not been a practiced reality, only a thought.There have been those who presume to practice Socialist belief but they only regress to in best state capitalism.
Violence and its symbols are not of the Socialist.For instance the first recording of the flying of the red flag as a sign of defiance was during the English civil war, flown by landed gentry who!s power and control was being challenged, not by Socialists but by capitalists.
Property and the right to ownership.In a Socialist society private ownership would not exist it is a fundamental understanding of Socialists that private ownership hinders the progression of the betterment of humanity.
Violence and ownership is not of the Socialist thought.Please understand my opinion is not of a party line,only humble in its interpetation.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Lao-tzu
Post a Comment