|
Home | Join the Socialist Party | News | Subscribe | Donate | Bookshop Your CommentsClick here to send your Comments [The latest comments appear at the top of the page.] 19 December 2005 Hi Kev Take your point about Asda, but will dispute one point - I am utterly convinced by Socialism, a socialism which emerges from the struggle of the workers and ends up with the ending of the profit system, even if it is not what Dan (and many others) imagines it to be. Cheers Pete 17 December 2005 Hi Pete and Dan! Dan I donīt think you are convinced by capitalism. But then I donīt think the likes of me and Pete are convinced by socialism either. What all three of us ARE convinced by is a good standard of living for us. What Pete knows (and I have to say, I think you and many others overlook) is that we have a good standard of living in Western Europe DESPITE capitalism, not BECAUSE of it. That standard of living is the result of a fight and working-class solidarity. Capitalism didnīt emerge from feudalism because people were convinced by a new system, but because a certain up-and-coming class asserted their interests, and the old absolutist feudal system crumbled. If we the workers network our struggle internationally to assert our interests, I doubt very much whether the capitalist system would survive. Call the new system ! socialism or what you like, but it wouldnīt be a capitalist system. Pete If Asda dismiss staff and pay those who remain peanuts, letīs see how much they buy then on Saturday afternoon. The days of an economic system where each firm treats every worker as a consumer except their own have to be numbered. Be good Kev, Germany 15 December 2005 We need to act before we have no public services left. The unions are currently in dispute with UH Coventry and Warwickshire (Walsgrave). as it seems that they are acting illegally. I am an NHS worker that will either be redeployed or lose my job. Penny, Leicestershire 15 December 2005 Dan, That's not true. People have to use big businesses every day so they do. Boycotting them won't do much good, anyway. I think, on the whole, (with some exceptions) boycotting's more of a liberal thing - the kind of thing the Guardian and Mirror liberal journalists you mentioned before, might talk about or even maybe do. Its a luxury many ordinary working people can not afford (in either time or money). Pete, West London 15 December 2005 Pete. Those that think big buisness is bad and evil DO NOT use those big buisnesses. There people who boycot supermarkets because they believe them to be "evil". If so many people thought the same why arn't there more people boycotting them? Dan, east London 13 December 2005 That is not a very convincing argument. People shop at ASDA but it doesn't mean they are brainwashed by big business into thinking big business is great. It is a practical thing. In so far as large scale production is more efficient than small, under socialism it will be a hundred more times so. But also under socialism small scale things will not be crushed under the wheels of big business. If big business is so great, what about asking the workers at ASDA? ASDA is part of the union busting Wal-mart. See for instance http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2005/398/np10.htm You can't get away from it. Capitalism stinks. Pete, West London 13 December 2005 If so many people though big buisness was evil and wicked then why do they use them? Why is my local Asda store packed full of people almost every day? Don't tell me it's because Asda has put my local small stores out of buisness because the small stores are still here in Leyton and they still get a fair amount of custom. I suppose it's because the people shopping in Asda are brainwashed? I doubt it. Could it be because people want their goods and services quick and easy and with as little fuss as possible. People vote with their feet and their wallets, they choose big over small because they want to. If other's feel differently that's their view. Dan, East London 10 December 2005 Hey Dan, Did it occur to you that many people think big businesses are evil and wicked because they are? The problem in Britain is not people running down big business, but big business running down people, by pretending that the problem is people running down big business. The Rover closure - the whole history of car manufacturing in this country - is an utter indictment of big business. You should see what the socialist party has written about it. Simon, east London 10 December 2005 Dan, my point was that you should know the answer to your question. Pete, West London 10 December 2005 Hi Dan, You make a good point about small businesses. But the small businesses, good or bad, would have to fall in with a new socialist system, and good practices would be established. Yes, Dan, it has become apparent that you think that all big business cannot be bad. You can see some of the symptoms of the disease, and you condemn them, but you won't acknowledge the disease itself, perhaps because partly you know that if you recognise the disease you also recognise it is fatal. It is sufficient to transform the major monopolies to a socialist plan, whether they are judged, by your standards (whatever they are) to be "good" or "bad". We are ultimately talking here, not about morality, but about efficient systems: "good" socialist plan, "bad" anarchy of the market. Dave, East London 9 December 2005 I think many of you have a misguided belief that all big buisness is bad and all small buisness is good. The small buisnesses can be just as ruthless as the bigger companies. If you believe that every person who runs a small corner shop is a good spirited person who cares about other people you are living in a fantasy land. My local corner store owner lowers and rises his prices as he sees fit and couldn't give a shit about my health as long as I pay him for his services Pete, yes I realise I am on a socialist website but that does not mean I have to agree with everything it says. Personally I think this whole "all big buisness which makes money and is succseful must be evil and wicked" attitude is one of the things which is so bad about Britain today. Dan, East London 8 December 2005 Dan says: "Remove all buisness and trade? How on earth do you expect people to earn a living?" I think Dan confuses "business and trade" with the productive work of ordinary people. Working people make society run, for instance by driving the busses and trains and tubes, or in millions of other ways by their daily grind at work. But big business exploits people. So you can abolish business without ending working people's ability to run society. What you are ending is the exploitation. Dave, east London 8 December 2005 Hi Dan, Business: Socialists are in favour of the nationalisation of the major monopolies. Pete did specifically say "big business". Don't confuse this with small businesses, which contribute perhaps one sixth of the total economy, and are vital for lubricating the wheels of industry (but are also continually being crushed beneath these wheels.) Trade: The anarchy of capitalist trade in modern society would be replaced by democratic planning under workers control and management at all levels. Schools and hospitals, roads, housing, building works, utilities, food, medicines, banking, and a great long list, would not be prone top the vagaries of competition, "market forces," etc, etc. Simon, East London 8 December 2005 Hi Dan, are you forgetting for the moment that you are on a socialist website? Pete, West London 8 December 2005 Remove all buisness and trade? How on earth do you expect people to earn a living? Dan, East London 7 December 2005 The Socialist Party, I think shows in numerous articles, such as Don't let profit system cost us the earth!, that it is "business", (by which they mean big business chasing profits) "trade" (meaning the protecting of mainly western big business interests by massive state subsidies), and "development" (meaning forcing poor countries to cut food subsidies and allow big business to force out local businesses), that is also the root cause of Global warming. You are right to say that "restricting" them won't solve the problem. Removing them will, though. Pete, West London 7 December 2005 Either way I do not think the policy of restriction buisness, trade and development is the way to hault global warming. Niether is taxing ordinary people. Dan, East London 5 December 2005 Hi James, Socialism has a very long history indeed, far older than the early 20th Century. An old saying from many centuries ago was "When Adam delved and Eve span, who then was the Gentleman?" "Gentleman" was then the term for the landlord class - this is long before capitalism turned up. The saying means something like, in the garden of Eden there was no landlord (or capitalist boss), so why should there be one now? Marxism is much newer, and introduced the idea of "scientific socialism." But even so, Marx and Engels were born in the early 19th century, not the 20th. It is a science you should learn. Throughout the 19th century there was unrestrained market forces, without a powerful working class party to restrain the worst excesses of unbridled capitalism. It is capitalism that seeks to take us back to this period. In response, the working class is re-arming itself with the scientific Marxist response. This is not the "command economy" as you have been led to believe. That is "Stalinism" - a distortion of Marx's ideas. But it is, as you rightly understand, the common ownership of the major monopolies, (which control over 80% of the economy), under the democratic control and management of the workers in those industries, together with the vast majority in society, through elected bodies at every level. It is the only cure for the war ridden, poverty ridden, dying world capitalism is strangling - and the real possibility, for the first time, of a return to the Eden that the early socialists, the Diggers and the Levellers, could only dream of. Pete, West London 5 December 2005 I believe that socialism is a way to head backwards in the world of politics, not only is it an early 20th century idea, it also ruins the economy of a country. Socialits believe in a command economy, yet changing our economy to this would mean major implications. Aswell as the problems caused by privatisng companies like BT and BA James, Settle 4 December 2005 Re the climate change debate. I don't think what Dan says in his comment is quite right. Firstly Dan is right to say that the situation continues to get worse. But there is nothing ultimately stopping Bush and Blair and the rest from putting their money where their mouth is, and actually turning to alternatives - since it is Bush and Blair that are in power. So I think the first mistake Dan makes is to believe their lies. Second, I don't think you can easily fit all the Greens into the "Left" bracket, partly simply because when in power they have pursued capitalist policies, such as in Germany. But also I think there are left and, let's say, not-so-left greens. These not-so-left Greens are suspect for the very reasons Dan gives. It cannot be called a "Left" policy if it consists of penalising ordinary people for the problems brought about by big business. I think the Socialist Party is right to support the campaigns against the destruction of our planet now, (but not the ones that attempt to penalise working class people) whilst explaining that unless we rid ourselves of Bush and Blair and the business interests and the system they represent, these problems will not go away. Pete, West London 4 December 2005 Re: the climate change debate. The Right (particularly the Republican-right in America) believe the soloution is spending lots of money on alternative energy sorces. They believe that this can be done by competitivness and buisnesses investing in alternative energy use. The Left and in particular the Green lobby, believe in the use of alternative energy sorces but most of all believe the soloution to climate change to be one of penalisation and heavy taxation of those people and those things which cause global warming in the first place. That includes buisness and motor vechiles (cars etc) and also mass users of fosil fuels. Greenpeace is open about it's desire to have fuel costs rise as much as possible in order to deter us all away from fossil fuels s! uch as oil. George Bush certainly won't go down this route as it would piss off his buisness friends. It's of little point trying to get him to change his mind because he won't and there is a big question as to whether penalisaiton and taxation will hault climate change. There is a clash between both sides of this debate and until someone sits down and finds a soloution that will stop climate change as well as preserving our way of life (keeping us warm, allowing us to run our cars etc) the problem will get worse. In other words there seems a lot of bickering and fingre pointing rather than any action being taken on both sides of the fence. Dan, East London 1 December 2005 Hi Dan, Well, obviously liberal media columnists are not socialists, they are liberal. But yes, Brian Reade is very good, when he wrote: "All I have had to do is watch the heartbreak in New Orleans to see the finest advert for socialism since Victorians sent infants up chimneys." Peter Taaffe commented:
OK fine. A certain Brian Read - perhaps a different bloke - writing in The Mirror attacked the protests against the fuel price rises in September 2000. These people, we learn, can quickly change their colours when its closer to home. It's not a question of hating Bush, or "most" big business, or the monarchy - its a question of supporting an alternative. Do they do that? Of being in favour of a socialist transformation of society, of working class control over society, of removing the bosses dictatorship over society, of removing profit, and establishing a proper democratic plan nationally and internationally to solve the problems, like the environment and poverty, not only unsolvable under capitalism, but getting worse. Now you know that these people don't go that far. In my book they are not real socialists. Pete, West London 1 December 2005 So are librel media collomnists not genuine socialists
then? Dan, east London 28 November 2005 Hi Dan, I think The Mirror and The Guardian only pose as pro-union, to keep their sales up. It's good when you read good journalism in them, but their owners are on the other side, and are playing the field. They are basically pro-Labour Party, and the Labour Party is anti-union. Partly intentionally, partly through the liberal upper middle class ignorance of many of their columnists (although not by any means all), these papers insinuate anti-working class, pro-capitalist, anti-socialist doctrines by first gaining a sympathetic ear of the workers. Pete, West London 23 November 2005 Not the entire press. Maybe right-wing newspapers like the Daily Mail and The Sun. But not pro union papers like the Mirror and The Guardian. Dan, east London 20 November 2005 The press have launched a series of attacks on the
deal on pensions reached by the Civil Service Union PCS and supporting
Blair over increasing retirement age to 67. Nigel, Sussex 20 November 2005 Few Muslims feel that the rightwing political Islam preached reflects their views. Simon, East London 20 November 2005 Indeed. As that Islamic cleric who recently came over to London and started talking about killing homosexuals proved. Dan, East London 19 November 2005 Dan, you'll be surprised to discover just how little in common the right wing political Islamists have with socialists, (let alone Islam) if you care to look into the matter deeply. (But a lot to do with fighting against democracy, socialism, etc.) Incidentally, socialists want to increase the material wealth of people (without despoiling the earth with waste products). That's why they fight for higher wages. I don't know why you say otherwise? Simon, East London 19 November 2005 ref Dan's remarks, All complaints should be sent to their former fund manager in the CIA central office, care of Rumsfeld, with a copy to the chief torturer and defender of the "Free world's" freedom to starve, torture and invade any country it feels inclined so to do - G W Bush. Dave S, East London 18 November 2005 Further to my recent comments regarding the causes of terrorism I would like you to chew on this for a bit. The message delivered by one of the 7/7 London bombers spoke not just of the actions of our government in Iraq but also of our way of life and our refusal to abide by Islam. He spoke of our materalism, our cars and our money all things which he says are an affront to his relegion. Is this not proof that this brand of terrorism is motivated by an intolerance of other ways of life as much as social injustices? As socialists you may dislike materalism and the pursuit of wealth but it is not for others to deam that we must die because they dissaprove of how we go about our lives. Some of us may act in a materalistic way but that does not permit someone else to murder them! I think it is important to realise the current crop of terrorists are seeking to force their beliefs on us as much as some of them are seeking to avenge some sort of atrocitiy our leaders might have commited agains them. Dan, East London 18 November 2005 It's time for this world to change. We need to change it. I'm fed up of being fed these lies by people who are only out for themselves. Bradley, Coventry, UK 16 November 2005 Here as I sit in the belly of the beast in Fort Worth, TX. I see if not my comrades, at least my sympathizers multiplying. Comrades, Brothers and Sisters, please resist New Labour's attempts to make the UK the 51st state of America. Texas, USA Ed: Every hour of every day, brother. 11 November 2005 Young person sicked by our current government and its corruption. The lower and lower standard of living in a so called prosperous country. The greed culture and lack of basic huminity in todays britain. Peter, Bournmouth 5 November 2005 Yeah your probably right. These companies would make a load of profit no matter what they do though. Dan, East London 2 November 2005 Hi Dan! PS There were members of the Verdi trade union
standing outside our local Siemens factory only last year handing out
leaflets. 30 October 2005 Kev. You clearly don't want to work for any company because you don't want to help create profit for anybody. You sound as if you should work for yourself. How do you market yourself to companies when you apply for jobs? You don't tell them you don't want to create more profit for their "fat cats" bosses do you? I don't particular care about multinationals getting richer. Provided they do it fairly, but you and others like you believe they all do it throught screwing people over. I am not anti buisness, I believe healthy buisnesses and compertition is an integral part of the sucsess of any country. It's how the money that these buisnesses brings to the Treasurey is used. For starters I would agree that blowing that money on pointless wars is of no help to the wellbeing of this country and it's people. You mention Siemens and Vodaphone but I haven't heard of any recen! t disputes with their workers. Dan, East London 29 October 2005 Hi Dan! 28 October 2005 Re: Digby Jones' recent views. He's an example of why capitalists and socialists will never get along. Capitalists want to make money and socialists do not. I suppose it's either one or the other. Dan, East London 5 October 2005 I agree. Banning books, magazines, films and other forms of media has never worked. Civil liberties end when people start deciding on everything that other people should see/read. Dan, East London 4 October 2005 That is a bourgeois way of thinking. I say, when has banning a book ever worked? You would just force it underground. The same would apply. It is not the way to go about things. Socialists struggle against state censorship - look at the laws they are cooking up now - how long before they attack socialists for opposing the war on Iraq? Dave, East London. 3 October 2005 Surely if you campaign against something you must want it stopped. If you campaign against "pornographic" material or lads mags you must want them stopped or banned. The people who make lads mags won't voluntarily stop producing them because there is a market for them. Surely then the only way to stop them producing them is for state censorship. 30 September 2005 Dan I think the point is that campaigning against pornographic material is not the same as calling for state censorship, which I don't think the Socialist Party anywhere advocates. It is calling for raising people's awareness of how these thing are part of the exploitation of people. Dave, east London 30 September 2005 Is censorsing certain magazines and restricting peoples freedom to choose what they read really going to bring better equality for anyone, let alone women? Dan, East London 29 September 2005 People who say that campaigning against "lad mags" is taking away their "freedom" don't realise that in a society which discriminates against women, bosses are able to pay less to women. Women are paid 75% of what men get. And if the bosses can pay less, they won't want to pay you more. Men's wages and conditions are therefore lowered overall. In other words, as the organised working class has learnt over the centuries, an injury to one is an injury to all. This means, literally, if you let the bosses go for one section of society, you will be the loser late on. The backward people in society then blame women for their own low pay, without realising that they are going along with a game they can never win. Solidarity, oppose the exploitation of women in all forms, and unity to defeat the bosses system. Dave, East London 27 September 2005 I tend to agree with Sam that these "lad" magazines, or the people who defend them, "say greed is human nature, but its all they encourage." [I tend not to agree] with Kevin saying that "sex and greed" are human instincts, probably a slip of the pen? Certainly, not as we see them exploited today, a point Kevin was making anyway. A cultural artifact of capitalism. I think there is a real reaction to this building up. I don't think young women will put up with it for very long, especially as it is coupled with low pay and other forms of oppression and discrimination. I think you will see a repeat of what happened in the 70's which was partly a revolutionary period around the world (Vietnam, etc) and this mood was reflected in the struggle of women. Now we have Iraq, just as much oppression, and we are beginning to see mass movements and the breaking of the log jam in the trade union movement, with some good trade union leaders beginning to appear (the so-called awkward squad). Simon, East London (Comments abridged) 27 September 2005 Hello Sam and Suzi! I read your comments with interest. I wouldn't condemn all young people. There are people out there who do care about our world. And which of us can say honestly they have never indulged in selfish or primitive behaviour? But it worries me too that consumer values are the only ones that more and more people recognise. That's not surprising when you think about the historical situation we live in. Competition among companies for profit is fierce. They must always offer new products with more and more specialised features, followed up with aggressive marketing campaigns to squeeze as much profit out of these products before offering the next generation. [The aggressive way they] sell these products is to appeal to human instincts such as sex and greed. Read the novel "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. It's rapidly becoming reality. Kevin, Germany (Comments abridged) 25 September 2005 suzie, i could not agree more. [See comment of the 21 September below] These magazines and the fashion ethic are the reason for a weak moralled, shallow, uninteresting youth only interested in acting older than they are, getting drunk and going to parties. the alienation against girls or women who do not fit the mould cast by the mass fashion media, is unbearable. This media only teaches us to respect those who appeal to our distorted stereotypes. People are not encouraged or respected for being well rounded, overall interesting people who genuinely care about the future of the planet, more rewarded for the me me me ethic. They say greed is human nature, but its all they encourage. sam, Reading 21 September 2005 I've been reading the comments posted here already, and am glad its not just myself with these views! I hate lads mags, tabloids and all that stuff. I hate the glamourisation given to "glamour" modelling, when in reality, its just seedy; exploiting young girls and encouraging men to treat women as such. I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but these magazines and tabloids are turning britain into a nation of perverts. Suzie, Arbroath Editor adds: The Socialist Party has organised protests against the publishing empires behind this exploitation. Click here for our pages on issues concerning women 30 August 2005 Hi Kevin By the way there was a bit in the paper where a scientist said that he underestimated the effects of global warming on hurricane formation. So as the federal bills come in in the wake of hurricane Katrine, I wonder if anyone in the US administration is thinking to themselves "We were wrong big time on invading Iraq to get lower oil prices, maybe we should shift a bit on this global warming thing..." Anyway, when you say "much as we do with the Third World today?" don't include me in this exploiting the third world thing. I was never asked. "We" don't do it - "they" do it. They - meaning the ruling class of this country. Remember "workers have no country". Perhaps its true that in general the Indian's had no concept of land as property, and were more or less self reliant, and so could not be drawn in to the exploitation process by conquest in the way peasants tied to the land elsewhere in the world have been. Apart from that I can only answer your question with generalities - the ruling class do not necessarily act in their own best interest. They do not always have a plan, let alone a good one. Slavery was useful in the plantation areas, I guess somewhat later on, but maybe they have no need for extra labour at that stage of the conquest of lands (for cattle rearing). I believe there are many stories of how the early settlers relied on the local knowledge the Indian's had to survive, but later government policy put an end to this. But the real answer only comes from looking beneath the myths and discovering, if possible, the concrete reality. Regards, Dave 27 August 2005 Hello Dave 27 August 2005 Hi Kevin, I'm not sure about the points you make about the conquest of the indigenous people of the USA. I think it was the government, e.g. the representatives of big business, even in those days, that wanted to drive the native people from the land. My impression is that roughly they wanted untrammeled possession of the land, and genocide was their method of clearing their landed property of unwanted tenants. I think you must be very careful, always, about tethering the ordinary settler (or "white man") to the policies adopted by the ruling elite. Dave, east London 27 August 2005 From what you have said you would not shoot someone carrying explosives on his person? Why not? If he is intent on blowing himself and hundreds of other people up surely that would be the only way to stop him, even if you do not kill him. Dan, East London Editor: This is not what the Editorial of The Socialist 28 July, "Repression won't end terrorism," says. We refer the reader to this article. 27 August 2005 Hello Dave! 26 August 2005 On a different subject I can understand that your party is outraged by the shooting of Jean Charles De Mendez. He was clearly an innocent man who was killed in an awful police blunder for which those responsible must be held to account for. However what would your views be if a suicide bomber had been shot? Say the police shot to death a man carrying explosives in his rucksack on the London Underground. Would you object to this? Do you favour negotiation rather than shooting terrorists? Dan, East London Editor writes: This is dealt with in the Editorial of The Socialist 28 July - repression won't end terrorism. 25 August, 2005 What's missing from your analysis, Kev, is the role of imperialist conquest. Britain, France, and since WW2 the USA have been conquering and thrusting these countries into backwardness for two centuries. This is the main reason for the role that religion plays, or appears to play on western TV screens, in these countries. Furthermore the result of the failure of many uprisings and struggles to overthrow the occupations - especially the failures of the 'Communist' Parties in the region - means that the struggle has tended to move through the religious fields. Add to that the massive funding and supply of weapons to right-wing political Islam (Taliban, Osama bin Laden) by the USA and the Saudis as a bulwark against the invasions of the Stalinist Soviet Union into Afghanistan, and you have all the ingredients for thrusting the country back a few centuries, into a religious miasma of feudal rites and obligations. Bush's claims to be bringing democracy to the middle east is incredibly hypocritical and cynical. Take Iraq. When the people moved both to get a more progressive regime and remove US control of their oil - as a prerequisite to development - their government was overthrown by the CIA and Saddam Hussein was installed instead as a reliable tool. Take Iran before that. As a more progressive regime moved towards getting control over their resources - the CIA organised a coup and installed the Shah of Iran - just as brutal as Saddam. When he was overthrown in a popular revolution, the USA spent billions arming Saddam Hussein with biological weapons, etc, to enable him to continue the war on Iran and destabilise the regime. More than a million people died. This story, so similar in every case, can be repeated, with variations, throughout the ex-colonial (or more correctly, the neo-colonial) world. Dave, East London 25 August 2005 Hello Dan!
25 August 2005 Pat Robinson, George Bush's praying pal, called the Venezuelan President Chavez a "dictator", before calling for him to be killed. Yet Chavez was more fairly elected than President Bush, who only came to power fraudulently through Republican manipulation of the elections in his brother's state of Florida! Incidentally, Dan, in his posting of the 24 August, can't be refering to the Socialist Party's views, when he talks about "Those on the left" etc. I'm sure he won't find quotes to back up the examples he gives - in what is a poor caricature of our policies - on the Socialist Party website. I think it is not correct to suggest that "both sides", right and left, have a selective view of things. On the contrary, in order to defend their privileges, the defenders of privilege - the "right wing" - have to distort the truth and try to fool people. To expose them, The Socialist Party, - the "left wing" - have only to find out the real truth, and expose it. Marxism is a science which exposes the real situation facing working class people. Its a false assertion to make out that socialists have a "one sided view". That is different to coming to a definite conclusion, based on the facts, that capitalism must be overthrown. Simon, east London 24 August 2005 Hi Kevin. Both have one sided views on many subjects. Take immigration for example. The right tend to believe all immgirants are scroungers looking to take us for a ride and that immigration is all terrible. Those on the left tend to believe that all immigrants are angels and that immigration presents zero difficulties. Both views are preety rigid and do not allow for the facts. Sometimes political biased does not allow people to see life in the fullest sense. I think when it comes to capitalism there is a preety rigid believe on both sides. The right believe it's all good and the left believe it's all bad. To say that everyone who is in the buisness of making money is a saint is wrong but to say that everyone who is the buisness of making money is evil is wrong as well. To answer your question I do not know enough of the history of Afghanistan to make an informed judgement of how their history effects their thinking. However perhaps their history does not make every man and woman in Afghanistan and the middle East think "death to the Americans". Dan, East London
24 August 2005 I guess Home secretary Charles Clarke will be warning far right "Christian" TV evangelist Pat Robinson not to try to sneak into the UK, as he will be instantly expelled for preaching terrorism? Surely when Pat Robinson, a highly influential preacher called for the "taking out" of the Venezuelan president on USA TV this would concern Charles Clarke? Don't hold your breath. But what about Bush, for harbouring the terrorist? Should the Venezuelan government forces follow Bush's example, made into a strategy explicitly in his speech today, and hunt Pat Robinson down before he is successful? Would they get the support of George W Bush? Dave Stringer, London 23 August 2005 I see from CNN Bush's best buddy, far right "Christian" TV evangelist and multi-millionaire, Pat Robinson, has been practicing his Taliban speak, saying that the US government should assassinate - "take out" - Venezuela's president Chavez. The man's twin is sitting in a cave in Afghanistan holding a US made rocket launcher, firing at passing US helicopters, and uttering exactly the same profanities, (see his website) inciting violence, commanding people to join the army to fight for their country, railing against workers' rights, women's rights, and other hard won rights, against gays, "communism," socialism, drinking, music, drugs, mixed race marriages, "infidels" and "infidel" religions, but just in the language of a different religion. Dave S, East London 23 August 2005 Hello Dan Kevin, Germany 21 August 2005 Most people seem to follow the outlook of their class. But I think you can say that where there are exceptions occur, there are still material reasons for this, rather than spiritual. As Dan says, for the more enlightened richer people, they have perhaps worked hard and seen the world, etc. But also, perhaps they have their own first hand evidence of the brutal nature of capitalism, and all the prejudices it engenders, and have had the courage to reject those class prejudices to one extent or another. As for the working class, without a party of Labour any more, which could have its own newspaper, etc, people are even more prone to the lies and prejudices pumped out every day by the media and the government. When the Labour Party turned directly to being completely capitalist, for a while they brought some people down that path with them - now much less so. In other words, it's still people's material conditions, including the ideological environment these material conditions create - the ideologies pumped out by the Sun etc - which determine their outlook. What view a particular person obtains is the result of a millions accidental circumstances, but:
Simon, East London 21 August 2005 Dan Factor Comments: To answer Kevin: Well there is a big lack of overal relegious belief in this country. Less people go to church and the largets most prominant relegious are starting to come from the minority ones, such as Islam. However I think this is a good thing. The smaller relegion becomes as part of our culture the better. That means it will have less influence on the government and over who makes our laws as a whole. We want laws and government to do what is right for the people of this country not for what is right for a few relegious types pontificating about how we should or should not live our lives. I do not want my life dictated to by any relegion be it Christianity, Islam, Jewdaism or whatever. Also having one relegion dominating our government means far less cultural and relegious diversity. Those who say we are still a Christian country are talking nonscence because if we were we would all be living under Christian laws and we would not have the wide range of relegious beliefs that we do. As for Afghanistan. Maybe you are implying that the people there need relegion because they have little hope or because they are oppressed or poor. Maybe they do but do they wish to have their lives governed by a strict relegious code? Maybe they do not wish to have their lives governed by the USA or Britain either though.
To answer the editor: It would be interesting to do a survey over which social class has which opinion. I think you may be surprised to find that some of the most wealthy and affluent people have the more librel opinions on abortion and women's rights. Mind you these are usually from those who have worked for their money and therefore have seen more of the world. I suspect that those who were born into privelage (eg: our monarchy) have a more outdated and rigid view of life. I have an aunt who has some very bigotted and racist views (much to my distress but there is little I can do about it without causing a family argument).She comes from an ordinary working class background where she was brought up in preety poor conditions. So social class and financial situation does not always have an influence over ones opinions. Dan, East London Editor: But I think we agree, Dan, in general, on the point you addressed to me. In most cases, but "not always", a person's social class - by which I mean the material conditions, rich or poor, in which they live - more or less determines their outlook. 19 August 2005 I think Dan has brought up an interesting subject: the link between religion and the state. I'd like to ask Dan a question. Do you think people there are more "believers" in countries like Afghanistan or in countries like Germany and England? And why? Kevin, Germany Home | Join the Socialist Party | News | Subscribe | Donate | Bookshop |