The PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING
- This topic has 216 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 6 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
[ Would like to add the following text to my comment dated 06 April 2017 : ' There's NO good reason to believe the born poor and underprivileged, the silly millions, that don't feel ashamed of … ' ] ' Besides, getting legally married is no more necessarily " approving matrimony " than using money is approving money. ' [ ALB's comment dated 27 march 2017 ] The observation quoted above appears a fine instance of sophistry meant, implicitly, to lessen the gravity of some professed communists' disgusting indulgence in the luxury of matrimony or sheer travesties in the name of matrimony which is essentially a propertied-class institution meant to serve exclusively the propertied-class interest, as I see it. The point missed is it is an undeniable fact that while money, the filthy lucre, is something indispensable in the capitalist world for not only staying alive but leading a life of ease and luxury as well, matrimony, either the true one or the travesty of it, happens to be just a luxury, something dispensable a hundred per cent, RIGHT ? You must earn some money through some licit means ( i.e. a lawful profession such as work in a factory or an office, running a business, etc ) in order to live with some dignity. You may steal money, rob banks or engage in an illicit trade to make easy money, be found out someday, and end up in a jail. Evidently, this is NOT living with dignity. Nevertheless, you don't need drugs, drinks or matrimony either to stay alive or live with dignity. Even if you want to lead a silly, meaningless existence, you should NOT need any stuff like drugs, drinks or matrimony, do you ? The truth is like drugs and drinks, matrimony performs NO meaningful role in an individual's life or in society or in the State. All advanced civilisations along with some backward ones, such as India, RECOGNISE and RESPECT relationships outside of matrimony and fruits of such relationships. The sensible oughtn't to fail to take cognisance of these points. And in order to be a true communist, you have to be sensible first. Another most important point the sensible canNOT allow to escape their notice happens to be the fact that the commenter is aware that ' getting legally married [is] " approving matrimony " '. He just wants to play down communists' indulgence, in this space age, in matrimony, as I see it.
Prakash RP wrote:[ Would like to add the following text to my comment dated 06 April 2017 : ' There's NO good reason to believe the born poor and underprivileged, the silly millions, that don't feel ashamed of … ' ] ' Besides, getting legally married is no more necessarily " approving matrimony " than using money is approving money. ' [ ALB's comment dated 27 march 2017 ] The observation quoted above appears a fine instance of sophistry meant, implicitly, to lessen the gravity of some professed communists' disgusting indulgence in the luxury of matrimony or sheer travesties in the name of matrimony which is essentially a propertied-class institution meant to serve exclusively the propertied-class interest, as I see it. The point missed is it is an undeniable fact that while money, the filthy lucre, is something indispensable in the capitalist world for not only staying alive but leading a life of ease and luxury as well, matrimony, either the true one or the travesty of it, happens to be just a luxury, something dispensable a hundred per cent, RIGHT ? You must earn some money through some licit means ( i.e. a lawful profession such as work in a factory or an office, running a business, etc ) in order to live with some dignity. You may steal money, rob banks or engage in an illicit trade to make easy money, be found out someday, and end up in a jail. Evidently, this is NOT living with dignity. Nevertheless, you don't need drugs, drinks or matrimony either to stay alive or live with dignity. Even if you want to lead a silly, meaningless existence, you should NOT need any stuff like drugs, drinks or matrimony, do you ? The truth is like drugs and drinks, matrimony performs NO meaningful role in an individual's life or in society or in the State. All advanced civilisations along with some backward ones, such as India, RECOGNISE and RESPECT relationships outside of matrimony and fruits of such relationships. The sensible oughtn't to fail to take cognisance of these points. And in order to be a true communist, you have to be sensible first. Another most important point the sensible canNOT allow to escape their notice happens to be the fact that the commenter is aware that ' getting legally married [is] " approving matrimony " '. He just wants to play down communists' indulgence, in this space age, in matrimony, as I see it.Did some girl hurt you?
Sorry for the delay in getting back to the "pork pie and cuppa" discussion.Alan you seem to contradict yourself, on one hand you describe potato picking as backbreaking work and question who would do such work in a socialist society, yet in another post you are postulating the replacement of hillside sheep farms with genetically modified turnips, etc. Are these turnips going to be genetically modified insuch a way as they pull themselves out of the ground and then leap into the automated tractors, which will carry them to the hordes of good folk waiting to feast on the delights of spit roasted turnips?You also describe tea pickign as dirty, dangerous and degrading, which I am in no doubt is a good description of the present conditions in many tea plantations (there was an excellent programme on radio 4 recently about the issue). However as we have already established, tea is being grown and being picked in the UK (Cornwall has a tea plantation as well). I don't doubt the tea pickers in this plantations are getting massively rewarded, but the conditions and pay must be in line with the regulations in the UK, which demonstrates that tea picking doesn't have to be dirty, dangerous and degrading.I also think we are falling for the idea that world food shartages are the cause of mass starvation and malnutrition, which of course they are not. The world even under capitalist production systems produces enough food for all to have a healthy, varied and interesting diet (including the occasional pork pie) Socialist food production would increase the options considerably.With regards to tea picking, you might want to consider this:http://www.ochiai-1.co.jp/english/product/05.htmland with regard to water shortages, it may be that the following is a real game changer:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39482342
I like the luxury of my coffee beans being shit through monkeys first. Nothing sumatra wi' that :-0
I have conceded this is a complicated issue and by no means are all the facts in but we do have some research to build upon to have an educated guess at what is required in the future.Regards the hill farm neeps, i simply was answering the belief given on this thread that our hills and mountainsides are only fit for sheep. It wasn't in the past and need not be in the future.If you re-read my contributions i did mention that equipment was being introduced but the downside is that it is not selective of the leaf and therefore the quality is not as good but if they have been overcome and arduous labour ended, then you can have your cuppa, (unless the locals decide that those plantations might have better uses but i am not sure what the soil can support)A quick google of mechanisation shows that the reason that their use o machinery is not widespread is the usual one of cost of machines V. mass labour displacement.So you have now convinced me that you can have your tea. ….but will it be with milk and sugar? No, nobody is saying that the problem is that we cannot produce sufficient food, just as we do not claim that industry and technology is not capable of producing surplus – (and when it does some say it contributes to the cause of crises.) but that doesn't stop us demanding the more important D at work – dignified labour. And if that is not possible, we shall seek alternative methods and substitutes. But we still need to address the much bigger issue – the impact of farming on climate change and pollution and of course the influence of industrial production and it appears that a mix is the correct approach but the resources are only going to one sector who are influencing the science and research. As i said in an earlier blog, i think before a socialist system is accomplished but when we have many more members across the spectrum of society, we will start to formulate strategies that we will implement when we have acquired and can exercise political power on economic and social conditions.
Just to reinforce the point made earlier about the need to fundamentally change the way we go about producing food in a socialist society, there is this to consider – current industrialised methods of farming are causing an alarming loss of topsoil. Listen to this short youtube clip by George Monbiothttps://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=65usnzkhiR0&app=desktop Also, read thishttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/dec/14/soil-erosion-environment-review-vidalhttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/https://phys.org/news/2015-12-soil-lossan-unfolding-global-disaster.htmlhttp://www.globalagriculture.org/report-topics/soil-fertility-and-erosion.html This is all bad news for the future of humanity and makes the need for a different kind of society all the more pressing. Literally, we face the stark choice – socialism or barbarism
I can just see the headlines when we have a few delegates in parliament:SPGB says " No pork pies or larger in socialism" " Alcohol and cheesburgers to be banned under new laws proposed by the SPGB"
Vin wrote:I can just see the headlines when we have a few delegates in parliament:SPGB says " No pork pies or larger in socialism" " Alcohol and cheesburgers to be banned under new laws proposed by the SPGB"What's "larger" than pork pies? Pork pies being told about the SPGB banning pork pies?
I think we would be deceitful if we said that the only thing that will change in socialism is that the price labels on the supermarket shelves and the bar-codes at the cashiers check-out will simply read zero pounds and pence. Our case for production for use and free access, has always been a nuanced one that requires explanation and not slogans.And for sure we can fully expect the recalcitrant ruling class to distort our socialist message and intentions with disinformation and misinformation. That will be par for the course, VinAnd we will of course answer…"What do you want – pork pies or the truth?"But people here know i'm a bit of a catastrophe apocalyptic eschatology glass of lager half empty person
alanjjohnstone wrote:And we will of course answer…"What do you want – pork pies or the truth?"But people here know i'm a bit of a catastrophe apocalyptic eschatology glass of lager half empty personBut while that may be so, your general points are valid ones and not trivial, as Robin has also indicated.
I noticed no-one commented on my supposition that there will begin the process of planning and administration of socialism before actual political power has accomplished the establishment of socialism. I see the socialist revolution as a process and once we have taken control of the State and the economy, socialist society then commences the task of dotting the i and crossing the t.But it is a question of uneven development (not in the sense of Trots uneven consciousness, but simply time and place differences) we have to address where we have assumed political power in some cities and regions and not everywhere.Surely we won't sit on our assess awaiting the rest to catch up. Wouldn't we begin the re-organisation of the workplaces and communities the best we can under the limited but compared to today much wider circumstances. Councils will extend the OAP free buses to everybody, for instance. The city architect will be cooperating with the housing department and local transport drawing up new houses and roads, submitting proposals to open meetings and assemblies. The global NGOs will be drafting their priority list of necessary aid. The tea pickers will be occupying the plantations, desisting from work, until the arrival of those tea-plucking machines and concentrating on devoting their labour-time in the meantime to food, shelter and health. I'm not going through the whole scheme of things but people know what i mean. It is not reformism, but putting improvements into place where we can and should. Local food producers will be supplying local people of the things they consume rather than send off to the export markets. and free food distributed on a needs basis. How extensive and how preliminary this "pre-socialism" revolution is, who knows but it is related to Guildford's alternative non-capitalist self-help scenario but much closer to the time when we have the strength if numbers and institutions on our side and the difference between an avalanche and snow-ball concepts of socialist revolution.Can we say that before fully automated luxury communism, we will have half-socialism for a period?I know we get to the debating point where the cooperative, syndicalist theory of building a new society inside the shell of the old one is raised but that is not what i am suggesting.I am not saying these are strategies to bring about support for socialism but that the actual enactment of socialism …what needs to be done and how…We do tend to gloss over by bestowing the responsibility to future generations and conditions that we can only speculate about now.However, some things such as climate change and how it can be tackled, has many answers today and we can indeed, albeit with broad brush strikes and generalisations, supported by expert scientific and professional evidence, submit desirable changes to various sections of society for their appraisal and approval. Workers Democracy. The hospital workers councils and committees or in simpler language adapted nurses and doctors unions and associations in health-care will discuss and debate and issue directives for what needs to be done and how it should be done …. So locally where socialist numbers prevail, some actions take place and when we do have a more fuller developed socialist economy, it can be expanded to incorporate those areas that belatedly become socialised and collectivised (sad that those words got a bad rep. because of labourism and bolshevism)This forum is to discuss, but in my opinion, to imagine, too.
What we face – Ryanair's boss on climate change“This kind of nonsense that we all need to cut back on beef production or that we all need to eat vegetables or go vegan and all start cycling bicycles is not the way forward. I think it’s complete and utter rubbish," he said. "You had these people standing round the market square 2,000 years ago saying the end of the world is nigh. In the 19th century in London, they thought they were all going to die from smog. There is always some lunatic out there who points to a load of rubbish science; science changes.” O'Leary expressed his desire to see nuclear fuel being considered as a viable future energy source. "If you're concerned about these issues, the obvious one is more nuclear fuel, but you ask the likes of Mary Robinson, the climate change justice mob, and they recoil in horror because it's not trendy or liberal." O'Leary, who owns 1,000 acres of farmland in Gigginstown, Co Westmeath, said he doesn't believe that beef consumption and carbon emissions are the primary driving forces of climate change. The Ryanair boss said he believes "human ingenuity will find ways of improving the way we breed beef and the way we consume fuel".When asked if accepted that climate change is happening, O'Leary said that the cooling and warming had been "going on for years" and he didn't accept it was linked to carbon usage."I don't accept that climate change is real. I don't accept the link between carbon consumption and climate change. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/michael-oleary-slams-climate-change-as-complete-and-utter-rubbish-35606512.html
rodmanlewis wrote:Vin wrote:I can just see the headlines when we have a few delegates in parliament:SPGB says " No pork pies or larger in socialism" " Alcohol and cheesburgers to be banned under new laws proposed by the SPGB"What's "larger" than pork pies? Pork pies being told about the SPGB banning pork pies?
lol
alanjjohnstone wrote:What we face – Ryanair's boss on climate change“This kind of nonsense that we all need to cut back on beef production or that we all need to eat vegetables or go vegan and all start cycling bicycles is not the way forward. I think it’s complete and utter rubbish," he said. "You had these people standing round the market square 2,000 years ago saying the end of the world is nigh. In the 19th century in London, they thought they were all going to die from smog. There is always some lunatic out there who points to a load of rubbish science; science changes.” O'Leary expressed his desire to see nuclear fuel being considered as a viable future energy source. "If you're concerned about these issues, the obvious one is more nuclear fuel, but you ask the likes of Mary Robinson, the climate change justice mob, and they recoil in horror because it's not trendy or liberal." O'Leary, who owns 1,000 acres of farmland in Gigginstown, Co Westmeath, said he doesn't believe that beef consumption and carbon emissions are the primary driving forces of climate change. The Ryanair boss said he believes "human ingenuity will find ways of improving the way we breed beef and the way we consume fuel".When asked if accepted that climate change is happening, O'Leary said that the cooling and warming had been "going on for years" and he didn't accept it was linked to carbon usage."I don't accept that climate change is real. I don't accept the link between carbon consumption and climate change. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/michael-oleary-slams-climate-change-as-complete-and-utter-rubbish-35606512.htmlI personally have no objection to nuclear energy if it was developed in a socialist society where the profit motive and sectional interests were not a factor in development, it's interesting that some sections of the green movement have become quite enthusiastic about nuclear energy.With regard to meat production and its environmental impact, although I agree that in terms of deforestation, etc. the impact can be very significant, some of the other issues associated with meat production are, in my opinion, overplayed. About 10% of human activity related greenhouse gas emisions can be attributed to meat production, a significant amount I agree, however the bulk of this is in methane production, and at the moment methane is not thought to be a major issue in climate change, as the rate of degradation is pretty close to the rate of emmision. I would also argue that with the development of a socialist society the greenhouse emissions that would be cut from needless human activities (banking, stock exchanges, etc.) would be far more significant positive than cutting those emissions from meat production that have a significant impact on climate change.There are arguments in favour of meat production, apart obviously from the delicious pork pies, bacon, sausages and hamburgers we get from it. If we wish to reduce the use of artificial fertilisers in crop production, then reducing the availability of the most commonly used, most efficient and most natural fertiliser available (manure) would produce significant challenges, especially in under developed areas of the world where manure is often the only form of fertiliser used. Similarly meat production plays a significant part in the use of human food waste, it is estimated that 70% of the feedstock used in the Dutch feed industry originates from the food processing industry, interestingly there is a growth in the reuse of distillers grains and malted barley from the distilling and brewing industry as an environmentally friendly food for livestock. So when I'm sitting back, supping my beer and munching on pork pies and porky scratchings, I like to think I'm doing my little bit for the planet.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:There are arguments in favour of meat production, apart obviously from the delicious pork pies, bacon, sausages and hamburgers we get from it..Yes there are some environmental grounds that support this conclusion – quite apart from the obvious one that some environments such as mountainous terrains or arid regions are not suitable in many cases for arable farming and that by focussing on livestock here you are making use of an ecological niche that would be otherwise unavailable for increasing food output. But there are also other direct benefits that are sometimes overlooked . For example, properly managed pastoralism, partiularly in what are called "brittle environments" like the Meditteranean where there is little or no summer rainfall causing the vegetation to dry up, can play an important role in reducng the risk of devastatiing wildfires. As you will know from the news, wildfires are becoming increasingly significant in many parts of the world. There is also empirical evidence that grazing can have direct benefits for the resilence of ecosystems and for biomass production (see some of the stuff written by a guy called Andrew Warren who did a comparative study of th Sinai/Negev deserts and Israeli versus Bedouin patterns of land use).I am less convinced when it comes to so called factory farming however which is not only often intolerably cruel but also has adverse environmental and nutritional side effects. As with arable farming, I believe this too will have to be radically changed in a socialist society
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.