The PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING

[Prakash RP]

 I'd like to add the following to my comment ( #206 ) in response to ALB's comment ( #201 ): By a sophistry, I mean the stuff that appears logical but is not so in essence. To date I haven't heard of a dietician that approves of, to ALB's pleasure ( #201 ), including stuff like drugs, drinks, smoking, etc in a healthy diet. Nevertheless, a communist's choice of such a  diet or a sumptuous one that may not include any unwholesome stuff but is meant mainly for the luxury, as matrimony or a travesty of it happens to be, of the super-rich can't deserve approval on the grounds that it's, as ALB ( #201 ) and The SPGB view it, a personal, not a political, matter, IMHO. 

[Rusty Pigfumbler]

Although never a communist or a sophist my old dad was a life -long Labour supporter and he was killed by fags. A Benson and Hedges lorry run over him. Then reversed just for good measure.

[Bijou Drains]

So to summarise, Prakash RP., in your view you cannot consider yourself a communist if you drink alcohol, etc.So in effect what you are saying is that Karl Marx (the notorious drunkard) was not a communist.Interesting viewpoint, but not one that I think will gain much acceptance.In the meantime, I'm away down the boozer to get as pissed as a little beetle, I might even indulge in a nice big packet of porky scratchings, a pork pie and a bar of chocolate, you're welcome to join me, I'd even buy you a pint or two

[Anonymous]

Prakash RP wrote:

 ' It just looks like judgemental, pompous self-regard to me. ' ( admin #207 ) The observation quoted above happens to be an instance of a mere subjective impression that, even if it proves right wholly, doesn't deserve to be reckoned an argument or a logic meant to prove or disprove something. You don't want people like a corrupt bureaucrat or the convicted, former South Korean President Ms Park Geun-hye to be accepted as truly civilised, do you ?   

I do not give monkeys howl, how he is regarded by moralists.He/they is/are either  a member(s) of the 5%-10% parasite class, or have been caught out trying to join them through acceleration of out-moded or non-traditional methods. Another time he would be applauded.I would rather ask, what class is he/are they? What class are we? What causes crime, corruption? War?Capitalism is as 'civilised' as it will ever, be let us replace it and create the conditions in which 'corruption'  however defined, will be unnecesary if not impossible.

[ALB]

I'm afraid that's how you come across, Prakash.

[Prakash RP]

I'd like to add the following points to my comment #212. I can't see any good reason why the sensible should fail to see the argument that it's a personal, not a political, matter is in essence a rank sophistry. Anyone can use it to justify their indulgence in drugs, drinks, matrimony, smoking, gambling, and all other activities that clash with the Principle of healthy and meaningful living, and hence with the communist values and principles. As regards the communists' indulgence in the luxury of matrimony or a travesty in its name, I'd like all the SPGB members to take cognisance of the following points.  1. Matrimony is fundamentally anti-feminine. It follows from the very fact that feminine freedom clashes with principle purpose of matrimony, i.e. to ensure the paternity of children, just because a free woman is accessible to any men other than her husband. 2. We men, i.e. all the men belonging to the ordinary crowd ( the 99% ), are NOT lions of men. By a lion of a man, I mean a guy possessing as much calibre as he must possess in order to make a worthy hubby, and by a worthy hubby, I mean a guy that must have the capability to ensure the social and financial security and decent living of his wife and children as well as decent upbringing of the children and decent livelihood of the grown-up kids. In our India, over 95% of the country's manhood don't have taxable income, i.e. over 95% of the Indian manhood are so poor in the eyes of the govt of India as to be entitled to full tax exemption. And by Oxfam's wealth data, the global poor make up the 99% of humanity. How many men really deserve to be bracketed with a true lion of a man ?3. Matrimony performs no meaningful role in an individual's life or in society or in the State.4. Both by origin and in essence, matrimony is a hundred per cent barbarian institution.5. Matrimony or a travesty of it symbolises gross injustice because it makes an innocent lot ( a guy's wife and children ) suffer ( i.e. a poor guy's wife and children have got no other option than to suffer poverty and privation ) for no faults of theirs but for all faults and failings of someone else ( the guy that indulges in the luxury of matrimony or its travesty ). 6. The vulgar millions marry and procreate just to add to the vulgar population and swell the army of the antisocial.   

[jondwhite]

It would seem socialist opposition to abstinence or temperance goes back a long time. In the 1890s 'Britain's first Marxist' Harry Quelch debated against a spokesperson from a temperance movement, movements which were quite popular at the time. The debate was published as a pamphlet under two titles.Would Universal Total Abstinence Reduce Wages? Quelch vs National Independent Temperance Society (1904)alsoLiquor MunicipalisationI cannot find either online but I did findhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/quelch/1908/06/bootsbeer.htm

Quote:

Thus we have, just now, the crusade against the public-house. This is carried on not merely with a view of promoting temperance and suppressing drunkennness, but also with the idea, in many minds, that it would improve the material position of the working class. … Those who recognise that the workers are robbed, and are poor because they are robbed, are not misled by any ridiculous nonsense of this sort.

Perhaps the World Socialist Party of India could republish Quelch's anti-temperance debate.

[Author]

Posts