The PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING
- This topic has 216 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 6 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:I understand that inside socialism no one size will fit all. We have the Prairies, the Pampas and the Steppes where agriculture in on a large-scale and industrialised with much chemical inputs to maintain the productivity. I have no reason to think that we are capable of dividing these enormous tracts into small-holdings and handing over to a population who currently do not possess any farming skills. Therefore i do foresee them continuing.Not so, though, in the regions where the land is now in the hands of many small-farmers who have been feeding populations in a fairly sustainable manner for generation after generation. Transforming those farms into "economy of scale" plantations as the current land-grabbing in intent upon accomplishing and encouraging the surplus rural workers to urbanise, i do not consider a worthwhile objective. ALB has previously drew my attention to the fact that much uplands is only suitable for goats and sheep. i am no expert but i can envisage such rough pasture may well be turned into arable fields. The crofts of Scottish Highlands were producing oats and potatoes and kale and turnips before being turned over to sheep during the Clearances. Here may well be where GM will have a useful role…increasing the adaptability of different varieties. No matter how you honey-coat it by saying animal husbandry will improve and become more humane, ham involves the killing of a sentient life-form when there is no life or death reason for doing so.It is the continuation of the religion that man has been given dominion over all life, rather than more enlightened religions that talk of harmony with nature. But please note, though, the blog has been currently posting critically on the p anti-cow-killing hindu fundamentalism happening in India."Pork Pies or Socialism…we want our pork pies…"I recall when a kid, getting chicken only at Xmas, can't remember it ever progressing to revolutionary demands for chicken every day. Same with satsumas and mandarins…seasonal fruits that were a once a year treat…but with global market, they are always on the shelf. But again the blog has been criticial of the carbon-footprint claims of the local food movementQuote:your recent post about becoming the leader of the party and being carried around in a sedan chair whilst you make all of the decisions was not mere jest. Apparently you decide what future food production will entail, no room for debate what you think is how it will be.
And what i said was
Quote:How people in socialism will conduct daily life is not for us to determineAnd i thought i used plenty of caveats to leave ample room for debate and discussion.
Let's see:“If you want a small allotment with a few chickens and a couple of pigs and goat or two, I am sure you will be able to”“Your individual tastes will be just that , mostly individually produced”“live-stock will drop in numbers”“chemicalised piss will be replaced by micro-breweries in local speciality beers”“Tobacco plantations will disappear”Plenty of caveats? deosn't sound like that to me. From those quotes it sounds to me like you've got the blueprint for the future society right in front of you. We're all going to be knitting our own lentil stews by the light of reed and oil lamps, singing sea shantees, dreaming of Christmas and the chance to eat a satsuma and those of us who enjoy a good pint of Keg fizz and a packet of porkie scratchings will be left crying into our home made elderberry wine.I have no wish to honey coat animal husbandary, although I see no reason to be unnecessarily cruel. I also have no moral or ethical difficulties in eating meat or fish. I do, however, have a problem with dictatorial imposition of one particular model of how a socialist society will look.
Lat's re-read some of your own quotes of me
Quote:If you want a small allotment with a few chickens and a couple of pigs and goat or two, I am sure you will be able to”A guarantee of choice is what i understand by that statement, not the imposition of my own.
Quote:“Your individual tastes will be just that, mostly individually produced”Another assurance of your own choice, not my dictatorial directiveCorrection added Livestock numbers will dropNot my judgement but that of both environmentalists and climate scientists…if we are to remedy the global warming from methane emissions and mounting pollution of soil and water by effluence.
Quote:“Tobacco plantations will disappear”Later i said tobacco farms existed in Berwickshire and when commercial tobacco plantations and their unwilling workers disappear, you will be growing your own. Another choice offered to those who ignore the self-harm of smoking, not prohibition. i speculated that bland one-taste world beer-production will disappear when people begin to enjoy the flavours of many locally made beers.McDonaldisation of the world will cease. As will those giant brewers. Hyperbolic rhetorical replies as to what sort of society i seek (and i do speak only for myself on this forum although i think my opinion is supported by the evidence) ignored the statements i made qualifying my views in the original and follow up. I always argue different strokes for different folks, based upon my world travel and encounters with the planet's rich diversity of peoples and cultures. With global communication and interaction from increased travel, best practice will eventually prevail. Mistaken life-patterns and styles will be ultimately corrected. But the debate is whether we condemn certain practices before the advent of socialism. I say we do at present exclude people holding and expressing certain views from membership, nor do we justify every practice around the world because it is a local and accepted custom. We hold a universal and for want for better words moral and ethical expectations. We are idealists in our concept of socialism, understanding it will lead to new relationships and new behaviours. Our visitor seeks to define and extend that application of what he considers socialist principles and i find it an interesting exchange.
I dont agree with Prakash's over censorious approach on matters of lifestyle choices but I do we think we need to be very wary of throwing the baby out with the water. There is a lot to be said for adopting a more prudent and long term approach to the consequences of decisions we make today whilst we still live in a capitalist society. "Consumerism" is a case in point. While its difficult to define precisely what this means and I agree perfectly that many workers do not have much leeway in exercising choice with respect to what they consume, we cannot surely as socialists be indifferent to the question. The bloated and conspicuous consumption of the super rich is not only an incredible waste and diversion of resources from the standpoint of meeting human needs. It is also offensive and disgusting – lets be quite frank here. We cannot be mealy mouthed about attacking it. It is a question of values and if we are going to create a sustainable humane future for everyone we have to be consistent in how we apply our values, The standard riposte of the capitalist ideologues is that socialism is based on the "politics of envy", Nothing could be further from the truth. To be envious of the wealth of the capitalists is to buy into the the kind of values that associate high status with great wealth, values which fly in the face of everything socialists stand for So the question of lifestyle is important becuase it is bound up with the kind of values we are trying to promote which run directly counter to the values they are trying to promote. The problem as ever is where exactly do we draw the line between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" behaviour
alanjjohnstone wrote:Lat's re-read some of your own quotes of meQuote:If you want a small allotment with a few chickens and a couple of pigs and goat or two, I am sure you will be able to”A guarantee of choice is what i understand by that statement, not the imposition of my own.
Quote:“Tobacco plantations will disappear”You illustrate my point by dismissing it, By saying that I will be able to keep a small allotment and a few chickens and a couple of pigs, you have already in effect limited my choice. What if I and a group of other workers decide we want to keep many many chickens and run a large herd of Jersey cows to mass produce butter, cheese, milk, cream and beef? By implication we cannot, because we are only allowed to have a couple of pigs and a goat or two, as per your blueprint. What you have described is a guarantee of choice, in as much as it appears we can choose to have what is in the blueprint, or not.Again who's to say whether tobacco will be grown in big planatations, or for that matter tea or coffee, who's to say that the numbers of livestock will drop, there may be a democratic decision to increase live stock keeping so that all who want meat can have as much meat as they want. Some people may also, god forbid, choose a version of the bland pap they serve at MacDonalds or choose to drink a socialised mass produced fizzy lager, it is not for us to make recipies for the cook shops of the future.
I am not so sure sheep farming or goat herding in hills is not the cause of some land degradation from forests . I remember Engels going on about Greece. I would like to see Scotland wilded up a bit more with wolves and bears and wild people.
Must be something in the water, up there in Scotland, or maybe the cultural Calvinism is starting to seep throughWhich is a shame 'cos some of my favourite things start with the word Scotch;ScotchScotch eggsScotch piesScotch Ale
i said
Quote:, net-worked by like-minded hobbyists.A bit ambiguous , i concede but you insist upon a literal reading by declaring i was opposed to
Quote:What if I and a group of other workers decide we want to keep many many chickens and run a large herd of Jersey cows to mass produce butter, cheese, milk, cream and beef? By implication we cannot, because we are only allowed to have a couple of pigs and a goat or two, as per your blueprint.But let us be clear on some matters and i made the point in my first post
Quote:production (and that includes food) will be a social process.my emphasisI maintain that it will be highly unlikely that many plantation products which face difficulty in being mechanised will have a labour force doing the arduous hard work on them, tea pickers being one job that will, imho, will not remain on the plantation. As many black slaves did when emancipation arrived they fled the cotton plantation and only Jim Crow laws forced them back. But never fear…tea is grown in Perthshire, so perhaps you will have a cuppa…as a well-deserved luxury since the existing demand will be no way satisfied…and tea will be rationed.What you and your buddies want to do will be up to yourselves but the effect and impact on the wider community will not be ignored by your neighbours. By implication of what social democracy is, what you do when using common owned resources will be decided collectively and what purpose and use, land will be put to (not me if i happen to be still around at the time) and you and your mates will simply be out-voted. You will be, of course, free to seek out situation and condition where you are not involved in group-decisions or expected to abide by them – somewhere up in mountains of Montana with the other militia maintain their individualist independence.We are not talking about idiosyncratic habits of individuals but what society will deem as the most efficient and sustainable way to go for the benefit of most of the people and of Nature. I suggest my scenarios are the more plausible on the long-term and the issue of the availability of pork-pies will not appear high on the agenda.
I don't drink, but this is deliberate choice after an early life of rum and Guinness excess. I don't mind anyone else drinking from the list you made, but I will make my excuses and leave after a short while before the fights break out.I don't know I'm just after Lorne sausages, and black pudding. I don't see that dieing out too soon, just people making a lot of choices. Even now I don't eat meat every day. A lot of people are doing this. I love my tea and coffee, but if workers decide they are not going to risk snake bites etc in the socialist future I will just have to grin and bear it and look for substitutes.The prize is surely a world wthout war and poverty and not caes of bevvy and bags of coffee beans..
alanjjohnstone wrote:By implication of what social democracy is, what you do when using common owned resources will be decided collectively and what purpose and use, land will be put to (not me if i happen to be still around at the time) and you and your mates will simply be out-voted.I think want you really mean is that me and my mates will be welcomed by the voting community as a great aid to social cohesion, and you and your small band of handicrafters will be free to eat vegan tofu in your sandals and kaftans, just as long as you don't sing folk songs too loudly and disturb the chickens and stop them from laying eggs.
Matt wrote:The prize is surely a world wthout war and poverty and not caes of bevvy and bags of coffee beans..Surely we can have both, I don't envisage socialism as being a 24 hour non stop piss up. nor do I see it as being a hedonsitic fast food fueled food fest, but I do not envisage it as a society of rationing with community overisght and control over the indulgences of others with regard to their food intake.With all of the global resources that we will have at our disposal, the workforce and resources that have been freed from unproductive work in capitalism (insurance, banks, estate agents, accountancy, etc. etc) I'm fairly sure that we can come up with a safe and enjoyable way to grow and harvest, tea, coffee, grapes, satsumas and prehaps even tobbacco, on a scale necessary to provide for the needs of all who want those things.Guiness and rum is a good balanced diet methinks, did you ever try four bells, before it dissapeared from production?
Tim Kilgallon wrote:Matt wrote:The prize is surely a world wthout war and poverty and not caes of bevvy and bags of coffee beans..With all of the global resources that we will have at our disposal, the workforce and resources that have been freed from unproductive work in capitalism (insurance, banks, estate agents, accountancy, etc. etc) I'm fairly sure that we can come up with a safe and enjoyable way to grow and harvest, tea, coffee, grapes, satsumas and prehaps even tobbacco, on a scale necessary to provide for the needs of all who want those things.
And if workers who enjoy these products under capitalism get to hear that they may not be available in socialism, we may be fairly certain that we won't see socialism ever, never mind Lenin's 500 years!
gnome wrote:And if workers who enjoy these products under capitalism get to hear that they may not be available in socialism, we may be fairly certain that we won't see socialism ever, never mind Lenin's 500 years!Exactly. I don't fancy socialism based on democratic centralism. The world makes a decision – 'No Pork pies or single malt' and this decision is imposed on all communities by Trotsky. Start talking about temperance like the Salvation Army and the imposittion of the 'clean life' then workers will rightly run a mile. Remember what our case is based on? Nothing to do with Animal rights or diet but all to do with the material interests of my class and myself. And it is capitalism that has made it all possible, so I can't see a socialist majority throwing the baby out with the bath water. Workers want MORE not LESS.
Prakash RP wrote:I wish British socialists would NOT fail to take cognisance of the following two points.( 1 ) There exists an irreconcilable contradiction between your matrimonial mission and your communist mission. By your matrimonial mission, I mean your duties and obligations towards your wife, supposing you're a man, and children, and your matrtimonial ( or familial ) duties and obligations are, in my view, ensuring the social and financial security and well-being as well as a decent lifestyle of your family members each and decent upbringing of the kids and decent livelihood of the grown-up kids. Nevertheless, the brute and inescapable truth is men are pitifully defficient in their capacity and calibre they need be possessed of in order to make a worthy husband or a worthy father.That might still be the situation in India but it is no longer the predominant one in Britain. Here, both "partners" work and in fact have to to maintain the same standard of living as in the times when the husband was the only "breadwinner". Here, the only women who marry to get a "meal ticket" are those who manage to catch a rich man, which means they don't need to go out and work for a wage — and who, when they get divorced, sue their ex-husbands for as much as they can get (and are regarded with contempt by most women as well as by all men). "Culture clash", as I said.
Vin wrote:Workers want MORE not LESS.Yes but Vin where do you draw the line? This is the tricky bit. We dont want to be inadvertently seen to be slavishly promoting capitalist consumerist values which, in fact, only help to nourish the kind of pernicious myths we routinely have to counter as socialists – like the myth of the so called "greedy person" forever subject to insatiable demands – myths which work against the socialist cause. I guess like most people here I would like to see a society in which everyone is at least materially comfortable and able to enjoy a "reasonable" standard of living, however you define that. But we need to be careful about how we go about putting across this idea. You know, for me personally, and I am sure for many others here, the real problem with capitalism is not so much that it fails to generate a sufficent quantity of stuff – it doesnt take a lot for me to be satisfied with what Ive got in these terms and frankly accumulating yet more stuff doesnt appeal at a time when I am trying to declutter my life and rid myself of some of the useless objects Ive somehow managed to accumulate over the years. No, the real problem with capitalism for me, is not so much one of QUANTITY but , rather, QUALITY or the QUALITY OF LIFE. – the constant stress, the constant insecurity, the constant dehumanisation, the constant alienation and so on Personally speaking, I would far sooner opt for an improvement in my quality of life than an increase in my standard of living if I had to choose.Of course, I am well aware that my personal circumstances and those of others on this list are quite different to the circumstances faced by hundreds of millions of people who live in a state of absolute poverty. There can be no question that, come socialism, these people will require a very substantial increase in their living standards to bring them up to a reasonable level. In that connection, I can recall the late Comrade Hardy once arguing that in order for that to happen people in what is called the "afflluent West" might have to accept a cut in their living standards in the short term at least. I am not sure that is necessarily true for the average worker in the West but it is a point worth bearing in mind…
ALB wrote:Prakash RP wrote:I wish British socialists would NOT fail to take cognisance of the following two points.( 1 ) There exists an irreconcilable contradiction between your matrimonial mission and your communist mission. By your matrimonial mission, I mean your duties and obligations towards your wife, supposing you're a man, and children, and your matrtimonial ( or familial ) duties and obligations are, in my view, ensuring the social and financial security and well-being as well as a decent lifestyle of your family members each and decent upbringing of the kids and decent livelihood of the grown-up kids. Nevertheless, the brute and inescapable truth is men are pitifully defficient in their capacity and calibre they need be possessed of in order to make a worthy husband or a worthy father.That might still be the situation in India but it is no longer the predominant one in Britain. Here, both "partners" work and in fact have to to maintain the same standard of living as in the times when the husband was the only "breadwinner". Here, the only women who marry to get a "meal ticket" are those who manage to catch a rich man, which means they don't need to go out and work for a wage — and who, when they get divorced, sue their ex-husbands for as much as they can get (and are regarded with contempt by most women as well as by all men). "Culture clash", as I said.
Sounds to me like some attempt to marry Socialist ideas with Shaker doctrine. Celibacy worked out well for the Shakers, there's only two of them left.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.