alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Anyways, Ike, you won't value my opinion very much.As i am an immigrant and in a so-called "mixed" marriage – a totally "obnoxious" situation, as you declare.We all take your point that "the physical footprint of population growth goes beyond the land actually used." As an analogy it was not meant to be a 100% representation of reality simply an indication that the fears of an overcrowded UK are overly-exaggerated.The densest part of London is four times less dense than BarcelonaUK’s “overpopulation problem” is really the product of poor land use and social division. There’s lots of wasted space.
Quote:Never mind that the working class do not want this and you claim to represent the true interests of the working class.Oh, i should have added that promoting the workers interests does not mean always agreeing with them. In fact, more often than not, it means opposing the views held by the majority of our fellow-workers or have you never heard of the Tory-voting worker that fought one another for the privilege to put their lives on the line for the ruling class. Every Tory government was elected because workers voted for them. Thatcher was the workers' darling, was she not, for most of her reign. We are not in politics for popularity and if the truth hurts then so be it. This is why we still have capitalism – our fellow-workers have not yet recognised their true interests and persistently act contrary to them. All we can do is explain why they are wrong in their political beliefs and show them why. It is up to them to heed or not. You have decided not to accept our analysis and play into the divide and rule strategy of the ruling class, playing off the sectional interest of one group against another's, rather than working towards class unity and a socialist solution.
Quote:"Let those desert us who will because we refuse to shut the international door in the faces of their own brethren; we will be none the weaker but all the stronger for their going, for they evidently have no clear conception of the international solidarity, are wholly lacking in the revolutionary spirit, and have no proper place in the Socialist movement while they entertain such aristocratic notions of their own assumed superiority. "- Eugene Debs, 1910I'm pleased that you still occasionally visit the forum, even if your contributions never stray far from your immigration fears.As for your claim that we cannot achieve cohesion within the working class, this is a very old argument and originally nothing to do with place of birth. It stemmed from the days when the old craft unions of skilled workers denied access to the unskilled newcomers to their trades. Such, "i'm alright jack" trade unionism was eventually ended when more and more workers recognised their common interests. The reason we have technological change and progress is also to do with the needs of capitalism. Shall we stand against computers because it benefits capitalism? Or do we expose that the limitations capitalism places upon technological innovation will be removed by a socialist society and that the technology will be used for the benefit of all. We don't oppose our fellow-workers re-locating from city to city to seek a livelihood and we do not oppose them changing countries to do so either. As for diversity i have found it inspiring, informative and instructional. It has certainly raised the standard of football to have players from around the globe, playing clubs around the globe. Is it not surprising to you and a pleasing fact that there are far more supporters of Man U, Liverpool, and Arsenal in Asia than in the UK.Recently posted on our bloghttp://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2017/12/spains-migrants.htmlThe number of Spanish citizens residing abroad has reached 2,406,611 as of January 1, 2017. Since the beginning of 2010, more Spanish citizens emigrated to Latin America than Latin Americans who do the opposite.
First of all this was not a party statement but a round-up of this thread but it seems some of us cannot agree even on that.ALB, i struggled to find the right word to relate to veganism/vegetarianism. Originally i had "recognise the benefits of" but actually felt "acknowledge the value" was more neutral.Again your amendment for a more appropriate word for point 2 is acceptable. I had already mentioned other livestock advantages earlier so didn't repeat that. I think the medical consensus is meat eating is not healthy "in excess" – and excess is where the debate lies and continues to be disputed. As for BD suggestion that we cannot trust scientific opinion due to vested interests, indeed that is true, Ronald Reagan re-classified tomato ketchup as a vegetable to satisfy lobbyists in the introduction of 5 – a – Day. What is healthy and how much of it is healthy seems to be an eternal debate…re alcohol , coffee and what not is constantly featured in the media. But some things are universally condemned as unhealthy – smoking. (My bug-bear is shift-work and how workers are not sufficiently compensated for the harm that does to a person's health.)We do take cognisance of who sponsors and support scientific research. But it is recognised by responsible food authorities that a more grain/vegetable diet is healthier such as the Mediterranean Diet and the Japanese. Both those include animal protein but not to the degree being consumed in the average person's diet. The Paleolithic diet plan of high meat intake has been discredited. And our sugar addiction is being addressed by government action, as was the high salt consumption saturated fats and other aspects of the processed food industry. " I do not agree that we associate ourselves with a steady state, zero growth economy." – I'm not going to go the SS and or pamphlets producing the relevant quotations,BD, I'll leave the fact-checking to yourself, but that statement is the party position.Moral shmoral…It is wrong to kill and inflict pain on living creatures if there is no need, just as it is wrong to kill and injure another person unnecessarily. Any argument that condones needless suffering inflicted upon any sentient life, and evidence of those feeling animal are increasing and expanding with every new research, is simply psychopathic. (Again i will add various caveats, we do exterminate viruses, parasites and some pests and i will also reserve my personal judgement on the worth of vivisection). Since i have some quotes from the SS in front of me, this is what we have said.“All socialists are of course opposed to cruelty to animals but, just like the rest of the population, have differing views as to what constitutes cruelty. Some may go shooting birds and rabbits, some go fishing, some eat meat, some are vegetarians, some perhaps are vegans. There is no line or policy on the matter, because we are an organisation of people who have come together to campaign for socialism and nothing else. We wouldn't go so far as to say nothing can be done to improve the lot of animals within capitalism nor as to denounce the RSPCA and the Cat Protection League as reformist enemies of the working class…." “Socialists are not unduly sentimental about animals, and consider that a human’s first loyalty should be their own species. Nevertheless, the degree to which human society is ‘civilised’ can reasonably be gauged by its treatment of animals and the natural world as well as by its treatment of humans, and socialism, in its abolition of all aspects of the appalling savagery of capitalism, will undoubtedly do its part to abolish all unnecessary suffering by non-human sentient creatures.”“we contend that humans and other animals do not have rights…but this does not stop some socialists responding to the cruelty that the profit system inflicts on the vast majority by becoming vegetarian or vegan." “In a genuinely socialist system of this kind cruelty to animals can be expected to stop as it would have no basis for occurring. The ending of the oppression and exploitation of humans by other humans—and the cruel treatment meted out as a matter of state policy by soldiers, police and prison guards …will make humans generally less tolerant towards cruelty to other animals.” Capitalism is a particularly nasty social system to human beings and also animal-life, whether domesticated or in the wild. Socialist understand that there is a little that can be done until socialism is established regards all the problems and issues that impact upon the quality of life of workers. But as i said this thread is repeating itself and no longer serving any constructive function. This is my last post on this thread.
I have re-read this long thread from the beginning to end and we are now repeating arguments long resolved, even the same jokes..So here is my attempt to summarise on what we all agree upon.We do not promote vegetarianism or veganism but we do acknowledge certain value in them, that for the well-being of ourselves and of our planet, we require to reduce our consumption of meat and curtail livestock farming. Our reply to those who place their priority in animal rights campaigns or lifestyle changes is that only within a socialist framework can a rational food policy not involving the mistreatment of animals be put into practice. Replacing capitalism with a cooperative socialist society will end the madness of the profit motive and all the human and animal suffering that goes with it. The liberation of mankind through a real socialist society would be the liberation of all the animal world and the natural resources from the hands of the capitalists. The Socialist Party's main priority is to work for the liberation of ourselves. And as Marx said, the unification of our human world with the natural world. Meat-eating is deeply embedded in our culture and the multi-billion-dollar cattle and dairy industries are powerful and politically connected, making change of attitude difficult. But with socialism, we speculate that there will be less meat-eating because:1. meat-eating is not an efficient method of food production2. that there is very good evidence that it is not nutritious or healthy, and3. it is reprehensible to impose pain and suffering upon other living beings where there is no need to do so. 4. Livestock rearing is a major contribution to global-warming hot-house gasesThere is a better case for eating less beef than for sheep and goats which are more sustainable as they can graze on land that is not suitable for agriculture and is a rational way of using marginal land, while pigs and chickens exist on recycled human food waste in an efficient way and their manure used for fertiliser. So veganism/vegetarianism no, eating a lot less meat yes. Our case is for flexitarianism.We must indeed avoid associating socialism with one particular lifestyle choice. Socialists are not on a crusade to proselytise for vegetarianism or veganism but as socialists, we envisage a rational well-planned society that will endeavour to be sustainable as far as possible. We associate ourselves with the steady-state, zero-growth model of economy for a socialist society and we envisage an anti-consumerism trend to prevail and expect a drop in consumption levels (with the important caveat that there will be an initial phase of higher production to raise people to a decent standard of living.)As John Oswald said in one of his posts although i might have edited it a bit
Quote:Meat-eating will decline over time in socialism, because the profit system will have been scrapped. We don`t expect to see the hunting and eating of individual animals necessarily disappearing, or even the raising of animals for food, until quite some time, if ever. Socialism will provide a democratic forum which no one has today other than the capitalists, who will also have disappeared. Local and regional factors will also apply, with democracy working at a local as well as a global level. We don`t see anything being compulsory. Coercion is not compatible with socialism – unless it`s the coercion necessary initially in dispossessing the capitalist class.Today's Guardianhttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jan/04/oceans-suffocating-dead-zones-oxygen-starved
Quote:Lucia von Reusner, campaign director the campaign group, Mighty Earth, which recently exposed a link between the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico and large scale meat production, said: “These dead zones will continue to expand unless the major meat companies that dominate our global agricultural system start cleaning up their supply chains to keep pollution out of our waters.”Seems capitalism is going to give us a choice in the future….either steak and chips or fish and chips….One or the other, you can't have both.
I note that the farmers who got the CAP subsidies are still to receive them for at least another 5 years.http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-42559845To relate it to another thread, i see some of the pay-out is to curtail farming and return fields to meadows.But i suspect that article omitted to say that most of the cash from the EU goes to the few giant commercial land-owners
The Scottish government, unlike the UK one, has gone some way to acknowledge under-population, by a rudimentary policy of bringing new people, particularly refugee and migrants, to the Isles and Highlands, which are still littered by the ruins of past villages where once people lived. I don't think you are quite correct MightyY. What we now view as natural habitat was never natural. The heather moors of Scotland was once covered by the great Caledonian forest. Same with England and Wales, no doubt. I think not "most" but "much" is a more accurate statement.We are faced with a global over-urbanisation problem. Across the world, people are leaving their rural roots for the cities. In the UK it is because the infrastructure – education and health and jobs – don't exist in the countryside. In developing countries, it is also the land-grabbing.It is speculated, many parts of the world will lose the knowledge and experience of farmers as the young are not taking up the livelihood with the older generation left looking after the family small-holding (China, for instance), and in Africa there are campaigns to recruit new younger generation to take it up.Keeping with the sporting analogy of the article ALB drew attention to, Surrey has more land is devoted to golf courses than to housing.http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24378868
Quote:So if we turn agricultural production over to purely agrarian farming, what do we do with the 9 billion animals that are ready for slaughterLogistically, as i earlier posted the millions sheep and cows in the UK during foot and mouth were slaughtered.But perhaps initially, and i can only speculate on this, the facilities at Greggs before turned to another use could produce some sort of processed meat pastie for immediate one-off distribution to the billion hungry around the world. As for volunteers to do the work even for one day although it has been referred to, i think we under-estimated the psychological trauma abattoir workers under-go.
Quote:Slaughterhouse workers face a variety of negative emotional and psychological consequences, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)…These employees are hired to kill animals, such as pigs and cows, that are largely gentle creatures. Carrying out this action requires workers to disconnect from what they are doing and from the creature standing before them.This emotional dissonance can lead to consequences such as domestic violence, social withdrawal, anxiety, drug and alcohol abuse, and PTSD…There is also evidence that this work leads to increased crime in towns with slaughterhouse factories. Amy Fitzgerald, a criminology professor at the University of Windsor Canada, argues that communities with a slaughterhouse have high crime rates because the workers are “desensitized” to the violence they commit and see at work. This desensitization is then reflected in their behavior outside of the factory. Whatever the meat may be, wherever it may be sold, and regardless of what the label says, every piece has one thing in common: there is a slaughterhouse worker who had to take the animal’s life, and that worker is likely experiencing some level of emotional trauma.http://www.ptsdjournal.com/posts/the-psychological-damage-of-slaughterhouse-work/An academic paper saying the same thinghttps://scholar.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2157&context=honr_theses
Nearly $70 billion on our cats, dogs, and other companion animals, and a 2015 Gallup poll found that one-third of all Americans believe animals should have the same basic rights as people. Despite our love for animals, over 9 billion land animals per year are slaughtered for food in the U.S. alone
Quote:Being a carnivore is one thing but promoting factory farming and the absolute manipulation and objectification of other animals is another thing…Even if our ancestors were carnivores, it doesn't mean that we have to be. I mean, just because we are animals it doesn't mean that we don't have autonomy or choice in the matter. Our technology assures that we have choices. So we should exercise them. This whole idea that we were carnivores once doesn't let us off the hook by any means.In the interview she makes an argument that i have heard made against reformism
Quote:if you spend 10 years working with the egg industry to get the couple more inches in a battery cage for chickens, you might consider that a victory, but the fact is that what you've also done is made it much more difficult to abolish using chickens. Because you've gotten something from that industry and you're going to have to wait a very long time before you get anything else.Glen Greenwald on State manipulation of Facebookhttps://www.alternet.org/media/glenn-greenwald-facebook-operating-arm-israeli-state-removing-palestinian-posts
Quote:Facebook now collaborating with the most powerful governments on the planet—the Israelis and the Americans, in particular—to determine who is allowed to speak and who isn’t and what messages are allowed to be conveyed and which ones aren’t. And it’s hard to think of anything more threatening or menacing to internet freedomformer advertising executive who spent two decades working with “big food” corporations has revealed how they are still working to persuade us to eat more sugar and junk food in spite of the obesity epidemic.
Quote:“The very inconvenient truth that nobody wants to talk about is that to resolve the obesity crisis, we need to eat less food. And we need to particularly eat less unhealthy food which generally comes in a packet and has a logo on it and is generally owned by a very large multinational corporation.”
