Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
imposs1904 wrote:". . . it is a bit haphazard since it is based on his whimsical choice of what to scan and upload."Cheeky bleeder.
Pejorative as well!!!!!
alanjjohnstone wrote:"Even the proposers of this absurd motion"Tim, as i posted, we should not be using such perjorative words. It isn't absurd but a reasonable viewpoint that others may well disagree with. Claims and counter-claims are being made about the influence of both mediums and what is needed is what i have asked for – those in the respective committees, the SS and the Internet, begin to tell us the facts. Just what is the coverage of our circulation for the print standard and what could our audience be for a possible e-zine with all the bells?It is being argued by you that the print Standard is reaching "many people who do not have access to or the ability to use the internet" and by "restricting ourselves to the internet" but who has actually proposed such a policy that we all become armchair activists in front of a key-board – (even those are redundant – it's all touch screen now) As world socialists many, many, many more fellow-workers and potential members are not receiving or having the Standard available to them and, imho, we should be reaching out to them the best we can at the least cost. As i mentioned to Robbo, there appears to a silence on the other item for conference – moving on from a branch based party to a nationally centred organisation with all the ramifications of restricting our contacts with other workers and being seen as throwing in the towel as you suggest your concerns are with an e-zine/webzine being made our priority. This well-known Private Frazer is trying his utmost to reverse the pessimistic prognosis i hold of the Party's future and becoming much more effective on the web is one such strategy which is well suited to incorporate our new ventures such as whiteboard animations.With all due respect Alan, I'll use whatever terms I choose to describe the motion. I think it is an absurd and badly timed motion, as that is my view I will express it. Hope all is well in the funeral parlour.Kind regardsTim
gnome wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:Quote:The net cost of printing the Standard in 2014 (the most recent figures I can lay my hands on readily) was about £1500Could you expand on this information.I note this it is net sum – so what are the sales figures that produce this.
Printing = £9615; Sales, including subscriptions = £8388. No separate figures available for Standard postage.
Quote:And is the sales figures Paul paying Peter ie the branches and members under-writing the cost than the actual "many workers who don't read the Standard online because they don't have online access and quite possibly choose not to have it." going out to buy each month's issue.Who knows? But neither is there any guarantee that workers will read the Standard online. That's why it's patently obvious we should keep any and every option open and not place all our eggs in one basket…
Even the proposers of this absurd motion estimate that the standard runs at a loss of only about £1,000 per month, (which from my working of the figures is an over estimate.) Looking at party funds and balances, this means that one of the recent legacies to the party gives enough funds to run the Standard at present costs for the next 25 years! Surely the issue here is not cost, none of our propaganda activities have ever been set up to make a profit!The Standard reaches many people who do not have access to or the ability to use the internet (my mother is a long time member who is now pushing 91 and the Standard is her only monthly contact with the party), there are many others in a similar position. The difficulty with the net is that there is such a lot of stuff out there in cyber land that we can get lost in, unless your looking very specifically for our material your not likely to happen across it. The Standard, in public libraries, left lying on trains, etc. meets that particular area.If we restrict our propaganda activities to the internet, we are restriciting our contact with potential socialists, why would we chose to do such a thing?We also need to think long and hard about the message that this gives out. Our opponents would view it as us throwing in the towel and the message to companion parties across the world would be very, very disheartening.it seems to me that there has been a change of momentum in the Party, new and potentially successful ways of putting the party case have been initiated (Whiteboard, magazine inserts,etc.), Ithink morale about activitiy is picking this motion gives the Private Frazers of the gloom merchant wing of the party another chance to tell us that we're all doomed!
Having picked "tetties" in my youth, you get paid to fill the bags, therefore you tend to leave the little uns behind and concentrate on the big uns.
jondwhite wrote:For clarity, the masthead you are talking about is not the SPGB one, but the one athttp://www.socialiststudies.org.uk/It may be a bad replacement logo (reminiscent of 'One World, One People') but anthropogenic global warming is real, its what environmentalists do about it is where Marxists might disagree.I hear he's thinking of changing his name to Bob "wrong again" Andrews
Prakash RP wrote:' Did some girl hurt you? ' [ comment by Kilgallon on April 07, 2017 ]Would like to know what led you to the thought that I may have been hurt by some girl before I had posted this message.Don't know, let's just call it intuition.
The War of the Spanish succession which arguably ended Spain's role as a hegemonic power in the world began in 1702, ending with France as the leading world powerThe Napoleonic wars which arguably ended France's role as a hegemonic power in the world began in 1803, ending with Britain as the leading world powerThe First World War which arguably ended Britain's role as a hegemonic power int he world began in 1914, ending with the USA as the leading world powerDon't mean to be pessimistic guys, but none of the previous leading world powers has given up their title peacefully, and the USA's 100 odd years or so is now just about up.
robbo203 wrote:John Pozzi wrote:.Rear money, i.e., GRB ecos, signify the universal value of the product of nature, i.e., the generation of biomass in an ecosystem, usually expressed in units of mass per unit surface (or volume) per unit time, for instance, grams per square metre per day (g m−2 d−1). The mass unit may relate to dry matter or to the mass of carbon generated. Productivity of autotrophs such as plants is called primary natural productivity, while that of heterotrophs such as animals is called secondary productivity.Secondary production is the generation of biomass of heterotrophic (consumer) organisms in a system. This is driven by the transfer of organic material between trophic levels, and represents the quantity of new tissue created through the use of assimilated food that everyone consumes.Oh dear. What on earth are you on about? This has got nothing to do with money. Money is a social institution grounded in an exchange or private property-based economy, The transfer of organic materials between trophic levels is not some kind of quid pro quo property transaction. I know there is a tendency to resort to metaphors when talking about nature or natural processes but the lion is not really the "king of the animal world". You do know that dont you?
I think this silly bugger still believes in Santa Claus
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.
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
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?
alanjjohnstone wrote:When all you know is this way of living, there will be a tendency to project it into the future.I have lost count of how many articles i have quoted Sylvia Pankhurst's "Socialism means plenty for all. We do not preach a gospel of want and scarcity, but of abundance." So please don't say i am arguing for a world of frugality, Tim. I am the one that is advocating choice, but some of those will be hard choices, made by the majority against the views of the minority. (I have on another thread proposed a discussion on democracy and decision-making so that might is not always seen as being right, but no-one seems to be concerned with how we run socialism) Matt's post hit it on the nail. The decisions on what you eat and consume will be made by the present producers, as a general rule. No-one willing to go down to the coal-face, then no coal. Our reply that work will be rotated, conditions improved, labour time reduced, processes automated is at best a partial answer. Unlike Gnomes and Vin's optimism that people will accept their present lot in life as it is now, workers in unhealthy, unpleasant or as they say, the 3 Ds, dirty dangerous and degrading work, will vote with their feet. i used an example from history of the black slaves when released from the shackles of chattel slavery, even wage slavery could not drive them back to the fields…it took the KKK and lynchings to do that.Do you expect fellow-workers to continue to suffer and place themselves at risk so that others can continue with non-essential self-indulgent treats? The priority of the new socialist world will be to find the technology to perform many unwelcomed tasks or come up with suitable alternatives but it will begin with the important vital areas of production, not the optional "comforts". Nobody is really denying anybody anything, what is being said is, wait your turnThere are more important parts of the economy for things to be done first and it cannot be based upon the prevalence of "me" over "us". Socialism is not a system where every whim and wish of one person or even one section of the community, is satisfied, sometimes we will have to accept, "second-best".You don't "need" tea, you "want" tea…but present-day tea-pickers do need a better life, and should not be condemned to one day longer in their wretched conditions while waiting for some machine to do the toil because someone wants to continue having a daily cuppa.Those who suffer deprivation, misery and indignity can't be placed at the back of the line when it comes to emancipation and if they are, Gnome, don't expect them to be welcoming the great day of socialism when nothing changes for them because some folk won't sacrifice any of their privileges and they are told to wait …wait …wait…for their deliverance.Vin seems to believe that his rights is overwhelmingly right regardless of what others choose and decide. If the exercise of community choice is Trotskyist democratic centralism then Vin is calling for individualist anarchism. We already demand that peoples' ideas change. We expect and insist that workers reject sexism, racism and nationalism, ageism and religion. We say that such beliefs are incompatible with being a socialist. In our understanding of contemporary capitalist society we do not accept climate change denialism as a valid world-view but place the blame on the capitalist mode of production and distribution. We decline to agree with those who advocate non-science-evidence based CAM . We rightly reject pandering to those who project capitalism's lack of safety and precaution into socialist society as an argument for rejecting new technology. But it seems some are slaves to consumerism and the advertisers and how else can it be right now…Marx did say capitalist ideas prevail. In an ecological-minded libertarian socialist society, methods of production that harm the environment would be done away with and new methods would be substituted. Production under socialism will take into consideration environmental effects, availability and renew-ability of resources and develop the least harmful methods of production. That means changes.The determination of these changes, the process of choosing which comes first will be a focus that requires commencing before socialism is achieved and as we put flesh to the bones as experts and specialists in their fields come aboard. Healthy debate will take place prior to socialism but it will be more-up-to-date than this one.If we can succeed in persuading people to throw off outworn but deeply rooted ideas of bigotry and discrimination, i think we can convince them that their pork pie comes at an unacceptable social cost so they will have to forego an indulgence so that necessities are met.Got to be honest Alan, I think your talking bollocks. On the one hand you are saying that we need to reduce the amount of labout, yet on another you are saying that locally produced food is the way to produce plenty.If locally produced food was less labour intensive, then surely the capitalist system would be teeming with examples of this, not the McDonladisation you complain about. for instance Craft or micro brewery ale is far more labour intensive that mass produced keg fizz, But never mind "sometimes we will have to accept second best" to quote a phrase. The sane goes, in the short term anyway, for mass produced food.The labour involved in tea picking does not neccesarily involve the degredation of the people picking tea, the capitalistic drive for profit, however does. There is nothing inherently dangerous about tea picking, it is the drive to maximise surplus value that makes it dangerous. Following on from your comment on tea, I've found out that Perthshire has the ideal conditions for growing tea, I look forward, in a Socialist Society to spending socially productive time in Perthshire picking tea, staying in enjoyable accommodation (possiibly filling my belly with pork pies and pints of fizzy lager afterwards), happy in the knowledge that my simple labout has let the rest of society have there enjoyable cuppa. It's not the actual work that is abhorent it's the conditions.I think, rather than being objective, you are in fact bringing your own subjective tastes to the fore.(apologies for any grammatical or spelling errors, but I've enjoyed a few glasses of Messers Woods and Co's rather delightful navy strength rum before I retire to my bed)
ALB wrote:Here:http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/atheists-dying-out-contraception-claims-study-a7626846.htmlAs if ideas such as whether or not a god or gods exist can be inherited genetically.If religious beliefs were genetically inherited then you would expect to see a huge mismatch between the religious beliefs of children who were conceived using sperm or egg donation and their parents, to my knowledge I have not seen any reports of such a phenomena. Similarly I don't think religious screening of sperm or eggs is taking place, it would be interesting to see a fertility clinic interview prospective sperms about their views on the holy trinity or transubstantiation.However if this science is true and belief systems can be inherited, perhaps we socialists should concentrate on sperm and egg donation, rather than political agitation and propaganda? We keep being told we're a bunch of W…….s, perhaps it's time to act on it!
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.
