Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
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.
alanjjohnstone wrote: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. However on the bigger picture production (and that includes food) will be a social process. Your individual tastes will be just that , mostly individually produced or at most, net-worked by like-minded hobbyists.I am in no doubt that meat-eating smoking and drinking will decline dramatically. Because of the environmental damage and demands, and the need for a more sustainable farming industry, live-stock will drop in numbers, so i do think your pork-pies will become a luxury dish to be savoured on special occasions and festivals.Do you know how to slaughter and butcher a pig? I doubt very much that the existing workers will continue in the abattoirs – read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair – and conditions have scarcely improved over a century as the oft-repeated exposes regularly and frequently revealThat chemicalised piss will be replaced by micro-breweries in local speciality beers. Moon-shine will once more make a re-emergence but this time it won't be made out of anti-freeze and industrial ethanolTobacco plantations will disappear as most likely will tea and coffee (i have talked about it before) as workers migrate to more rewarding farm-work of producing food and not cash-crops. (I believe a tobacco farm existed in Berwickshire during WW2 so not only will it be roll your own it will be grow your own) Local cultures will no doubt carry on traditions. Cubans will smoke their havanas. Mind altering drugs will probably be used on the same scale as today and for the same purpose…relaxation and recreation. But glue-sniffing will go the way of meths-drinking. I think Bolivians will still chew the coca leave and Africans eat Khat as older Asian chew betel nut. But newer generations will maybe less inclined to follow these traditions since i do think as the title of the thread infers, men and women and children will be more desirous of a healthy meaningful life and the advertising and sponsorship industries won't be promoting sugar-addiction and fat-saturated junk-food. I image a completely new mind-set in people. To be honest, i recognise it now in younger folk's behaviour the older i get and the old fogie i am becoming.I see Alan, so 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.With regards to slaughtering and butchering a pig, actually yes I do know how to this, I often get a half side of park or a half side of mutton and break them down myself. I also make my own pork pies, sausages, black and white puddings and brawn (can't get the bits you need to make haggis properly but I am going to give it another go) . In terms of meat production, I am quite sure that animal conditions would massively improve once the profit motive has been removed, but the idea that meat production can be replaced by agrarian farming is not always the case, sheep farming for instance makes use a great deal of land that cannot be usefully cultivated. A nice leg of mutton is bloody lovely, when you can get it.I also see no reason why large scale beer, whiskey, wine production and distribution would not continue in a socialist society it is an efficient and non labour intensive way in which to produce beer. It is more labour intensive to use micro breweries. The Caledonian Brewery in Edinburgh is a large scale beer producer and produces many, many fine brews. That's not to say that small scale production will not develop, unhindered by the licencing laws, again that's something I would be keen to get invovled with (apparently my grand father had a small poteen still running in the outside netty of his house in Byker.)I think that intesive farming and the development of new ways of producing food would be a far more sensible way to deal with food shortages, (I have no objections to GM useage, if this is democratically controlled and not carried out in the interests of profit), but we already produce more than enough food to feed the world at the moment.I actually think that what you are putting forward could possibly hasten the end of a socialist society. Take the example you give, pork pies (and presumably other enjoyable things) become "a luxury dish" the likely hood is that someone will decide that they can mass produce the desired luxury dish and exchange it for other luxury dishes (perhaps red wine for those living in non grape growing countries, or fine cuban cigars). Very soon they will need some means of universal tally which will mean the reemergence of money and the market place. The revolution over turned by a bloody pork pie!
Can we move the discussion on, please. I personally don't want to see anyone barred from the forum, if possible.L Bird, can I just clarify a few of points you made earlier, just I am genuinely unsure which view you are taking:Are you saying that (in a Socialst Society) you believe there should be limits to who takes part in democratic decisions or are are you saying there should not be limits to who should take part in democratic decisions in a Socialist society?If you are saying there should be limits, who then would make the decisions that limit participation?In addition, just so I am clear, you are saying that your view s that in a socialist society all scientific theory should be decided upon the basis of democratic voting by the whole of the population?
Vin wrote:I have said similar things in the past when I first joined the forum and I was very surprised at the reaction to me wishing to have a cheese burger in socialism. If you like the ocassional pork pie then you may need to keep your own pig. Apparently some believe that we won't be allowed to slaughter animals to eat them in socialism. We will all be vegitarians.Harry Young said we were only interested in beer and bingo up here in the north east and we ew don't care for ShakespeareBring socialism on! More beer, bingo, pork pies and cheese burgers! We can ban Shakepeare insteadGot nothing against Shakey, just some of the pseudo inellectual posers who pretend that every word he wrote was a pearl drop from heaven and that every joke he wrote was the funiest thiing ever written, he only had two jokes, joke no 1 a man dresses up as a woman and is mistaken for a real woman and no 2 a man prentends to be someone else and gets into trouble for it.
Prakash RP wrote:I said I expect a true communist to lead a decent lifestyle that will be healthy and meaningful too……….. There truly exists NO good reason why the sensible fail to see the basic distinction between a meal ( both the decent one and the poor man's dish ), medicine, clothes, shoes, a house, a car, a PC, books, pens, songs, dance, drama, etc and drugs, drinks, gambling, etc. drugs, drinks, matrimony etc are stuff that you don't at all need to live unless you're incurably addicted to such silly stuff…………………………….. I think communists are sensible people, and so I wish communists would make the Principle of healthy and meaningful living their life principle and try their utmost to remain true to it. I also wish communists would awake to its significance. A communist, by my view, must appreciate that their way of living, like their words and actions, ought to be inspirational for the benighted millions, the born poor and deprived, that sweat blood, like beasts of burden, to produce all wealth and luxuries but lead a hard and humble existence themselves throughout their life.You take the dictatorial, non-democratic view, that the things that you see as of being of value, must be the things that all "true" communists must see as of being of value. However you fail to see the irony of you claiming to be a socialist/communist (which necessarily is democratic in nature) whilst at the same time dictating how others should behave! It is not for you to decide how another human being should live their life, it is not for you to moralise and judge the actions of your fellow workers. Your definition of what is sensible or wholesome, is not every other worker's definition of sensible and wholesome. To shock your sensibilites even further I can tell you that I even indulge in the occasional pork pie!You state that things such as dance and drama are worthwhile things whereas drink and matrimony are silly. Given the choice of an evening in the pub with a couple of my friends sinking a few beers, or the choice of going to a theatre and watching a load of people poncing about in tights and telling me its ballet, I would be in the pub every time. I don't however insist that those who enjoy ballet, etc. should live their life the way I dictate. As to the areseholes who go to the theatre to watch Shakespeare and laugh at the appointed time, at jokes they've heard a thousand times, that weren't even funny when they were first written, just to prove that to everyone else there that they are "cultured", don't get me started!You talk about the luxuries of life, you think that we should leave the finer things in life, good food, first class travel, indulgences, etc. to be enjoyed by the parasites of the capitalist class! Only they, you say, should enjoy the fillet steaks, the lobster thermidore, etc. etc. Bollocks to that. My view of a socialist society, isn't one of fasting and abstinence, I want the best to be available for all, on the basis of their self determined needs and wants. In the meantime, nothing is too good for the workers. So if I can get back enough of my surplus value to get the odd fillet steak or bottle of premier cru Chablis, I will and I'll enjoy every bloody sip!
LBird wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:Well here's a simpe enough question to ask L Bird. In your vision of unfettered democratic socialism, will there be limits to who votes and who doesn't?That's a democratic decision.I know that this answer doesn't fit in with your elitist vision of 'fettered undemocratic socialism'.Why not read the LibCom article?
Sorry L Bird, I am not being arsey, I genuinely find your answer amibiguous, do you mean by "that's a democratic decision" that there will be a democratic decision about who votes and who doesn't, or do you mean by "that's a democratic decision" that a full vote of all people is a democratic decision i.e. That's what a democratic decision is. I am not being picky, I just wanted to clariy in a comradely way.YFSTim
ALB wrote:Unlike the regular nuisances here Prakash does agree with the objective of a world classless, stateless, wageless, moneyless society of common ownership and democratic control. The trouble is that he seems to prioritise his code of behaviour for socialists within capitalist society telling us what we should or should not do (most of which we wouldn't dream of doing anyway). Which is annoying and puts people off. And he goes too far in what is to be shunned. Also, as has been noticed, his code assumes that only men can be socialists. Pity really that he doesn't concentrate instead on spreading the idea of socialism/communism as here:http://prakashrp-1.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/on-definition-of-communism.htmlL Bird is a regular nuisance and L Bird also agrees with the idea of a world, classless, stateless, wageless, moneyless society of common ownership and democratic control. But similarly to L Bird, this joker also believes and dictates that his view of what a socialist/communist should be is the only acceptable way for socialists to see the world.I see very little difference in their authoritarian, vanguardist, quasi religious approach.Personal liberty is, to my mind, very much part of the Socialist case. these two posters fail the "Socialist test" in this area.Anyway sorry I couldn't add any more, I've got a hotching hangover, never mind hair of the dog and all that!
Well here's a simpe enough question to ask L Bird. In your vision of unfettered democratic socialism, will there be limits to who votes and who doesn't?
Prakash RP wrote:Dear all, I feel I should bring to your notice the following message made by Tim Kilgallon. I received it in response to a comment by me. Copies of both by comment and Kilgallon's are presented below. You may access them by clicking on this link too : https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/messages/view/3783#new . I'd like to know how you view it. Participants: Tim Kilgallon and Prakash RP Prakash RP29/03/2017 – 2:41pm' … the no booze idea gets the thumbs down from us. 'You're also free, I think, to give the thumbs down to the no-drugs idea or the no-bribes idea. You're free to give the thumbs down to ideas like no-sexism, no-racism, etc as well, just as you're free to give your thumbs down to the NO-CLASSES, the NO-PRIVATE-PROPERTY, or even the NO-EXPLOITATION-of-man-by-man idea, aren't you ? But, sir, are you a communist ? Could you clarify what led you to believe that you're communist ? Tim Kilgallon29/03/2017 – 7:14pmNewListen bonny ladi dont need to justify my political beliefs to you. I'm a communist/socialist not a bloody monk. If you don't want to drink alcohol, smoke of gamble, feel free to make these choices. Do NOT DARE to tell me how to live my life. Now piss off you stupid sexist clown.just to clarify, this was in response to an unsolicited pm from this joker, not a comment. I stand by what I said but cannot elaborate as I have to rush off and put a few bets on before I head off to the boozer to have several pints of beer, with perhaps a number of whiskey chasers. I don't smoke, but am tempted to have a cigar today just for the hell of it!
alanjjohnstone wrote:The post now appears to have disappeared but from memory in regards to Lydon thread, Bob Andrews commented "There's never a Mark Chapman around when you need one". (29 Mar at 3:44 PM)..Mark Chapman killed John Lennon…i took that to be an inference that he would approve of John Lydon being murdered for expressing political ideas. I don't think i imagined the post and can only surmise that the Moderator was on the ball and deleted it. And perhaps i should not have raised the topic and let it be.I agree with you but the mod has been a help, in this matter. But perhaps we should get back to the issues raised originally and concentrate on the things we said today, rather than rake helter skelter over past posts.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Just to be clear, this forum does not endorse murder and suggesting such an act, in my view, deserves a permanent ban from the forum.agreed
Middle aged? John Lyndon? Funny how middle age gets older the longer you live. Never been much more than a gobshite.John Lydon + Donald Trump, the great rock and roll swindle meets the great political swindle.
mcolome1 wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:gnome wrote:jondwhite wrote:Is this brocialism?Dunno, never heard of it. Has it something to do with a particular brand of vegetarianism that favours the consumption of broccoli?
Bugger me, no drinking, no smoking, no gambling, no sex and you've got to eat bloody broccoli, sod that for a game of soldiers.
What about masturbation ?
well at least that way you get to spend time with someone who really likes you!
gnome wrote:jondwhite wrote:Is this brocialism?Dunno, never heard of it. Has it something to do with a particular brand of vegetarianism that favours the consumption of broccoli?
Bugger me, no drinking, no smoking, no gambling, no sex and you've got to eat bloody broccoli, sod that for a game of soldiers.
