Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
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?
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.
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
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!
