Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
nice to see you’ve stopped grumbling about something at last Private Fraser 🙂
My self determination might well involve me keeping several juicy Saddlebacks and perhaps a medium white or two.
As you state in your post, your preferred option is……. but you shouldn’t assume that all Socialists prefer your option and even less so that a majority of socialists would chose those options.
“so we can suggest that there will definitely be a change of diets with socialism – to paraphrase Lenin – Less but better”.
You can suggest it, but it’s not part of the party case as far as I remember. My vision of socialism is of self determined free access, within the democratic wishes of society, not some kind of quasi Calvinist, joyless, alcohol free, vegetarian regime.
It is claimed that pork has far less environmental impact than beef or lamb, so pork pies, pork sausages and bacon may be the way forward, not to mention black pudding, white pudding and pork scratchings. Also pigs can be fed on a great deal of waste food production, although this has been banned in the EU following the foot and mouth outbreak, it was common practice for schools and canteens to have a swill bill, the problem was that some pig farmers had been feeding untreated swill to their pigs, to save money, not a problem in a Socialist Society. Another plus for the pig is that they will quite happily eat com manure and other forms of slurry again very environmentally friendly.
That was either the politest insult I’ve ever read, or the most unusual come on I’ve ever had. Not sure which?
Also I’m not keen on the “Howdy” at the top right hand side, we can loose that straight away, bloody Americanisms!!!!
Hi Pat
(Hope all is well with you and yours)
Whilst I agree that the site doesn’t look fantastic at the moment, since it has been up and running their have been incremental improvements. I would hope comrades would allow a bit of tie to make improvements before being overly critical.For my two penn’orth I would like to see a return of the PM function, quote options, preview before posting options, as we used to have.
Something I would like to have which wasn’t in the old forum would be to have the facility to save draft contributions, so it is possible to return and complete contributions.
Dear L Bird, I’ve always loved your optimism, nice to hear from you anyway, I hope life’s been kind to you in our time apart.
EngelsaphobiaThe irrational fear of bearded, 19th Century, Prussian, philodopher-social scientists, born in 1820From the DSM volume 4"Englesaphobia is a rare condition with only one reported occurance. The individual involved is reported as having a morbid delusion that his desire to be the late Karl Marx's "bessie mate" is being thwarted at every turn by the spectre of the long dead Fredrich Engels.Symptoms include:Delusional rants on public message boardsA belief that others believe they can talk to rocksincreasing paranoia during the course of the rantsComorbidityThe only known case is reported to have also suffered from Plebisciphila, a condition in which the subject demonstrates an obsessive desire to hold ballots on everything.TreatmentNo known treatment for this condition has been identified, despite many attempts to engage the subject with reasoned argument. Current guidance is not to attempt this approach after the most serious manifestation of incoherent ranting occured when the subject was asked to consider what would happen if the whole world voted not to have any more votes.The current world expert on the condition is Dr Brian Johnson of the University of Tiger Bay who has been pioneering a treatment regime based on intermittent banning orders mixed with regular doses of Trill laced with paraldehydePrognosisPoor – members of the grenral public are advised not to approach the subjet, as he may peck"
Sympo wrote:robbo203 wrote:I am not quite sure what you mean when you say "Therefore SNLT must be something that exists".Hmm, how should I explain…Okay, here's an attempt:We accept that labour must be the source of value. The more labour it takes to make a commodity, the larger the value the commodity has.If we don't believe that it's SNLT that determines the value of, say, toasters, we would have no other choice but to agree with this claim:"Mr A, mr B, mr C, mr D and mr E all makes toasters of equal quality. Mr A, B, C and D makes a toaster each in 4 hours. Mr E is really slow and makes a toaster in 40 hours. The toaster of mr E represents a greater value than the toaster of mr A, because it took him more labour time to make it."If we believe that this claim is correct, we have to believe thatthe value of 40 toasters = the value of 1 toasterwhich doesn't make any sense mathematically.But we cannot claim that the source of value isn't labour, because labour is the only thing that can explaina) what determines price when demand and supply are in harmony (note that I'm not saying that value equals price)andb) why commodities exchange at stable ratiosThis leads us to believing that my individual labour time can't determine the value of the commodity that I'm producing. The idea that it's something social makes more sense.Am I being clearer on what I mean?
Hi SympoPerhaps the explanation below might helpFrom Some Aspects of Marxian Economics(SPGB 1978)The value of a commodity, said Marx, is determined by the amount of socially necessary labour contained in it or, what is the same thing, by the amount of socially necessary labour-time spent in producing it from start to finish. Note that the Labour Theory of Value does not say that the value of a commodity is determined by the actual amount of labour contained in it. That would mean that an inefficient worker would create more value than an efficient worker. By socially necessary is meant the amount needed to produce, and reproduce, a commodity under average working conditions, e.g. average productivity, average intensity of labour. For instance, in the British coal industry the average output is about 43cwts. per man shift and there are approximately 230 pits in operation. In some of these output per shift will be above 43cwts. and in others below, but the value of the coal is not fixed by the labour of the workers at pits of either sort. Its value is the social average brought out by the market.I think the problem you are having is that, as bolded above, is that the more labour it takes to make a commodity the more value it contains. I would say essentially yes but, and it's a big but, it's actually the more socially necessary labour time, rather than labour. The essential bit is that it is the amount needed to "produce and reproduce" in "average working conditions". Taking this to your toasters, the average costs in hours might seem to be 4 hours x 4 toasters (A+B+C+D) + 40 hours x 1 toaster= 5 toasters / 56 hours = 11 hours 12 mins per toasterhowever (and I am not including the other SNLT included in mining the copper for the wire making the circuit boards, etc.) in realitity Messers ABCD and not going to wait for E to finish his toaster but are going to make more toastersTherefore it works out at:40 x 4 hours for 40 toasters + 40 hours for 1 toaster = 161 hours for 41 toasters or roughly 4 hours per toaster.The next thing is to become commodities the toasters have to sell. If E doesn't sell his toaster he will have produced no SNLT. However the price of the toasters will refect the SNLT involved in production (Price and value are not the same). If E can reproduce his labour (feed himself, clothe himself and replace the materials he needs to make more toasters, including the capital in machinery, etc.) he will survive in the toaster business. (highly unlikely) If not he will have to start making George Foreman grills!
patreilly wrote:Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:I'm finding it very interested how you implment "the right to be forgotten" in this case of MBellemare.His posts are still there, he is just 'not a verified user'
Gone, but not forgotten, you might say. A little like the article in the Toronto Star that seemed to imply that he was prone to telling the odd "porkie pie". Strange how according to him they made a retraction, but the retraction was no where to be found, whilst the original article was still on line.Sadly the whole thing could be construed as giving the impression that Mbellemare was a self publicising, narcissistic, anarchist-wanabee, which I'm sure couldn't be further from the truth.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Credit where credit is due. Anything that reduces the threat of war is to be welcomed. Regardless of Trump, this is perhaps his greatest foreign policy achievement, something akin to Nixon's ping-pong diplomacy, or Reagan's Evil Empire strategy to bring don the Soviet Union.However, we have to ponder the difference in approach to Iran and wonder if, as many suspect, the US is acting in the interests of Israel in regard to Iran.The agreement with North Korea has no verification process for de-nuclearisation and there was no insistence upon access to North Korea's nuclear facilities. In an interview i watched, Trump says the US will be able to monitor the dismantling but then contradicts himself a little bit later by admitting the US has very limited intelligence capability when it comes to North Korea. He also said the question of no human rights in the dictatorship was not an issue for him.When asked about the difference with Iran, Trump could only refer to the so-called $170 billion Iran is receiving and the interviewer failed to explain that this cash being given to Iran is its own funds frozen and stolen by sanctions.As i said, anything that reduces the threat of confrontation is something we can applaud and i await Trump to talk directly with Iran's ayatollahs….but we know Israel will not endorse such talks…Sadly Alan I think you’re only ever example of optimism may be be misplaced. Despite all of the publicity the real reason behind the summit was that it was actually the final of the World’s Shittest Haircut Competition. Unfortunately for the ultra stalinists Arthur Scargill was knocked out at the semi final stage. From what I understand the final ended as a draw and in line with usual protocol Angela Merkel won on penalties.
LBird wrote:patreilly wrote:LBird wrote:I've never argued for 'a workers world state' –Thank you for that clear opposition to a world state controlled by workers.
I'm a democratic socialist, pat. I thought that SPGB members also opposed 'a world state controlled by workers', but perhaps you also oppose 'a world controlled by workers'?If you do oppose this, who (or what) do you think does (and should in the future within democratic socialism) politically control our world?My answer is simple: at present, the bourgeoisie control our world, but under democratic socialism the democratic producers will control their world.Please answer this political question, as you've avoided doing so (as I predicted you would, because all 'materialists' avoid this political question).
patreilly wrote:Fair enought but how will the decision on 'truth' be decided and imposed? What if 'elites' or even workers disagree and decide their own 'How'? By democratic production of truth.'If 'elites' disagree'? No elites will be allowed political power within democratic socialism. All elected delegates can be removed if they show signs of 'elitism'.'If workers disagree'? A democratic vote will prevail, and the 'truth' which loses the vote will be put to one side, until it can garner enough support to overturn the previously elected 'truth', at which point workers will then elect that 'truth'. That is, 'truth production' is a democratic political process, which can change, and not a fixed state of being, which can't be changed.Since I'm answering the political questions being asked, isn't it time you (or someone from the SPGB) answered the simple political question:If not the revolutionary, class conscious proletariat, who (or what) determines 'truth'?Surely you have some idea of an answer, pat? Up until now, the partial answer has sometimes been given here, that elite 'Specialists' employing a non-democratic method shall determine 'truth', but it's never made clear how this political process will fit into democratic socialism, so the answer is incomplete.I do hope that you can clarify this issue of power for me (and any other interested workers), pat.Welcome back my feathered friendIf Truth has to be decided democratically then who decides which truths have to be decided?It follows therefore that if it is necessary to decide democratically what is the truth, it is necessary to decide democratically what is in doubt. So do we therefore have to vote on what in doubt before we can vote on what is the truth?
