[Bijou Drains]

MBellemare wrote:

In my country, bijiou it is slander.

You're not getting much right today, are you:https://www.cbabc.org/For-the-Public/Dial-A-Law/Scripts/Your-Rights/240 Slander covers the spoken word

[Bijou Drains]

MBellend wrote:

 Bijou….you are about as uneducated as they come, that is, the worst type of educated, i.e., a narrow-minded, conservative, type of educated. I suggest you get your head out of your ass, and actually read my work, before you slander. Its good that you hide your sorry ass behind a moniker, chicken shit! Because, its clear you are all yap yap yap and no action. Not even an original thought in vacant head. 

If I had defamed you, which I havent, it would be libel not slander, you really should be more exact in your terminology. As stated previously, I would like an answer to my question about tariffs, it seems to blow a huge whole in your whole argument.You could also tell me if you are the Donny Osmond lookalike featured in this article:https://www.pressreader.com/canada/ottawa-citizen/20111231/295931838219892 If so am I right to assume that this isn't a political discussion but is actually a piece of really shit performance art?

[Bijou Drains]

MBellend wrote:

Bijou. ..posting links does not make you a reader… any marxist numb-skull can post a link. So once again Bijou why don't you excuse yourself from the conversation because it is beyond your vocabulary and limits of what you have read.  Maybe try a Lenin thread… you can talk about how bolshevism is still relevant and not totalitarian. As for post-modernism I do like foucault and much of  post-modern writings because they point-out  the righteousness of marxism and capitalism, alike. BOTH ARE TOTALITARIAN NARRATIVES.  The fact is marxism and bourgeois-capitalism are narratives, stories, …devoid of universal truth. Too Bad, its just the way reality appears to be. Without a multi-level, multi-lateral coalition,  Marxism is dead as disco. And post-modernism is the only philosophy out-there that truly grasps what it means to have a true plurality. And that means that Marxism has to open itself to criticism and new theories such as structural-anarchism. No one wants a marxist dictatorship of the proletariat ever again…Marxism IS Old HAT! So I Read All Sorts Of PHILOSOPHY. Unlike You Bijou I Am Not Limited And Confined To The ONE-Dimensionality OF Marx. And I know my Marx, Inside And Out.  So You Can Play SAMANTICS With Me And STRUCTURAL-Anarchism.  But It Does Not Make Marx Any More Relevant Today But It Does Make Him Evermore Obsolete.   History is proving this to be an accurate assessment. Narratives, Narratives Narratives, everywhere narratives. Anarchism, Now! ANARCHISM, FOREVER!

You stated that I cannot have read your material because you have a web counter and you would know if I had, I then post you links to where I have read the guff that you have written and now you accuse me of not bothering to read it. You go on to you state that I would defend bolshevism as being relevant and non-totalitarian, it looks like it's YOU that has not been reading, my friend. You clearly have not read anything to do with theory and history of the SPGB. The SPGB has opposed bolshevism since 1917! We had our meetings broken up by the bolshevists in the 1920s and 30s.Also I'm glad that a man if your standing has been able to put such a reasoned and cogent argument together (sic). Interesting that you accuse others of being anti-democratic, elitist and against reasoned debate and then tell me to leave the thread as only those who reach the enlightened level of your good self should take part in it.Enough, however, of your puerile insults and attempts at proof by assertion. let's get back to the nub of your "theory", i.e. that prices are set at the whim of capitalists and that they do not relate to value. As I stated earlier in this thread, amongst other criticisms of position, if it is the case that prices can be set in the way you describe, why is Trump proposing tariffs to exclude Chines steel from being dumped on the US market?This is a twofold problem for your position. Firstly if prices could be set on a whim, US steel manufacturers could simply reduce the price of their steel to below that of the dumped Chinese steel and secondly if prices could be set on a whim the Chinese could simply absorb the tariff into the price of their steel so the tariff wouldn’t be a problem and neither side would go to the bother of putting them in place.I  have been waiting for you to answer this for some time. As, as stated frequently, you have a PHD and as you clearly intellectually superior to the plebs in the SPGB, surely such a task should not have taken a man of your calibre as long to answer?Oh and by the way misspelling semantics is pure comedy gold, my hearty congratulations.As for disco being dead, looks like your wrong there as well;http://www.nilerodgers.com/events-listGet down and boogie, brother.

[Bijou Drains]

Marcos wrote:

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

@Marcos or/and onyone else interested. 

Marcos wrote:

Economic exploitation takes place at the point of production, and added value is added at the point of production. There is no such thing as double exploitation, like one at the point of production, and another one at the point of sale

 I'll show you how to exploit at the point of sale. It's actually impossible not to exploit at the point of sale if the sale is made in capital dollars than it is a regressive price that systematically explioits poor people and systematically enriches rich people. Here's a simple thought experiment to show how. Consider this multiple choice price and profits voting survey as a numerical example of what I propose. Notice that in choices A-C, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. In price and profit choices D-F the level of explotation is much less don't you agree? Assume for help understanding the econmics of this that this is a monopoly market with only one seller and 3 purchasers and 3 bags of groceries. Imagine an economic thought experiment with only one grocer who has 3 bags of groceries all the same to sell to only 3 people. 1 person makes $10/hr, 1@$50/hr, and 1@$200/hr. In this thought experiment, the grocery basket is worth over 10 hours of effort in value to everyone equally. 10+ hours of value includes 1hr@120% quality time cooking6hr@100% consumption sustenance eating time3hr@150% enjoyment time dining or as a result after eating1hr@50% shopping effort time+0.5hr added to your life expectancyHow much should the seller charge for the Grocery Basket in a free market to make the most profit or/and offer the most customer benefit? A) “$100”- Sell the market basket at $100. Low income pricing1@$200/hr works 0.5 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 9.5 hours profit. 1@$50/hr works 2 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 8 hours profit.1@$10/hr works 10 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 0 hours profit.Sellers Profit = $300 = 1@$100 +1@$100 + 1@$100.Increase to inequality = 9.5 hours = (8hr – 0hr) + (9.5hr – 8hr) “$500”- Sell the market basket at “$500”. Standard pricing1@$200/hr works 4 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 6 hours profit. 1@$50/hr works 10 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 0 hours profit.1@$10/hr works 50 hours to pay for the market basket and makes -40 hours profit.Sellers Profit = $1,000 = 1@$500 +1@$500 + 1@$0 (no sale).Increase to inequality = 46 hours = (6hr – 0hr) + (0hr – -40hr)C) “$2000”- Sell the market basket at “$2,000”. Luxury pricing1@$200/hr works 10 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 0 hours profit. 1@$50/hr works 40 hours to pay for the market basket and makes -30 hours profit.1@$10/hr works 200 hours to pay for the market basket and makes -190 hours profit.Sellers Profit = $2,000 = 1@$2,000 +1@$0 + 1@$0.Increase to inequality = 190 hours = (-190hr – -30hr) + (-30hr – 0hr)D) “10hr”- Reduce inequality to Zero by charging  "10 hours of time” and make the most profit1@$200/hr works 10 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 0 hours profit. 1@$50/hr works 10 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 0 hours profit.1@$10/hr works 10 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 0 hours profit.Sellers Profit = $2,600 = 1@$2,000 +1@$500 + 1@$100.Increase to inequality = 0 hours = (0hr – 0hr) + (0hr – 0hr)E) “5hr”- Be generous and split the profit in half. Charge "5 hours of time” for the 10 hour value1@$200/hr works 5 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 5 hours profit. 1@$50/hr works 5 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 5 hours profit.1@$10/hr works 5 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 5 hours profit.Sellers Profit = $1,300 = 1@$1,000 +1@$250 + 1@$50.Increase to inequality = 0 hours = (5hr – 5hr) + (5hr – 5hr)F) “3hr”- Be altruistic and grow fastest. Charge "3 hours of time” for the 10 hour value1@$200/hr works 3 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 7 hours profit. 1@$50/hr works 3 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 7 hours profit.1@$10/hr works 3 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 7 hours profit.Sellers Profit = $780 = 1@$600 +1@$150 + 1@$30.Increase to inequality = 0 hours = (7hr – 7hr) + (7hr – 7hr)  

---

 Also, notice this thought experiments requires an unequal society with salary differentials into order to make a profit for the seller and to product inequality in options A-C. In options D-F it does not matter if the labor rate is unequal because the labor rate is adjusted for in the purchase price on a per person individual exchange rate between hours and dollars. and in an equal society where all people make the same hourly salary then there would be no additional exploitation. BUT we don't live in a capitalist society where everyone makes the same hourly rate, so there definitely is addiltional double exploitation at the point of sale. IMPORTANT! This is not the same as "labor chits" or other past experments because those all used an average hourly rate for everyone and a boss who made more money also would get more labor chits. By using "hours of your personal time" as a measure of value, you end up with everyone having exactly the same buying power in "hours of your personal time regardless of whether their labor rate is high or low in $/hr. This works different than labor chits. If you think this is like labor chips, then your are right that it's superficially similar, but you are wrong if you think the results at scale of this are the same as the results and failure modes demonstrated by labo chit experiments. P.s. This multiple choice question is one I'm asking a real capitalist COO of an online grocery delivery store business.  I think the seller will be interested because of the higher profits in options D-F.  I want to buy things using the prices in options D-F because I personally would save money on options D-F too.  I think I'll be exploited less if I buy groceries with one of those D-F options.  Which choice would you prefer A-F?     

1) I am limiting my post to one every month starting today. I don't want to over post

From my point of view I enjoy your posts and I think the idea that you might over post makes no sense to me. I woudl prefer to regularly read your posts as they are really good at putting the Socialist case. More power to your elbow!

[Bijou Drains]

Nice to think we've screwed up some Tory's day by putting a leaflet through their door, god knows the Tories have pissed me off enough with their bloody leaflets.Why not ask this supporter of capitalism if she's has the courage of her convictions and is willing to debate the SPGB in a public meeting?I would do it myself (send the tweet), but as a self confessed technophobe, I have no twitter account, and have no intention of getting one!!

[Bijou Drains]

For those who haven't read it, I thorougly recommend Alan's article.I have quite a bit of experience of professional involvement with Premiership football clubs and their academies and whilst the "big" clubs at the top of the pyramid do, in my experience operate very ethically with regard to who they sign, how they support them, which agents they deal with, etc. (would it be sceptical of me to think that this was possibly more to do with the financial implications of something going wrong?) the clubs playing below that level are less worried about how they operate.The thing that has always struck me is that despite the financial pressures, care, compassion and respect always emerges. Not from the upper echelons of the football club, but from those who support the youngsters who come into the clubs. The archetypal tea ladies who really care about the kids, coaches who at youth level aren't paid a great deal who will go the extra mile to help a youth footballer, support staff who seem to take get genuine joy from making sure clean strips are available. And quite often the youngsters are as much a part of this as the adults.I was working with a woman who was providing accommodation and care to two young 15 year old lads who were living away from home when the woman was diagnosed with cancer. The lads were told about this and about the alternative digs that had been arranged, but they refused to go, they supported the woman through her chemo, made her meals, did the housework, etc. To me the message that always comes through is that despite the conditions that capitalism throws down, the basic human instincts to cooperate with each other, to care about each other, to enjoy the success of each other cannot be suppressed, even in the most extreme manifestation of capitalism

[Bijou Drains]

MBellend wrote:

1. Bijou…I highly doubt you have read anyrhing of mine. 

https://dissidentvoice.org/2017/02/the-post-industrial-post-modern-theory-of-value-and-surplus-value-2/https://dissidentvoice.org/2016/09/the-social-construction-of-value-price-and-wages/https://dissidentvoice.org/2017/11/the-post-modern-project-is-not-complete/ When you're in a hole, son, stop digging!

[Bijou Drains]

MBellemare wrote:

Bijou, I know you have not read anything of mine in the last few months…because I have a tracker and no one from your country has read anything of mine. So why don't you stop and smell what you are shoveling.

And what about your articles on the dissident voices website?A simple apology will suffice.

[Bijou Drains]

MBellemare wrote:

BjiouI should qualify that the only thing of value, you say, which pushes the logical argument further. Is your idea about tarrif bijou. Give me some time to work that out, according to anarchist-economic-theory. But what you ask about, economic crisis, or companies going bust, I have already answered in prior posts. If you want more on the subject, more details. Go to Academia.edu…and you can read my papers FOR FREE.  

i have read several of your papers on line over the past few months and they show the same flawed logic of proof by assertion. I could eat alphabet soup and shit a more cogent argument.However I do look forward to your explanation of tariffs.

[Bijou Drains]

MBellemare wrote:

Oh…Glad to see DJP that you have not yet reclined your comfortable marxist armchair, for your afternoon nap, as of yet. But seeing how little you have delved into what I have said, can only mean your head really, really hurts. Go to bed, it will do you good.      1. (Jesus Was a Communist, Marcos)…lolololol…. You should know, I don't support the capitalist-state, I want to do away with it, in all its shapes and/or forms. This includes all forms of religion.  2. And I am quite sure Galbraith, did not argue my anarchist point. No political-economic theorist to date has argued that prices, values, and wages, are arbitrarily/artificially fabricrated, by ruling capitalist networks, based solely the whims of these ruling capitalist networks, meaning the extent of their power and influence. But, I guess to SPGB Marxists, I must seem like capitalist, since, marxism is the answer to all social ills."The Sacred Texts, The Sacred Texts, No One Must Tamper with Marx's Sacred Texts…by any means necessary!1. First rule of SPGB…Do Not Critique The Sacred Marxist Texts.2. Second rule of SPGB…DO NOT CRITIQUE THE SACRED MARXIST TEXTS.    

I’ve got to say this is one of the most ill argued posts I’ve ever seen on this forum, and that I’ve seen some horseshit over the years.To begin with you imply by your use of terms like arm chair etc. that DJP is old, interesting that a self proclaimed “anarchist” would resort to ageism, why not try sexism, racism or antisemitism, or would that not be acceptable, ok to use age related insults but not any other non-pc insults. I think your actions demonstrate your true “anarchist” credentials, I have met many genuine Anarchists who would be horrified at such comments.Your next line of argument is that “your head must really hurt” what a pathetic response to reasoned argument. The world must stand in admiration of your intellectual prowess, and anybody who doubts you must be feeble minded. Earlier on in the thread you informed us that you wrote a book, well fuck me sideways, you wrote a book. It might come as a surprise to you, but lots of people have written books, and lots of the books were shite. I am not sure of the accepted a academic standards in Canada, but if any of the undergraduates I teach had submitted such poorly argued content as your posts on this site, they’d be sitting with their heads in their hands to play with. One thing you probably got right (I suppose if you produce such a lot of horse shit something’s got to be right eventually)  no political economic theorist to date has argued that prices, values (sic) and wages (by the way your use of the Oxford comma is deplorable) are arbitrarily/artificially fabricated by ruling capitalist networks, etc. The reason no one has argued this is because it is very clearly evident that they are not. If a ruling network were arbitrarily fabricating prices why would tariffs exist? If prices could be arbitrarily set they could be set to undermine the tariffs. If prices could be arbitrarily set why do capitalist businesses go bust, they could just “arbitrarily” raise their prices and increase their profits.Next time you write “a book” you might want to stick to pissy modern art and leave the revolutionary stuff to people who know they’re on about.

[Bijou Drains]

Apparently EU sanctions are going to be applied to american jeans and Harley Davidson motorbikes, so it should only impact on fat middle aged, biker wannabe men, going through a mid life crisis, That's my next two years screwed up!

[Bijou Drains]

patreilly wrote:

Major McPharter wrote:

Anybody going? The first 10 get a packet of Tudor crisps and a Pint of Vaux Double Maxim. Lets hope i am trampled in the rush.

 Good choice of canapes but are you trying to put Bijou Drains off going with the choice of beer ? By the way, Major, John Bisset and Arch Stanton are going and probably others.  https://www.facebook.com/206528372717351/photos/gm.414986845639115/1681365511900289/?type=3&theater 

I would love to go, but unfortunately I am working in Loughborough the next day, so I have to set off in the afternoon. If others are attending, please pass on my regards and contact details.(I have had the occasional pint of Double Mackem, just was always happier with Exhibition or Fed Special. Anyone remember Tudor's Kipper flavour crisps? A guilty pleasure in the 1970s)

[Bijou Drains]

Don't know if we really can ever make any headway with the Tankies and their ilk.I had a conversation with a member of the RCG on May Day, which made me think that I might be better off talking to someone who was more open to different ideas and willing to question their belief system, such as a Jesuit or a Scientologist

[Bijou Drains]

ALB wrote:

ALB wrote:

The witch-hunt is now getting out of hand and there are other victims. This poor sod, who merely stated a historical fact, might even lose his job. He's a member of the Weekly Worker lot. We've met him at various meetings and whatever else the "CPGB" is it's not anti-semitic. Be interesting to see what their paper out tomorrow has say on it:https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/london-council-officer-suspended-for-nazizionist-comments-a3804626.htmlWhat a nasty little shit that Tory MP is.Edit: Just remembered we actually debated Stan Keable in September 2013.

Here is the latest development in this disturbing case:http://labourpartymarxists.org.uk/the-case-of-stan-keable-no-criticism-permitted/

Interesting that reference should be made to the Equality Act 2010, " Stan was suspended for making “offensive comments” likely to be in breach of the Equalities Act 2010".The Equality Act:"requires equal treatment in access to employment as well as private and public services"it does not apply to private interactions between individuals, I cannot see its relevance to this situation, however it may be being used as a way of attempting to further intimidate public sector workers by threatening their employment.

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

With all due respect, ALB, i'm not really interested in the Oxford Dictionary says but what Paddy and Lorna have to tell us.I'm willing to wait to hear what they have to say before i agree or disagree. Their intro is a deliberate teaser and his posting a purposefully provocative. Paddy's usual style, i would tentatively suggest.I'm reluctant to pre-judge their talk ….surely we should wait until its over and decide if they addressed our concerns and satisfied our apparent discomfort with the concept. …Maybe we will go away with a little bit more to think about…

However in the post Paddy made on Spintcom he said"First, let's be clear folks, intersectionality doesn't mean what you think it means, as you would know if you bothered to look it up".I think that's a pretty diffcult circle for you to square, Alan, ALB looks it up and then it doesn't mean what it says when you look, it up! You might not be interested in the dictionary definition, but it appears from his comments that Paddy is!It's pretty arrogant to assume that those  that disagree with you don't understand the subject!As for meaningful debate, referring to the posters on this site as "gobshites" really helps create a spirit of debate.Incidentally I more or less agree with Adam, the concept of intersectionality and ideas such as layers of disadvantage, multiple disadvantage, etc. only apply in an economic system based on the concept of competition for advantage.No competition, no market, no clasees, no money – no disadvantage, is Paddy seriously trying to say that intersectionality would be an issue in a non class based society?.Attempts to try and overcome disadvantage in a system set up to create disadvantage are futile and divisive, we may as well have a discussion about juggling mince or nailing jelly to the ceiling, they're more likely to be successful than trying to overcome disadvantage in a class based society.

[Author]

Posts