Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:I don't think we can use that argument as the intention of the movers was clear (it goes without saying that we can't give money to non-socialists). Personally I voted against it and didn't and still don't agree with it. I am imagine you are in the same position. In fact at that Conference most of the delegates were against it too, but the membership vote didn't back them and the motion was carried. Democracy is democracy and we have to abide by resolutions that we don't agree with.As I mentioned, when the Indian party asked for money (I think it was them — our retiring Treasurer will know) provision was made for individual members to pay.
The motion states “groups and individuals”, the SPC is neither of things, it is a political party and part of the World Socialist Movement. I would argue that the motion doesn’t and was never intended to cover this situation.
gnome wrote:Given the Socialist Party of Canada's current financial predicament the SPGB should urgently consider sending them funds to allow them to continue the vital work of propagating socialism.I completely agree. Could a proposal be put to the next EC to send them over £2,000?
Although my working knowledge in these areas is very limited, I think this is an excellent initiative by the EC and any costs will far be outwighed by the benefit, a really progressive step!
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:It took me 30 minutes to read the wikipedia entries and write my reply. I want you to act for 30 minutes. Pick up litter in your neighborhood or plant a tree in the forest for 30 minutes. Don't spend your time on a reply for me please. Or maybe just spend 5 minutes on a reply and spend 25 minutes on planting a tree?I spent 25 minutes having a dump. I then spent five minutes wiping, guess what I used?
patreilly wrote:Bijou Drains wrote:Jeez I can't imaging Steve Coleman cutting a rug at his local disco, The thought of him in disco pants with an open to the navel silk shirt and medallion will now haunt me forever.That's a matter of taste. I think he would look pretty stunning in debate with the young tories.
Well. I suppose.I did hear a rumour that Harry Young had a brief stint with the Kids from Fame and that Adam Buick was one of the original members of Pan's People, but I don't know how true that is.
Jeez I can't imaging Steve Coleman cutting a rug at his local disco, The thought of him in disco pants with an open to the navel silk shirt and medallion will now haunt me forever.
alanjjohnstone wrote:The Gospel requires Christians to “denounce personal and social sins committed against God and neighbour in the name of the god money and of power for its own sake,” Pope Francis has written. He said, “the economy and markets have had a role in the excessive exploitation of common resources, increasing inequality and the deterioration of the planet.” “I have been able to see these contrasts more clearly than was possible in Argentina,” he said. The world has enough wealth to feed, house and offer medical care to all its inhabitants, but resources are concentrated in the hands of a few people and millions of others struggle to survive.“What I say and write about the power of the economy and finance is meant to be an appeal so that the poor would be treated better and inequalities would decrease,” Pope Francis said.A particular concern, he said, are the billions of dollars private individuals and companies make from manufacturing weapons, “funds that prosper from innocent blood.” People must become more aware of how the economy works and how much wealth is produced by exploiting people or the environment and by speculation or investing in money rather than in companies that employ people and produce useful products and services, the Pope wrote.http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2018/04/15/christians-must-denounce-sins-committed-in-the-name-of-money-and-power-says-pope/Do you think we should send him a free 1 year subscription to the Standard
Prakash RP wrote:' Nonsense. Work is voluntary, non-compulsory, non-exploitative. ' ( Comment #279 by Matt ) Beliefs or ideas not resting on sound logic ( not sophistries nor any stuff like blind faith ) are worthless in a debate aimed at finding the truth and so unbecoming of the sensible. And in order to be a true communist, you have to be the sensible first, IMHO. I think I've furnished plentiful incontestable logic to establish my thesis, i.e. the view that the sharing of social workload meant to produce wealth can't be ' voluntary '. My comments #243, #251, #253, #258, #263, #268, #277, #281, #285, #293, #301 & #308 are meant to enlighten you about it. Nevertheless, you're free to ignore it and join the swarms of the silly and benighted that make up the overwhelming majority in today's world. But if you choose not to join up with the silly crowd, I'd ask you to point to which one or ones of my arguments you think wrong and clarify why you think so. ' Access to the total common product is free for all. ' ( ibid ) If you mean, as it seems to me, that everyone is free to reach and enter the store room of social wealth, but none is free to take possession of as much wealth as they please, you're right. Nevertheless, the principle of ' to each according to his needs ' suggests everyone is entitled to grab as much wealth as they please. It's just not possible because the total amount of social wealth, be it superabundant or just abundant, is limited and can never grow unlimited, and because the unequal sharing of social wealth happens to be in irreconcilable contradiction to the foundation of classless society. ' The concept of equal contributions and access is meaningless and will eb seen to be so, in light of this advanced accelerated post-capitalist, production for use … ' ( ibid ) The ' advanced accelerated post-capitalist, production for use ' cannot grow beyond a limit. Besides, unequal share in social wealth clashes with the very basis for the classless order.Ironically reading the bollocks you write makes me reach for the Whiskey bottle!
Dave B wrote:i “We know where your kids are” There was an interesting interview with former director general of the OPCW. The Americans got rid of him during the Iraq WMD story as they didn’t like his management style. He was told by John Bolton that if he didn’t resign within 24 hours. “We know where your kids are” 4 minutes in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRONBTkNogY these are the people we are dealing with.What I find remarkable about the film from Douma is that the medics hosing down the children and treating them with inhalers are wearing masks, but none of them are wearing gloves?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43697084The Syrians must also have some really smart technology as it appears the bombing only targeted children under the age of 12?
Prakash RP wrote:' The whole idea of socialism/communism is that what is collectively produced should be collectively owned and then shared out amongst all members of society in accordance with their needs. ' ( comment #247 by ALB ) I have strong reservation about the correctness of this ' idea of socialism/ communism '. The pair of shoes I use happens to be the product of the collective labour of a group of workers of a particular shoe factory. Therefore, by this idea of socialism, an insignificant number of people are lawful owners of these shoes. None of any other shoe-factory workers and none of any non-shoe-factory workers are entitled to claim the ownership of these shoes. Nevertheless, this isn't the social ownership that communism stands for. This is a sort of joint ownership of some shareholders or co-op ownership of some ( members of a certain co-op ). Both of these are different forms of private ownership. The lawful owners of shoes may not agree to share out products of their labour ' amongst all members of society ' unless they're paid a large sum of money or its equivalent in kind before parting with their property. Who'd decide, and how would it be decided, whether their demand is right or exorbitant ? Needs of people are not uniform. Nor are all your ' needs ' equally needed. What a sick person urgently need right now is a cure for their sickness, not cigars nor beer nor sex. Who'd and how would they decide whether all the stated ' needs ' of someone are justified and deserve to be granted ? Should the communist society unquestioningly accept whatever someone asks for as their true ' needs ' ? What if someone needs two cigarettes and a glass of beer and someone else needs 20 cigarettes and 20 glasses of beer daily ? Should communism grant ' needs ' of drugs, drinks, smoking, paedophilia, and similar other stuff that's got nothing meaningful for you or anyone else ? Bullet trains do not seem to be luxury in Japan. But Indians are surely not worthy , because India is still lagging far behind Japan, of the luxury of riding in a bullet train. It may not be unbecoming of America, the most advanced civilisation of the world, to undertake a project meant to provide every American citizen with a deluxe private car while for India, it's a dream most unlikely to come true in the near future to make a motorbike or a motor-scooter available to every Indian citizen. It's not unbecoming of America to make stuff like Viagra plentifully available all over America, but it's surely unbecoming of India that has yet to make sanitary pads adequately available to every Indian woman. It's not sensible for a society to accept everything someone claims to need as their just need, nor is it possible for the society to meet their all needs just because both the productive forces and their level of development as well as raw materials and all other necessary means of production are limited and can never outgrow a certain limit. Therefore, authorising a competent body of experts to scrutinise the stated ' needs ' of someone seems to be the only sensible act in this regard. But the scrutiny of someone's claim of ' needs ' means the outright rejection of some ' needs ' and compulsory alteration of some. Thus, referring your claim of ' needs ' to the authorised body for scrutiny turns the principle of ' to each according to their needs ' plain ridiculous, to my way of thinking.You appear to have a very limited understanding of Marxism, no idea what is meant by Socialism, little insight into capitalism, enjoy wrting tedious articles that don't actually say very much and in addition there's a bit of a glorious leader, hero of the working classes, complex going on.I really think you should contact one of the Trotskyist Parties, They'll welcome you with open arms, they might even build you that statue!
gnome wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:"They can't have a maple leaf on a socialist banner. "They can if they want. It is a separate independent party. Would you consider it grounds to cut contact?Quite possibly – the SPC is a companion party of the World Socialist Movement. But first we should ask them for an explanation and request they reconsider the use of the nationalist symbol.
Just to play Devil's advocate, you could argue that by locating a party within a national setting, which all of the companion parties are, we are defining ourselves within a nationalist framework.On the other hand, is a maple leaf a nationalist symbol as such, or is it a symbol of the location where people live? If North East Branch were to use a logo with the Tyne Bridge on it, or Penshaw Moument, would that be nationalistic or regionalist?Personally, I don't think they are great designs and I would rather any confusion about nationalist symbols was removed, but I also think there are more important matters for the WSM to be discussing. It seems to me like the Canadian Party are making some headway, i think we need to be mindful about appearing as over critical, especially when our own Party badge places the British Isles in the centre of a globe and could be interpreted as being pretty ethnocentric.
Prakash RP wrote:' The whole idea of socialism/communism is that what is collectively produced should be collectively owned and then shared out amongst all members of society in accordance with their needs. ' ( comment #247 by ALB ) I have strong reservation about the correctness of this ' idea of socialism/ communism '. The pair of shoes I use happens to be the product of the collective labour of a group of workers of a particular shoe factory. Therefore, by this idea of socialism, an insignificant number of people are lawful owners of these shoes. None of any other shoe-factory workers and none of any non-shoe-factory workers are entitled to claim the ownership of these shoes. Nevertheless, this isn't the social ownership that communism stands for. This is a sort of joint ownership of some shareholders or co-op ownership of some ( members of a certain co-op ). Both of these are different forms of private ownership. The lawful owners of shoes may not agree to share out products of their labour ' amongst all members of society ' unless they're paid a large sum of money or its equivalent in kind before parting with their property. Who'd decide, and how would it be decided, whether their demand is right or exorbitant ? Needs of people are not uniform. Nor are all your ' needs ' equally needed. What a sick person urgently need right now is a cure for their sickness, not cigars nor beer nor sex. Who'd and how would they decide whether all the stated ' needs ' of someone are justified and deserve to be granted ? Should the communist society unquestioningly accept whatever someone asks for as their true ' needs ' ? What if someone needs two cigarettes and a glass of beer and someone else needs 20 cigarettes and 20 glasses of beer daily ? Should communism grant ' needs ' of drugs, drinks, smoking, paedophilia, and similar other stuff that's got nothing meaningful for you or anyone else ? Bullet trains do not seem to be luxury in Japan. But Indians are surely not worthy , because India is still lagging far behind Japan, of the luxury of riding in a bullet train. It may not be unbecoming of America, the most advanced civilisation of the world, to undertake a project meant to provide every American citizen with a deluxe private car while for India, it's a dream most unlikely to come true in the near future to make a motorbike or a motor-scooter available to every Indian citizen. It's not unbecoming of America to make stuff like Viagra plentifully available all over America, but it's surely unbecoming of India that has yet to make sanitary pads adequately available to every Indian woman. It's not sensible for a society to accept everything someone claims to need as their just need, nor is it possible for the society to meet their all needs just because both the productive forces and their level of development as well as raw materials and all other necessary means of production are limited and can never outgrow a certain limit. Therefore, authorising a competent body of experts to scrutinise the stated ' needs ' of someone seems to be the only sensible act in this regard. But the scrutiny of someone's claim of ' needs ' means the outright rejection of some ' needs ' and compulsory alteration of some. Thus, referring your claim of ' needs ' to the authorised body for scrutiny turns the principle of ' to each according to their needs ' plain ridiculous, to my way of thinking.Did somebody mention beer?
Prakash RP wrote:The one-line answer to all these queries is : It's communism, and communism alone, that can create a social environment harmonising with the Principle of Healthy & Meaningful Living . If you want to lead a healthy and sensible existence befitting the space age you belong to, you've got no other option than to stand for and welcome communism, OK ?So tell me, oh Great Originator, for those of us who, under your concept of communist society, choose not to live a healthy and meaningful life, what of people like me, who wish to live a truely meaningless life, indulging in alcohol, fattening foods, indulging in matrimony, smoking tobacco, etc. If I do not chose to live a "sensible" life, but rather lead a life of sillyness, what will become of me and my kind?Will we be banished to re-eduation camps where will sit in wonder at the statue of Prakash RP (aka The great Originator) whilst contemplating our sins against the Principles of a Healthy and Meaningful Life and drinking herbal tea, will we be placed in forced labout camps, where we will be made to chant out incantations to the glorious images of teh Great Prakash RP?
Prakash RP wrote:Would like to add what follows to my comment #258. ' If the whole working-day were to shrink to the length of this portion [ i.e. " that portion of the working-day which the labourer needs to produce his means of subsistence or their equivalent " ], surplus-labour would vanish, a consummation utterly impossible under the regime of capital, ' says Marx. ( KARL MARX CAPITAL Volume I, chapter XVII, part IV, section ( 2. ) ; PROGRESS PUBLISHERS MOSCOW ; p 496 ) The ' surplus-labour ' in the above quote, also known as ' unpaid labour ' ( ibid, p 500 ), happens to be the only source of the ' surplus-value ' or profit, the only stuff that interests capitalists in capitalism. ' The directing motive, the end and aim of capitalist production, ' further says Marx, is to extract the greatest possible amount of surplus-value, … ' ( ibid, p 313 ) With the vanishing of the ' surplus-labour ', ' surplus-value ' will vanish, and consequent on this fact, the capitalist's all interest in trade and industry is certain to vanish too. Marx viewed this fact as ' a consummation utterly impossible under the regime of capital. ' Marx is right a hundred per cent, isn't he ? As I see it, Marx was really not so stupid as to believe that capitalists would reduce, if he asked them to do it, the length of the working-day and thus make the ' surplus-value ' ( i.e. profit ) just vanish. ' Only suppressing the capitalist form of production could the length of the working-day be reduced to the necessary labour-time. ' ( Marx; ibid, p 496 ) Did Marx, by the ' length of the working-day ', really mean the length of the working-day under capitalism ?What do you think, ALB? Don't you think that you and all the other contenders in this thread are pathetically lacking in a clear concept of the ABCs of communism and have got a lot to learn from this ' Great Originator ' ?I can't make my mind up whether your really, really don't understand this, or whether you are taking the piss
