[Bijou Drains]

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?

[Bijou Drains]

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!

[Bijou Drains]

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.

[Bijou Drains]

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?

[Bijou Drains]

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?

[Bijou Drains]

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

[Bijou Drains]

Don't trust any of the bastards

[Bijou Drains]

As well as his view of "barracks Socialism" and the need for a coersive power in a "communist" society, his views on self denial, moral virtue and all of the rest of that bollocks fit more with the ideas of the authoritarian right than they do with the Socialsit case,His views on abstinance and being morally upstanding have uncomfortable echoes of the views Eoin O'Duffy the Blueshirt leader in Ireland who led the pro Franco Irish brigade in the Spanish Civil war.. A recent article on the history ireland site describes O’Duffy as preaching a gospel of moral improvement, one that emphasised the cultivation of integrity, temperance, patriotism, citizenship and virility: values which he summarised as manliness. Sounds to me that The Great Originator has more in common with buffoons like O'Duffy than he has with us!To celebrate the Great Originator I might just take a lazy walk down to the pub and have a couple of pints ande a packet of pork scratchings

[Bijou Drains]

jondwhite wrote:

I thought the flag was a photoshop. Is it actually for sale? Can a link be provided here?

This was the link Mike posted on this thread:https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/The-Socialist-Party-Of-Great-Britain-Garage-Hangar-Basement-Flag-3×5-Feet/292341008511?hash=item4410e1c87f:g:GPEAAOSwAO1amx~kI am pretty sure it is a photoshop, but I'm guessing that if an order came in they would print them off as described.

[Bijou Drains]

gnome wrote:

Mike Foster wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

"Are we Bolsheviks? "Marcos, we are invisible…Surely, a socialist standard, should be unfurled wherever we attempt to have a physical presence to distribute our leaflets and literature

And we need banners for people to muster under!

I have no personal objection to the sale of these flags with our logo on them, I doubt the seller is going to retire to the Maldives on the money made from the sales either. However the question arises, is it a breach of our copyright? and as we are now clearly aware of it, could it impact on that copyright if we do not challenge it?Rather than stop any sales, should we contact the seller and ensure they acknowledge our copyright and as a gesture of good faith send us a couple so we could fly them outside HO?

[Bijou Drains]

robbo203 wrote:

 I think you have completely misunderstood what the expression , 'from each according to ability; to each according to need ' actually means

 Be careful, give him a day or two and he will have claimed to have actually written it and want us to build him another statue!

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 Analysis of information in Psychological Science from more than 16,000 participants from two studies has revealed links between challenging behaviour in childhood and political discontent. Naughty children are more likely to be left-wing.https://www.indy100.com/article/left-wing-naughty-children-politics-childhood-8270661?utm_source=indy&utm_medium=top5&utm_campaign=i100

However that does not mean that left wing adults (I assume the research makes no distinction between left wing and socialist) are likely to have been naughty children.(Although I was)

[Bijou Drains]

twc wrote:

Oh dear.  Unintended, and unfortunate, timing for criticising the man.

It might be an idea to start  a critical thread about Michael Gove?

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43470315Trier commemorates Marx with new traffic lights

Hopefully they will be permenanty stuck on red

[Bijou Drains]

Prakash RP wrote:

' … I am afraid I don't think you should be awarded a Nobel Prize or that statutes [ sic ] should be erected in your honour all over the world for the great service you imagine you have done to humanity by repeating something that has been known for over 2000 years. ' ( comment #63 by ALB )  I wouldn't ask you to erect my statue or recommend my name for a Nobel Prize. But I think it's not wrong of me to ask you not to deny me my due, OK ? I also think by not denying me my due recognition, not only will you help me win the limelight, you'll also help focus the world's attention on, and thus awaken humanity to, the brute fact that money canNOT measure the worth of a commodity and its significance, the immediate corollary to it, namely, that economic inequality doesn't owe its origin to qualitative distinctions between humans or between the work done by a skilled worker and that by an unskilled one. Professor Robert J. Aumann holds that the same thesis with different wording ( i.e.   the monetary value of an object does not measure its "intrinsic worth", usually called its utility ' ) is ' well-known ' and that it occurs in Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk , a work by Daniel Bernoulli , which was first published in 1738 ( i.e.around 300 years back.). Nevertheless, ' [ he ] does not know who stated this thesis first. '

Here is another claim for theoretical greatness which is as likely to gain recognition as your claim.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTOH8QK-6HA

[Author]

Posts