[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

It seems appropriate to call a pub by its original name…public house…a house open to all…a home away from home, so to speak.

One of the most ridiculous “high expectations” comments I ever had to deal with was actually about pubs and came from a member of the Militant Tendency, actually a leading light in their movement and one of their full time organisers.I was in a pub (there’s a surprise) after a meeting put on by the Labour Party Young Socialists, where I had put forward the Socialist case for free access, and was approached by the said full timer who attempted to counter the case for free access (ironic that a so called Marxist and leading part of the vanguard should try to do so, but there you go). He said “so if there’s no money, and everyone’s going to work for free, whose going to serve behind the bar, while we all get drunk”. The obvious reply was “we’ll put the beer pumps on this side and we can help ourselves”He’s now a playwright, suppose his training with Militant prepared him for writing preposterous fiction and ridiculous romantic fantasies.

[Bijou Drains]

rodshaw wrote:

I have had similar reactions – life is just too complicated, and there are too many points of view and ways of life, for us all to live in a single world-wide system. Disregarding a) that's what we do now under capitalism and b) most of life's complications are a result, not a cause, of class-divided, money-based society.Who would live in the local stately home or the grander houses? I think this kind of criticism can partly be addressed by saying that it would be up to the local community – via the socialist equivalent of the local council or whatever – to decide collectively, with everyone of course having a say.I think people living in grander houses would be generally left to live there unless demand was so great that they needed to be broken down into smaller units. Maybe the current 'owners' of large piles and their former staff would be willing to continue to manage them just for the love of it. Maybe it would be decided to convert them into apartments. Or maybe people who wanted could take turns at living in them or looking after them. Or maybe it would be decided to dismaltle them and build something more appropriate.It's not as if anyone would be turned out onto the street.And yes, it's worth turning the question round to see what they think should happen – get their imagination going.

With all the very desireable accomodation in the city offices of insurance companies, solicitors, accountancy firms, banks, stock exchanges, etc. etc. who would want to live in a stately home miles from the bloody pub (A pub with free beer, by the way)

[Bijou Drains]

Dave B wrote:

iNone. To keep it going is like trying keep a pencil balanced on its tip. Breath on it and it falls over and stops dead. Fukushima type meltdown is a total impossibility In fact that is the problem. Actually computer power played a significant part in getting it to run for 10 seconds at the one in England near Oxford. Because to keep the plasma stable etc they had to monitor it and do really fast alterations to the magnetic field or something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus I think they have been looking at a slight variation of it involving lithium or something which is easier but produces a potential radioactive waste product, something like tritium? But it has short half life of a decade or so unlike the half lives of thousands of years of some of the stuff they do with atomic energy now. I have sort have been following over the years, went to lectures in Manchester by the scientific director of the JET one and a bod from one in France. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER That is like a $20 billion project and running. It is quite insane really. It costs $20 billion, for the prototype and pilot plant, because they have only got crap super conducting material. And the research money they have spent on superconductors probably doesn’t add up to $200 million? As well as being black magic with eye of toad and tail of newt stuff; it has also been plagued over the by fraudulent and exaggerated irreproducible claims to pull in more grant money. The idea or philosophy of ITER would be future bigger ones or say 10 times bigger would be 1000 times easier to run etc and that they would be on an engineering learning curve. The americans have spent a small fortune on one that produces the plasma and heat etc etc using lazers.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility

It always surprises me that more interest hasn't been taken in metal powder internal combustion engines or even Stirling engines.https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/could-metal-particles-be-clean-fuel-future-257172

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

In a 2016 study published in the Association for Psychological Science, researchers at New York University claim that, compared to the working-class, the rich aren't as likely to notice or be interested in the people around them. "Social class affects information processing in a pervasive and spontaneous manner,"Compared to members of the upper class, members of the working class have a more interdependent and holistic social outlook. Along the same lines, working-class individuals have been found to more accurately judge others' emotions and feel more compassion for others' suffering.This study now posits that the contrast "may have as much to do with attentional neglect as it does with reduced empathic ability."(But it doesn't explain why when standing at the bar waiting to be served, i'm always ignored as if i'm invisible)

Attachment difficulties in members of the upper classes may be explained by amongst other things "boarding school syndrome". There was an interesting article in the Telegraph, of all places, and there is lots of information on the psychologically detrimental impact of disrupted early years of children cared for by a succession of different au pairs and nannies.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/secondaryeducation/11662001/The-truth-about-boarding-school-syndrome.htmlFor those interested in Attachment Theory, John Bowlby described his own experiences of boarding school in his book Seperation, Anxiety and Anger where he states " I wouldn't send a dog away to borading school aged 7".I suppose at least coming from a long line of scum protected me from the ravages of early years care in the capitalist class. Worrying thing is that governments world wide are pushing harder and harder to get workers of both sexes away from their infants earlier and earlier, and getting parents back into the ranks of the exploited.I also know what you mean about being ignored at the bar, I sometimes think I must be wearing Harry Potter's bloody cloak!

[Bijou Drains]

So to summarise, Prakash RP., in your view you cannot consider yourself a communist if you drink alcohol, etc.So in effect what you are saying is that Karl Marx (the notorious drunkard) was not a communist.Interesting viewpoint, but not one that I think will gain much acceptance.In the meantime, I'm away down the boozer to get as pissed as a little beetle, I might even indulge in a nice big packet of porky scratchings, a pork pie and a bar of chocolate, you're welcome to join me, I'd even buy you a pint or two

[Bijou Drains]

Prakash RP wrote:

 just because someone has got a lot of pluses, they can't deserve to be recognised as fully civilised or communist, IMHO. 

In MHO, anyone who feels they have the right to dictate how others choose to live their lives can't be recognised as fully civilised or a communist. As you fall into that catagory, you can draw your own conclusion.On the other hand I have heard of the positive health benefits of going and sticking your head up a dead bear's arse, as someone who is interested in a healthy and meaningful life, perhaps you should try this health giving action?

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I did it again and substituted skelf, another word i use for splinter and it got this Edinburgh person sounding like a Weegie…duh

That's odd, because the Geordie/Mackem work for a splinter is a spelk.If anyone wants to tell the differences between Geordies and mackems, there are lots, but the most obvious ones are that mackems drop their h's Geordies don't, Mackems put w's in certain words for instance Book becomes bewk and cook becomes cewk, get them to say super dooper computer, it comes out as Sewper Dewper compewter. Gerodies say Divvent for don't Mackems say Daent. Also Geordies have passports and Mackems don't (no European football since 1973!)

[Bijou Drains]

AHS wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

By the time you have 51 percent unambiguosly supporting socialism,  the bulk of the remaining 49 percent are not likely to be that far off from a socialist standpoint.  The growth of a socialist movement, if it happens, is likely to have a profoundly selective influence on the opposition to socialism itself, dragging it in the direction of socialism and altering the entire social climate in which socialist ideas are being put and in a way that would make people much more receptive to these ideas. 

But we won't get even get to those 51% if those socialists who are elected to an assembly aren't prepared to vote for or support anything other than socialism. Presumably they will have to be seen do something in the interest of the working class, even in the run up to socialists gaining a majority. This is of course where our party's programme is non-existent. We have nothing to offer but full blown socialism. 

This is not the case at all, I don't want to rehash the UB of Upton Park dispute, however here is a link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Propaganda_League

[Bijou Drains]

KAZ wrote:

Bijou Drains wrote:

If Parliament didn't have any use or power, then why would capital spend so much money ensuring that its lackeys are elected to parliaments and national assemblies the world over. Capitalisits don't generally spend money of they don't have to!

Legitimation. Persuades people they actually have a voice in running things. Less fuss if the slaves think they're free. The faith in 'actually existing democracy' is a really massive impediment to achieving socialism.

Your very answer implies that legitimacy matters, if it isn't apparent then its absence will be used against any social movement that seeks to create change. The fact that the slaves think they're free also implies that the slaves have a view of what freedom might look  like. The job of socialists is to expand and develop that vista, not to crush it.

[Bijou Drains]

ALB wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

https://libcom.org/library/karl-marx-state.The main article is also related to the other thread on anarchism and an interesting account of Marx and the State.

This article is more than interesting. It's a vindication of our interpretation as set out in our pamphlet What's Wrong with Using Parliament?, e.g. when the auhor David Adam says

Quote:

Some critics may look at a focus on the Paris Commune as bound to make Marx and Engels look very hostile to the bourgeois state, when in fact their politics were much more ambiguous. Did they not advocate participation in bourgeois elections, and the election of workers’ candidates into parliament? In fact, in certain countries, they even thought that a working class parliamentary majority could be used for a peaceful transition to socialism. For many anarchists, this is the defining aspect of Marx’s political thought, and his supposed authoritarianism is considered proven on this evidence. Leaving aside the question of the relative value of electoral politics, it is worth asking whether there is necessarily any contradiction in advocating the use of bourgeois parliaments while hoping for their eventual replacement by Communal-type organization, in other words whether one can insist on the fullest possible democratization while participating in governmental forms that are less than ideal. The anarchist assumption, of course, is that participation in bourgeois governmental forms can only help sustain such institutions. But the error comes when it is assumed that since Marx advocated such participation, he also believed in keeping the governmental forms of the bourgeois state for the period of proletarian rule.

Of course today the "period of proletaran rule", i.e the use of the state by the socialist-minded, democratically-organised workng class majority to abolish class society by dispossesing the capitalist class, could be passed through fairly rapidly. But of course it has to exist for however short a period as that's what political action to establsh socialism involves.

If parliament didn't have any use or power, then why would capital spend so much money ensuring that its lackeys are elected to parliaments and national assemblies the world over. Capitalisits don't generally spend money of they don't have to!

[Bijou Drains]

Bijou Drains wrote:

So by this logic we should be expecting membership applications from Michael Gove and Jacob Rees Mogg any time now.

And Nick Griffin, he's got a face like a camel licking piss of a thistle

[Bijou Drains]

So by this logic we should be expecting membership applications from Michael Gove and Jacob Rees Mogg any time now.

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

According to this test, i speak like a Mackem….just shows again…never trust the BBChttp://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180205-which-british-accent-is-closest-to-your-own

Just took the test and worryingly, so do I!!!!

[Bijou Drains]

Getting back to the hostility clause, I think it is something that we in the NE Branch have always taken very seriously, even when dealing with each other

[Bijou Drains]

ALB wrote:

The whole on his online book Practical Socialism; Its Principles and Methods (which Impos1904 made a copy of before it was taken down) is now online again. It includes his controversial view on law in socialism (for which he never found majority support in the Party).

Quote:

Introduction to Practical Socialism: Its Principles and Methods, 2006 What Socialism Means, 2006 The Myth of Nationalisation, 2006The Conflict between Utopia and Practical Socialism, 2006 Methods of Practical Socialism, 2006 Democratic Organisation, 2006 Socialism and Law, 2006 Organisation of Production, 2006 Information, Planning and Decision Making, 2006 Waste and Destruction, 2006 Advantages of Production Solely For Use, 2006 The Fetishism of Money, 2006 Socialism in the 21st Century, 2006

I'm not so sure I would use the term controversial, it is however a viewpoint I have been coming closer and closer to myself.Perhaps I wouldn't use the term law, rather agreed rules that are enforceable by the majority, if necessary.If you consider the current legal arrangements for people who have illnesses such as Dementia (Deprivation of Liberty Assessments), I would think that it would be necesary in a caring socialist society to have standardised and transparent system for ensuring that only those who require that their liberty is taken away, for reasons of their own safety, are subject to this requirement, in contrast to some kind of free for all.Similarly, if I had an advanced dementia, I would rather have the assessment which deprives me of my liberty carried out by a trained, qualified and competent individual, than have it decided by a vote at the village Moot, or the local tennis club.

[Author]

Posts