Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The collective choice is to produce biscuits (or to make the means of making biscuits available to the community).I assume Socialism will produce poetry, plays and novels, but I wouldn't have thought that we'd write them by committee (I'd imagine either we print everything anyone asks to have printed, or we have 'review groups' taking the place of publishing houses, reading the slush pile to recommend to the community). There would have to be plurality in publishing, else you're talking a monstrous possibility for censorship. Once we have plurility in publishing, that means anyone may distribute any ideas they want to.After all, art is just as much a social product, and truth is beauty and beauty truth, as some geezer once said.
OK, but lets try this another way. There's a biscuit barrel owned in common, we all own the biscuits, but no one owns them, we can each take what we want from the biscuit barrel, and we can use the biscuits however we want, because they'e our biscuits to do with as we please. Collectively, we take steps to ensure that the barrel will never be emptied, and no-one can deny anyone else access to the biscuits. We take steps so that those who want biscuiits, but are unable to get them for themselves, can have biscuits.Now, intellectual goods would be freely available to all, and, since you insist, truth will be available to all, there will be a barrel of truth, and each can take from the barrel of truth, and do what they want with it.
There will be common ownership (or, put another way, non-ownership) of all intellectual products of humanity.
LBird wrote:I take it that 'fixed' is a synonym for 'material',http://smallbusiness.chron.com/intangible-fixed-assets-24612.html
Quote:Intangible assets include operational assets that lack physical substance, such as patents, copyrights, trademarks, franchises and goodwill. A company’s intangible assets are often not reported on a company's financial statements or will be reported at significantly less than their actual value. This is because assets are accounted for at their historical cost. Unlike tangible fixed assets such as a building or machinery, intangibles are often developed internally without any direct measurable cost that can be capitalized. When an intangible is purchased, however, or when costs can be directly traced to the development of the asset, the cost is recorded as an intangible asset on the balance sheet.Never assume…
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/bad-news-for-fine-gael-in-first-election-poll-718916.htmlFirst poll of the election, note, that like a lot across Europe, non-aligned candidates are actually quite strong (25%), and Fine Gael/Labour as a coalition are currently not rocking enough votes to come back together again, which means some of the independents and back woodsmen are going to be driving a hard bargain (expect a fairly conservative regime next time, with plenty of pork).
LBird wrote:Simple question, YMS: does 'intellectual wealth' include 'physics, maths and truth'?Intellectual wealth contains the all intangible fixed assets.
This is interestinghttp://www.rte.ie/news/election-2016/candidates/A one minute video by every declared candidate (there are only about 500) but it'd be interesting to see if the BBC did somethign like this next time round here.
LBird wrote:The SPGB reserves the right for itself to define for workers what 'knowledge and consciousness' actually covers.The Socialist Party has no such policy. The working class must liberate themselves, and decide for themselves how their world will be organised, the SPGB makes no claim for how socialism will be run, save that it will be based on common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments of producing and distributing wealth: that includes physical objects and intellectual wealth alike.
Oh, dear, Fine Gael say "No more boom and bust" and have a long term economic strategy… where have we heard that before?
TheSpanishInquisition wrote:So theft, plain and simple. Except it's worse than theft, because it's organised, publicly advertised theft that no one is going to be able to do anything about, and no one's going to punish. You're forcefully taking the possessions of people and pretend you're in the moral right because 'they're rich and rich people don't deserve to have things', which is what your argument feels to boil down to – spite for the rich for being more intelligent and more opportunistic.Not really, more a case of the state ceasing to enforce they're property right. But, lets try another tack: imagine if, tomorrow, it was made illegal to be an employer (to use terminology from British law, to be the Master in a contract of service). That would render almost all capital worthless at a stroke, and the only way in which labour could be secured would be through voluntary co-operation, using the worthless tools to hand.
LBird wrote:Unfortunately for Peter, the SPGB do not share that view.The 'materialists' of the SPGB think that 'matter', as interpreted by an elite 'few', will emancipate the workers.The workers will be left to 'emancipate' a few factories and offices, whilst the elite 'materialists' do the workers' thinking for them.I'm afraid not, the position of the SPGB is "That this emancipation must be the work of the working class itself." This includes an emphasis on the consciousknowledge needed for revolution.As an example, the Socialist Standard in 1918:
Quote:Is this huge mass of people, numbering about 160,000,000 and spread over eight and a half millions of square miles, ready for Socialism? Are the hunters of the North, the struggling peasant proprietors of the South, the agricultural wage slaves of the Central Provinces, and the industrial wage slaves of the towns convinced of the necessity, and equipped with the knowledge requisite, for the establishment of the social ownership of the means of life?Unless a mental revolution such as the world has never seen before has taken place, or an economic change has occurred immensely more rapidly than history has recorded, the answer is “No!”http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1918/no-168-august-1918/revolution-russia-where-it-failsKnowledge and consciousness are a key part of the revolution.
LBird wrote:That is, as far as I can tell after a quick browse, he, like the SPGB, still regards the being Marx-Engels as a unity.I can't believe you keep treating Marx and Engelss as unity, don't you know that leads to Leninism? It's clear that Marx suppotred Materialism-Idealism, but Engels supported Cthulhu. You should be arguing for Materialism-Idealism if you want to be a Marxist.
But why do you insist on using the term Idealism-Materialism, the very term beloved of Mengele? Don't you realise that Idealism-Materialism means that a demon will be summoned onto the Earth to rule in an elitist fashion: idealism-materialism divides the world into Demonic and non-demonic. Anyone who doesn';t agree is an Engelists. how long has Lbird been an Engelsist? Why does he avoid that question, eh?
It's not called idealism-materialism, the correct term is Underpantism-Struddlism (as Marx wrote in his seminal text "Materialism, my Arse"). Only bourgeois deviationists, led by Engels in his viscious text "Why I love Oxymorons" use the term Idealism-Materialism.
As can be seen here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Current_nameDaesh is just an acronym of the Arabic name (with potential Arabic connotations that don't apply in English). the group styules itself the Islamic State, and there is no reason not to follow that. All states are illegitimate.
