Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Vin wrote:All free images, that's why they were crap The video has no copyright issues and no one has yet proved the scurrilouss rumour. 'looks like' 'could be'
Sorry if I'm losing the plot here, but, you contacted the BBC regarding the original edit of the video, the BBC asserted their copyright, but later said it was fine to use your edited version of the video.Because it looks to me like the party wasn't mislead, there was a copyright issue, and it was resolvable by contacting the copyright holder? And that's all we need to do.recklessness is an aggaravating factor which could be used against us, whilst visible compliance could protect us from malicious claims (and inadvertent ingringements).
Just to note there is a difference between copyright compliance and the risks associated with using copyrighted works.Copyright is inherent, and exists in the mere fact of intellectual output (in the case of a BBC interview, the framing of the short and the cutting/editting will create an inherent BBC copyright); whether BBC will enforce that copyright is a different matter (and whether other people are runnign risks with copyright also doesn't matter).The point isn't whether works contain copyright material, but whether we have done enough to ensure we have upheld the moral and legal rights of copyright holders (and common politeness). This is a useful resource:https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright
Thump of the 'ecky! It's happened!https://twitter.com/RT_1917/status/841314323016343552
Islington became Central London Branch, and then merged with Enfield and Haringey to become North London Branch, still going. Ta.
Marx wrote:Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power. the above phrase is to be found in all children's primers and is correct insofar as it is implied that labor is performed with the appurtenant subjects and instruments. But a socialist program cannot allow such bourgeois phrases to pass over in silence the conditions that lone give them meaning. And insofar as man from the beginning behaves toward nature, the primary source of all instruments and subjects of labor, as an owner, treats her as belonging to him, his labor becomes the source of use values, therefore also of wealth. The bourgeois have very good grounds for falsely ascribing supernatural creative power to labor; since precisely from the fact that labor depends on nature it follows that the man who possesses no other property than his labor power must, in all conditions of society and culture, be the slave of other men who have made themselves the owners of the material conditions of labor. He can only work with their permission, hence live only with their permission.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
Oooh, they've just banned demonstratons in Petrograd: this isn't going to end well. https://twitter.com/RT_1917/status/839414408514158592
I think the under studied concept of surplus profit is relevent here: Marx did envisage a competetive advantage to machinery: if there is a predominant method of production in an industry, innovative production methods may allow a firm to produce goods sold at a price above their value, if otehr manufacturers have to sell at a production cost based on the old method. This isn't rent as such, but it is close. Such a new machine would seem to create or add value.
https://twitter.com/i/moments/839071562057809920It's all about to kick off, what could possibly hapen next?
Back to the motion before conference: it does not seek to set up abstentionism as a principle, but a tactic: one which can be changed at any point, I think the main thing is to prevent a lone councillor or anything of that sort. Once we get to a stage where we could be a significant minority, or a practical majority on any particular body, we can change the tactic. There is no benefit to the working class in being outvoted in the chamber.
ALB wrote:how our candidates in elections should answer the "Acacia Avenue Question",With the same answer as the Schleswig Holstein question: only three men in Europe have ever understood it. One was Prince Albert, who is dead. The second was a German professor who became mad. I am the third and I have forgotten all about it.
The DOP doesn't commit us to electoralism: it commits us to political action, and transforming the machinery of state, including the armed forces into THE agent of emancipation (once had long discussions with a member who went off to be an infamous anrachist on that very definite article).
DJP wrote:Interesting, but socialism obviously isn'y going to be an endless series of referenda about how many tins of baked beans we produce.No, but it could be an endless series of referendums.
So, this is interesting:https://theconversation.com/the-shape-of-brexit-is-probably-already-written-in-a-60-year-old-document-734033Keep an eye out for Article 217:
Quote:the EU:May conclude with one or more third countries or international organizations agreements establishing an association involving reciprocal rights and obligations, common action and special procedure.So, what we'll get is an Association, with it's own infrastructure, and rights, responsibilities and arrangements, but it won't be the EU. The question will be, can we tell the difference between New Whizzo Butter and a dead crab?
This one is worth a post in itself, I think, in terms of this debate, it's important:https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch14.htm
Grundrisse wrote:Labour no longer appears so much to be included within the production process; rather, the human being comes to relate more as watchman and regulator to the production process itself. (What holds for machinery holds likewise for the combination of human activities and the development of human intercourse.) No longer does the worker insert a modified natural thing [Naturgegenstand] as middle link between the object [Objekt] and himself; rather, he inserts the process of nature, transformed into an industrial process, as a means between himself and inorganic nature, mastering it. He steps to the side of the production process instead of being its chief actor. In this transformation, it is neither the direct human labour he himself performs, nor the time during which he works, but rather the appropriation of his own general productive power, his understanding of nature and his mastery over it by virtue of his presence as a social body – it is, in a word, the development of the social individual which appears as the great foundation-stone of production and of wealth. The theft of alien labour time, on which the present wealth is based, appears a miserable foundation in face of this new one, created by large-scale industry itself. As soon as labour in the direct form has ceased to be the great well-spring of wealth, labour time ceases and must cease to be its measure, and hence exchange value [must cease to be the measure] of use value. The surplus labour of the mass has ceased to be the condition for the development of general wealth, just as the non-labour of the few, for the development of the general powers of the human head. With that, production based on exchange value breaks down, and the direct, material production process is stripped of the form of penury and antithesis.Grundrisse wrote:Fixed capital, in its character as means of production, whose most adequate form [is] machinery, produces value, i.e. increases the value of the product, in only two respects: (1) in so far as it has value; i.e. is itself the product of labour, a certain quantity of labour in objectified form; (2) in so far as it increases the relation of surplus labour to necessary labour, by enabling labour, through an increase of its productive power, to create a greater mass of the products required for the maintenance of living labour capacity in a shorter time. It is therefore a highly absurd bourgeois assertion that the worker shares with the capitalist, because the latter, with fixed capital (which is, as far as that goes, itself a product of labour, and of alien labour merely appropriated by capital) makes labour easier for him (rather, he robs it of all independence and attractive character, by means of the machine), or makes his labour shorter. Capital employs machinery, rather, only to the extent that it enables the worker to work a larger part of his time for capital, to relate to a larger part of his time as time which does not belong to him, to work longer for another. Through this process, the amount of labour necessary for the production of a given object is indeed reduced to a minimum, but only in order to realize a maximum of labour in the maximum number of such objects. The first aspect is important, because capital here – quite unintentionally – reduces human labour, expenditure of energy, to a minimum. This will redound to the benefit of emancipated labour, and is the condition of its emancipation. From what has been said, it is clear how absurd Lauderdale is when he wants to make fixed capital into an independent source of value, independent of labour time. It is such a source only in so far as it is itself objectified labour time, and in so far as it posits surplus labour time. The employment of machinery itself historically presupposes – see above, Ravenstone – superfluous hands. Machinery inserts itself to replace labour only where there is an overflow of labour powers. Only in the imagination of economists does it leap to the aid of the individual worker. It can be effective only with masses of workers, whose concentration relative to capital is one of its historic presuppositions, as we have seen. It enters not in order to replace labour power where this is lacking, but rather in order to reduce massively available labour power to its necessary measure. Machinery enters only where labour capacity is on hand in masses. (Return to this.)Nice clear exposition of Marx' position. And
Grundrisse wrote:Nature builds no machines, no locomotives, railways, electric telegraphs, self-acting mules etc. These are products of human industry; natural material transformed into organs of the human will over nature, or of human participation in nature. They are organs of the human brain, created by the human hand; the power of knowledge, objectified. The development of fixed capital indicates to what degree general social knowledge has become a direct force of production, and to what degree, hence, the conditions of the process of social life itself have come under the control of the general intellect and been transformed in accordance with it. To what degree the powers of social production have been produced, not only in the form of knowledge, but also as immediate organs of social practice, of the real life process.
