Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
But Lbird, that is your position, since by definition, in a democracy, a minority of one can be right, and can struggle to become the majority. But
Quote:This claim can only come from 'materialists', who claim that they alone have access to a 'reality' that the vast majority don't, because the 'materialists' have a 'special consciousness' which is not widely available. No socio-historical analysis of 'science' or social production, just belief in special individuals, an expert elite, who shall tell the workers what 'reality is'.This is false, since, as I said, the claim of materialists is that a majority could just as well have access to reality, I'm afraid your argument is flawed at the level of a major premise. The claim of a special consciousness is not essential to materialism.
LBird wrote:I'd argue that 'materialism' implies an elite, because 'materialists' deny that 'matter' can be voted upon (and so only 'materialists' can determine 'matter', and not the majority of workers).This doesn't follow. The minority is just as likely to be wrong as the majority, and there is no reason why the majority cannot decide something that is true. Yes, materialism does mean that one person can be right against millions (and the same is true in a democracy, since the minority can become the majority); but it also means the the majority can be right against the minority.As an anarcho monarchist, I believe that what is Real is Royal.
gnome wrote:the consequences of copyright infringement have been grossly exaggerated.No, the risk of getting caught is low, but the potential harm is high, especially if maliciously enforced: the remedy is simple, as there is plenty of public domain or creative commons material available: and being able to demonstrate a generally diligent response to issues of IP and copyright makes it easier to defend claims when we do slip up. It's not rocket science.
Here's the TUC resolution:
Quote:10 The impact of automation on employment Congress notes the growing impact of automation and robotics in many workplaces. Research suggests that as many as 10 million UK jobs could be lost over the next 10 to 20 years as a consequence of technological change in the workplace. In many industries, such developments present profound implications for not only employment, but also the quality of work, training, and safety. In shipping, for example, trials of crewless technology on board a ferry are due to start next year and Rolls-Royce is predicting that autonomous merchant ships will be in service by the end of this decade. Congress therefore calls for the TUC to:i develop a proactive strategy for dealing with the challenges presented by workplace automation and to develop resources to assist member unions in responding to employers who use technology in a socially damaging wayii conduct research on the issues and to produce policy programmes to demonstrate how technology could be used to improve the nature of work and to harness the technological opportunities and make them work for, rather than against, workers’ best interests, and to ensure that the UK workforce is given the training and support to make transitions to new and better jobs and that the productivity gained by growing automation is shared by all.https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/Congress_2016_Final_Agenda_Digital.pdf
https://www.nautilusint.org/en/what-we-say/nautilus-news/ai-andy-aids-nautilus-tuc-motion-on-automation/Seriously being looked at by unions now, Maritime union discussing robot ships.
Quote:Automation has halved average crew numbers onboard merchant ships over the past 30 years, he pointed out, and companies are claiming autonomous vessels could be deployed within a decade.This isn't theory.
I think the only other response is an EC minute referring to them as the Ashbourne Courtesans, and the fall out so that that shouldn't happen again: oh, and a resolution somewhere that members of the Socialist Studies are welcome to apply for membership of the party, but they can't re-enter as a bloc. This is around 2001.
Sympo wrote:No, sorry. I don't personally get how non-productive workers are exploited, perhaps it is impossible for anyone to explain this to me.What are some common non-productive jobs?Also, perhaps its useful to consider what exploitation means: it means to use someone, as a means, not as an end in themselves. unproductive workers are compelled into labour by the threat of poverty, they might not add value to the product, but they remain essential to the realisation of profit.
Sympo wrote:No, sorry. I don't personally get how non-productive workers are exploited, perhaps it is impossible for anyone to explain this to me.What are some common non-productive jobs?Let's take two workers.Worker one works in a restaurant, cooking meals. Worker one is a chef.Worker two carries the meals to the tables, and is a waiter..Worker one makes meals, makes objects with value, and adds value, her average necessary social labour time that goes into the making of meals. Worker one is paid the value of average socially necessary labour time that goes into creating and reproducing her ability to work. That value will be less than the value added by worker one to the food.Worker two, does not add value: but without worker two, the restaurateur cannot get any payment unless the food reaches the tables. Worker two is paid the value of average socially necessary labour time that goes into creating and reproducing his ability to work. That value will be less than the surplus value added by worker one, and effectively comes out of that total value.Worker two, to the capitalist, is unproductive, and is a dead loss, but the capitalist needs him in order to realise the value added by worker one.In both cases the workers are receiving the full and correct value of their ability to work (labour power), and are competing in the same jobs market. The value is added by the whole process, and overall the retaurant owner is concerned with the profitability of all her staff.Worker three is anaccountant, again, she adds no value, but again, the reaturateur does not know how much money she is making if no-one keeps her books for her.Workers two and three are not exploiting worker one.
DJP wrote:Unproductive labour includes the self-employed, managers, accountants, sales assistants and the service sector in general. The wages that workers receive in these sectors does not represent newly created value but is drawn from the productive part of the economy.To make things a little more complicated: a nurse or doctor in the NHS is unproductive, but if they were doing exactly the same work at a private hospital, they would be productive.
Gnome,many years ago, we had a nasty run-in with a photo agency, with regards to the use of this photo on some posters that someone was flyposting (side issue):http://images.delcampe.com/img_large/auction/000/294/130/765_001.jpgMercifully they accepted my promise to destroy all remaining copies of the poster.There is a financial risk to the party regarding its publications, unless due dilligence is taken. One thing to look for is how much money we would deprive the copyright holder of by our use (in the case of the photo above, Magnum licenses the image for national advertising campaigns, and has a fee accordingly). The safest bet, to avoid thinking to hard about copyright, is to ensure that any works used are clearly licensed, and to just anything with "cc by-nc" clearance.https://creativecommons.org/One thing we need to be aware of its that as a Party we are more likely to receive malicious enforcement from pro-capitalist entities that would take delight in giving us a kicking.
Unpicking EU law is a huge issue, although there are precedents (India, Ireland) for states leaving jursdictions and basically carrying over the law from the old regime and just changing it peicemeal. I doubt they'll just repeal the Single European Act.
An interesting issue crops up: an article int he Financial Crimes suggests that there may be a big flashpoint over Pensions for former EU staff: the EU has liabilities of €60 billion: will Britain have to pay an ongoing share, or just pay for British nationals? Apaprently EU pensions are paid out of cuirrent expenditure (with contributions being dealt with as income for the EU, rather than going into an investment pot). British nationjals make up 8% of EU pensioners.There will be hundreds of issues like this.
Well, this is what May has to say:http://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-09-07/debates/Hocdebdt20160907scrlgtghs_8Questionod13tiengagements/Engagements
Quote:The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to quite understand what the vote on 23 June was about. The United Kingdom will leave the European Union and we will build a new relationship with the European Union. That new relationship will include control over the movement of people from the EU into the UK, and it will include the right deal for trade in goods and services. That is how to approach it. I also say to him that, in looking at the negotiations, it would not be right for me or this Government to give a running commentary on themSo, I was right there is a threat to democracy, if secret negotiations, followed by a Royal Prerogative treaty may be the outcome of the loosely worded referendum question.And in response to Corbyn:
Quote:The right hon. Gentleman talked about what we will be doing in our negotiations with the European Union. I covered this in my statement, but just to reiterate: what we will be doing as we negotiate our leaving the European Union is negotiating a new relationship with the European Union. That will include control on the movement of people from the EU into the UK—I do not think he referred to that—but it will also be about getting the right deal for trade in goods and services that we want to see. It will be a new relationship. As I indicated in my statement, and indeed in Prime Minister’s questions, I will not be giving a running commentary, and the Government will not be giving a running commentary, on our negotiations. There is a very good reason for that. We want to get the best deal. We want to get the right deal for the United Kingdom, and if we were to give a constant running commentary and give away our negotiating hand, then that is not what we would achieve.And May's statement:
Quote:As I have said, this is about getting the kind of deal that is ambitious and bold for Britain. It is not about the Norway model, the Swiss model or any other country’s model—it is about developing our own British model. So we will not take decisions until we are ready, we will not reveal our hand prematurely, and we will not provide a running commentary on every twist and turn of the negotiation. I say that because that is not the best way to conduct a strong and mature negotiation that will deliver the best deal for the people of this country. As the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union told the House on Monday, what we will do is maximise and seize the opportunities that Brexit presents.Zero accountability. Maximum wiggle room. The only concrete demand is over migration.
Tim,if you look on page 23 of the current standard:
Picture Credits wrote:Picture Credits Cover: Corbyn – © YouTube/exadverso 2015 CreaƟve Commons AƩ ribuƟon 3.0 Unported licence. Turkey protesters – © Maurice Flesier 2016 CreaƟve Commons AƩ ribuƟon-Share Alike 4.0 InternaƟ onal licence. p2: Knowledge – http://www.rusirius. net/knowledge. Erdoğan – © simsek hb 2016 CreaƟ ve Commons AƩ ribuƟon-Share Alike 2.0 Generic licence. p4: School test – Harold Heaton, 1922. p7: Rees-Mogg – © Cantab12 2012 CreaƟ ve Commons AƩ ribuƟon-Share Alike 3.0 Unported licence. Owen Smith – © Wykehamistwikipedian 2013 CreaƟve Commons AƩ ribuƟon-Share Alike 4.0 InternaƟ onal licence. p10: “I voted” sign – © hƩ ps:// poliƟ calcleanup.wordpress.com. p11: Tony Benn – © Isujosh 2007 CreaƟve Commons AƩ ribuƟ on-Share Alike 3.0 Unported licence. p13: Turkey rally – © GeƩy Images 2016 CreaƟve Commons AƩ ribuƟ onShare Alike 4.0 InternaƟ onal licence. p19: BBC Micro, 2010, Stuart Brady, PD. p20: Wealth Secrets of the 1% – amazon.com. NaƟ on-States… – lybrary.com. p22: German boy soldier – © LocospoƩ er CreaƟ ve Commons AƩ ribuƟon-Share Alike 3.0 Unported licence. Mickey Mouse is Dead, Subhumans, from the album The Day The Country Died. Skye, 2004, Wojsyl, CC BY-SA 3.0. p24: Ortega, 2012, Fundscion Ong DE Nicaragua, CCA-SA 3.0; Trump & Palin, 2016, Alex Hanson, CCA 2.0.Evidently the layout team have gone to a lot of trouble to find copyright cleared pictures. (the text appears to have been mangled by my copying here, but you get the picture).
gnome wrote:Ah yes, of course – the likes of ALB, DL, BM and JS are more than likely to do that. Tut, tut, fancy overlooking that prospect. As far as the logo is concerned it's the property of the party and in particular of those members who use it quite legitimately in the furtherance of their committee activities. In the meantime we'll look forward to receiving even more encouraging observations from members like yourself who favour Positive Socialist Activity.IIRC the bit that includes me will be copyright the BBC (or the production company that shot it): the words are copyright me, and also performance right is mine: that said I was at a hustings, so I suspect the courts would be unwilling to enforce that part of the IP.
