Myth of Overcrowded Britain

[Ike Pettigrew]

Vin wrote:

Brian wrote:

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

@ Vin.  Being in the SPGB allows you to adopt the pretense of bravery while aligning yourself with views that are in reality generally tolerated, if not acceptable.  I'm quite knowledgeable and insightful when it comes to psychology and could in fact spend a long time analysing you, but I don't have the time or the inclination.  

Vin, like yourself is no longer a member of the SPGB.  

.Just to clarify –  I am not 'like' the imbecile Ike Pettigrew in any other way and I didn't leave because of a disagreement with the SPGB case. I left because you prevented me from telling the working class about it. Like I say – just to clarify 

 Vin loves the drama.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gwiInUNf_s

[Ike Pettigrew]

Vin wrote:

Ikepissheed wrote:

 I'm quite knowledgeable and insightful when it comes to psychology and could in fact spend a long time analysing you, but I don't have the time or the inclination.  

You are a prick with an inflated opinion of yourself but full of shit. I have met someone like you before on this forum. He was allowed to spread his shit for three years. 

 I do indeed have an inflated opinion of myself.  Thank you for pointing that out.  I am, as you say, a wonderful human being, and really quite brilliant.Thank you, thank you, once again.You're too kind.

[moderator1]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

Vin wrote:

Ikepissheed wrote:

 I'm quite knowledgeable and insightful when it comes to psychology and could in fact spend a long time analysing you, but I don't have the time or the inclination.  

You are a prick with an inflated opinion of yourself but full of shit. I have met someone like you before on this forum. He was allowed to spread his shit for three years. 

 I do indeed have an inflated opinion of myself.  Thank you for pointing that out.  I am, as you say, a wonderful human being, and really quite brilliant.Thank you, thank you, once again.You're too kind.

1st Warning: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.

[Ike Pettigrew]

My post was clearly not abusive, but it's your forum, you decide who you want here.  It makes little difference to me.Here's a tune I think Vin will specially like:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QES-eQ4lR5U

[moderator1]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

My post was clearly not abusive, but it's your forum, you decide who you want here.  It makes little difference to me.Here's a tune I think Vin will specially like:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QES-eQ4lR5U

2nd Warning: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

you decide who you want here.

Our moderator is very even-handed, Ike.I think every member of the forum has been warned to stick to the topic and desist from personal comments. I know. I have been suspended a fair number of times. Vin, i believe, holds the record.  Despite holding political views that i sometimes find offensive and which have the potential consequence of providing support for the nastiest of people, this discussion list abides by its guidelines https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum-rules-and-guidelinesI think how we deal with those who break the rules of the forum, in a little way, reflects our response of how we consider rules inside socialism will operate. 

[moderator1]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

you decide who you want here.

Our moderator is very even-handed, Ike.I think every member of the forum has been warned to stick to the topic and desist from personal comments. I know. I have been suspended a fair number of times. Vin, i believe, holds the record.  Despite holding political views that i sometimes find offensive and which have the potential consequence of providing support for the nastiest of people, this discussion list abides by its guidelines https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum-rules-and-guidelinesI think how we deal with those who break the rules of the forum, in a little way, reflects our response of how we consider rules inside socialism will operate. 

Actually, its not Vin who holds the record, he's had 3 suspensions.  In fact its LBird with 5 suspensions.The rule of thumb on the forum is the first breach of the rules draws my attention but I rarely take action.  The second breach means I automatically post a reminder that a breach has occurred.  Further breaches of any of the rules by the same offender means a 1st warning is posted.  After the 3rd and final warning a 30 day cooling off period is actioned.  If a breach occurs during this period its an automatic suspension – the length of which depends on the seriousness of the breach and the past record of the offender.  For example, LBird got suspended for 60 days on his last breach due to him failing to get the message that the rules are there for a purpose so as to enable and encourage discussion and not further argumentation.  I only action indefinite suspensions on spammers and those who make threats of violence.

[Young Master Smeet]

Apologies if Alan or Robbo have made this point anyway (but I never read their posts if they go beyond three paragraphs).African states do produce enough food (but, yes, should produce more), and about 153 million people over 15 years old experience food insecurity.  The short reason for this, is: capitalism.  Longer version, local capital elites find it easier and more profitable to invest their profits in London and Wall Street, rather than developing local markets and infrastructure. It is as simple as thjat.I could add the effects of colonial legacy, agricultural subsidies in advanced economies, expoosure to commodity markets, currency fluctuation, and taroifs (e.g. on coffee https://capx.co/how-the-eu-starves-africa-into-submission/ ).  But that would just be saying 'capitalism' in bigger letters.  Incidentally, similar factors created the relative underdevelopment of Ireland, so, it's not a skin colour thing.

[Young Master Smeet]

FAO wrote:

For sub-Saharan Africa as a whole, the index of dietary energy supply adequacy is 111 over the period 2014–2016, meaning that the dietary requirement is covered through supply with an excess of 11 percent for the last 3 years. Although the DESA for sub-Saharan Africa is lower than the world average index of 123 and other regions (122 for Asia, 129 for Latin America and the Caribbean), considered in isolation, this indicator reflects sufficient availability of food that effectively covers energy consumption needs.

FAO wrote:

The average protein supply continuously increased between 1990–1992 and 2009–2011 at the global level and in each of the world regions. The increase in sub-Saharan Africa was relatively modest (14 percent) compared to other developing regions such as Asia (25 percent) and Latin America and the Caribbean (20 percent). During the same period, average protein supply increased in sub-Saharan Africa from 52 g to 59 g per capita per day. Southern Africa and western Africa continued to perform better in protein supply than the other subregions. In western Africa, protein supply exceeded the region’s average with 64 g per capita per day in 2009–2011 (Figure 4).

So, the issue isn't argicultural productivity, but distribution.As for the UK:http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agricultural_census_in_the_United_KingdomWe're at 64% of usuable agricultural area (and much being used is as grassland for animals, without veering into the Animalism thread, that could largely be converted to arable land for human use.Useful map here:http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/maps/map/en/?iso3=GBR&mapID=609

[Rusty Pigfumbler]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 as you can expect from a member of the SPGB, i am in agreement with certain theories  – the Materialist Conception of History being one of the main ones. 

This is moot. On the Marxist Animalism thread your beliefs about the writings of Aquinas and their 'influence' earned you  a justified rebuke. 

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 I think every member of the forum has been warned to stick to the topic and desist from personal comments. I know. I have been suspended a fair number of times. Vin, i believe, holds the record.  Despite holding political views that i sometimes find offensive and which have the potential consequence of providing support for the nastiest of people, this discussion list abides by its guidelines 

Do I understand you correctly, Alan? Are you referring to my views?

[alanjjohnstone]

Rest easy, Vin.I was referring to Ike and his fear that he may be excluded from the discussion list for them. His comment #5 could easily be construed as an attack my individual liberty as my reply in #8 pointed out and support for those who would like the return of miscegenation laws.

[alanjjohnstone]

If anybody is interested in following up RP's post, my comment mentioning  St Aquinas is #357 in a thread of 417 messages on Marxism Animalism where i posted an extract from another website's article which was related to the topic.The "justified rebuke" is #358Shame of shames, i hang my head in disgrace

[Rusty Pigfumbler]

Anyone who can commit what  amounts to a schoolboy howler ought to have their understanding of, and adherence to the MCH called into question. I've had my doubts about you for a long time.

[Ike Pettigrew]

@ Alan Johnstone (and moderator1)I wasn't criticising the Moderator, I was just being humourous and having some fun with Vin.  I appreciate not everybody will share my (very dry) sense of humour.I have nothing to criticise the SPGB for, as a party or even as individuals.  I have the utmost respect for you personally, for the SPGB and for everybody here.  You are the only political party, of any stripe, worthy of respect – for reasons that are (or should) be obvious.There is no criticism from me here.  I only critique your case, and then only because I am trying to work things out in my own head.  I was educated in the Marxian tradition, so you will – perhaps – understand what I mean by that.  Although I am not a Marx-ist any more, I am – in a sense – still a 'Marxist' tribally and intellectually, and in that tradition, I can be disputatious and critical.  But only because it helps me understand.

[Author]

Posts