The PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING

[alanjjohnstone]

When all you know is this way of living, there will be a tendency to project it into the future.I have lost count of how many articles i have quoted Sylvia Pankhurst's "Socialism means plenty for all. We do not preach a gospel of want and scarcity, but of abundance." So please don't say i am arguing for a world of frugality, Tim. I am the one that is advocating choice, but some of those will be hard choices, made by the majority against the views of the minority. (I have on another thread proposed a discussion on democracy and decision-making so that might is not always seen as being right, but no-one seems to be concerned with how we run socialism)  Matt's post hit it on the nail. The decisions on what you eat and consume will be made by the present producers, as a general rule. No-one willing to go down to the coal-face, then no coal. Our reply that work will be rotated, conditions improved, labour time reduced, processes automated is at best a partial answer. Unlike Gnomes and Vin's optimism that people will accept their present lot in life as it is now, workers in unhealthy, unpleasant or as they say, the 3 Ds, dirty dangerous and degrading work, will vote with their feet.  i used an example from history of the black slaves when released from the shackles of chattel slavery, even wage slavery could not drive them back to the fields…it took the KKK and lynchings to do that.Do you expect fellow-workers to continue to suffer and place themselves at risk so that others can continue with non-essential self-indulgent treats? The priority of the new socialist world will be to find the technology to perform many unwelcomed tasks or come up with suitable alternatives but it will begin with the important vital areas of production, not the optional "comforts". Nobody is really denying anybody anything, what is being said is, wait your turnThere are more important parts of the economy for things to be done first and it cannot be based upon the prevalence of "me" over "us". Socialism is not a system where every whim and wish of one person or even one section of the community, is satisfied, sometimes we will have to accept, "second-best".You don't "need" tea, you "want" tea…but present-day tea-pickers do need a better life, and should not be condemned to one day longer in their wretched conditions while waiting for some machine to do the toil because someone wants to continue having a daily cuppa.Those who suffer deprivation, misery and indignity can't be placed at the back of the line when it comes to emancipation and if they are, Gnome, don't expect them to be welcoming the great day of socialism when nothing changes for them because some folk won't sacrifice any of their privileges and they are told to wait …wait …wait…for their deliverance.Vin seems to believe that his rights is overwhelmingly right regardless of what others choose and decide. If the exercise of community choice is Trotskyist democratic centralism then Vin is calling for individualist anarchism. We already demand that peoples' ideas change. We expect and insist that workers reject sexism, racism and nationalism, ageism and religion. We say that such beliefs are incompatible with being a socialist. In our understanding of contemporary capitalist society we do not accept climate change denialism as a valid world-view but place the blame on the capitalist mode of production and distribution. We decline to agree with those who advocate non-science-evidence based CAM . We rightly reject pandering to those who project capitalism's lack of safety and precaution into socialist society as an argument for rejecting new technology. But it seems some are slaves to consumerism and the advertisers and how else can it be right now…Marx did say capitalist ideas prevail. In an ecological-minded libertarian socialist society, methods of production that harm the environment would be done away with and new methods would be substituted. Production under socialism will take into consideration environmental effects, availability and renew-ability of resources and develop the least harmful methods of production. That means changes.The determination of these changes, the process of choosing which comes first will be a focus that requires commencing before socialism is achieved and as we put flesh to the bones as experts and specialists in their fields come aboard. Healthy debate will take place prior to socialism but it will be more-up-to-date than this one.If we can succeed in persuading people to throw off outworn but deeply rooted ideas of bigotry and discrimination, i think we can convince them that their pork pie comes at an unacceptable social cost so they will have to forego an indulgence so that necessities are met.  

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

When all you know is this way of living, there will be a tendency to project it into the future.I have lost count of how many articles i have quoted Sylvia Pankhurst's "Socialism means plenty for all. We do not preach a gospel of want and scarcity, but of abundance." So please don't say i am arguing for a world of frugality, Tim. I am the one that is advocating choice, but some of those will be hard choices, made by the majority against the views of the minority. (I have on another thread proposed a discussion on democracy and decision-making so that might is not always seen as being right, but no-one seems to be concerned with how we run socialism)  Matt's post hit it on the nail. The decisions on what you eat and consume will be made by the present producers, as a general rule. No-one willing to go down to the coal-face, then no coal. Our reply that work will be rotated, conditions improved, labour time reduced, processes automated is at best a partial answer. Unlike Gnomes and Vin's optimism that people will accept their present lot in life as it is now, workers in unhealthy, unpleasant or as they say, the 3 Ds, dirty dangerous and degrading work, will vote with their feet.  i used an example from history of the black slaves when released from the shackles of chattel slavery, even wage slavery could not drive them back to the fields…it took the KKK and lynchings to do that.Do you expect fellow-workers to continue to suffer and place themselves at risk so that others can continue with non-essential self-indulgent treats? The priority of the new socialist world will be to find the technology to perform many unwelcomed tasks or come up with suitable alternatives but it will begin with the important vital areas of production, not the optional "comforts". Nobody is really denying anybody anything, what is being said is, wait your turnThere are more important parts of the economy for things to be done first and it cannot be based upon the prevalence of "me" over "us". Socialism is not a system where every whim and wish of one person or even one section of the community, is satisfied, sometimes we will have to accept, "second-best".You don't "need" tea, you "want" tea…but present-day tea-pickers do need a better life, and should not be condemned to one day longer in their wretched conditions while waiting for some machine to do the toil because someone wants to continue having a daily cuppa.Those who suffer deprivation, misery and indignity can't be placed at the back of the line when it comes to emancipation and if they are, Gnome, don't expect them to be welcoming the great day of socialism when nothing changes for them because some folk won't sacrifice any of their privileges and they are told to wait …wait …wait…for their deliverance.Vin seems to believe that his rights is overwhelmingly right regardless of what others choose and decide. If the exercise of community choice is Trotskyist democratic centralism then Vin is calling for individualist anarchism. We already demand that peoples' ideas change. We expect and insist that workers reject sexism, racism and nationalism, ageism and religion. We say that such beliefs are incompatible with being a socialist. In our understanding of contemporary capitalist society we do not accept climate change denialism as a valid world-view but place the blame on the capitalist mode of production and distribution. We decline to agree with those who advocate non-science-evidence based CAM . We rightly reject pandering to those who project capitalism's lack of safety and precaution into socialist society as an argument for rejecting new technology. But it seems some are slaves to consumerism and the advertisers and how else can it be right now…Marx did say capitalist ideas prevail. In an ecological-minded libertarian socialist society, methods of production that harm the environment would be done away with and new methods would be substituted. Production under socialism will take into consideration environmental effects, availability and renew-ability of resources and develop the least harmful methods of production. That means changes.The determination of these changes, the process of choosing which comes first will be a focus that requires commencing before socialism is achieved and as we put flesh to the bones as experts and specialists in their fields come aboard. Healthy debate will take place prior to socialism but it will be more-up-to-date than this one.If we can succeed in persuading people to throw off outworn but deeply rooted ideas of bigotry and discrimination, i think we can convince them that their pork pie comes at an unacceptable social cost so they will have to forego an indulgence so that necessities are met.  

Got to be honest Alan, I think your talking bollocks. On the one hand you are saying that we need to reduce the amount of labout, yet on another you are saying that locally produced food is the way to produce plenty.If locally produced food was less labour intensive, then surely the capitalist system would be teeming with examples of this, not the McDonladisation you complain about. for instance Craft or micro brewery ale is far more labour intensive that mass produced keg fizz, But never mind "sometimes we will have to accept second best" to quote a phrase. The sane goes, in the short term anyway, for mass produced food.The labour involved in tea picking does not neccesarily involve the degredation of the people picking tea, the capitalistic drive for profit, however does. There is nothing inherently dangerous about tea picking, it is the drive to maximise surplus value that makes it dangerous. Following on from your comment on tea, I've found out that Perthshire has the ideal conditions for growing tea, I look forward, in a Socialist Society to spending socially productive time in Perthshire picking tea, staying in enjoyable accommodation (possiibly filling my belly with pork pies and pints of fizzy lager afterwards), happy in the knowledge that my simple labout has let the rest of society have there enjoyable cuppa. It's not the actual work that is abhorent it's the conditions.I think, rather than being objective, you are in fact bringing your own subjective tastes to the fore.(apologies for any grammatical or spelling errors, but I've enjoyed a few glasses of Messers Woods and Co's rather delightful navy strength rum before I retire to my bed)

[alanjjohnstone]

If you look for bollocks, you are guaranteed to find it  

Quote:

On the one hand you are saying that we need to reduce the amount of labour, yet on another you are saying that locally produced food is the way to produce plenty.

 Show me that statement. What i did say was  "the blog has been critical of the carbon-footprint claims of the local food movement" and i also made a point of saying those industrial sized croplands will stay.  I did qualify that by saying existing small farmers should not be displaced and collectivised for they are already performing well in providing food for the majority of the world's population. Not my opinion but the findings of research.  I think your asssertion that i am for more labour-intensive production, or that "economy of scale" compensates for labour intensity is off the mark. You ignore the external costs and i touched on it by saying vast acres of farmland requires the use of lots of chemical which has a detrimental impact. But before you go and accuse me again of something i don't hold, i am not saying organic farming alone is the solution…but there is a case for more of it added with agroecology and other methods to be increased, and indeed these do involve extra labour…as would William Morris hand-crafted furnishings compared with IKEA's Just to press a point home, the blog stated

Quote:

A few times in the past, the SOYMB blog faced criticism that we over-emphasised organic agriculture rather than promote the current methods of farming. Let us be clear, the choice on how we produce our food in the coming new society will not be made by the blog or the Socialist Party but will be a decision for the generation that has the task of implementing sustainable ways of growing food in socialism. Whatever chosen will be fit for purpose and not picked for profit.

 The blog explains

Quote:

In farming there are legitimate fears about soil erosion, manure lagoons, animal welfare and nitrogen runoff at large farms — but it’s not just environmental groups that worry. Farmers are also concerned about fertilizer use and soil runoff. That’s one reason they’re turning to high-tech solutions like precision agriculture. Using location-specific information about soil nutrients, moisture and productivity of the previous year, new tools, known as “variable rate applicators,” can put fertilizer only on those areas of the field that need it (which may reduce nitrogen runoff into waterways). GPS signals drive many of today’s tractors, and new planters are allowing farmers to distribute seed varieties to diverse spots of a field to produce more food from each unit of land. They also modulate the amount and type of seed on each part of a field — in some places, leaving none at all. Before “factory farming” became a pejorative, agricultural scholars of the mid-20th century were calling for farmers to do just that — become more intensive. Farm sizes have risen significantly. It is precisely this large size that is often criticized today in the belief that large farms put profit ahead of soil and animal health. But increased size has advantages, especially better opportunities to invest in new technologies and to benefit from economies of scale. Buying a $400,000 combine that gives farmers detailed information on the variations in crop yield in different parts of the field would never be sustainable on just five acres of land; at 5,000 acres, it is a different story.

 Farming in socialism will not be a matter of business as usual. The harm of growing food in deserts such as in Californian dry regions will not be implemented due to the dependence on imported water and fertilisers and whatnot. Food will be grown where it best grows and that does not mean locally everytime. The end of mass poultry sheds and piggeries and the slurry it creates will effect availability on the shelves.  Your remarks about tea-picking is not my experience. Been there, seen it. Alternative means of livelihood such as tourism is actively discouraged in tea-growing regions so as to ensure a trapped work-force.  It isn't just the exploitation to make a profit for Tetley and Typhoo but the actual process. Some types of work are abhorrent because of the occupational health risks and no amount of amelioration is possible. There are hopes of some sort of mechanisation but for the moment picking is done by hand. Having as a lad done some tattie-howking, i can't remember it being of any benefit other than pecuniary so when that inducement is withdrawn from tea-pickers, they will depart for better climes and more socially useful work than toiling bent-double in cold wet hill-sides to satisfy someone's palate.  i specifically referred to the Perth tea growing in message #82, once again as i did tobacco suggesting when push comes to shove , there is a limited solution but again i qualified it by saying there is no way that the present high demand for tea can be supplied from home-grown bushes…and rationing will be required for those desperate for a cuppa…perhaps a weekly lottery for a box of tea…it will be a luxury to enjoy fully and delight in. 

[alanjjohnstone]

Oh and because i was under the influence of the toxic quality of alcohol, a hang-over from drinking Singha, i forgot to offer this link to an article by me which doesn't speculate on socialist tea but explains why there will be a rapid migration from the tea plantationsTea Slaveshttp://www.countercurrents.org/johnstone140214.htm

[robbo203]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

  In an ecological-minded libertarian socialist society, methods of production that harm the environment would be done away with and new methods would be substituted. Production under socialism will take into consideration environmental effects, availability and renew-ability of resources and develop the least harmful methods of production. That means changes..  

Got to be honest Alan, I think your talking bollocks. On the one hand you are saying that we need to reduce the amount of labout, yet on another you are saying that locally produced food is the way to produce plenty.If locally produced food was less labour intensive, then surely the capitalist system would be teeming with examples of this, not the McDonladisation you complain about. for instance Craft or micro brewery ale is far more labour intensive that mass produced keg fizz, But never mind "sometimes we will have to accept second best" to quote a phrase. The sane goes, in the short term anyway, for mass produced food.

 Tim, I have to confess I broadly share Alan's approach to agricultural production in socialism. I think , or at least hope, there will be a far greater emphasis on both the localisation and – what goes with that – diversification of farming in socialism. Have you come across a book by John Bennett written in 1976 called "The Ecological Transition: Cultural Anthropology and Human Adaptation".  It is a classic on its field of study.  Bennett shows in this book how the penetration of market relations and the globalisation of trade has undermined ecologically adaptive methods of farming and resource usage.  Global interdependence has replaced local dependence and local sensitivity to local environmental constraints with a regime where Ricardos "law of comparative advantage" holds sway where a region specialises in what it is compartively most profitable to do.  The result in agricultural terms is a growing tendency towards monocultures and large scale mechanised farming. This has not only  been disastrous ecologically –  think of the way in which blights can rapidly spread through a region dominated by a single crop – but also in terms of production.  There is a lot of nonsense talked about modern large scale mechanised farming being more "productive".  This is the sales talk of Agribusiness.  There are different ways of measuring productivity and when agribusiness talks about increased productivity it is referring to output per farm labourer.  No doubt, a farm worker driving a huge combine harvester does produce a greater output per worker than a small farmer using more labour intensive technologies although even this is to overlook all the labour it takes to manufacture and service the combine harverster itself. However there is another way of measuring producitivity and that is output per hectare and in this respect, as study after study has shown, small scale diversified farms based on polycultures are far more productive than large scale mechanised monoculture farming.  This is not always obvious if you are looking at a single crop  or agricultural product becuase that tends to overlook the fact that whereas monocultural farming, by definition. produces only that single crop within a given area, polycultural farming produces other crops besides within the same area. Given that in socialism most of the work performed under capitalism will no longer be necessary (since it produces nothing of value but only serves to keep the money system ticking over), there will be an enormous reservoir of labour swilling around which will enable  us to radically modify the whole patten of farming – to make it more diversified and localised (thereby reducing transportation costs as well). I envisage, even in the big cities , city farms taking off in a big way, helping to break down the distinction betweeen the town and the countryside.  More  labour intensive farming does not have to mean back breaking toil. There is a whole literature on the theme of what is called "appropriate technology" which can can turn farming into an intensely enjoyable and creative activity, raise output all round and, most importantly, reduce the disastrous environmental  (and economic) consequences of modern capital intensive mechanised monoculture farming

[Prakash RP]

[ Would like to add the following text to my comment dated 02 April 2017: ' I wish British socialists would NOT fail to take cognisance … ' ] ' We hold that socialism ( or communism, the same thing ) can only come into being when a majority want it, i.e. it depends on majority political action,but you are never going to get a majority behave as you propose. ' [ ALB's comment dated 27/03/2017 ] I'd like to substitute the expressions ' a majority ' and ' majority political action ' in the above quote with respectively ' the majority of the politically active section of the working people ' and ' the political action of the majority of the politically active section of the working people '. Nevertheless, it seems to be the main argument against my position. It seems to be implied that were it NOT for the fact that you're not assured of success in persuading the ' majority ' in question to consent to make the Principle of healthy and meaningful living your life principle, you would not say NO to my proposal. Thus, it also seems implied that your opposition to my position is NOT premised on any communist principle but on pure pragmatism. I'm NOT in principle opposed to pragmatism that prescribes a realistic approach to a problem and happens to be very helpful and effective to find right answers to many problems. Nevertheless, in this case, pragmatism advocates recognising, knowingly, a non-communist or a pseudo-communist as a true communist, and so not only is it outright unacceptable, on ethical grounds, it also adds up to damn bankruptcy of principle which is most likely to encourage silly opportunism. And, as I see it, it happens to be premised on the principle that end justifies means. I wish to be the last man to approve of such a principle as the one that practically gives its seal of approval to any ways and any actions— stealing, robbery, bribery, killing, massacre. terror tactics, etc, etc, if you mean them to achieve a goal that appears great and big. I view such policies as outright unbecoming of communists as communists, as I view them, are superior to all non-communists, and I don't think communists need in order to achieve their goal, have recourse to such silly, loathsome stuff that inspires disrespect and detestation for them. Communists oughtn't to fail to see the glaring lesson of silly travesties, in the name of communist revolution, of Bolsheviks and Maoists. The ignominious failure of the world communist movement in the last century is a glaring proof of the fact that silly pragmatism based on moral bankruptcy and policies like ' end justifies means ' do not assure success.

[Anonymous]

Prakash RP wrote:

The ignominious failure of the world communist movement in the last century is a glaring proof of the fact that silly pragmatism based on moral bankruptcy and policies like ' end justifies means ' do not assure success.

The world communist movement was hijacked by Leninism.No it is not a question of pragmatism, but of relevance. Armed with the knowledge of socialism/communism, workers wil make their own decisions as to whether their behaviour aids or hinders the advancement of socialist ideas. Attitude changes already take place inside capitalism, indeed the transition  takes place inside capitalism and this process will accelerate anyway, from a recognition of class interests, rather than moral strictures being laid down by excessive puritanical elements posing as virtuous paragons.

[Anonymous]

Matt wrote:

Prakash RP wrote:

The ignominious failure of the world communist movement in the last century is a glaring proof of the fact that silly pragmatism based on moral bankruptcy and policies like ' end justifies means ' do not assure success.

That concept was created by a Christian Theologian, and it was used to justify the extermination made by religion. It has nothing to do with the Communist movement even that Lenin mentioned in one of his books . It was not created by Nicholas Machiavelo either. Leninism-Stalinism is not communism, you should do serious reading into that. You are just a religious anti-communist disguised as a socialist

[jondwhite]

The 'ends justify the means' was something associated with Trotskyism not socialismhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/morals/morals.htm

[ALB]

Prakash RP wrote:

[ Would like to add the following text to my comment dated 02 April 2017: ' I wish British socialists would NOT fail to take cognisance … ' ] ' We hold that socialism ( or communism, the same thing ) can only come into being when a majority want it, i.e. it depends on majority political action,but you are never going to get a majority behave as you propose. ' [ ALB's comment dated 27/03/2017 ] I'd like to substitute the expressions ' a majority ' and ' majority political action ' in the above quote with respectively ' the majority of the politically active section of the working people ' and ' the political action of the majority of the politically active section of the working people '.

Now we are getting to the bottom of it. This sounds like a formula for minority political action. Is it?

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

 I'd like to substitute the expressions ' a majority ' and ' majority political action ' in the above quote with respectively ' the majority of the politically active section of the working people ' and ' the political action of the majority of the politically active section of the working people '.

Now we are getting to the bottom of it. This sounds like a formula for minority political action. Is it?" The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves. We cannot, therefore, co-operate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philanthropic big bourgeois and petty bourgeois."(1879 Marx and Engels )

[robbo203]

jondwhite wrote:

The 'ends justify the means' was something associated with Trotskyism not socialismhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/morals/morals.htm

 I thought Prakash is actually opposing the argument that the end justifies the means…

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

The 'ends justify the means' was something associated with Trotskyism not socialismhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/morals/morals.htm

 That expression date back to the time of the Roman, and It has ben changed different times, and it has travelled thru  different   schools of thoughts, but it was never said by the writer of the Prince, and it was  more frequently used by the moralist of the Catholic Churhc and it was also used to justify their action during the times of the Inquisition, and it .was very popular among the Dominicos and the Jesuits Trotsky and Lenin used the same expression applied to the so called morality of the Communists. This whole thread is totally reactionary,  anti-socialist,  and recalcitrant. Sometimes this forum becomes the yunkyard of backward conceptions

[robbo203]

mcolome1 wrote:

. This whole thread is totally reactionary,  anti-socialist,  and recalcitrant. Sometimes this forum becomes the yunkyard of backward conceptions

 I think that's a bit harsh, Marcos.  There are useful points that have emerged out of this discussion particularly on the question of lifestyles choices and how socialists relate to these.  Its not cut and  dried and I think it is does deserve further discussion,  I would not want to be over-prescriptive  and I think that is the basic problem with Prakesh's approach.  On  the other hand, we cannot just brush the whole matter under the carpet. Lifestyle choices do have real world consequences for the kinds of values and ideas we seek to promote

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

. This whole thread is totally reactionary,  anti-socialist,  and recalcitrant. Sometimes this forum becomes the yunkyard of backward conceptions

 I think that's a bit harsh, Marcos.  There are useful points that have emerged out of this discussion particularly on the question of lifestyles choices and how socialists relate to these.  Its not cut and  dried and I think it is does deserve further discussion,  I would not want to be over-prescriptive  and I think that is the basic problem with Prakesh's approach.  On  the other hand, we cannot just brush the whole matter under the carpet. Lifestyle choices do have real world consequences for the kinds of values and ideas we seek to promote

What lifestyle ? Manhood, religious fanatism, women as instrument of domination, and subordination ? Monogamy, Celibate ? Monastic life ? Man as head of the family ?  I am ready to be ordained as a communist monk  We all know that backward mentality carry all that, and when women leave those backward sitautions to others more advanced situation they do not follow the same path.  To choose between smoking, or not smoking, or drinking or not drinking, monogamy or polygamy,  that's fine. but in a socialist society also we will  need medical education, because tobbaco is the cause of many cardiovascular diseases, and alcohol is the same, t and it produces liver diseases, tea and coffee are stimulants and they produce ulcers.He is not so interested on socialism when he says that our socialism does not work, and he has been sending personal messages to members of the forum, and then, the response are used to combat us. 

[Author]

Posts