The PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING

[robbo203]

mcolome1 wrote:

 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. 

 I was thinking more directly in terms of things such as consumerist values which seemed to be what a lot of the discussion was about. But yes cultural attitudes such as sexism also have a bearing insofar as they seve to impede the spread of socialist ideas. I think Marx said somewhere about the position of woman in society being a prime indicator of the progress of society or words to that effect.

[Anonymous]

Hi Robbo I am not ignoring you but I have just moved house and having to erect a number of 'flatpacks' I may be unique in this vision of revolution but I think it is more a matter of "to each according to needs" rather than a levelling process or a 'cleansing' or moral process.  Many people's needs are clean water food and medication. I am lucky to already have them.I also think that initially anyway, it will more a matter of using the 'material conditions at hand' rather than a dismantling process. The capitalist mode of production has created conditions of abundance. We use what we have. For eample railway workers taking over their work place and ensuring good working conditions and ensuring free rides for everyone, reducing work time with the help of the millions presently engaged in capitalism's dirty work associated with money. The same thing happening in all of the wealth producing industries. No need to close Asda or Sainsburies, or their suppliers they can be run by those already involved, perhaps change of name. There will be a rapid improvent of working conditions for the same reason given for the railways. The democratic organisations at all levels local, national, and worldwide can be used to fascilitate this revolutionSocialism will of course be in it's nascent condition and will change rapidly from that.  I can see no reason why there should be massive changes in the food we produce in the early stages.  The function of the revolution is not to impose 'morality', 'vegitarianism' or 'Temperance' on anyone.I am very positive. This could be done now if we had a majority. We won't get a majority by introducing these things into our argument. 

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

The capitalist mode of production has created conditions of abundance. We usewhat we have.  For eample railway workers taking over their work place and ensuring goodworking conditions and ensuring free rides for everyone, reducing work timewith the help of the millions presently engaged in capitalism's dirty workassociated with money. The same thing happening in all of the wealthproducing industries. No need to close Asda or Sainsburies, or theirsuppliers they can be run by those already involved, perhaps change of name.There will be a rapid improvent of working conditions for the same reasongiven for the railways.  The democratic organisations at all levels local, national, and worldwide can be used to fascilitate this revolution

 I think we can all fully accept that statement, Vin. I don't think any member would contest your view.  But as been pointed out on this forum before, i'm not the most optimistic of persons. We have 400 years of capitalist damage and harm to weigh on the scales alongside its positive contributions to production and distribution. But as i said to Tim, socialism cannot be simply business as usual. We have to accept existential changes has taken place and not go into denial that we don't face unprecedented environmental threats which have to be very rapidly remedied for socialism to thrive. We are also very much a world socialist movement and so we have to be aware of the situation and conditions of our fellow-workers around the world are to become as much our primary concern as the problems on our door-step. It wasn't only Hardie who suggested that we should expected a veritable cornucopia but also  Pieter Lawrence when discussing post-capitalism in its earlier days said we would encounter necessary phases.  First, there would have to be urgent action to relieve the worst problems of food shortages, health-care and housing which affect billions of people throughout the world.Secondly, longer term action to construct means of production and infrastructures such as transport systems for the supply of permanent housing and durable consumption goods. These could be designed in line with conservation principles, which means they would be made to last for a long time, using materials that where possible could be re-cycled and would require minimum maintenance.Thirdly, with these objectives achieved there could be an eventual fall in production, and society could move into a stable mode. This would achieve a rhythm of daily production in line with daily needs with no significant growth. On this basis, the world community could live in material well-being whilst looking after the planet. Isn't it possible to envisage what  Marx called “simple reproduction” by which he meant that the stock of means of production was simply reproduced from year to year at its previously existing level,  a situation where human needs were in balance with the resources needed to satisfy them. Such a society would already have decided, according to its own criteria and through its own decision-making processes, on the most appropriate way to allocate resources to meet the needs of its members. This having been done, it would only need to go on repeating this continuously from production period to production period. Production would not be ever-increasing but would be stabilized at the level required to satisfy needs. All that would be produced would be products for consumption and the products needed to replace and repair the raw materials and instruments of production used up in producing these consumer goods.  The point about such a situation is that there will no longer be any imperative need to develop productivity, i.e. to cut costs in the sense of using less resources; nor will there be the blind pressure to do so that is exerted under capitalism through the market.  It also means that once you’ve achieved satisfactory levels of consumer goods, you don’t insist on producing more and more. Total social production could even be reduced. You achieve this “steady state” and you don’t go on expanding production. Zero-Growth.  

[jondwhite]

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

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

I think he is opposing the argument 'the end justifies the means' but I thought I would point out that it is an argument not traditionally used by the socialist tradition, only opportunists.

[Prakash RP]

[  Would like to add the following text to my comment dated 03 April 2017: ' "  We hold that socialism ( or communism, the same thing ) can only come … " ' ]It seems clear as day that if you're to make a choice between pragmatism ( or something like the principle that end justifies means ) and your communist principles, you're all for abandoning your communist principles altogether, RIGHT ? And you're dead certain that this act of saying goodbye to your communist principles will promote the cause of communism, OK ? May I want to know what led you to your confidence that you're wholly RIGHT  on this point ?  What led you to believe that those silly guys that are lamentably lacking in the backbone they need get rid of their addiction to drinks, drugs, matrimony, etc can make true communists ? And what led you to believe that the damned silly like those that don't feel ashamed of their addiction to stuff like drugs, drinks, matrimony, etc or their incapability to get rid of such silly things as the addiction at issue can make significant contributions to the cause of communism ? What meaningful thing is it that you really expect from a drug addict or someone addicted to matrimony ? What significant contributions to the communist movement have such people made so far to kindle your expectation that recognising those silly non-communists as true communists would prove paying someday ? Giving up smoking, drinking, taking drugs, or vanquishing the allure of the silly luxury of matrimony does NOT demand inhuman or superhuman calibre or willpower. Neither does living a life free of drugs, drinks, matrimony, etc happen to mean leading an ascetic life. There're lots of things other than nasty ones like drugs, drinks or matrimony which the sane and sensible worldwide not only relish to their heart's content but regard as good for both body and mind. I'd like to know what led you to believe that those benighted millions are truly lacking in the calibre and will they need to rid themselves of their nasty addiction to drugs, drinks, matrimony, and similar other stuff. I'd also like to know what happens to be behind your confidence that you're outright right to view the allure of and addiction to drugs, drinks, matrimony, etc as invincible and believe that the benighted millions are so resistant to enlightenment and reform that all attempts to enlighten and reform them are certain to prove futile, that those silly, benighted millions are indispensable for the organisation of the communist revolution and building the communist order, and that those silly, benighted, vulgar millions that do NOT feel ashamed of the disgusting fact that they were born poor and penniless to work hard as beasts of burden are used to doing and to be exploited by the born rich and the born super-rich who lead a fabulously sumptuous lifestyle before their silly eyes while they, although they happen to be producers of all wealth and luxuries, lead a hard and humble existence themselves, an existence befitting beasts of burden, or the silly fact that the fact that they were born poor and penniless to work hard and lead a bestial existence throughout their life is NOT attributable to any faults or failings of theirs and squander their hard-earned money on stuff like drugs, drinks or matrimony would ever perform any meaningful role in the organisation of the communist revolution.

[LBird]

Prakash RP wrote:

It seems clear as day that if you're to make a choice between pragmatism ( or something like the principle that end justifies means ) and your communist principles, you're all for abandoning your communist principles altogether, RIGHT ? And you're dead certain that this act of saying goodbye to your communist principles will promote the cause of communism, OK ? May I want to know what led you to your confidence that you're wholly RIGHT  on this point ?

Whilst I do not agree with the content of your 'communist principles', on this point you're entirely correct.'Communist principles' have to be outlined prior to 'communism'.The SPGB seems to hold to an ideology of 'Religious Materialism', that holds that 'pragmatism', or, 'practice and theory', is the correct method for building socialism. Marx opposed this with his notion of 'theory and practice', during which socialism is build according to socialist principles.So, as you say, the SPGB does not need to declare any 'principles', because it argues that 'principles' emerge from 'practice'.It's clear that 'principles' (ie. 'theory') also include ethics, morals, beliefs, etc., and these are realised in 'practice', in the process of building socialism.So, their 'confidence' is based upon an ideology that is not compatible with 'socialism', because the 'principles' upon which it will be based will be hidden, and known only to an elite minority of 'specialists' who claim to have a 'special consciousness' which is not available to all (otherwise, these 'theories/principles' would be open to democratic accountability).Their 'pragmatism' will lead in the same direction as do all pragmatist theories: 'individual' (ie. elite) rule. It's the ideological basis of Leninism.BTW, Prakash RP, this argument is so devastating to the SPGB, that if I repeat it I get banned. So I will not repeat it again on this thread. I just wanted to let you know that some can see the sense in your argument (if not in the content of your particular version).

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Prakash RP wrote:

It seems clear as day that if you're to make a choice between pragmatism ( or something like the principle that end justifies means ) and your communist principles, you're all for abandoning your communist principles altogether, RIGHT ? And you're dead certain that this act of saying goodbye to your communist principles will promote the cause of communism, OK ? May I want to know what led you to your confidence that you're wholly RIGHT  on this point ?

Whilst I do not agree with the content of your 'communist principles', on this point you're entirely correct.'Communist principles' have to be outlined prior to 'communism'.The SPGB seems to hold to an ideology of 'Religious Materialism', that holds that 'pragmatism', or, 'practice and theory', is the correct method for building socialism. Marx opposed this with his notion of 'theory and practice', during which socialism is build according to socialist principles.So, as you say, the SPGB does not need to declare any 'principles', because it argues that 'principles' emerge from 'practice'.It's clear that 'principles' (ie. 'theory') also include ethics, morals, beliefs, etc., and these are realised in 'practice', in the process of building socialism.So, their 'confidence' is based upon an ideology that is not compatible with 'socialism', because the 'principles' upon which it will be based will be hidden, and known only to an elite minority of 'specialists' who claim to have a 'special consciousness' which is not available to all (otherwise, these 'theories/principles' would be open to democratic accountability).Their 'pragmatism' will lead in the same direction as do all pragmatist theories: 'individual' (ie. elite) rule. It's the ideological basis of Leninism.BTW, Prakash RP, this argument is so devastating to the SPGB, that if I repeat it I get banned. So I will not repeat it again on this thread. I just wanted to let you know that some can see the sense in your argument (if not in the content of your particular version).

 Prakash, my advice is to ignore what LBird has to say; he has clearly lost the plot completely.  Whatever else its critics may say about the SPGB one thing is absolutely certain – it has always insisted that a majority of workers must first understand and want socialism before it can happen. This completely contradicts LBirds silly comment that "SPGB does not need to declare any 'principles', because it argues that 'principles' emerge from 'practice'"   Actually the principles are declared up front and appear on all the party's literature There is even a pamphlet called "Socialist Principles Explained"  http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/socialist-principles-explained

[Anonymous]

The best solution is not to respond to any of the posts of L Bird. 

[alanjjohnstone]

Coincidentally, i just came across this report, todayhttp://news.asiaone.com/news/world/protect-small-farms-meet-growing-global-food-needs-study-says

Quote:

More than half of the world's food is produced by small and medium farmers, particularly in Africa and Asia, said researchers at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Australia. While large-scale plantation agriculture is expanding, small farms with less than 20 hectares of land should be protected because they produce more diverse and nutritious food, the study said. "It is vital that we protect and support small farms and more diverse agriculture so as to ensure sustainable and nutritional food production," Mario Herrero, the study's lead author, said in a statement. "Large farms, in contrast are less diverse." Big farms larger than 50 hectares dominate food production in the western hemisphere, Australia and New Zealand, producing more than three quarters of the cereals, livestock and fruit in those regions, the study said. In South Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia, small farms produce about 75 per cent of the food, the study said."

It is not any sandal-wearing lentil-eating Neil from the Young Ones saying this but hard-nosed researchers. And i can search out many other sources asserting similar if you so wish.

[alanjjohnstone]

Also this which argues that changes need not be dramatic but simply small adjustments to our diet. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-04/tl-tlp040317.php

Quote:

Modifying diets by a few grams per day according to the composition of vegetables, fruit and meat could significantly reduce groundwater use in India, and help the country meet the challenge of feeding 1.64 billion people by 2050…The study looked specifically at India, where approximately half of the usable water is currently required for irrigation. The population of India is predicted to rise to 1.64 billion people by 2050, and in order to ensure enough freshwater is available, water use will need to be reduced by a third…They found that modifying the average diet to increase fruit consumption by 51.5g per day and vegetable consumption by 17.5g per day, along with a reduction in the consumption of poultry of 6.8g per day could lead to a 30% reduction in freshwater use and a 13% reduction in dietary greenhouse gas emissions… Our study …finds modest dietary changes could help meet the challenge of developing a resilient food system in the country."

[Young Master Smeet]

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/hist-mat/pov-phil/ch02.htmAs ever, Charlie Marx to the rescue…

Quote:

Next comes the humanitarian school, which sympathizes with the bad side of present-day production relations. It seeks, by way of easing its conscience, to palliate even if slightly the real contrasts; it sincerely deplores the distress of the proletariat, the unbridled competition of the bourgeois among themselves; it counsels the workers to be sober, to work hard and to have few children; it advises the bourgeois to put a reasoned ardor into production. The whole theory of this school rests on interminable distinctions between theory and practice, between principles and results, between ideas and application, between form and content, between essence and reality, between right and fact, between the good side and the bad side.

and, more importantly:

Quote:

Socialists and Communists are the theoreticians of the proletarian class. So long as the proletariat is not yet sufficiently developed to constitute itself as a class, and consequently so long as the struggle itself of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie has not yet assumed a political character, and the productive forces are not yet sufficiently developed in the bosom of the bourgeoisie itself to enable us to catch a glimpse of the material conditions necessary for the emancipation of the proletariat and for the formation of a new society, these theoreticians are merely utopians who, to meet the wants of the oppressed classes, improvise systems and go in search of a regenerating science. But in the measure that history moves forward, and with it the struggle of the proletariat assumes clearer outlines, they no longer need to seek science in their minds; they have only to take note of what is happening before their eyes and to become its mouthpiece. So long as they look for science and merely make systems, so long as they are at the beginning of the struggle, they see in poverty nothing but poverty, without seeing in it the revolutionary, subversive side, which will overthrow the old society. From this moment, science, which is a product of the historical movement, has associated itself consciously with it, has ceased to be doctrinaire and has become revolutionary.

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Coincidentally, i just came across this report, todayhttp://news.asiaone.com/news/world/protect-small-farms-meet-growing-global-food-needs-study-says

Quote:

More than half of the world's food is produced by small and medium farmers, particularly in Africa and Asia, said researchers at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Australia. While large-scale plantation agriculture is expanding, small farms with less than 20 hectares of land should be protected because they produce more diverse and nutritious food, the study said. "It is vital that we protect and support small farms and more diverse agriculture so as to ensure sustainable and nutritional food production," Mario Herrero, the study's lead author, said in a statement. "Large farms, in contrast are less diverse." Big farms larger than 50 hectares dominate food production in the western hemisphere, Australia and New Zealand, producing more than three quarters of the cereals, livestock and fruit in those regions, the study said. In South Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia, small farms produce about 75 per cent of the food, the study said."

It is not any sandal-wearing lentil-eating Neil from the Young Ones saying this but hard-nosed researchers. And i can search out many other sources asserting similar if you so wish.

  I endorse what you say above completely, Alan There is a tendency to see a trade-off between more environmentally appropriate or sustainable forms of farming and increased output.  In other words, if you go for a more eco-friendly approach that means you are going to have accept a decline in agricultural production.  This argument is often coupled with another – that in a world in which population growth is still growing rapidly (even if the rate of growth is slowing down), we cannot afford to be picky. Eco-friendly organic products tend to be purchased more by the better off in Western countries and this helps to reinforce the impression that these are more costly so that switching over to to a more eco-friendly forms of farming will reduce supply, increase food prices and thus disproportionately hit the poor. This is all part of the hard sell that agribusiness uses to support its preferred model of farming – large scale, highly industrialised or mechanised and chemicalised and reliant on inputs like terminator seed technology and artificial fertilisers.  But is based on a myth.  Small scale farms using more eco-friendly approaches  – and the one thing tends to be associated with the other – are significantly more productive than large scale mechanised farms in terms of output per hectare.  According to Geoffrey Lean:Study after study show that organic techniques can provide much more food per acre in developing countries than conventional chemical-based agriculture. One report – published last year by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) – found that 114 projects, covering nearly two million African farmers, more than doubled their yields by introducing organic or near-organic practices.  Another study – led by the University of Essex – looked at similar projects in 57 developing countries, covering three per cent of the entire cultivated area in the Third World, and revealed an average increase of 79 per cent. And research at the University of Michigan concluded that organic farming could increase yields on developing countries' farms three-fold.("Organic is more than small potatoes", Daily Telegraph, 7 Aug 2009). The problem is the economics of capitalism that work against making the shift to a more rational system of agriculture.   Here are a few links that hint at the potential for both raising output AND improving sustainability in a future socialist society by moving away from industrial model of farming: http://permaculturenews.org/2014/09/26/un-small-farmers-agroecology-can-feed-world/ https://monthlyreview.org/2015/03/01/a-rational-agriculture-is-incompatible-with-capitalism/ https://monthlyreview.org/2009/07/01/agroecology-small-farms-and-food-sovereignty/ http://foodtank.com/news/2015/04/organic-trumps-conventional-across-the-board http://www.academia.edu/2581032/Indigenous_agricultural_revolution_ecology_and_food_production_in_West_Africa

[alanjjohnstone]

Robbo, I'll concede to Tim and Vin that i do have a tendency to over-simplify future problems for socialism as black and white rather than the 50 shades of grey that a complex world economy throws up. But overall, i have to accept that we need changes and some may well not be palatable for everybody. If it retards recruitmant to the socialist mission as Gnome suggests, so be it – but the Party has never pussy-footed around its unpopular conclusions.The necessities of life will be distributed through free access. How future generations inside socialism determine what is basic needs and what are luxuries, i leave to them, although we can all speculate about it today. They will also evolve their own and widely diverse methods of "rationing" "scarce" goods and we can take educated guesses at these. But i still insist that we will make decisions on a social level that will mean a restriction on individual choices.Global warming doesn't magically disappear over-night because we end capitalism and socialism arrives. It has to be tackled by human action just as it was created by human action.As follow-up to the report i cited, another has come across my horizon, this time from the FAOhttp://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2017/04/06/almost-half-the-forests-that-once-covered-earth-now-gone_c1512741

Quote:

"According to the report, more people will be eating fewer cereals and larger amounts of meat, fruits, vegetables and processed food — a result of an ongoing global dietary transition. This will further add to those pressures, driving more deforestation, land degradation and greenhouse gas emissions…It warns that high-input, resource-intensive farming systems, which have caused massive deforestation, water scarcities, soil depletion and high levels of greenhouse gas emissions, cannot deliver sustainable food and agricultural production. According to the report, the world needs to shift to more sustainable food systems, which make more efficient use of land, water and other inputs."

That pork pie has consequences.

[alanjjohnstone]

What our political rivals are saying about farming and foodhttp://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/25218/05-04-2017/what-would-a-socialist-food-industry-look-like

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

What our political rivals are saying about farming and foodhttp://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/25218/05-04-2017/what-would-a-socialist-food-industry-look-like

 These Trots haven't got a clue.  They are immersed in capitalist thinking right up to their eyeballs. Look at this from the article you link to "So it wouldn't be difficult to open up the supply chains of a combined, publicly owned supermarket distribution network to corner shops, etc. This, combined with a nationalised financial sector that could supply cheap loans, would massively relieve some of the pressures on small business owners in the sector and would encourage fuller integration with the socialist plan." "Socialist planning" indeed!

[Author]

Posts