Dave B
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
i The communist myth! 1844 Letter from Engels to Marx in Paris The Teutons are all still very muddled about the practicability of communism; to dispose of this absurdity I intend to write a short pamphlet showing that communism has already been put into practice and describing in popular terms how this is at present being done in England and America. [12]The thing will take me three days or so, and should prove very enlightening for these fellows. I’ve already observed this when talking to people here. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/letters/44_10_01.htm#n12 Eg. Frederick Engels Description of Recently Founded Communist Colonies Still in Existence; Written: in mid-October 1844 Amongst these people no one is obliged to work against his will, and no one seeks work in vain. They have no poor-houses and infirmaries, having not a single person poor and destitute, nor any abandoned widows and orphans; all their needs are met and they need fear no want. In their ten towns there is not a single gendarme or police officer, no judge, lawyer or soldier, no prison or penitentiary; and yet there is proper order in all their affairs. The laws of the land are not for them and as far as they are concerned could just as well be abolished and nobody would notice any difference for they are the most peaceable citizens and have never yielded a single criminal for the prisons. They enjoy, as we said, the most absolute community of goods and have no trade and no money among themselves. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/10/15.htm And from Lenin;V. I. Lenin, From the Destruction of the Old Social System, To the Creation of the New Communist labour in the narrower and stricter sense of the term is labour performed gratis for the benefit of society, labour performed not as a definite duty, not for the purpose of obtaining a right to certain products, not according to previously established and legally fixed quotas, but voluntary labour, irrespective of quotas; it is labour performed without expectation of reward, without reward as a condition, labour performed because it has become a habit to work for the common good, and because of a conscious realisation (that has become a habit) of the necessity of working for the common good—labour as the requirement of a healthy organism. It must be clear to everybody that we, i.e., our society, our social system, are still a very long way from the application of this form of labour on a broad, really mass scale. But the very fact that this question has been raised, and raised both by the whole of the advanced proletariat (the Communist Party and the trade unions) and by the state authorities, is a step in this direction. http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/11.htm Trotsky; Leon Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed, Chapter 3, Socialism and the State The material premise of communism should be so high a development of the economic powers of man that productive labor, having ceased to be a burden, will not require any goad, and the distribution of life’s goods, existing in continual abundance, will not demand – as it does not now in any well-off family or “decent” boarding-house – any control except that of education, habit and social opinion. Speaking frankly, I think it would be pretty dull-witted to consider such a really modest perspective “utopian.” http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch03.htm Trotsky’s Terrorism and Communism The Mensheviks are against this. This is quite comprehensible, because in reality they are against the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is to this, in the long run, that the whole question is reduced. The Kautskians are against the dictatorship of the proletariat, and are thereby against all its consequences. Both economic and political compulsion are only forms of the expression of the dictatorship of the working class in two closely connected regions. True, Abramovich demonstrated to us most learnedly that under Socialism there will be no compulsion, that the principle of compulsion contradicts Socialism, that under Socialism we shall be moved by the feeling of duty, the habit of working, the attractiveness of labor, etc., etc. This is unquestionable. Only this unquestionable truth must be a little extended. In point of fact, under Socialism there will not exist the apparatus of compulsion itself, namely, the State: for it will have melted away entirely into a producing and consuming commune. None the less, the road to Socialism lies through a period of the highest possible intensification of the principle of the State. And you and I are just passing through that period. Just as a lamp, before going out, shoots up in a brilliant flame, so the State, before disappearing, assumes the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the most ruthless form of State, which embraces the life of the citizens authoritatively in every direction. Now just that insignificant little fact – that historical step of the State dictatorship – Abramovich, and in his person the whole of Menshevism, did not notice; and consequently, he has fallen over it. http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/terrcomm/ch08.htm Karl Kautsky IV. THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE FUTURE 9. Division of Products in the Future State. We can conceive a time when science shall have raised industry to such a high level if productivity that everything wanted by man will be produced in great abundance. In such a case, the formula, “To each according to his needs,” would be applied as a matter of course and without difficulty. On the other hand, not even the profoundest conviction of the justice of this formula would be able to put it into practice if the productivity of labor remained so low that the proceeds of the most excessive toil could produce only the bare necessities………..http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1892/erfurt/ch04a.htm Kuatsky;Karl Kautsky The Labour Revolution III. The Economic Revolution X. MONEY Besides this rigid allocation of an equal measure of the necessaries and enjoyments of life to each individual, another form of Socialism without money is conceivable, the Leninite interpretation of what Marx described as the second phase of communism: each to produce of his own accord as much as he can, the productivity of labour being so high and the quantity and variety of products so immense that everyone may be trusted to take what he needs. For this purpose money would not be needed. We have not yet progressed so far as this. At present we are unable to divine whether we shall ever reach this state. But that Socialism with which we are alone concerned to-day, whose features we can discern with some precision from the indications that already exist, will unfortunately not have this enviable freedom and abundance at its disposal, and will therefore not be able to do without money. http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1924/labour/ch03_j.htm#sb Hyndman; Henry Mayers Hyndman The Record of an Adventurous LifeChapter XV Start of Social Democracy “A much more serious objection to Kropotkin and other Anarchists is their wholly unscrupulous habit of reiterating statements that have been repeatedly proved to be incorrect, and even outrageous, by the men and women to whom they are attributed. Time after time I have told Kropotkin, time after time has he read it in print, that Social-Democrats work for the complete overthrow of the wages system. He has admitted this to be so. But a month or so afterwards the same old oft-refuted misrepresentation appears in the same old authoritative fashion, as if no refutation of the calumny, that we wish to maintain wage-slavery, had ever been made.” http://www.marxists.org/archive/hyndman/1911/adventure/chap15.html Peter Kropotkin 1920The Wage System http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1920/wage.htm J. V. Stalin ANARCHISM or SOCIALISM? 1906 Future society will be socialist society. This means also that, with the abolition of exploitation commodity production and buying and selling will also be abolished and, therefore, there will be no room for buyers and sellers of labour power, for employers and employed — there will be only free workers.Future society will be socialist society. This means, lastly, that in that society the abolition of wage-labour will be accompanied by the complete abolition of the private ownership of the instruments and means of production; there will be neither poor proletarians nor rich capitalists — there will be only workers who collectively own all the land and minerals, all the forests, all the factories and mills, all the railways, etc. As you see, the main purpose of production in the future will be to satisfy the needs of society and not to produce goods for sale in order to increase the profits of the capitalists. Where there will be no room for commodity production, struggle for profits, etc. It is also clear that future production will be socialistically organised, highly developed production, which will take into account the needs of society and will produce as much as society needs. Here there will be no room whether for scattered production, competition, crises, or unemployment.Where there are no classes, where there are neither rich nor poor, there is no need for a state, there is nopage 337 need either for political power, which oppresses the poor and protects the rich. Consequently, in socialist society there will be no need for the existence of political power. That is why Karl Marx said as far back as 1846: "The working class in the course of its development Will substitute for the old bourgeois society an association which will exclude classes and their antagonism, and there will be no more political power properly so-called . . . " (see The Poverty of Philosophy).[89] That is why Engels said in 1884: "The state, then, has not existed from all eternity. There have been societies that did without it, that had no conception of the state and state power. At a certain stage of economic development, which was necessarily bound up with the cleavage of society into classes, the state became a necessity. . . . We are now rapidly approaching a stage in the development of production at which the existence of these classes not only will have ceased to be a necessity, but will become a positive hindrance to production. They will fall as inevitably as they arose at an earlier stage. Along with them the state will inevitably fall. The society that will organise production on the basis of a free and equal association of the producers will put the whole machinery of state where it will then belong: into the Museum of Antiquities, by the side of the spinning wheel and the bronze axe" (see The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State).[ At the same time, it is self-evident that for the purpose of administering public affairs there will have to be in socialist society, in addition to local offices which page 338 will collect all sorts of information, a central statistical bureau, which will collect information about the needs of the whole of society, and then distribute the various kinds of work among the working people accordingly. It will also be necessary to hold conferences, and particularly congresses, the decisions of which will certainly be binding upon the comrades in the minority until the next congress is held. Lastly, it is obvious that free and comradely labour should result in an equally comradely, and complete, satisfaction of all needs in the future socialist society This means that if future society demands from each of its members as much labour as he can perform, it, in its turn, must provide each member with all the products he needs. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! — such is the basis upon which the future collectivist system must be created. It goes without saying that in the first stage of socialism, when elements who have not yet grown accustomed to work are being drawn into the new way of life, when the productive forces also will not yet have been sufficiently developed and there will still be "dirty" and "clean" work to do, the application of the principle: "to each according to his needs," will undoubtelly be greatly hindered and, as a consequence, society will be obliged temporarily to take some other path, a middle path. But it is also clear that when future society runs into its groove, when the survivals of capitalism will have been eradicated, the only principle that will conform to socialist society will be the one pointed out above.That is why Marx said in 1875:page 339 "In a higher phase of communist (i.e., socialist) society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished; after labour has become not only a means of livelihood but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual . . . only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois law be crossed in iis entirety and society inscribe on its banners: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'" (see Critique of the Gotha Programme).[91]. Such, in general, is the picture of future socialist society according to the theory of Marx. This is all very well. But is the achievement of socialism conceivable? Can we assume that man will rid himself of his "savage habits"? Or again: if everybody receives according to his needs, can we assume that the level of the productive forces of socialist society will be adequate for this?Socialist society presupposes an adequate development of productive forces and socialist consciousness among men, their socialist enlightenment. At the present time the development of productive forces is hindered by the existence of capitalist property, but if we bear in mind that this capitalist property will not exist in future society, it is self-evident that the productive forces will increase tenfold. Nor must it be forgotten that in future society the hundreds of thousands of present-day parasites, and also the unemployed, will set to work and augment the ranks of the working people; and this will greatly stimulate the development of the page 340 productive forces. As regards men's "savage" sentiments and opinions, these are not as eternal as some people imagine; there was a time, under primitive communism, when man did not recognise private property; there came a time, the time of individualistic production, when private property dominated the hearts and minds of men; a new time is coming, the time of socialist production — will it be surprising if the hearts and minds of men become imbued with socialist strivings? Does not being determine the "sentiments" and opinions of men? http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html#c3 Nikolai Bukharin Programme of the World RevolutionChapter XV The End of the Power of Money.“State Finances” and Financial Economy in the Soviet RepublicWe have seen, on the other hand, that when production and distribution are thoroughly organised, money will play no part whatever, and as a matter of course no kind of money dues will be demanded from anyone. Money will have generally become unnecessary. finance will become extinct. We repeat that that time is a long way off yet. There can be no talk of it in the near future. For the present we must find means for public finance. But we are already taking steps leading to the abolition of the money system. Society is being transformed into one huge labour organisation or company to produce and distribute what is already produced without the agency of gold coinage or paper money. The end of the power of money is imminent. http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1918/worldrev/ch15.html 20 Distribution in the communist systemThe communist method of production presupposes in addition that production is not for the market, but for use. Under communism, it is no longer the individual manufacturer or the individual peasant who produces; the work of production is effected by the gigantic cooperative as a whole. In consequence of this change, we no longer have commodities, but only products. These products are not exchanged one for another; they are neither bought nor sold. They are simply stored in the communal warehouses, and are subsequently delivered to those who need them. In such conditions, money will no longer be required. 'How can that be?' some of you will ask. 'In that case one person will get too much and another too little. What sense is there in such a method of distribution?' The answer is as follows. At first, doubtless, and perhaps for twenty or thirty years, it will be necessary to have various regulations. Maybe certain products will only be supplied to those persons who have a special entry in their work-book or on their work-card. Subsequently, when communist society has been consolidated and fully developed, no such regulations will be needed. There will be an ample quantity of all products, our present wounds will long since have been healed, and everyone will be able to get just as much as he needs. 'But will not people find it to their interest to take more than they need?' Certainly not. Today, for example, no one thinks it worth while when he wants one seat in a tram, to take three tickets and keep two places empty. It will be just the same in the case of all products. A person will take from the communal storehouse precisely as much as he needs, no more. No one will have any interest in taking more than he wants in order to sell the surplus to others, since all these others can satisfy their needs whenever they please. Money will then have no value. Our meaning is that at the outset, in the first days of communist society, products will probably be distributed in accordance with the amount of work done by the applicant; at a later stage, however, they will simply be supplied according to the needs of the comrades.It has often been contended that in the future society everyone will have the right to the full product of his labour. 'What you have made by your labour, that you will receive.' This is false. It would never be possible to realize it fully. Why not? For this reason, that if everyone were to receive the full product of his labour, there would never be any possibility of developing, expanding, and improving production. Part of the work done must always be devoted to the development and improvement of production. If we had to consume and to use up everything we have produced, then we could never produce machines, for these cannot be eaten or worn. But it is obvious that the bettering of life will go hand in hand with the extension and improvement of machinery. It is plain that more and more machines must continually be produced. Now this implies that part of the labour which has been incorporated in the machines will not be returned to the person who has done the work. It implies that no one can ever receive the full product of his labour. But nothing of the kind is necessary. With the aid of good machinery, production will be so arranged that all needs will be satisfied. To sum up, at the outset products will be distributed in proportion to the work done (which does not mean that the worker will receive 'the full product of his labour'); subsequently, products will be distributed according to need, for there will be an abundance of everything.§ 21 Administration in the communist system In a communist society there will be no classes. But if there will be no classes, this implies that in communist society there will likewise be no State.We have previously seen that the State is a class organization of the rulers. The State is always directed by one class against the other. A bourgeois State http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/03.htm The words Socialism and Communism have the same meaning. They indicate a condition of society in which the wealth of the community: the land and the means of production, distribution and transport are held in common, production being for use and not for profit.Socialism being an ideal towards which we are working, it is natural that there should be some differences of opinion in that future society. Since we are living under Capitalism it is natural that many people’s ideas of Socialism should be coloured by their experiences of life under the present system. We must not be surprised that some who recognise the present system is bad should yet lack the imagination to realise the possibility of abolishing all the institutions of Capitalist society. Nevertheless there can be no real advantage in setting up a half-way-house to socialism. A combination of Socialism and Capitalism would produce all sorts of injustice, difficulty and waste. Those who happen to suffer under the anomalies would continually struggle for a return to the old system.Full and complete Socialism entails the total abolition of money, buying and selling, and the wages system.It means the community must set itself the task of providing rather more than the people can use of all the things that the people need and desire, and of supplying these when and as the people require them. http://www.marxists.org/archive/pankhurst-sylvia/1923/future-society.htm
i How about taking something from someone who believed in compulsion when dealing with disturbed children? ….Communist labour in the narrower and stricter sense of the term is labour performed gratis for the benefit of society, labour performed not as a definite duty, not for the purpose of obtaining a right to certain products, not according to previously established and legally fixed quotas, but voluntary labour, irrespective of quotas; it is labour performed without expectation of reward, without reward as a condition, labour performed because it has become a habit to work for the common good, and because of a conscious realisation (that has become a habit) of the necessity of working for the common good—labour as the requirement of a healthy organism. It must be clear to everybody that we, i.e., our society, our social system, are still a very long way from the application of this form of labour on a broad, really mass scale. …. http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/11.htm
i bourgeois rights and bourgeois limitations What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another. Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form. Hence, equal right here is still in principle – bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
i The chlorine thing is making the ‘headlines’ elsewhere now? Bit of a row breaking out at the AIJN about washing fruit [and vegetables] with it, or gassing microbes, and whether or not it is legalistically a ‘pesticide’ or a ‘processing aid’. Executive summary of AIJN report on April 12 2018. The Americans are gassing salmonella rich rotten dead chicken shit rich ‘fresh’ chickens with chlorine to reduce the faecal indicator e coli counts. So there is no way of telling. It is a lot cheaper than running a clean processing plant.
i On the business insider link The Wikipedia one is ok just looked it up now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_gas_poisoning
i On the Salisbury case. It looks like the OPCW is nobbled So we have this which is a dissembling answer to another, albeit what would have been stupid, question. “The precursor of BZ that is referred to in the public statements, commonly known as 3Q, was contained in the control sample prepared by the OPCW Lab in accordance with the existing quality control procedures,” the OPCW director general said. “Otherwise it has nothing to do with the samples collected by the OPCW Team in Salisbury. This chemical was reported back to the OPCW by the two designated labs and the findings are duly reflected in the report.” So the BZ precursor was in the ‘control’ or chromatography calibration sample that was used to detect the BZ in the Skripal blood samples! Well it f**king would be wouldn’t it! https://www.rt.com/news/424475-opcw-swiss-bz-agent-salisbury/
i Hydrocyanic acid is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_cyanide http://www.softschools.com/formulas/chemistry/hydrocyanic_acid_uses_properties_structure_formula/228/ the Nazis used it or variants of it in Auschwitz-BirkenauI think. That is ‘poisonous’. It is vary volatile and/or boils at room temperature sort of thing and the vapour kills you pretty quick. It is a bit safer I suppose if it dissolved in water. Sodium cyanide is a solid and relatively safer unless you eat it. Mixing it with any acid and you immediately get hydrogen cyanide gas/vapour. That is what they mean bascically by these so called binary agents. You have two components that are separately much safer and when you mix them they quickly produce something horrid.
i As to not wearing gloves and wearing face masks both are of absolutely no use if it was a chlorine gas attack. So it was either for theatrical effect or just ignorance. In the first world war at first the British used just fabric hoods soaked in a solution of [alkaline] sodium carbonate. The Germans were ahead of the game with masks using activated charcoal filters. Chlorine is OK or made less harmful in an alkaline medium. I suppose it was a choice of being water-boarded of chlorine gassed. I chlorine gassed myself once just to see what it was like. It is ‘bit’ like tear gas if you have ever experienced that. It O’ level chemistry stuff and you can get what you need from ASDA if you wanted to. As much is made of it and I suppose this a free for all comments section with non chemists etc. It is not a poison as such like cyanide, arsenic of sarin for instance. It is in swimming pool water essential and is powerful and useful biocide for microbes etc. They use it widely in various forms in the food industry eg as sodium hypochlorite. You learn what you need to know and not gas yourself from a medium level food industry COSHH training course. The Germans have kicked off on it recently about washing fruit and vegetable products with it. More about the potentially carcinogenic chlorinated products it may or may not produce when it reacts with the stuff in foods. https://www.food.gov.uk/science/research/chemical-safety-research/fs102077 I sent some more samples off for ‘perchlorate’ analysis a few weeks ago. I am more interested to see if my Swiss/German analytical chemistry peers at Spiez Laboratory and the OPCW are going to ‘man’ up, or do a “vee vere only obeying orders”. If they haven’t already. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/49220.htm
to have our leash jerked?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j_Z1f84Ps8
i “We know where your kids are” There was an interesting interview with former director general of the OPCW. The Americans got rid of him during the Iraq WMD story as they didn’t like his management style. He was told by John Bolton that if he didn’t resign within 24 hours. “We know where your kids are” 4 minutes in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRONBTkNogY these are the people we are dealing with.
iLavrov said the document indicated that the samples from Salisbury contained BZ nerve agent and its precursor. He said BZ was part of chemical arsenals of the U.S., Britain and other NATO countries, while the Soviet Union and Russia never developed the agent.Lavrov added that the Swiss lab also pointed at the presence of the nerve agent A234 in the samples, but added that the lab noted that its presence in the samples appeared strange, given the substance’s high volatility and the relatively long period between the poisoning and the sample-taking.He noted that OPCW’s report didn’t contain any mention of BZ, adding that Russia will ask the chemical weapons watchdog for an explanation.Britainsaid that the A234 agent belonged to the family of Soviet-designed nerve agents dubbed Novichok.https://nypost.com/2018/04/14/russia-swiss-lab-analysis-shows-nerve-agent-designed-in-west/ This could get interesting. So were the poisoned with the less than lethal BZ toxin. And biological samples taken later spiked with Novichok A234 and sent to OPCW and analysed gas chromatography with Time-of-flight mass spectrometry (TOFMS). And the computer running the instrument method already had the mass charge ratio/residue fingerprint data on it for BZ toxin and flagged it up on a retention time/peak in the chromatogram? I bet that wasn’t supposed to happen. Sorry, it is my day job.
iNot read the pathfinder article. I am appalled by the SPGB position. The whole thing stinks. I have read around the subject including non RT material. Including the chemistry behind it. And I am a chemist. But I didn’t believe the Iraq WMD thing and Colin Powel lying to the UN about Botulinum toxin etc. But then again I have cultivated Clostridium Botulinum myself as part of the microbiology subsidiary course I did as part of my HND in food science and technology that I did in addition to by Bsc in chemistry. [ it wasn’t a weapons grade toxin course; it is bog standard procedure as you need to be able to do it as a control for the analysis for Clostridium Botulinum as it is a obviously serious hazard in canning of foods] http://www.oxoid.com/uk/blue/prod_detail/prod_detail.asp?pr=CM0151&org=55&c=uk&lang=en http://www.oxoid.com/UK/blue/techsupport/its.asp?itsp=faq&cat=toxin+detection&faq=tsfaq003&c=UK&lang=EN&print=Y Presumably we all know about capillary gas chromatography analysis with mass spectrometry detection and the principal of organo-phosphate residue analysis and determination by inference? Anyway she is risen! …When Putin, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned Julia to be poisoned by chemical weapons, those who had formerly loved her did not cease to follow her on facebook, for she appeared to them on the third week, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvelous things concerning her…. So then as a test; who do we know for certain has produced the secret novichok and why and when?
