SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thanks for pointing it out ALB. I just scanned the article.That'll teach me to read an article properly in future.However I am of the opinion that unless a guarantee that the chemicals used will never ever find their way into the water table then it is an unacceptable risk for little return. In capitalism risks vs benefits more often than not adds profit into the calculation.
British government chief scientist warns of unforeseen risks of fracking.http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/28/fracking-risk-compared-to-thalidomide-and-asbestos-in-walport-reportInteresting to note what he says about what is holding back development of renewable energy sources.
I've just recently been reminded of certain things that have been said on several related threads about the Brand phenomenon. Some members have made points regarding other public figures advocating revolutionary change who have come and gone.Given the fact that Brand has somewhere in the region of eight million followers on Twitter, can any of his detractors say with absolute confidence that he is a "flash in the pan"?
JDWI think that's sarcasm isn't it?My point was, if walking straight into a City job after leaving a top public school is a real job in the real world, then so is leaving university and walking into a political job.
Anyone ever noticed how Farage makes a point of criticising career politicians who leave university and move straight into the world of professional politics. Such career politicians, as Farage is fond of pointing out, have never had a real job and consequently never lived in the real world.Hold on a minute, something doesn't quite add up. Lets see…Farage went to a very prestigious public school, after his A levels he chose not to go to university, instead following in his fathers footsteps in choosing to work in the City as a commodities broker. Welcome to the real world of Farage.
I was a little disappointed, though I'm not entirely sure why. Brand made some good points about inequality, but failed to go far enough. But it is only an hour worth of political surface scratching.I disagree that it was a "victory" for Farage, if my memory serves me Brand did get more of a positive reaction than any of the panelists.It was already set up by the media as a Brand vs Farage fight, so I guess the pressure was on for both of them to deliver. Farage came across as a one issue politician and Brand got excited as usual.
Russell Brand is appearing on BBC One's Question Time tonight at 10.30pm. And apparently Nigel Farage is also on the panel. Some papers have already speculated that fists might fly.However I expect the issues that will dominate tonights programe will be the Senate Committee Report on the CIA's use of torture and what the British government, then and now, involvement is. And the issue of privatisation of the NHS by stealth.There's plenty for Russell to get stuck in to. Might be an interesting debate.
ALB wrote:Another front page attack on Brand by the Sun:http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6153586/Exclusive-Sun-poll-finds-nation-think-Russell-Brand-IS-a-hypocrite.htmlReminds me of the poem:Quote:You cannot hope to bribe or twist(thank God!) the British journalist.But, seeing what the man will dounbribed, there’s no occasion to.All grist to the mill.
The site is subscription only and I don't read the Sun. The reason for the accusation of hypocrisy, as far as I can gather is about the fact he pays a fair old amount of loot a year in rent.Where would we be without The Sun, Brand obviously wasn't aware of the rule that says, rich people are not allowed to criticise the system that made them rich. It comes just after the rule that says, if you're poor and you critcise the system that creates rich and poor, it's because you're envious of the rich.
Quote:"Revolution is change. I believe in change, personal change most of all. Know, too that I have seen what fame and fortune have to offer and I know it's not the answer."Of course I have to change as an individual and part of that will be sharing wealth, though without systemic change, that will be a sweet, futile gesture."YMSI get the overall concept….err…. I think. It's like when I compared it to theoretical physics. The general concept forms in my mind but when I try to grasp it, as in trying to explain to someone else, I find I don't understand it quite enough. I then have to go back to the drawing board.Is that a problem? I don't know, should it be?It's probably because I'm not that turned on to the subject. However I'm finding the videos from Kapitalism101 are stirring my interest, it's probably the cartoons. If my interest is stirred sufficiently, it'll sink in. It's how it is for me, if a subject hits the spot that's it, I'm hungry for more. If it doesn't hit the spot then I struggle to stay awake. That doesn't mean that subject is lost to me forever. The fact I posted here means my interest is stirred, so ya never know.
LBird, YMSI have the utmost respect for the two of you, you are both widely read and are storehouses of useful knowledge, but you seem to be locking horns yet again.Please, please, no more talk of acids, films with Charlton Heston and rocks (BTW an accurate description of his acting). This is a difficult subject anyway, as can be gathered by how so few SPGB members have bothered to involve themselves. I urge the two of you to work together to help me and others (forum members and site visitors) to better get to grips with this subjectSo far Vin is the closest with a simple explanation that also touches on the anti human process of commodity fetishism, that transforms humans into economic units.
Vin wrote:The world market consists of millions of commodities being exchanged and every commodity has a price tag roughly determined by the cost of its production (labour and matrials) and these costs determines the ratio of exchange. Our wage is our price tag for our time and abilities. The commodity purchassed with a 'wage' is a unique commodity in that it produces more than it costs. The surplus is taken by the capitalist class.Two things spring to mind. Either this subject is too complex to simplify in any useful way and that there is no substitute to serious study of Marx's works and others. If that is the case then Alan is 100% correct in that it is of no concern to socialists in trying to convince the majority of workers of the need to rid themselves of the humiliations and limitations of capitalism and actively engage in the construction of a socialist world.
Quote:So then, to the most asked questions about this affair. Was my permission sought when Joss’s team decided to record No Man’s Land? No. Did I know what they proposed to do with the song when they decided to record it? No. Do I approve of what they have done to the song (missing verses, rock’n’roll arrangement)? No.Young Master Smeet wrote:SP,no-one, AFAIK think's you're a shit stirrer, your question was met with an answer, is all. The minimum people need to understand is that a pile of money ina field doesn't grow like a plant. Only human effort increases wealth, and the only way that someone can be relatively wealthy, that is having more wealth than can be produced by a single person working, is by taking control of the effort of others. A lump of metal and a bit of wood are worth as much as a lump of metal and a stick of wood, but turn them into a hammer, and they are worth more than the metal and wood together. That addition is effort. It may or may not sell at that value: it might be a rip-off or a bargain, but we know if it is either that it has some worth other than what it sells for.A myth may help. Imagine a society in which everyone has a similar set of skills. They use these skills to make/find goods A to E. Not everyone makes these objects, some make A and exchange with others, somoe make B, etc. Each though could make the other objects, and they know both how much effort it would take them to make them and how long otehrs would take. When exchanging, they take great care not to swap goods for objects that it would take less effort to get themselves than they have invested in the the thing they are swapping. Some people may have to put in more energy, or find some tasks harder in their minds and have to concentrate harder, but the others can't se that, all they can see is a rough output each per day.So, the people know that in terms of exchange A>B>C>D>E : that is, A is worth more than B, etc. As with our chess pawns, since E is the least valuable, it becomes possible to express these relative worths in terms of E, i.e. E=1. So D=2E, C=3.5E, etc. so to get a fair swap of D's and C's you'd need to swap 7 D for 4 C's (or fractions to that equivilant). Now, a certain number of hours of effort go into an E, but that doesn't enter into the bargain directly, goods are evauated in terms of the number of E's they are worth, and the relative human effort behind an E remains hidden, but it is there.Thanks YMS, much appreciated.This subject, for me at least, is similar to the world of theoretical physics, a very complicated world that is not easily understood. It takes a lot of reading and thought and then more reading and thought to get to grips with it. Even then I find the concepts exist in a very nebulous state in my mind and often evaporate when I try to explain to others.My foray into this subject was to find out if the concept of value has a simple explanation that can be referred to if needed during discussion with non socialists. So far there isn't a simple explanation. Analogies can be used but they are themselves quite in depth.In my discussions with non socialists to date, I've stayed away from invoking Marxist theory (scientific usage of word). I'll probably continue to do so in the future, but those films from Kapitalism101 will, I expect, prove to be very valuable and who knows I might even give Das Kapital another go. Cheers.
DJP wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:What's your opinion?They're all very good. We showed them at public meetings in Norwich a few years back. This is his website: http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/
Cheers DJP, I'll go through the lot asap.They kinda remind me of when I was in junior school watching educational films, sat crossed legged in the hall. Probably why I find them strangely enjoyable.
DJPI've watched two of them so far and they seem pretty good, I actually enjoyed them (does that make me a weirdo?). Though having attempted and given up on reading Das Kapital when I first joined the SPGB some years ago I couldn't judge how accurate they are. What's your opinion?
DJP, YMSHold on there now fellas. I'm not having a cheap dig here, I know I'm down as a "shit stirrer" etc and will likely never be free of that label, but I'm not looking to be awkward for awkward sake. I'm looking for clarity and understanding.Put it this way, if I was in a pub with a few of my non political mates and the conversation gravitated towards this subject, Suppose I whipped out the Party explanation, such as we are discussing here, would I be met with glazed looks of pure boredom or enlightened fascination?The point being and it's one that Alan made. How does this translate into the real world and help explain socialism to real people, not academics?As for the two sentences:"A relative magnitude which expresses the relationship between two commodities."and"The value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of socially necessary abstract labour time needed for its production and reproduction. "These are not normal everyday phrases that clearly spell out their meaning. Sorry.
