Condimentalist Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Back in the day, when I knew everything and still had teenage spots, I had a badge on my two tone harrington jacket that read 'Ferrari's for everyone.' The put down 'Champagne socialism' just isn't thinking hard enough. Champagne for everyone is a perfectly decent goal. The problem is that Marx's labour theory of value predicts that it would not be possible and not even desirable. The reason Champagne is expensive is that the traditional method of making it is very labour-intensive, especially the remuage process where each bottle is turned a minute amount by hand and le dosage where wine and sugar are added for secondary fermentation. Under a socialist system, wasting precious man-hours on such a decadent and frivolous product, when the manpower could be used to produce essential goods, would be total anathema. If you want Champaign for everyone, you need a capitalist system where large amounts of capital is invested to automate the process, which would lower the price, and make it accessible to all. An interesting point, but I don't really think that 'champagne socialist' in the way that it is used and understood in modern discourse relates to Marxist socialism/communism, it relates to social democracy, which accepts capitalism but not aggressive market capitalism and corporatist plutocracy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted June 21, 2015 Author Share Posted June 21, 2015 The march was more fun than I'd expected. Latched onto a batucada band from the start. The band leader would stop and turn to face the band to play a solo, effectively stopping the procession behind. When he finished his piece, he'd turn to face the direction of the march again and thousands charged down the road to close the gap that had formed. Split before the speechy bit to sort a birthday present and have a pint. Really well behaved, Class War looked a bit threatening but that was as far as it went. The extra police away from the march, in the shopping areas around Oxford St, were unused as far as I saw. If you want Champagne for everyone, you need a capitalist system where large amounts of capital is invested to automate the process, which would lower the price, and make it accessible to all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 I was watching the Class War and Communist Party twitter feeds. They're an interesting bunch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Back in the day, when I knew everything and still had teenage spots, I had a badge on my two tone harrington jacket that read 'Ferrari's for everyone.' The put down 'Champagne socialism' just isn't thinking hard enough. Champagne for everyone is a perfectly decent goal. The problem is that Marx's labour theory of value predicts that it would not be possible and not even desirable. The reason Champagne is expensive is that the traditional method of making it is very labour-intensive, especially the remuage process where each bottle is turned a minute amount by hand and le dosage where wine and sugar are added for secondary fermentation. Under a socialist system, wasting precious man-hours on such a decadent and frivolous product, when the manpower could be used to produce essential goods, would be total anathema. If you want Champaign for everyone, you need a capitalist system where large amounts of capital is invested to automate the process, which would lower the price, and make it accessible to all. Having read a little bit of Marx and around Marx (enough to blag it in some company) I'd have to disagree. What you're quoting is the bolshevik end of the communist interpretation of Marxism. Rooted in a 110 year old take on a 150 year old idea. The World has moved on since the 1800's, my champagne for everyone version is a great improvement. But not to be taken literally. For 'champagne' you can also slot in fancy looking cars, Bruce Springsteen, gardening or cake. Not in the let them eat cake way of the tories. But in the way where there is more than enough to go around if we all have one cake. It's when somebody wants to corner the cake market that we have problems. Ferrari for everyone would actually be fantastically easy to provide. It really would. Whether it fits a skewed 2015 view of original Marxist thought, well I just don't know about that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted June 21, 2015 Author Share Posted June 21, 2015 Class War were lined up looking a bit like the cast from a redneck backwater splatter flick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Back in the day, when I knew everything and still had teenage spots, I had a badge on my two tone harrington jacket that read 'Ferrari's for everyone.' Without the erroneous apostrophe, we hope. On topic, it is not first class that the revolution wants to abolish but second class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Just to doubly prove my left wing credentials I shall blame that apostrophe on the rather louche 10:00am glass of port I'd just knocked back (I was cooking up a stock for the beef and had run out of red wine, so used port). I think it's ok to drink 2007 port in the morning providing the glass started out life as a nutella pot. I'll be honest, I have had a brief nap this afternoon. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 Back in the day, when I knew everything and still had teenage spots, I had a badge on my two tone harrington jacket that read 'Ferrari's for everyone.' The put down 'Champagne socialism' just isn't thinking hard enough. Champagne for everyone is a perfectly decent goal. The problem is that Marx's labour theory of value predicts that it would not be possible and not even desirable. The reason Champagne is expensive is that the traditional method of making it is very labour-intensive, especially the remuage process where each bottle is turned a minute amount by hand and le dosage where wine and sugar are added for secondary fermentation. Under a socialist system, wasting precious man-hours on such a decadent and frivolous product, when the manpower could be used to produce essential goods, would be total anathema. If you want Champaign for everyone, you need a capitalist system where large amounts of capital is invested to automate the process, which would lower the price, and make it accessible to all. Having read a little bit of Marx and around Marx (enough to blag it in some company) I'd have to disagree. What you're quoting is the bolshevik end of the communist interpretation of Marxism. Rooted in a 110 year old take on a 150 year old idea. The World has moved on since the 1800's, my champagne for everyone version is a great improvement. But not to be taken literally. For 'champagne' you can also slot in fancy looking cars, Bruce Springsteen, gardening or cake. Not in the let them eat cake way of the tories. But in the way where there is more than enough to go around if we all have one cake. It's when somebody wants to corner the cake market that we have problems. Ferrari for everyone would actually be fantastically easy to provide. It really would. Whether it fits a skewed 2015 view of original Marxist thought, well I just don't know about that. I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 Without wishing to go full anorak, I don't see (or hear) where that backs up your case? The example also presumes the vineyard would be in capitalist control and not a co-operative. It also presumes no worker would ever be prepared to pay more than the hourly production rate for an item, which is a bit of a crude year 1 version of Marxism. My version is definitely better. My version allows art appreciation and individuality. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 Nah ...My version where we send the police in with big sticks was better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippo Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 I think its a good thing. But can anybody explain to me what difference its going to make. Its too late, people decided they didn't care when they voted the Tories in with a majority so the govt are not going to be bothered about a minority protesting against cuts. It does make a difference. How far can they push it - before they piss to many people that the electoral prospects take a hit. Sure they can push people to brink now - and then try and soften the blow closer to the election. They won't want people out on the streets though, sure they expect to ride out a storm, but if they appear to have misjudged it and anti austrity gets up a head of steam then they will backtrack, without ever admitting it of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mockingbird_franklin Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Nah ...My version where we send the police in with big sticks was better Once again Tony gets it spot on, How wonderful would it be to see all those spongers with their loony ideologies beaten with sticks, definately would be worthy of more media coverage than a demonstation. Though i expect quite a few of the Tory MP's would probably enjoy the experience or receiving a good thrashing, not sure if the lack of a financial exchange might lessen the enjoyment for them though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted June 26, 2015 Moderator Share Posted June 26, 2015 On austerity, the Greek thing is very interesting. The world bank went back to them and said give us our money, the Greeks said we haven't got it, the banks said we don't care, get it. All very standard up until then. The bank then said, here's how you could do it, attack your countries pension provision, tax the majority of your working people, reduce public services - here are the numbers, now get on with it. The Greeks said, we don't want to do that, the banks said, we don't care what you want, we want our money, that's the only thing that matters. The Greeks then did the strange thing. They've come back to the bank and said, we've got a plan to get you your money. We're going to retain all of those public service things you wanted us to get rid of, and raise it instead by taxing rich corporations and moving some of their money back into the country that they make it in, we know that they're your customers and all, but we figure that you just want your money right, that's the only thing that matters? The banks, the EU and the business community are currently working out how to kill Greece stone dead. The threat of a good example with Spain watching on is far too much of an issue for them to consider the Greek solution - but - the Greeks have offered to pay the debt, albeit in the worst possible way and that's difficult to ignore. It will be interesting to see how this is now reported on and how much the EU and the banks are willing to sacrifice in order to kill off this threat. Prepare yourself for Greek ostracisation and a surprise oopsie daisy change of Government in Athens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts