25% of children Spain malnourished

[PhoenixAsh]

25% of the children in Spain (0-16) is malnourished because of the economic crisis. Because of high unemployment, increased austerity measures many families do not have enough money to buy adequate food for their children

Many children also lack sufficient clothing. Live in very cramped living conditions which also directly impacts their education negatively because of homework problems.

Now...tell me again...why don't we have a right to stand up and fight this obvious attack on our future, our health and our children while rich grow richer at our expense? Fuck that.



http://www.nu.nl/buitenland/2643022/kwart-kinderen-spanje-ondervoed.html

[Bud Struggle]

25% of the children in Spain (0-16) is malnourished because of the economic crisis. Because of high unemployment, increased austerity measures many families do not have enough money to buy adequate food for their children

Many children also lack sufficient clothing. Live in very cramped living conditions which also directly impacts their education negatively because of homework problems.

Now...tell me again...why don't we have a right to stand up and fight this obvious attack on our future, our health and our children while rich grow richer at our expense? Fuck that.



http://www.nu.nl/buitenland/2643022/kwart-kinderen-spanje-ondervoed.html


Not exactly. Bad government is bad government. Spain has been a reasonable Socialist country lately. BUT the politicians borrowed money to create a higher standard of living than the productivity of the country deserved. They did that to get elected. (Same for Greece.)

It's not the fault of "Capitalism." It's the fault of politicians. Elected fairly.

The people were greedy, the politicians were looking for power. Bad combo.

And it's the people at the bottom that suffer. No one else.

[DarkPast]

Not exactly. Bad government is bad government. Spain has been a reasonable Socialist country lately. BUT the politicians borrowed money to create a higher standard of living than the productivity of the country deserved. They did that to get elected. (Same for Greece.)

It's not the fault of "Capitalism." It's the fault of politicians. Elected fairly.

The people were greedy, the politicians were looking for power. Bad combo.

And it's the people at the bottom that suffer. No one else.

Nope, it's the way capitalism and bourgeois democracy work that drove those people into poverty. Capitalism tires to maximize profits at all costs (and cannot survive without economic growth) - hence inequality, austerity and unemployment. The so-called democracy allows politicians to make totally unrealistic promises and get away with it - and they have four years to plunder the proletariat in the meantime.

Of course, people did vote them in. But a) they didn't vote for the capital that hides behind (and funds) the politicians and b) they're kept ignorant through bourgeois propaganda transmitted through mass media (and we know who owns the mass media).

Oh, and are you seriously trying to tell me there's not enough food for the children? Don't you think the problem is distribution rather than supply?

[Bud Struggle]

Nope, it's the way capitalism and bourgeois democracy work that drove those people into poverty. Capitalism tires to maximize profits at all costs (and cannot survive without economic growth) - hence inequality, austerity and unemployment. The so-called democracy allows politicians to make totally unrealistic promises and get away with it - and they have four years to plunder the proletariat in the meantime.

Of course, people did vote them in. But a) they didn't vote for the capital that hides behind (and funds) the politicians and b) they're kept ignorant through bourgeois propaganda transmitted through mass media (and we know who owns the mass media).

Oh, and are you seriously trying to tell me there's not enough food for the children? Don't you think the problem is distribution rather than supply?

That's why Communism always functions under a Glorious Leader. Communism need someone that knows "best" for the people. Capitalism supposes that people are grown up and can make the best decisions for themselves. It supposes that people can see through lies put forth by the media and it believes people are rational when it comes to their own well being.

Communism knows better, doesn't it?

[DDR]

Not exactly. Bad government is bad government. Spain has been a reasonable Socialist country lately. BUT the politicians borrowed money to create a higher standard of living than the productivity of the country deserved. They did that to get elected. (Same for Greece.)

It's not the fault of "Capitalism." It's the fault of politicians. Elected fairly.

The people were greedy, the politicians were looking for power. Bad combo.

And it's the people at the bottom that suffer. No one else.

You sir, have no idea of the reality of the spanish state, latter on when I'm less stoned I will give you a proper insight :D

[Bud Struggle]

You sir, have no idea of the reality of the spanish state, latter on when I'm less stoned I will give you a proper insight :D

I was just there 3 weeks ago and am a member of the CNT.

[Rafiq]

Not exactly. Bad government is bad government. Spain has been a reasonable Socialist country lately. BUT the politicians borrowed money to create a higher standard of living than the productivity of the country deserved. They did that to get elected. (Same for Greece.)

It's not the fault of "Capitalism." It's the fault of politicians. Elected fairly.

The people were greedy, the politicians were looking for power. Bad combo.

And it's the people at the bottom that suffer. No one else.

This is far from true.

Firstly, Spain doesn't even have social democracy, none the less socialism!

Secondly,Spanish politicians are representatives of the Spanish Bourgeoisie. Last time I checked Spain didn't have a centralized economy so therefore blaming politicians for the economy isn't going to pass. It was the fault of no one, nothing but the systematic contradictions within the capitalist mode of production.

What is happening there is going to spread. Everywhere. Look toward the Ghettos, toward Africa, for a crystal ball into the future.

[Rafiq]

That's why Communism always functions under a Glorious Leader. Communism need someone that knows "best" for the people. Capitalism supposes that people are grown up and can make the best decisions for themselves. It supposes that people can see through lies put forth by the media and it believes people are rational when it comes to their own well being.

Communism knows better, doesn't it?

That's absurd. Capitalism is not some intentional system put forward by delegetes represented by the people. It is a system, that of which keeps the Bourgeois class in class power. Both 20th century Communism and today's capitalism had no "assumptions" as to whether people could made decisions.

[Bud Struggle]

That's absurd. Capitalism is not some intentional system put forward by delegetes represented by the people. It is a system, that of which keeps the Bourgeois class in class power. Both 20th century Communism and today's capitalism had no "assumptions" as to whether people could made decisions.


Well, OK.

My guess is that the poor will be stomped on.

Forever.

[Rafiq]

Well, OK.

My guess is that the poor will be stomped on.

Forever.

Poor people are not some "Side-Line" or "Third Party" within all economies. The question is not like as if we are all happy but the "Poor people" are the ones who we need to help.

The problem is that soon, we will all be poorer than we could ever imagine. Well, most of us.

[Bud Struggle]

Poor people are not some "Side-Line" or "Third Party" within all economies. The question is not like as if we are all happy but the "Poor people" are the ones who we need to help.

The problem is that soon, we will all be poorer than we could ever imagine. Well, most of us.

Maybe. I think you (us) (the poor) will be kept sidelined. You Commies are right: people can't make intellinget decisions for themselves.

[DarkPast]

You Commies are right: people can't make intellinget decisions for themselves.

No. Exactly the opposite in fact. Ever heard of direct democracy? Workers self-management? It's under capitalism that people are kept in the dark and constantly fed propaganda that they need "representatives" (i.e. rulers), that cut-throat competition is the norm etc. Communism is about empowering local communities to take charge of their own public services. It's not about centralized state control at all.

[Bud Struggle]

No. Exactly the opposite in fact. Ever heard of direct democracy? Workers self-management? It's under capitalism that people are kept in the dark and constantly fed propaganda that they need "representatives" (i.e. rulers), that cut-throat competition is the norm etc. Communism is about empowering local communities to take charge of their own public services. It's not about centralized state control at all.

Yea, yea, yea.

Spiders from Mars. It's fantasy.

[Rafiq]

No. Exactly the opposite in fact. Ever heard of direct democracy? Workers self-management? It's under capitalism that people are kept in the dark and constantly fed propaganda that they need "representatives" (i.e. rulers), that cut-throat competition is the norm etc. Communism is about empowering local communities to take charge of their own public services. It's not about centralized state control at all.

I don't agree with budd struggle, but this is basic Utopianism here

[Bud Struggle]

I don't agree with budd struggle, but this is basic Utopianism here

You agree with me an you know it. :D

[Tim Cornelis]

On topic:

Dutch news has translated the news from Spanish news agency wrong. 25% of the Spanish population below 16 years is not malnourished, rather they are substituting nutritious food for unhealthy food (e.g. snacks).

Dutch news agencies need to learn español.

[Bud Struggle]

On topic:

Dutch news has translated the news from Spanish news agency wrong. 25% of the Spanish population below 16 years is not malnourished, rather they are substituting nutritious food for unhealthy food (e.g. snacks).

Dutch news agencies need to learn español.

There you go..



Capitalism works! :D

[Per Levy]

There you go..



Capitalism works! :D

no, judging from your first post here, it would be much more good goverment and that socialism works(or whatever you define at that).

[Rafiq]

You agree with me an you know it. :D

We have no official position as to whether humans can make intelligent decisions for themselves. Sometimes they can, sometimes they cannot. What we are after is what determines those choices and what makes them make those decisions.

[Rafiq]

no, judging from your first post here, it would be much more good goverment and that socialism works(or whatever you define at that).

Spain has been riding on the Neo-Liberal train for a long time now. So no, it wouldn't be a good argument.

Arguing that capitalism is good because living standards are good is valid. Any sensible person would recognize that capitalism isn't the shittiest system on Earth and that it has raised living standards for human beings more than any other time in Human history.

The question is how long it will be able to keep doing that, and the question is whether or not it's the best mode of organization possible, if there are better ways we can organize ourselves into, etc.

[Baseball]

Spain has been riding on the Neo-Liberal train for a long time now. So no, it wouldn't be a good argument.

Arguing that capitalism is good because living standards are good is valid. Any sensible person would recognize that capitalism isn't the shittiest system on Earth and that it has raised living standards for human beings more than any other time in Human history.

The question is how long it will be able to keep doing that, and the question is whether or not it's the best mode of organization possible, if there are better ways we can organize ourselves into, etc.

But having said this, it would then seem to be the responsibility of the socialists to suggest and sketch out ideas of what might be better.
But many socialists on this board (including yourself) have been quite clear that you cannot, will not, not necessary to do so, and it will all happen and be figured out AFTER the revolution.

[Judicator]

Well then I suppose they're malnourished AND fat:

http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v56/n10/abs/1601414a.html

Just cut back on calories and use your savings to buy a vitamin pill.

[PhoenixAsh]

That's why Communism always functions under a Glorious Leader. Communism need someone that knows "best" for the people. Capitalism supposes that people are grown up and can make the best decisions for themselves. It supposes that people can see through lies put forth by the media and it believes people are rational when it comes to their own well being.

Communism knows better, doesn't it?

Right...this makes no sense Bud and you know it. Capitalism does not allow people to make choices for themselves and they can't make the best decisions because they are dependend on the wage they get from the jobs that are there because of the way free market works.

you think people choose te become unemployed? You think people chose to work for minimum wage which is barely enough? You think people choose to live in too small housing? You think people choose to not be able to buy adequate clothes for their children?

While at the same time banks and corporations decide to exploit these people and create circumstances in which that litterally is the ONLY choice? While the rich get richer...the poor choose to be poor?

Fuck that. And you definately know this is a sham argument you are giving us here.

It is the fucking system.

[PhoenixAsh]

Well then I suppose they're malnourished AND fat:

http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v56/n10/abs/1601414a.html

Just cut back on calories and use your savings to buy a vitamin pill.


data from 2001.

game over.

although...nice of you to post this. So from higher than avarage obesity we go to 25% malnourished. That kind of makes it even much, much worse don't you think.

[Judicator]

data from 2001.

game over.

although...nice of you to post this. So from higher than avarage obesity we go to 25% malnourished. That kind of makes it even much, much worse don't you think.

Lol hardly, they've gotten even fatter since then!
http://www.local-tv.net/news/spanissh-medicss-call-action-againsst-obessity

Really it makes me thing the malnourished claim is bullshit.

[PhoenixAsh]

Lol hardly, they've gotten even fatter since then!
http://www.local-tv.net/news/spanissh-medicss-call-action-againsst-obessity

Really it makes me thing the malnourished claim is bullshit.

1). Doesn't really contradict the malnourishment claim now does it?
2). There is a reason why fastfood is popular with the poor...it is cheap.


your unsourced story to my source: Fedaia. Umbrella organisation of child aid agencies.

[Judicator]

1). Doesn't really contradict the malnourishment claim now does it?
2). There is a reason why fastfood is popular with the poor...it is cheap.


your unsourced story to my source: Fedaia. Umbrella organisation of child aid agencies.

1) First you say "So from higher than avarage obesity we go to 25% malnourished. That kind of makes it even much, much worse don't you think." (implying that they are comparable). And now you say that malnourishment and obesity are unrelated. Which one is it?

2) And what would be even cheaper? Eating LESS fast food! Cooking at home! They would be less obese and have more in their wallets!

[PhoenixAsh]

1) First you say "So from higher than avarage obesity we go to 25% malnourished. That kind of makes it even much, much worse don't you think." (implying that they are comparable). And now you say that malnourishment and obesity are unrelated. Which one is it?

O no...I answered your allegation and insinuation that they were which you made on ancient data . Do not try to turn the tables here. I don't think they are mutually exclusive. Since your later link shows 60% of the population has obesitas (citing unnamed sources simply listed as "medics")

In fact that link is factually incorrect. http://news-spain.euroresidentes.com/2011/02/child-obesity-in-spain.html

In actual fact 30% of the children is obese. Which leaves 70%...and apparantly of those 70%...25% are malnourished. The misused statistic in your article of 60% covers the adult population. Which was not mentioned in my article at all...since...well...they are not children.




2) And what would be even cheaper? Eating LESS fast food! Cooking at home! They would be less obese and have more in their wallets!

Fast food is cheaper than food from a supermarket.

[ComradeMan]

On topic:

Dutch news has translated the news from Spanish news agency wrong. 25% of the Spanish population below 16 years is not malnourished, rather they are substituting nutritious food for unhealthy food (e.g. snacks).

Dutch news agencies need to learn español.

Here's the Spanish article

http://www.elmundo.es/accesible/elmundo/2011/10/16/solidaridad/1318761634.html

It says in Spanish: "el 25% de niños españoles sufre malnutrición agudizada por la crisis, según ONGs"- which means "25% of Spanish children suffer from malnutrition exacerbated by the crisis according to non-governmental organisations.

The article states that many families cannot afford to buy fruit, meat and fish in order to provide adequate nutrition for their children.

[ComradeMan]

Lol hardly, they've gotten even fatter since then!
http://www.local-tv.net/news/spanissh-medicss-call-action-againsst-obessity

Really it makes me thing the malnourished claim is bullshit.

Malnourishment means "badly nourished" it does not mean starving to death.... derp.

[RGacky3]

Not exactly. Bad government is bad government. Spain has been a reasonable Socialist country lately. BUT the politicians borrowed money to create a higher standard of living than the productivity of the country deserved. They did that to get elected. (Same for Greece.)


Over the last 20 years, Spain has been on the neo-liberal path, privatizing, busting unions, opening markets and so on.


Lol hardly, they've gotten even fatter since then!
http://www.local-tv.net/news/spaniss...insst-obessity (http://www.local-tv.net/news/spanissh-medicss-call-action-againsst-obessity)

Really it makes me thing the malnourished claim is bullshit.

Malnourishment and body weight has nothing to do with each other, if your not getting hte right nutritions, you can still get fat.

[Tim Cornelis]

Okay so they are malnourished, sorry.


no, judging from your first post here, it would be much more good goverment and that socialism works(or whatever you define at that).

Typical indeed. "It does not work", "that's because it's socialist". "Turns out it does work", "that's because it's capitalist" :P

[ComradeMan]

The accusations have been made that Greece was less than honest in order to join the euro with allegations of Greece's lying about its debt. :crying:

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/worldview/100213/opinion-greek-crisis-paves-way-more-regulation

timeo danaos et dona ferentēs.... lol

The question is.... who carries the blame? The people on the ground or the people who were responsible? ;)

Back to poverty,

Here's an article from January 2011
http://www.repubblica.it/solidarieta/cooperazione/2011/01/14/news/istat_povert-11228248/

According to the article there are/were (Jan) 1,756,000 children/minors in Italy living in poverty- that's about 22%.

[RGacky3]

timeo danaos et dona ferentēs.... lol

The question is.... who carries the blame? The people on the ground or the people who were responsible? http://www.revleft.com/vb/25-children-spain-t162823/revleft/smilies/wink.gif


The only reason the United States is not in the same situation Greece is in is because they have our own currency and federal reserve, and also because since everything else has gone to crap, the treasury is still popular.

[ComradeMan]

The only reason the United States is not in the same situation Greece is in is because they have our own currency and federal reserve, and also because since everything else has gone to crap, the treasury is still popular.

Poverty and Greece have always been bedfellows... I think you are comparing apples and oranges here.

[Rafiq]

But having said this, it would then seem to be the responsibility of the socialists to suggest and sketch out ideas of what might be better.
But many socialists on this board (including yourself) have been quite clear that you cannot, will not, not necessary to do so, and it will all happen and be figured out AFTER the revolution.



Yes? And what is the problem here?

[Baseball]

Yes? And what is the problem here?


I guess that if the claim is going to be made there are better ways to organize ourselves, it is sort of incumbent of people to actually explain and defend what those ways might be.

[RGacky3]

One thing we should be doing is looking at the internal contradictions of capitalism and finding out we can get rid of them, the internal contradictions of capitalism are real and measurable.

[Thirsty Crow]

Yes? And what is the problem here?
There is a fucking problem here, frankly.
Also, there's a whole lot of difference between "creating blueprints for the future" and offering a rational, thought out proposal with respect to concrete measures which can be exercised once bourgeois power is demolished, and working class political rule established. Or do you think that Communist Manifesto embodies some kind of a blueprint when those 10 (if I remember correctly) measures are proposed?
The whole chorus of "the workers' themselves will decide" is pretty damaging in my opinion, especially when it assumes the mantle of a defence of workers' self-emancipation against supposed authoritarianism of organized communists who are trying to create these "blueprints". It's an entirely false problem, and more importantly, it masks other significant problems in the relation between communist militants and the broad working class.

Finally, I'd advise you to take a look at this piece by Andrew Kliman (directly relevant to this issue): http://thecommune.co.uk/2010/01/08/alternatives-to-capitalism-what-happens-after-the-revolution/

[Baseball]

One thing we should be doing is looking at the internal contradictions of capitalism and finding out we can get rid of them, the internal contradictions of capitalism are real and measurable.


The argument by the non-socialists is not that capitalism is perfect, but rather it is better than socialism.
Simply critiquing capitalism is not enough to show that socialism is better.
To prove socialism one has to prove socialism.
Mennochio's comment on this thread was spot on- socialism ought not rely upon faith that theirs is the better way.

[RGacky3]

The argument by the non-socialists is not that capitalism is perfect, but rather it is better than socialism.
Simply critiquing capitalism is not enough to show that socialism is better.
To prove socialism one has to prove socialism.
Mennochio's comment on this thread was spot on- socialism ought not rely upon faith that theirs is the better way.

Then tell me how to fix Capitalism internal contradictions, that arn't only flaws, but essencailly guarantee it to collapse?

[ClearlyChrist]

Malnourishment In Spain? Fuck Me, Looks Like It'll Be Another Famine For Us Irish Again, In That Case.

[Thirsty Crow]

To prove socialism one has to prove socialism.

What would you propose, how can socialism be proven? By which cognitive procedures?

[danyboy27]

for a poor family, eating crap in the civilised world is what keep them alive and allow them to pay the rent and have electricity.

Ground beef, grounded pork, canned vegetables, potatoes, refined sugar, white bread, those are all extremely unhealthy food that poor people can get their hand on for a reasonable price, and it will eventually contribute to obesity, diabetes and other diseases.

No effort are made to teach to those people to cook in e healthier manner or to give them the mean (money or voucher) to get their hand on the good stuff.

Its easy to shout buzzword like ''personnal responsability'' every time somebody from a lower class without mean or knowledge to make a bad choice, has if they really had a fucking choice.

[RGacky3]

Not to mention many of them grow up in families that due to financial pressure are much more likely to be single parent households, who may have to work 2 or so jobs to survive, and thus never teach their kids, basic things that middle class kids would take forgranted.

[Revolution starts with U]

Capitalist minded people always are willing to consider ignorance a form of laziness.

Its like the common idea that fast food is cheaper. Its not. You can just buy single portions. You cannot do that in the supermarket because the profit motive has decided that 2 person families are too small and 4 person families too big. So if you need to feed a family of four, you have to buy 6 portions of food. Ever notice steaks and chicken breasts come in packs of 3?
But then there is also ignorance that cooking your food is healthier. It is not if you're just cooking red meats and processed foods. And those are the cheapest foods at the supermarket! The profit motive basically requires a large chunk of the population to remain fat malnourished uneducated zombies.

We socialists should offer ideas of what we think socialism/communism will look like. And we do, (have you looked at this board?) I don't know where you guys got the idea that we don't. What we don't do is (well some of us do) is claim that our ideas of socialism are "the one true socialism."

ALL power to the soviets... remember?

[JFB.anon]

The solution is obviously less government.:thumbup:

TAXIN DA RICH IS LIKE REDISTRIBUTING GPA, THEM CAPITALIASTS OWNED IT PROPERLEH!

[PhoenixAsh]

For € 1.59 I get a water inflated slice of chickenbreast....for the right fastfood...I pay
€ 1.00 for something with a lot more calories. For a single person fast food is actually cheaper then normal food...IF I fill up on dry bread in between. And believe me...I have had to do this.

On top of that it is convenient. Working a 9-18 job, and especially if you have two jobs out of pure necessity, means you have little time to do groceries and cook on time for any kids you may have nor for yourself.

[Baseball]

I[QUOTE]ts like the common idea that fast food is cheaper. Its not. You can just buy single portions. You cannot do that in the supermarket because the profit motive has decided that 2 person families are too small and 4 person families too big. So if you need to feed a family of four, you have to buy 6 portions of food. Ever notice steaks and chicken breasts come in packs of 3?
But then there is also ignorance that cooking your food is healthier. It is not if you're just cooking red meats and processed foods. And those are the cheapest foods at the supermarket! The profit motive basically requires a large chunk of the population to remain fat malnourished uneducated zombies.

Perhaps the basic idea is so that people do not have to make daily trips to the supermarket. Is it an idea of socialism that people should have to line up every day for their food?

[Baseball]

[QUOTE]Ground beef, grounded pork, canned vegetables, potatoes, refined sugar, white bread, those are all extremely unhealthy food that poor people can get their hand on for a reasonable price, and it will eventually contribute to obesity, diabetes and other diseases.

No effort are made to teach to those people to cook in e healthier manner or to give them the mean (money or voucher) to get their hand on the good stuff.

OK. So an idea of socialism is to teach adults how to cook, on the premise people who are poor lack such skills, and poor people will be healthier.
Meanwhile, life spans continue to increase, even in an age of canned vegetables and refined sugar (let's not ship them to Spain!).

[Rafiq]

I guess that if the claim is going to be made there are better ways to organize ourselves, it is sort of incumbent of people to actually explain and defend what those ways might be.

No, it's not.

There is probably other life in the Universe, actually there is.

I don't know what they look like, how they surive, what planets they live on, but it would be naive to think that Earth is the only planet that can support "life".

[RGacky3]

OK. So an idea of socialism is to teach adults how to cook, on the premise people who are poor lack such skills, and poor people will be healthier.
Meanwhile, life spans continue to increase, even in an age of canned vegetables and refined sugar (let's not ship them to Spain!).

Is that a real argument?

life spans increasing is a testiment to science, not to the terrible capitalist distribution system.

[Rafiq]

There is a fucking problem here, frankly.
Also, there's a whole lot of difference between "creating blueprints for the future" and offering a rational, thought out proposal with respect to concrete measures which can be exercised once bourgeois power is demolished, and working class political rule established. Or do you think that Communist Manifesto embodies some kind of a blueprint when those 10 (if I remember correctly) measures are proposed?
The whole chorus of "the workers' themselves will decide" is pretty damaging in my opinion, especially when it assumes the mantle of a defence of workers' self-emancipation against supposed authoritarianism of organized communists who are trying to create these "blueprints". It's an entirely false problem, and more importantly, it masks other significant problems in the relation between communist militants and the broad working class.

Finally, I'd advise you to take a look at this piece by Andrew Kliman (directly relevant to this issue): http://thecommune.co.uk/2010/01/08/alternatives-to-capitalism-what-happens-after-the-revolution/


The Communist manifesto was not a blueprint for the future. Sure, their is nothing wrong with offering tactics and strategies, but actually, to be quite honest, I don't think the solution offered by Marx in the communist manifesto would even work in modern times. Even Marx in his later life became dissolusioned with that book, too.

There is no difference between blueprint making and what you just mentioned. You are giving us a framework for what a future society might look like, which is Utopian beyond Utopian.

Perhaps when we are closer to achieving class power, organized, and in such a position, perhaps then we could start talking about what we will do when we get into class power. Until then it is a waste of time. What we need to be doing is offering solutions and "blueprints" as to how we can organize ourselves and get the class struggle train up and running once more.

[danyboy27]

[QUOTE=danyboy25;2265354]
OK. So an idea of socialism is to teach adults how to cook, on the premise people who are poor lack such skills, and poor people will be healthier.
Meanwhile, life spans continue to increase, even in an age of canned vegetables and refined sugar (let's not ship them to Spain!).

Poor people will be healthier if you give them the necessary means to be healthy, that is, knowledge and affordable quality food.

Most of the world is running either on a single payer healthcare or semi-private/public system. Its obvious that even if a big chunck of the population get sicker, they will remain alive for some time due to this system.

Also, snack and comfort food or cheap food are not the problem in itself, the problem is that people need to consume those continually in order to pay the bill if they are poor.

[Rafiq]

Like I said before, Capitalism was never planned or designed initially. This is where your Idealism fails, blue printers.

The material conditions will determine what way we organize ourselves in a post-capitalist society. What is important for them is to learn from the mistakes of our past, and move from there. We are in no position in designing what society will look like in the future, not until we actually achieve class power.

[Revolution starts with U]

We still can and should make reasonable assumptions. Capitalism may have not been planned, as such. But there were people "predicting" what a free society with private enterprise would look like. Obviously, it didn't turn out how they wanted, per se. But it still offers a positive approach to society, rather than a pure negative one.

I completely agree tho that we need more...


What we need to be doing is offering solutions and "blueprints" as to how we can organize ourselves and get the class struggle train up and running once more

...than we do blueprints for socialist society.

[Rafiq]

I completely agree tho that we need more...

...than we do blueprints for socialist society.

Hell no. Let me rephrase that: Fuck all blueprints.

We need to focus on organizing the proletariat. We shouldn't ever make blueprints for a future society.

For us, Socialism/communism is merely the movement that brings the proletariat to power. It is the hammer we use to crush the class enemy. Not something we aught to achieve no matter what.

[Rafiq]

What would you propose, how can socialism be proven? By which cognitive procedures?

It cannot. Hence arguing with critics of Socialism by saying "No, Workers will be in power" or "No, in Socialism everything is perfect" is invalid. It is impossible to argue with Utopia.

It is kind of the same thing when you hear Libertarians talking about how "Free Markets" will fix everything when you throw arguments at them.

Starvation? "Free Markets!"

Ecological Crisis? "Free Markets!"

is there answer.

And to be quite honest, I can easily say a user like Baseball is a hundred times more useful than the Utopian socialists we have on here. And this is directed at Dinodude. Baseball forces people to think about and re consider their Utopian wet dreams. Hence you will never find Baseball arguing in favor of capitalism (Friedmn, Von Mises, or Moralist arguments for capitalism) because I assume he knows that such arguments are invalid.

[ComradeMan]

Hell no. Let me rephrase that: Fuck all blueprints.
We need to focus on organizing the proletariat. We shouldn't ever make blueprints for a future society.

Who's going to vote for the "we don't have plan" Party? That's the problem... as much as I think a lot of economics is nonsense and the abuse of mathematics to fleece people... you're going to have a hard time convincing people of your credentials if you can't present them with a viable alternative.

I think we should look at sustainability as perhaps one point of reference, albeit not the only one.

You also need to ask at the end of the day.... what does humanity actually want and need and how can that be achieved in a fair and democratic way.

[Thirsty Crow]

The Communist manifesto was not a blueprint for the future. Sure, their is nothing wrong with offering tactics and strategies, but actually, to be quite honest, I don't think the solution offered by Marx in the communist manifesto would even work in modern times. Even Marx in his later life became dissolusioned with that book, too.The Manifesto did not offer tactics and strategies for the proletariat's conquest of political power in that section I'm referring to - it made concrete proposals for the immediate time frame following the working class' ascension to the status of the ruling class. And it's entirely irrelevant to my point whether these specific proposals are viable for contemporary societies.



There is no difference between blueprint making and what you just mentioned. You are giving us a framework for what a future society might look like, which is Utopian beyond Utopian.This is entirely absurd and quite contradictory in relation to what you said above of the proposals found in the Manifesto. Moreover, you seem to have no fucking idea what you're talking about when you invoke the notion of utopianism as it was bashed in Marx's time. Let's see what does Kliman have to say about it (apparently, you didn't bother to skim through the text; that always works as a debating strategy):


Talk of “blueprints” is often careless. It is important to recall that Marx was grappling with some honest-to-goodness blueprints of a future society. Fourier, for instance, stipulated how large each community (Phalanx) will be, how it will be laid out, how people will dine and with whom they will sit, and who will do the dirty work (a legion of “youngsters aged nine to sixteen, composed of one-third girls, two-thirds boys”). There is a great chasm between such blueprints, which Marx rejected, and what Dunayevskaya, in her final presentation on the dialectics of organization and philosophy, called “a general view of where we’re headed.”

So that's what utopianism amounts to. Sketching the contours of the future society in its general distinguishing characteristics, with specific highlighting of the possible benefits for the working people, is not what constitutes utopianism. If you think that it is legitimate to invoke Marx's name and mutilate the notion of utopianism found in his writings, while still using it as a tool for bashing those who ask legit questions because they do not know what communism is in the first place - then you'd have to come up with hell of a good a reason. Something which you didn't do, but you did parrot the line put forward by Marx all the while concrete context was entirely forgotten.

And most of all - who the fuck I would have no opinion on the framework for what I consider the possible organizational patterns of a society devoid of wage slavery and capital, and consider myself a communist? Or should I just stay hush with regard to what I consider possible as a general framework here?


Perhaps when we are closer to achieving class power, organized, and in such a position, perhaps then we could start talking about what we will do when we get into class power. Until then it is a waste of time. What we need to be doing is offering solutions and "blueprints" as to how we can organize ourselves and get the class struggle train up and running once more.
Yeah, see, it's far more honest to call such a project a "waste of time" instead of babbling about utopianism.
That's a mighty subject indeed, and we could make a thread on it elsewhere in fact (since we're spamming this thread). All I'll say here is this: I don't think you can mechanically separate militants' intervention into class struggle (something, btw., which will not jump start class struggle, something which can't get class struggle "up and running again" - though I do think that this process is by itself underway as we speak) in the form of proposed possibilities, rationally conceived and well thought out, and militants' concrete organizational activities.

And again, I honestly advise you to take a look at the article by Kliman.

[Rafiq]

Who's going to vote for the "we don't have plan" Party? That's the problem... as much as I think a lot of economics is nonsense and the abuse of mathematics to fleece people... you're going to have a hard time convincing people of your credentials if you can't present them with a viable alternative.

I think we should look at sustainability as perhaps one point of reference, albeit not the only one.

You also need to ask at the end of the day.... what does humanity actually want and need and how can that be achieved in a fair and democratic way.

That's the thing, during Marx's time the Communist parties were formed by the workers themselves, and not by opportunistic communists attracting workers.

I don't have any plans for forming my own party and calling all of the workers to join in. I firmly believe that the proletariat on it's own will organize itself into a new party, with their own ideology (Possibly communism, however probably something very similar if not).

[Revolution starts with U]

Sometimes Rafiq I think you just act for the sake of being difficult and unaggreable.

[DDR]

Spain has been a reasonable Socialist country lately.

The PSOE, the party in office since 2004, dropped marxism and any kind of socialism in '77. They made in the fist term some progresive reforms, gay marriage, baby-checks, long time unemployement pays when the crisis began, etc. But no really socialist reforms.


BUT the politicians borrowed money to create a higher standard of living than the productivity of the country deserved. They did that to get elected. (Same for Greece.)

No, the goverment in times of aznar when everything was good, and the spanish economy was on fire left a very saneated state accounts. And that's for real he was a dirty neo-con reagan style he rise up the economy (when your economy is based in bricks having lots of friends in the construction bussines makes that the economy, false economy, flows.

All that money that came for the pays of the unemployed, the baby check, etc. was all from the state treasury, not borrowed from international banks and stuff like that like greece did. What have impoverised us was that the people asked for lots of loans to buy houses, cars and stuff like that. So the problem isn't the accounts of the state, but the economy of the people.


It's not the fault of "Capitalism." It's the fault of politicians. Elected fairly.

It's the fault of capitalism, specially when the Spanish State is going to be rescued when probably our treasury is lots better than the American or the Italian. It's just fucking speculation.

Anyhow, this is a little video explaining the economic crisis in spain.

PSGp2Hh1jQ4

[Rafiq]

Sometimes Rafiq I think you just act for the sake of being difficult and unaggreable.

That's wonderful.

How's a say we post a useful comment, now?

[Rafiq]

The Manifesto did not offer tactics and strategies for the proletariat's conquest of political power in that section I'm referring to - it made concrete proposals for the immediate time frame following the working class' ascension to the status of the ruling class. And it's entirely irrelevant to my point whether these specific proposals are viable for contemporary societies.

yes, I know, the ten tenets or planks he pointed out. However, with Marx agreeing with me, what he layed out only applied to the conditions of his time, with the Communist parties already extremely popular and powerful. It is no longer like that, and have he been alive today I think he would agree with me on that.



This is entirely absurd and quite contradictory in relation to what you said above of the proposals found in the Manifesto. Moreover, you seem to have no fucking idea what you're talking about when you invoke the notion of utopianism as it was bashed in Marx's time. Let's see what does Kliman have to say about it (apparently, you didn't bother to skim through the text; that always works as a debating strategy):


I know I get angry a lot in debates, but this isn't grounds for getting angry. Calm yourself, take a few deep breaths, and relax. We are having a non-troll discussion.

Now, if you knew a lot about Marx, you would know that him and Engels criticized the Communist Manifesto in their later years, for reasons including laying down blueprints. Dig it up somewhere.



So that's what utopianism amounts to. Sketching the contours of the future society in its general distinguishing characteristics, with specific highlighting of the possible benefits for the working people, is not what constitutes utopianism.


Even if it is not Utopian, it is completely Idealist and counter productive.

I will not respond to the rest of your ramblings as I find it an unnecessary waste of time. Perhaps you should do more reading on Marx, specifically the Materialism part, and the works in his later years, that is all I will have to tell you.


And most of all - who the fuck I would have no opinion on the framework for what I consider the possible organizational patterns of a society devoid of wage slavery and capital, and consider myself a communist? Or should I just stay hush with regard to what I consider possible as a general framework here?

We as communists oppose all forms of private property and capital, and that is what we seek to abolish. However I can't help but notice the opportunism in a lot of posts of users, where they focus more on getting through with their beloved ideas of a future society, instead of criticizing or focusing on abolish the current one. We don't know what the hell communism is going to look like, but we know that what we have now doesn't work. A future society has absolutely nothing to do with us now. We should be defending the interests of the proletariat, to the point where taking class power is a part of that interest. Isn't that how capitalism came into place?





And again, I honestly advise you to take a look at the article by Kliman.

I am right now. However I do not have the time to write up a criticism, so my silence does not dignify some sort of acceptance.

[ComradeMan]

with Marx agreeing with me,

:laugh:

Aren't you agreeing with Marx?

;):cool:

[Thirsty Crow]

yes, I know, the ten tenets or planks he pointed out. However, with Marx agreeing with me, what he layed out only applied to the conditions of his time, with the Communist parties already extremely popular and powerful. It is no longer like that, and have he been alive today I think he would agree with me on that.
Of course, these proposals were borne out of the concrete social and political situation of the time. I didn't argue otherwise. Though, thinking that an authority on a subject would agree with you if he were alive does not constitute an argument (maybe a logical fallacy of a really weird, raise -the-dead argument from authority).



Now, if you knew a lot about Marx, you would know that him and Engels criticized the Communist Manifesto in their later years, for reasons including laying down blueprints. Dig it up somewhere. I don't think you understand that civil debate between comrades does not include posturing as if one side in it were an undoubted authority who is absolved from the necessity of proof. The burden of proof is on you. This is mere assertion, it's not backed with evidence (concrete reference). Care to back it up (since it would be pretty idealist to rely on belief here, wouldn't it)?


Even if it is not Utopian, it is completely Idealist and counter productive. How exactly is it "Idealist" and counter-productive?
To fall back to your previous post, you showed a pretty good example of what could be taken as idealism, by claiming that it is possible for communist militants, by the sole virtue of disseminating their ideas, to get the train of class struggle up and running. So forgive me if I find it very ironic that you like to accuse others of supposed idealism.



I will not respond to the rest of your ramblings as I find it an unnecessary waste of time. Perhaps you should do more reading on Marx, specifically the Materialism part, and the works in his later years, that is all I will have to tell you. Good then, I suppose that you have no idea whatsoever what is specifically wrong with ideas I put forward in the "rest of my ramblings". Also, aren't you a bit afraid that you might yet become another user known by the standard chorus of "read up on materialism" (just as the one known by "read Lenin") which functions as a means to deflect debate? It's entirely clear that this serves as nothing more than an empty straregy of deflection since nowhere did you argue what is specifically "un-materialist", or "idealist" about what I propose, and merely assumed it or asserted it (while being forced to admit that you have no idea what constitutes utopianism; so much for your grasp on concepts you like to misuse).


We as communists oppose all forms of private property and capital, and that is what we seek to abolish. However I can't help but notice the opportunism in a lot of posts of users, where they focus more on getting through with their beloved ideas of a future society, instead of criticizing or focusing on abolish the current one. We don't know what the hell communism is going to look like, but we know that what we have now doesn't work. A future society has absolutely nothing to do with us now. We should be defending the interests of the proletariat, to the point where taking class power is a part of that interest. Isn't that how capitalism came into place? Deflecting, again. Straw man, also. To make myslef clear, I did not advocate a detailed account of the specifics of future social institutions, future in the sense of an achieved global communism, though certain aspects are farily sure if we take communism to be the negation of capital. To posit the necessity of negating capital, abolishing it as a social relation, itself posits the basic characteristics of the concrete social organization of production transcending capitalism. If we know what capital is, then we also know of possible forms of its abolition. That's positing the basic framework for a post-capitalist society. That's one thing.

Another is that the future society is, and might become, the tangible interest of the global working class, and as such has everything to do with us. Taking class power without realizing the interest of the abolition of capital, which presupposes the formation of an an entirely different mode of production, while abandoning the necessity to obtain the knowledge of the optimal ways of doing so is strategic (and quite literal) suicide.

And another thing is that you miss out on the difference between communism and capitalism with respect to the concrete ways in which the ruling classes, or to-be ruling classes, have been formed. The difference is that the capitalist class was already an emergent social agent in the economic sphere (meaning: they already conquered significant powers in their economic role within feudalism) whereas the modern proletariat can not, and will not, rise to such a position in production within capitalism (the subjugation and exploitation of wage labour by capital can't be resolved in capitalism, the working class can never end up in a situation of dual economic power). This is basic stuff. It's entirely erroneous to collapse this difference between the actual historical revolution ushering in bourgeois rule, and a possible workers' revolution. To answer your question: no, the way in which capitalism was formed as a dominant mode of production will not, can not, be the way in which the global working class will realize its interests as the subjugated and exploited class.

And these people you're referring to (with beloved ideas), it seems to me that more inexperienced users in fact are very anxious to hear what communist have to say on such concrete answers. Something which is reasonable and legitimate, but I'm afraid that these complex questions are addressed in a completly wrong way when one just waves them away without bothering to present the general view.



I am right now. However I do not have the time to write up a criticism, so my silence does not dignify some sort of acceptance.It'd be really interesting to go into this further in a separate thread. And frankly, it's quite a shame that you abandoned the approach in the last paragraph of your previous post. If debate could be centered on that, maybe something more fruitful could come out of it than name calling.

[Bud Struggle]

I don't have any plans for forming my own party and calling all of the workers to join in. I firmly believe that the proletariat on it's own will organize itself into a new party, with their own ideology (Possibly communism, however probably something very similar if not).

That's EXACTLY what I plan to do if the Revolution ever comes. Hell, why shouldn't I be the one to say what Communism really is? Your guess is as good as mine.

I have plenty of experence in organizing workers (maybe on the other side of the class war--but experience is experience!)

Some good slogans: FIGHT FOR THE STRUGGLE! THE STRUGLE IS EVERYTHING THE INDIVIDUAL IS NOTHING!

It's my guess that within 10 years of the Revolution that the same guys that were in charge before the Revolution will be in charge after.

[Rafiq]

:laugh:

Aren't you agreeing with Marx?

;):cool:

sure

[Rafiq]

Menocchio, I have studying to do. Perhaps later tonight or Tommarow I will address your post.

[Misanthrope]

Not exactly. Bad government is bad government. Spain has been a reasonable Socialist country lately. BUT the politicians borrowed money to create a higher standard of living than the productivity of the country deserved. They did that to get elected. (Same for Greece.)

It's not the fault of "Capitalism." It's the fault of politicians. Elected fairly.

The people were greedy, the politicians were looking for power. Bad combo.



Who controls the state? Who does the state work for? The state is an institution of class oppression, it's a capitalist institution. The line between capitalism is not a fine one, state intervention in the economy does not equate to socialism. Capitalism is a failing system, bottom line.

You honestly think elections are fair? Wealth controls the elections.

Please explain how the people were "greedy". Yes, politicians are looking to get elected by any means because that is their job. They are capitalists, materialists, products of the profit motive.


And it's the people at the bottom that suffer. No one else.

As always

[Judicator]

Ground beef, grounded pork, canned vegetables, potatoes, refined sugar, white bread, those are all extremely unhealthy food that poor people can get their hand on for a reasonable price, and it will eventually contribute to obesity, diabetes and other diseases.

1) Canning isn't that bad http://www.pickyourown.org/nutritionalvalueoffresfhversuscannedfoods.php .
2) Obesity is largely a function of total calorie count rather than what you eat. Fast food is bad for you for a number of reasons, but the primary reason we have more obesity today is the increase in calorie intake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_and_obesity

It's laughable to think everyone has to shop at Whole Foods to avoid obesity. Just consume fewer calories!

[Judicator]

O no...I answered your allegation and insinuation that they were which you made on ancient data . Do not try to turn the tables here.

Ancient data? How much do you think population demographics can change nationwide in 8 years? Would you really expect a rich country to be getting any thinner?


In actual fact 30% of the children is obese. Which leaves 70%...and apparantly of those 70%...25% are malnourished. The misused statistic in your article of 60% covers the adult population. Which was not mentioned in my article at all...since...well...they are not children.

Maybe google translate screwed it up, but I don't even see the 25% figure in the OP article at all, nor does it have very good references.

If you want some current worldwide malnutrition numbers, look at this:

http://www.globalhealthfacts.org/data/topic/map.aspx?ind=48&by=Location&order=d&fmt=50#notes

2010 numbers...no European nation is above 7%...and countries which are poorer than Spain with higher inequality, such as Mexico, have rates around 5%.

[Revolution starts with U]

We as communists oppose all forms of private property and capital, and that is what we seek to abolish. However I can't help but notice the opportunism in a lot of posts of users, where they focus more on getting through with their beloved ideas of a future society, instead of criticizing or focusing on abolish the current one. We don't know what the hell communism is going to look like, but we know that what we have now doesn't work. A future society has absolutely nothing to do with us now. We should be defending the interests of the proletariat, to the point where taking class power is a part of that interest. Isn't that how capitalism came into place?
What you don't seem to get is that abolishing private property doesn't necessarily mean socialism will come out of it. There is an unimaginable number of class systems that could arise out of purely the destruction of private property.
It's not as if the abolition of PP is the only tenant of being a socialist; there is also worker control of the means of production, globalism, and opposition to class deliniations.

It seems, based on your posts, that you just have a lot of hate in your heart. So when people say anything that disagrees with you they are "idealists" or "liberals" or whatever meanignless label you can throw on them.
I can tell you this; most people outside of this website (and probably most on it) don't really take your sociopathic ramblings seriously :thumbup:

[PhoenixAsh]

Ancient data? How much do you think population demographics can change nationwide in 8 years? Would you really expect a rich country to be getting any thinner?

Technically your original data was from 2001...which is 10 years.

Need I point out Haiti...where demographics chaged overnight?

Or do I need to point to the fact that in 2001 cites a number of 30% overall obesity for Spain?


Maybe google translate screwed it up, but I don't even see the 25% figure in the OP article at all, nor does it have very good references.

the article is editted on the 17th. Originally it stated that a quarter of the Spanish children is malnourished.

And it starts out with its reference. Quoting a Fedaia report.

If you want a repeat of the 25% number then I refer you to CMs post on page 2.



If you want some current worldwide malnutrition numbers, look at this:

http://www.globalhealthfacts.org/data/topic/map.aspx?ind=48&by=Location&order=d&fmt=50#notes

2010 numbers...no European nation is above 7%...and countries which are poorer than Spain with higher inequality, such as Mexico, have rates around 5%.

WHO statistics published are based on the numbers the year previously. So your data which is published in early 2010 is accumulated in 2009. Not to mention the fact that WHO date is more often than not extremely questionable and influenced by a lot of lobby groups. Need I mention the infamous second hand smoking report which the WHO titled something along the lines of "ZOMG SECOND HAND SMOKING CAUSES CANCER" but if you read the conclusion of the report the official statement was that there was no statistical correlation found which definitatively proved secondhand smoking caused cancer.
(Not to mention the fact that when somebody got cancer and lived in a house with somebody who smoked then this was put off as meaning the cancer was caused by the smoking of the partner WHILE THERE WAS NO MEDICAL EVIDENCE OF THAT FACT...leading to situations were cases of breast cancer and ovarian cancer being attributed to partners who smoke )

Any idea how long it takes for somebody to get malnourished?

Right....I thought so...a TWO MONTHS.

Now your ignorance about nutriet reality is somewhat staggering. Simply put the cheapest foods have the highest amount of calories and are the leas filling. I can explain the intracates of how that works but in the end it all comes down to the fact that cheap foods have "empty" calories which means they have little nutritious value but still make you fat.

[Robert]

cheap foods have "empty" calories which means they have little nutritious value but still make you fat.

Yes, especially if you eat too much of them.

It is not hard or costly to get your hands on canned tuna or complex carbs like brown rice and black beans. They are sold at every grocery store in my town.

They just don't taste as good as a Big Mac with fries.

Nor is it hard to take stairs instead of elevators.

[danyboy27]

1) Canning isn't that bad http://www.pickyourown.org/nutritionalvalueoffresfhversuscannedfoods.php .
2) Obesity is largely a function of total calorie count rather than what you eat. Fast food is bad for you for a number of reasons, but the primary reason we have more obesity today is the increase in calorie intake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_and_obesity

It's laughable to think everyone has to shop at Whole Foods to avoid obesity. Just consume fewer calories!

1. There is a difference between canned food at home, and canned food you find in the grocery store.

2. 1 fatty meal is enough to fufill your daily calorie count. ALso, calories are not the only thing one have to take in consideration when consuming food, sodium, refined sugar, proteins, vitamins etc.


i can eat 1 big chocolate bar, drink 1 bottle of coke and fill the daily need in calories, but it wont keep me healthy or even able to do much during my workday beccause my needs will will not be met.

Of course somebody can ''loose'' weight on twinkies if he carefully fallow the caloric intake, but i can tell you this individual will not be in a verry healthy shape.

[danyboy27]

Yes, especially if you eat too much of them.

It is not hard or costly to get your hands on canned tuna or complex carbs like brown rice and black beans. They are sold at every grocery store in my town.
They just don't taste as good as a Big Mac with fries.
Nor is it hard to take stairs instead of elevators.

A good diet must be varied, eating only back bean or rice or thuna wont fill all the need. It will help but wont fix everything.

that why teaching how to cook healthy to poor people is extremely important.
Bad habits are often something that is passed to generations, the best way to help people is to change their material conditions, wich mean give them knowledge and ressources so that the next generation will be better off.

I can speak from experience, the thing most poor people lack of are knowledge and ressources, its not about lazyness, and even if it was, its never too late to save the next generation by giving them the mean of doing so, is it?

[NoOneIsIllegal]

I was just there 3 weeks ago and am a member of the CNT.
Why? CGT > CNT when it comes to anarcho-syndicalist unions in Spain...
Plus, you trolling anyway? CNT is pretty strict on its anarchism. They would let you in? :lol:

[Robert]

A good diet must be varied, eating only back bean or rice or thuna wont fill all the need. It will help but wont fix everything.


Sure, but going to McDonalds isn't the answer either. If you offer people brussels sprouts, turnips,broccoli and carrots, even at the same price as equivalent caloric values of Big Macs, what will they choose?

on edit, as far as education, the public and private schools teach about vitamins, minerals, calories and food pyramids beginning at the 3rd or 4th grade.
You can't "teach" someone not to like french fries and cokes.

[Robert]

its never too late to save the next generation by giving them the mean of doing so, is it?

My answer today is, yes. It is too late. There is nothing anyone can do about it other than the overweight people themselves.

I hope I'm wrong.

[RGacky3]

Sure, but why support a system that makes it more of an effort to be healthy, and gives people less time to be healthy as opposed to one that does not.

[Robert]

Democratic control of grocery stores and agri business won't make kids develop a fondness for nutrient-rich brussels sprouts, kale, endive and kohlarabi.

At any price.

Deliver it to their door for free. They won't eat it.

[danyboy27]

Sure, but going to McDonalds isn't the answer either. If you offer people brussels sprouts, turnips,broccoli and carrots, even at the same price as equivalent caloric values of Big Macs, what will they choose?
.
Its all about the education of the people, especially in cooking. At first glance, many vegetable dont look appealing, but when they are well prepared they are delicious.



on edit, as far as education, the public and private schools teach about vitamins, minerals, calories and food pyramids beginning at the 3rd or 4th grade.
You can't "teach" someone not to like french fries and cokes.
Yea i remember the 1 hour course i had back then, it was to be honest pretty useless and there was no fallow-up after that. Education is lacking, lacking for kids, lacking for adults.

When it come to poor folks, once they are out of public school, they are on their own. There are some small group here and there that can help poor people to cook, teach them, but their contributions are pretty small.

[Robert]

duplicate post

[Robert]

At first glance, many vegetable dont look appealing, but when they are well prepared they are delicious.For example?

And why do you know all these things about nutrition and "poor people" do not? You're not rich. It sounds like you educate and take care of yourself. Why can't others?

[danyboy27]

My answer today is, yes. It is too late. There is nothing anyone can do about it other than the overweight people themselves.

I hope I'm wrong.

for the poor overweight people to ''help themselves'', having the ressources and the knowledge to do so would sortof increase the odd.

A healthier population would cost less in healthcare, live longer, work longer, produce more.

I have no problem against ''personnal responsability'' but lets be fucking reasonable about the degree of responsability peoples with no mean or knowledge should have to lift themselves out of a difficult situation.

[danyboy27]

For example?

for exemple if you make a chicken fajitas you can cut carrots in little pices and add them to the fajitas. You wont notice them and it will add value to the meal.




And why do you know all these things about nutrition and "poor people" do not? You're not rich. It sounds like you educate and take care of yourself. Why can't others?
Beccause it was part of my education to seek knowledge, that what my parent teatched me, they also teatched me to question what they where doing. For a poor kid, i was fucking lucky. Most poor folks in my situation didnt had that, i had an advantage, i had a better material condition than them(knowledge).

My public school was shit, without my parents behind me insisting on the need to seek knowledge, i would have ended up pretty much in the same situation many of the other poor folks where at the time.

[Judicator]

Technically your original data was from 2001...which is 10 years.

Need I point out Haiti...where demographics chaged overnight?

Or do I need to point to the fact that in 2001 cites a number of 30% overall obesity for Spain?

8...10...I do love splitting hairs!

Haiti has been dirt poor for some time.

"the fact that in 2001 cites a number of 30%":confused:



the article is editted on the 17th. Originally it stated that a quarter of the Spanish children is malnourished.

And it starts out with its reference. Quoting a Fedaia report.

If you want a repeat of the 25% number then I refer you to CMs post on page 2.


Doesn't say which one, title, or anything that would help one verify the claim.



WHO statistics published are based on the numbers the year previously. So your data which is published in early 2010 is accumulated in 2009.


There you go again...your first objection to the data is that it's a year old?



Not to mention the fact that WHO date is more often than not extremely questionable and influenced by a lot of lobby groups. Need I mention the infamous second hand smoking report which the WHO titled something along the lines of "ZOMG SECOND HAND SMOKING CAUSES CANCER" but if you read the conclusion of the report the official statement was that there was no statistical correlation found which definitatively proved secondhand smoking caused cancer.


Do you have any specific issues with the numbers themselves. For example,do you think that in Angola, the 27.5% number was dictated by some lobbyist, and really should be 80%?

I suppose you think global warming is false too because of that single data-fudging fiasco, and because liberals sometimes fund global warming research?



Now your ignorance about nutriet reality is somewhat staggering. Simply put the cheapest foods have the highest amount of calories and are the leas filling. I can explain the intracates of how that works but in the end it all comes down to the fact that cheap foods have "empty" calories which means they have little nutritious value but still make you fat.


They dont "make you fat." Under your view of "nutrient reality," 2000 calories of unhealthy food would have to contain 3000 calories of actual energy (thus allowing you to store the surplus as fat). This is absurd.

[Robert]

At first glance, many vegetable dont look appealing, but when they are well prepared they are delicious.


versus


you can cut carrots in little pices and add them to the fajitas. You wont notice them


If they're so delicious, why won't I notice them?

Just having a little fun there, Daniel:)

[danyboy27]

versus



If they're so delicious, why won't I notice them?

Just having a little fun there, Daniel:)

Everybody got personnal preferences, i dont like the taste of carrot in my fajitas, but in spagetti sauce or stew i like it.

i was just giving an exemple to show that there are way for people who are not fond of certain vegetable to eat those without having to taste them too much.

[PhoenixAsh]

8...10...I do love splitting hairs!

2 years is a long time. If you look at the demographics of Haiti for example...which I already pointed out...they completely changed after the Cholera epidemic. Not to mention they changed within the time span of two weeks after the earth quacke.


Haiti has been dirt poor for some time.

That has relatively little to do with the term: "demogrpahics" in and off itself.

Demographics is the make up of a population and depending on what specific characteristic you focus on can encompass a whole range of issues.


"the fact that in 2001 cites a number of 30%":confused:

This indicates that basically in the time span you more or less designate as being irrelevant the obesity problem has doubled. Which i a big fucking deal and completely disproves your "what can happen in 8 years" dismissal.

In this instance what happend is that the problem doubled.


Doesn't say which one, title, or anything that would help one verify the claim.

Just google the organisation.


There you go again...your first objection to the data is that it's a year old?

Two years old actually. It is composed of data from 2009. And that is fucking relevant seeing as it takes two fucking months to become malnourished. What is it that you are unable to understand about the relevancy of that?

If you compose data in 2009 and you publish it in 2010 about herpes infections. I can guarantee you that that data does not match the current reality in 2011. Comprende?


If you are composing my household income datasheet based on data from 2009....then publish it in 2010 and think you can infer things from it for 2011...welll....I have some bad news for you.

Things change...rapidly. Things do not wait for you to post your data.


Do you have any specific issues with the numbers themselves. For example,do you think that in Angola, the 27.5% number was dictated by some lobbyist, and really should be 80%?

Do you have a contradicting report for Angola? Nope.

You use old data to disprove new data....I am attacking THAT.
YOU have a problem with the numbers and in order to disprove the new data you use data which is older to claim the current set of numbers is wrong. How can you not see the logical fallacy in that?


I suppose you think global warming is false too because of that single data-fudging fiasco, and because liberals sometimes fund global warming research?

No I think your arguments are idiotic when they are based on old data in order to disprove the new data.

Basically your argument comes down to you saying: the world is fixed because this old data says so.




They dont "make you fat." Under your view of "nutrient reality," 2000 calories of unhealthy food would have to contain 3000 calories of actual energy (thus allowing you to store the surplus as fat). This is absurd.

Your idea of how metabolism actually works is seriously simplistic. Just as in illustration...I have been eating BELOW my maintenance weight for over a year now...with an avarage of 1500 calories a day. I lift heavy weights (100+ kg) 5 out of 7 days. My maintenance calories should be at 3500+ calories a day. I GAIN fat and I GAIN muscle.

Please explain....

I can....if you like. But I like to hear you struggling to find an explanation derived from your very schematic and linear knowledge of nutrition and dig you into a very deep hole.

I will give you a fucking hint. If I eat 3500 calories in sugar I will gain fat. Why? Why? I am eating at exactly my maintenance calories. Tell me freaking why!

Explain! If your knowledge of nutrition is so superior to mine you must understand that according to YOUR theory this is impossible.

So now we have established in principle that what you are saying here is wrong.

Which means that depending on what you eat...HOW YOU DEVIDE THE CALORIES BETWEEN MACRONUTRIENTS...and to some extend micronutrients...is a huge factor.

[Judicator]

2 years is a long time. If you look at the demographics of Haiti for example...which I already pointed out...they completely changed after the Cholera epidemic. Not to mention they changed within the time span of two weeks after the earth quacke.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Haiti#CIA_World_Factbook_demograph ic_statistics

Maybe their median age shot way up? Or their average income?

Some people probably died and some educated people probably left the country...that's about it.



That has relatively little to do with the term: "demogrpahics" in and off itself.

Demographics is the make up of a population and depending on what specific characteristic you focus on can encompass a whole range of issues.


It has plenty to do with demographics. All of the correlates of low income (infant mortality, low average age, etc.) should be present.



This indicates that basically in the time span you more or less designate as being irrelevant the obesity problem has doubled. Which i a big fucking deal and completely disproves your "what can happen in 8 years" dismissal.


My claim was the problem certainly wasn't going to get better in 8 years, and evidently it didn't.

Well evidently the 25% figure wasn't from one of their "studies" http://www.fedaia.org/portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95&Itemid=154 . Not to mention the studies are, according to you, all completely unreliable since they are more than 2 years old.








Two years old actually. It is composed of data from 2009. And that is fucking relevant seeing as it takes two fucking months to become malnourished. What is it that you are unable to understand about the relevancy of that?

If you compose data in 2009 and you publish it in 2010 about herpes infections. I can guarantee you that that data does not match the current reality in 2011. Comprende?


All the "two months" point means is that it's conceivable that everyone could be malnourished in a short time.

If by "doesn't match current reality" you mean "may be a couple of percentage points off" then sure. Look at changes in AIDS rates in africa year over year: http://www.aidsinafrica.net/map.php .



If you are composing my household income datasheet based on data from 2009....then publish it in 2010 and think you can infer things from it for 2011...welll....I have some bad news for you.

Things change...rapidly. Things do not wait for you to post your data.


Some demographic variables change slower than others. China per capita GDP, for example, is not going to be $30,000/year in 3 years.



No I think your arguments are idiotic when they are based on old data in order to disprove the new data.

Basically your argument comes down to you saying: the world is fixed because this old data says so.


You seem to think your character attacks and few errors undermine all data ever produced by an organization.



You use old data to disprove new data....I am attacking THAT.
YOU have a problem with the numbers and in order to disprove the new data you use data which is older to claim the current set of numbers is wrong. How can you not see the logical fallacy in that?


Given what the numbers were in 2009 (too low to bother measuring in most of Europe), 25% today implies an unreasonably high rate of change. This is a recession, not a famine.



You use old data to disprove new data....I am attacking THAT.
YOU have a problem with the numbers and in order to disprove the new data you use data which is older to claim the current set of numbers is wrong. How can you not see the logical fallacy in that?


The fairly recent data implies an unreasonably high rate of change. That's all. This isn't a question of logic, it's a question of what constitutes a reasonable rate of change.

China, despite it's huge rate of growth, took roughly a decade to reduce malnourishment from ~30% to ~20% http://conferences.ifpri.org/2020Chinaconference/pdf/beijingbrief_Svedberg.pdf

To say that Spain today is where China was in 1999 is absurd, unless you think malnourished means "didn't eat at Whole Foods in the past two months."



Your idea of how metabolism actually works is seriously simplistic. Just as in illustration...I have been eating BELOW my maintenance weight for over a year now...with an avarage of 1500 calories a day. I lift heavy weights (100+ kg) 5 out of 7 days. My maintenance calories should be at 3500+ calories a day. I GAIN fat and I GAIN muscle.

Please explain....

Which means that depending on what you eat...HOW YOU DEVIDE THE CALORIES BETWEEN MACRONUTRIENTS...and to some extend micronutrients...is a huge factor.


So to clarify... You are claiming:

Your body uses ~6300 kJ of food energy each day.
Your body generates ~14600 kJ of useful work and waste heat.
Your body's level of stored energy hasn't changed.

No amount of division is going to produce energy from nothing.

[PhoenixAsh]

Ok...google malnourished. Then we will talk further.


And yes..that is exactly what I am saying. Now...I can explain this to you...but the metabolic processes are not as linear as you suggest they are. According to that wisdom I should be losing 1.5 kg a month...and I am not.

So lets use an example. If I need 3500 cals a day to maintain my body. I need different kind of macronutrients. If I would simply eat 3500 cals worth of refined sugar....I would build fat, lose muscle...and probably die in a few months. My maintenance calories are met but my body will not maintain itself.

Now...the problem with obesity is not necessarilly people who eat too many calories. It can also be people eating the wrong kind of calories.

Now besides from that there are several things which will or can influence your metabolism. Sugar for one...is one. Then there are the vitamines and minerals. The amount of water you drink. The amount of caffeine you take. As can the frequency with which you eat. And there are some nice energy substitutes which will replenish your muscle energy without you having to eat a lot of carbs. And a whole other host of thingds which will impact and change your metabolism.

Now in my case...I drink huge amounts of coffee. I eat only once every other day. I only eat fat and proteine and the sugar I put in my coffee and I substitute with vitamins and mineral additions...aswell as creatine. Once every three days I drink a shitload of beer or other alcohol and I basically do not sleep as much as I should....which releases hormones which will fuck up your metabolism. I also use enzymes.

That plus the physiological truth that metabolism will get more efficient and therefore will slow down if your body is in a continuous situation....

So that is how I can get away with basically fucking up the curve. It is not healthy. And I should not be doing it...but it completely disproves the linearity of metabolism as had been portrayed to the general population.















Besides from the fact that how you devide your macronutrients...there are several other ways you can influence your metabolism.

[Baseball]

And to be quite honest, I can easily say a user like Baseball is a hundred times more useful than the Utopian socialists we have on here. And this is directed at Dinodude. Baseball forces people to think about and re consider their Utopian wet dreams. Hence you will never find Baseball arguing in favor of capitalism (Friedmn, Von Mises, or Moralist arguments for capitalism) because I assume he knows that such arguments are invalid.

I tend to think that socialists have to be able to prove that socialism will function as socialism and not some watered down capitalism. The inability to do so I would think would disprove its class theories, exploitations ect.

[RGacky3]

The inability to do so I would think would disprove its class theories, exploitations ect.

.... No it would'nt .... How? to disprove class theories and so on, you have to actually disprove them, which you cannot.

[ComradeMan]

.... No it would'nt .... How? to disprove class theories and so on, you have to actually disprove them, which you cannot.

Sorry Gacky, but that's totally fallacious reasoning.

[tir1944]

Beans is good food.Vegetable,but has a lot of proteins,almost like meat.Plus it's tasty.

[RGacky3]

Sorry Gacky, but that's totally fallacious reasoning.

So saying, you have to actually disprove class theory and internal ocntradictions of capitalism, you have to actually disprove them and not something else is fallacious reasoning? ..... Go on, explain.

[ComradeMan]

Beans is good food.Vegetable,but has a lot of proteins,almost like meat.Plus it's tasty.

Americans in general are said not to like vegetables for some reason. Perhaps some feedback from US members would be helpful here... (I am not making this up, it's something I have heard said time and time again).

"Beans is good food."

The most sensible thing someone has said today! :lol::thumbup1:

[Robert]

He's right. Beans is good.

It is a fact that too many Americans, especially males, dislike vegetables. I have theories why, but none worth sharing.

Beans are legumes, not vegetables, but too many Americans eschew beans (and all other legumes) as well, unless they are very sugary.

Dany thinks it's a problem of education. I don't agree.

[danyboy27]

He's right. Beans is good.

It is a fact that too many Americans, especially males, dislike vegetables. I have theories why, but none worth sharing.

Beans are legumes, not vegetables, but too many Americans eschew beans (and all other legumes) as well, unless they are very sugary.

Dany thinks it's a problem of education. I don't agree.

Education is one of the problem, having healthy food avaliable is another problem.

Lack of education regarding physical fitness is another serious issue.

Learning is critical to the developement of human being. it might seem trivial to you but it make a tremendous difference between failure and success.

[ComradeMan]

Education is important too, also tradition and stuff...

but...

BEANS IS GOOD DAMMIT!!!

[Revolution starts with U]

I support beans! :D

They are the magical fruit (sic). The more you eat, the more you toot. The more you toot, the better you feel. I like beans with every meal? :D

[Robert]

I was at this nice dinner party once with some people I didn't know too well, and somehow the subject of beans came up. This friend of mine was there and chimes in with:

"Beans, beans the musical fruit, the more you eat the more you want."

It produced a "please pass the jelly" pause among the diners:

3xBydH93eDY

[Judicator]

And yes..that is exactly what I am saying. Now...I can explain this to you...but the metabolic processes are not as linear as you suggest they are. According to that wisdom I should be losing 1.5 kg a month...and I am not.

Or you aren't burning as many calories as you think you are, or are consuming more calories than you think you are. Unfortunately heresay isn't evidence, and the CDC is far more reliable than any anecdote:
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/calories/index.html

"in caloric deficit." You are eating fewer calories than you are using. Your body is pulling from its fat storage cells for energy, so your weight is decreasing."

[Baseball]

.... No it would'nt .... How? to disprove class theories and so on, you have to actually disprove them, which you cannot.

It has nothing to do with the allegations regarding the internal contradictions of capitalism.
It would seem that if capitalism sets the economy, society ect. for its own benefit, at the expense of the workers and others, the socialists would have to show that a socialist system would lead to the benefit of the workers ect. That it would be better.
And it would have to be socialism, and not some 'welfare capitalism.' Otherwise, the socialists cannot claim the capitalists as a class have organized society for their own selfish interests, since capitalism becomes simply a reasonable and rationale way of producing goods an services.

[RGacky3]

It has nothing to do with the allegations regarding the internal contradictions of capitalism.
It would seem that if capitalism sets the economy, society ect. for its own benefit, at the expense of the workers and others, the socialists would have to show that a socialist system would lead to the benefit of the workers ect. That it would be better.


No it totally DOES have to do with the internal contradictions of Capitalism, even if you take all the ethical stuff and put it aside, Capitalism still untlimately implodes.

Btw, we've shown over and over again how socialism is workable and more desirable than capitalism for workers, and you just ignore it.

Why not address the internal contradictions of capitalism. Its not a reasonable and rationale way of producing goods and services, because look at all the internal contradictions of it.

It was a good resonable way maybe 200 to 100 years ago ...