OK look here’s how I think it

OK look here’s how I think it is.
 
First of  all I can understand totally the kind of reaction that some comrades here have expressed in relation to the likes of Tet and McDonagh seeking to hog the discussion on the WSM with their utter inanities.  Particularly the latter who must  surely count as serious candidate for the most insufferable bore in the entire history of this planet, commencing with the neolithic period.  Part of my motivation for engaging with these people has been a determination on my  part that these people should not hog the discussion or that their crappy nonsensical  free market nonsense should not be given free rein to dominate the discussion
 
Here I am talking from bitter experience.  Adam suggested I go off and create a forum in which  to engage these  individuals in debate rather than on the WSM forum.  Well you know what, Adam? Thats already been tried. In WIC we had such a forum. It was called WICOPENDEBATE of which I was moderator . It was more or less completely dominated by Mr Donut in the end.   Everyone lost interest and did what some here advised  FInally the WIC group decided it had  to close down the forum as it was not serving the purpose for which it was intended . It had become a mouthpeice for the mad marketeer and little else.
 
This is what made  me resolve  that Im fucked if I  am going to let these idiots do the same with the WSM. OK, so  Im not a member of the WSM  anymore but I do find it a little surprising that it should be a non member who seems to have taken up a more resolute and determined stance on the question of the WSM forum than most members. See,   I have been following the discussion on the WSM forum over on SPOPEN , Adam, in which you talk of being “stabbed in the back” by a fellow member  (Alan).  I know exactly how that feels when after all the effort Ive made to defend the socialist position on the WSM forum and to promote the WSM on other forums like REVLEFT that I should then learn that a member of the WSM  – namely yourself – can even think in terms of suspending me from the forum for “feeding the trolls”.as someone put it  A very comradely gesture, I must say, and my back is still suffering from the open wound inflicted
 
As I see it you guys  have but 2 options
1) Expel people like Tet and the Donut from the forum.  This could be problematic unless you were to democratically redefine the terms of reference of the forum itself.  For example, in WiC we have 2 forums – previously 3.  One is for WiC members only- the COMMONER forum , the second is for individuals who percieve themselves to belong to the non market anti statist sector – the WORLDINCOMMON forum . And the third is – was –  was the no-holds-barred-completely-open-to-all WICOPENDEBATE forum.  What you could do is to make the WSM forum something like the WORLDINCOMMON  forum but bear in mind what that would entail.  Not only would it entail preventing mad marketeers from entering the forum but also mild mannered but somewhat confused reformists of all stripes as well as your basic Trot or Leninst type.  If you dont want to debate with such people thats fine but be aware what all this means is all Im saying.
 
 
2)  Allow people like Tet and the Donut to remain but  develop a strategy to effectively counter their disruptive interventions (incidentally I do wish  people would stop putting the likes of  Bob Howes or Nick Tapping in the same boat as Tet and Donut –  they are nothing like them even if some of Bob’s ideas are distinctly dotty – like the circle city idea). Let me say staight away that debating with people about  free market ideas is NOT a diversion from the socialist case.  Ive noticed this objection coming up time and time again  but it is simply not true.  Get this idea out off your head once and for all.  Actually , to the contrary, I strongly maintain that arguments like the Economic Calculation Argument are an extremely useful heuristic tool  with which  develop and build upon the case for socialism.  Dealing with it  enables us to call into question  all those kinds of ill- informed claims one keeps hearing such as that socialism would be some massively inefficient bureaucratic  nightmare and so on  – claims that in truth apply rather to market capitalism
 
But how to develp a strategy to counter theanarcho-caps?  Well for a start I dont think Paul’s suggestion would do much good – that we only post on, and respond to,  subjects unrelated to the ideas of the mad marketeers. This is running away from an argument rather than confronting it. It comes across as weak kneed and ineffectual in face of the brazen claims made by the latter. It suggests that we have no argument that we can make against them when we most  certainly have.
This is what I suggest and here Ive learnt from my own experience of dealing with the likes of Donut – donrt respond to their  repetitive nonsense directly.  In Donut’s case there is absolutely no point – I am now firmly convinced – becuase the guy is simply incapable or actually engaging with anyone else’s argument.  What you might want to do instead is just post something that counters the free market arguments without entering into a discussion with or even referring to the exponents of these arguments on the forum itself. This is the indirect option
Another option is to directly deal with and refer to the arguments presented by the mad marketeers but to dpo so in a manner that deals with  them in bite sized bits,  one at a time,  in a coldly factual sort of way.  An excellent example of this is Bill’s davastating point about Inca society. You can tell it completely phased the Donut who didnt know how to respond to it, kept promising he would  but then conveniently dropped the subject  . An accumulation of highlly effective little posts like this will do wonders to convey the impression to the casual visitor that the case for socialism is vastly more compelling and logically argued than the crap thrown at it by the mad marketeers.Its what I call the “hollowing out “strategy. You nibble away in incremental fashion  at the individual propositions from within, forcing their proponents to attend to these  and bringing about the subsequent collapse of the whole surperstructure thereafter – at least in the eyes of the onlooker – when it comes to be seen as being based on a series of claims each of which is utterly lacking in credibility. Once the props fall one by one, the argument as a  whole will fall – sooner or latter.
 
And this is the point isnt it.?  We shouldn’t really be complaining if our opponents present some crappy  piss poor case. Thats utterly absurd. Its very bad psychology in my view   To the contrary it is  actually a great opportunity to demonstrate how much more compelling and powerful is the case for socialism than any  rival. We should be making hay whille the sun shines, capitalising ( if I might use the expression) on the interest shown . Removing ourselves from the debate on the grounds that one cant really  be arsed with having to deal with such arguments becuase they are so offensive ive to the ear and the eye,  is actually pretty defeatist and shortsighted. Its shows a plodding lack of imagination, an inability or unwillingness to use one’s initiative and this I think is part of the problem with WSM at the present time, sad to say.  It is too staid, too conservative,  too concerned  about feeling comfortable within its own four walls that it is constantly losing sight of the bigger picture.  And,  yes I know, me telling you a few hometruths is probably going to mean anything else I suggest is automatically discounted.  But what the hell – I can only speak as I find – and, whatever you might think, I still very much have  your own interests in mind at bottom and thats the truth of it..  The SPGB is still the one political party that stands head and shoulders above any other even though I am not , and cannot be , a member.
 
So thats how I see it then – either you modify the terms of  reference of the WSM forum with all that this entails,  or you consciously develop an effective strategy that involves not simply ignoring the claims of mad markeeters but using them to your advantage in the ways I have suggested. Letting  things just drift as they are is not really on the cards.
I have resolved quite recently that I am going to take my own advice  from here on and ignore the likes of the Donut and Tet  while still obliquely countering their arguments. I suggest this is what others here do too rather thanleave the forum.  The “discipline” that Dave alludes to on the subject of ignoring them relates to them as individuals but it cannot possibly  relate to the basic arguments they represent.  If you ignore that then they already won the argument and you might as well pack up and go home