Cooking the Books: Never Been Tried

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

…..I'm a Democratic Communist, a Marxist, ……

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

I thought that you'd avoid political discussion, and return to insults, YMS.You're politically predictable, just like all individualists.

Well at least his insults vary. Yours are boring and very repetitive

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

I thought that you'd avoid political discussion, and return to insults, YMS.You're politically predictable, just like all individualists.

It's not an insult, it's a point, that you behave like Humpty Dumpty, words mean whatever you want them to mean.  So, if you've finished avoiding the question: how is "community" individualist?  Surely, you are a commun(ityi)st?

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

alan has already mentioned the political difficulties for the class conscious revolutionary proletariat in using the term 'People'.

I think i made my position very clear in an earlier post that i preferred "THE PEOPLE" to other terms with a hat-tip to Wolfie Smith of the Popular Tooting Front and the SLP journal of the same name.But as an accommodation for you, and move along the debate i acknowledged that other words can be used…humanity …but you previously challenged that usage too.I was also willing to drop the word "self-determined" even though the meaning was clear in the passage. I certainly did not make a mention of any "class conscious revolutionary proletariat" having a political difficulty with the word. 

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 As anyone can read, in my post 114, I said that the proletariat won't exist within socialism.We're back to alan arguing with robbo's mythical 'What LBird said', as opposed to what I did say. 

 If you now agree that the proletariat wont exist in socialism why did you say in post 114 that in socialism there would be a  "revolutionary, class conscious, democratic, proletariat" ?.   The obvious explanation is that you are in a muddle – no surprise there – and simply contradicted yourself but I dont expect you will be retracting your latter  comment. Talking of muddleheadedness is it not time now that you come forward with some kind of defence of your Leninist perspective on communism as a unicentric system of society-wide global decisionmaking without any kind of local or regional democracy whatsoever?.  According to you there will be only one single global authority and there will be "no limits" to democracy – as in for example, local democracy being "limited" to local populations. The logic of socialised production,  according to you, demands total  worldwide democratc decision-making.  But it doesnt!  This laptop  I am typing these words on is a social product.  Its components probably come from many different parts of the world but there is no need for me to be involved in any of the doubtless thousands of production decisions that result in this laptop having been manfactured.  Nor would it be practical for me to do so in the slightest. Democracy should be about things that matter to me, that influence me and that I can influence,  That means perforce being highly selective about what you want to focus your attention on in democratically deciding an outcome,  There are only 24 hours in day.  You seem to have no conception of the practical limits of decisionmaking and the need to prioritise but its not as if I havent given you opportunity after opportunity to try to think your way out of this  muddleheaded concept of democracy that you hold

[Anonymous]

I see LBird has moved to another thread with the same old 'cut and paste' quotes he uses.   He has been exposed on this thread – and not for the first time – so runs off to stir it elswhere.

[Author]

Posts