Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
You don’t need to quote an “authoritative source” when using a word in a common way…
Says who? Where I teach there is an expectation that all sources are authoritatively referenced. As you yourself have already stated, “contemporary”, clearly you feel there is a difference between contemporary definitions and other definitions, it follows therefore that this “contemporary” definition is not the way it is used commonly.
It’s strange that you seek out authority “Well that source is definitely not a well-respected political science journal” when it suits you.
“That you are unfamiliar with this seems self-evident.”
I didn’t say I was unfamiliar with it, you are moving from assertion to fact. You have stated this yourself “the only conclusion I can draw” (assertion), which you’ve now changed to “you are unfamiliar with this” (fact).
What I was pointing out that throughout the piece Vexler attempts to turn a foundation of assertion into a presentation of fact. It looks like that is a process you are familiar with, as you are using the same process yourself.
“A quick example, he states from 4.08 onward, that ideologies are “a collection of beliefs and images which sit in us and facilitate the negotiation of the political landscape“, this is not support by any definition of ideology and is a very questionable definition”
As I say, the definition is not supported by any definition, to spell it out more clearly for you, it doesn’t provide an authoritative source for his definition. As it lacks academic authority, lacks any reference to its source, it is by definition clearly “Questionable”.
“The only conclusion I can draw from this is you have not read *any* contemporary literature on “ideology” – the one he gives is a pretty standard.”
That this is the only conclusion that you can draw demonstrates only the weakness of your imagination, not which books I have been reading.
First time I’ve heard anything from Vlad Vexler, had a listen through the second video linked and I have got to say I am very unimpressed. He makes a series of unsupported suppositions and then presents them as logical argument and fact.
A quick example, he states from 4.08 onward, that ideologies are “a collection of beliefs and images which sit in us and facilitate the negotiation of the political landscape“, this is not support by any definition of ideology and is a very questionable definition, for instance he mentions beliefs but no mention of ideas, how ideas have been formed, there are also other problems with his definition.
He then goes on to make the analogy that reducing ideologies to a set of propositions is “no more bearable than reducing than reducing your experience of a walk in the forest to the physical properties of the trees“. It’s not a particularly helpful or accurate analogy, but I’ll go with it. The point being made is that the world of ideologies (the forest) is made up of lots of trees, many different, the trees have physical aspects, you can look at the trees, but you can’t see the forest, but the other argument also applies, you can look at the forest and you don’t see the individual tree.
Reducing a walk in the forest to the physical properties of the trees, is not a particularly unbearable thing, however, by starting his statement that reducing ideologies to a set of propositions is “no more bearable” he introduces a pejorative note, which is neither helpful or supportive to his later points. Analysing the trees is as helpful to understanding the forest as analysing the forest is to understanding the trees. So what? Ideologies aren’t trees and a collection of ideologies is not a forest. The forest is a collection of trees, the trees are individual trees. He is looking at Fascism, a single, or possibly a collection of very similar trees (using his analogy), analysing them individually will be useful, as will analysing them alongside other ideologies (the forest)
However, problematically, he then uses this to support his point that “The borders of ideology are muddied“. Not only does he give no supporting evidence that his assertion, the analogy he has used are opposite to the view he is trying to use to support his assertion. The borders of the trees are not muddied, the border of what is an oak tree is not muddied by a Scots pine that lives on the other side of a vast forest.
He then states that “what’s inside an ideology is going to be sometimes closely, but sometimes distantly related, related by a relation of family resemblances“. So,for example, other than the fact that they are the opposite of each other, how is a democratic ideology relate to an antidemocratic ideology, related? Another assertion, dressed up with a series of sophisms, which are clearly mistaken.
He then makes further unsupported assertions (based on the false reasoning of his earlier very poor and limited analogy) by concluding “it’s going to mean that nobody is going to be zero on any major ideology”. As his foundational arguments are clearly mistaken, his conclusions are, as a result, equally shaky. Wrapping this part of his argument up by saying that “if you despise socialism, you’re a little bit socialist, if you despise conservatism, you’re a little bit conservative” adds to the confusion. Taking his assertion to the logical conclusion, does he mean that everyone who is an atheist is a little bit religious, and that the Pope is a little bit of an atheist?
This is just a small analysis of his work. Speaking slowly and deliberately, whilst occasionally rubbing your chin, does not disguise the weakness of an argument.
Every month workers take risk by lending their labour to capitalists, on the promise that they will be paid at the end of the month. When companies go tits up, its their wages that don’t get paid. The share holders have taken their dividends over the years, based on the surplus value that workers have had legally stolen from them. In 2024 there were 23,874 company insolvencies. Companies can take the profit and then walk away from their liabilities, due to Limited Liability legislation.
As an example Trump has filed for six bankruptcies
Trump Taj Mahal Associates (Atlantic City casino) in 1991.
Trump Castle Hotel & Casino (Atlantic City casino) in 1992.
Trump Plaza Associates (Atlantic City casino) in 1992.
Plaza Operating Partners (Manhattan hotel) in 1992.
Trump Casino Holdings (Atlantic City casinos) in 2004.
Trump Entertainment Resorts (Atlantic City casinos) in 2009.Trump consistently points out that he never filed for personal bankruptcy, which would have put his personal assets at greater risk. By using corporate entities with limited liability, he was generally able to protect his personal fortune
Apparently the assassination attempt on Trump was thwarted by divine intervention. When the attempt on Trump’s life was made the Republican politician and businessman Vivek Ramaswamy said this: “I personally believe that God intervened today, not just on behalf of President Trump but on behalf of our country.” Texas Governor Greg Abbott, also a Republican, made these remarks “Trump is truly blessed by the hand of God — being able to evade being assassinated.”.
Sen. Tim Scott, a republican said after the attempt on Trump’s life
“If you didn’t believe in miracles before Saturday, you better be believing right now, thank God Almighty that we live in a country that still believes in the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords, the Alpha and the Omega. Our God still saves. He still delivers and he still sets free. Because on Saturday, the devil came to Pennsylvania holding a rifle. But an American lion got back up on his feet.”Presumably the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the Alpha and the Omega, decided that the assassination of Charlie Kirk was part of the divine plan?
It looks like the American Lion decided to have a little nap.
If the fundamentalist Christians are consistent in their beliefs, surely celebrating Trump being spared should be celebrated with the same vigour as Kirk’s assassination, after all it’s all part of the “great plan”.
The only other explanations seem to be that the King of Kings wasn’t able to stop the assassination (and therefore not all powerful) or that the whole basis of their pro capitalist “ideology” has more holes than a bucket full of spaghetti hoops.
I know I’m preaching to the converted, and I’m not expecting the leaders of the Republican Party are going to turn around and concede that they’re talking complete self serving horseshit, but surely any logical worker would be able to start to question the logic of the evangelical crap these fuckers come out with.
It’s been 24 hours since Corbyn announced his party and there hasn’t been a Trotskyist group splitting out from his new party yet. Is this a new world record?
“He went on to say that a Reform government in Cardiff would reopen coal-mines in the South Wales valleys…”
Doesn’t mention that he was a cheerleader for the Thatcher government that closed them down.
Also doesn’t explain how he thinks it will be possible to magic up the hundreds of skilled mining engineers, pit electricians, pit deputies, drillers, blasters, pit joiners, linesmen, geologists and it’s going to be possible to recruit hundreds of pit workers (a skilled job itself) to risk their lives to go back underground for the pittance they would be offered to do it.
Another Faragist pipe dream.
Reform – “Definitely National rather than “Socialist””
Or perhaps, a combination of them both, I dunno perhaps National Socialism?
Simple question, Link.
So if banks can create money at the stroke of a pen, or in modern parlance a stroke on a keyboard, did the following US banks (there are many more outside the US, but this a a sample) that went bankrupt between 2015 and 2023, not know they could create money to save themselves by the use of a computer, decided not to create money to save themselves due to incompetence or did they think for some moral or ethical reason it was “wrong” to create money with a computer to save themselves?
Citizens Bank, Sac City, Iowa 11/03/2023
Heartland Tri-State Bank, Elkhart, Kansas 07/28/2023
First Republic Bank, San Francisco 05/01/2023
Signature Bank, New York 03/12/2023
Silicon Valley Bank, Santa Clara, Calif. 03/10/2023
Almena State Bank, Almena, Kan. 1 04/23/2020
First City Bank of Florida, Fort Walton Beach, Fla. 10/16/2020
The First State Bank, Barboursville, W.Va. 04/03/2020
Ericson State Bank, Ericson, Neb. 02/14/2020
City National Bank of New Jersey, Newark 11/1/2019
Resolute Bank, Maumee, Ohio 10/25/2019
Louisa Community Bank, Louisa, Ky. 10/25/2019
The Enloe State Bank, Cooper, Texas 05/31/2019
Washington Federal Bank for Savings, Chicago 12/15/2017
The Farmers and Merchants State Bank of Argonia, 10/13/2017
Fayette County Bank, Saint Elmo, Ill. 05/26/2017
Guaranty Bank, Milwaukee 05/05/2017
First NBC Bank, New Orleans 04/28/2017
Proficio Bank, Cottonwood Heights, Utah 03/03/2017
Seaway Bank & Trust Co., Chicago 01/27/2017
Harvest Community Bank, Pennsville, N.J. 01/13/2017
Allied Bank, Mulberry, Ark. 09/23/2016
The Woodbury Banking Company, Woodbury, Ga. 08/19/2016
First CornerStone Bank, King of Prussia, Pa. 05/06/2016
Trust Company Bank, Memphis, Tenn. 04/29/2016
North Milwaukee State Bank, Milwaukee 03/11/2016Also if Banks can create money at the stroke of a key board, why do they charge interest at all. If they could create money, they could create a £1,000 then offer a loan of £1,000 to a lender who was only required the lender to repay £500, which would mean the lender got a total £500 (very nice little earner), the bank would make an initial £500 profit and end up with an eventual £1,000?
All created from nowhere, what’s not to like?
Going back to your original question, my view is that some things need to be administered centrally, even on a global level, for instance, movement of some foodstuffs, some energy production, long distance travel, and other areas. Other decisions will be better suited to more local solutions, be they continental, “national”, regional, district or even street and neighborhood level.
I think that that perfect way of dividing between what is decided within which spheres will, under a socialist system, be part of the ongoing democratic debate. I doubt a perfect way of dividing things up administratively could be achieved, and even if it was, changes in on going life style, production methods, the way we live our life, etc. will mean that any perfect way, would be transient.
The point, however would be that it would be done through democratic decision making processes. The kinds of processes that take place all over the world in different ways, expanded to meet the expanded nature of democracy.
For instance I am a member of a local bridge club, there are no leaders within the club, we elect committee members to sort out premises issues, who is on the tea rota, when there are bridge nights, what level of bridge will be played during different sessions and another myriad of administrative tasks. Believe me, the club is not in any way formed by ardent communists, but they all manage to work along democratically. Committee secretaries are not set up as leaders or decision makers, just administrators for decisions. Do they sometimes, fall out? Yes. Do trivial matters get heated? On occasion. Has the perfect form of organising a bridge club been created? definitely no. However, everything seems to go along ok, and the club has been running since 1932.
This is similar to a whole load of mutual organisations throughout the world, local sporting clubs, allotment societies, agricultural shows, brass band clubs, community centre organisations, etc, etc.
Take this up to a “national” or even global level, democratic decision making can be scaled up. I very much doubt that there will be complete agreement about the whole way that a commonly owned society. I am also pretty sure that someone will become self important and think that they shit chocolate truffles and piss champagne, the democratic process will put them back in their box.
Also in terms of decision making, I can’t see people who are not involved in a situation local to the decision, troubling themselves about the decisions being made in that area. I would not trouble myself in getting involved about what colour the railings in a South African Kindergarten are painted, any more than someone from Johannesburg is going to be interested where a railway station is sited in Northumberland.
It is important to remember that the small number Socialists who are currently arguing for a Socialist society will necessarily become a minority if socialism becomes a majority view.
How the specific ways in which that society, based on common ownership and democratic control, decide upon the “administration of things”, to quote Engels, will be decided by that majority, not us. We can make suggestions about how it might work, talk about the possibilities and when the number of socialists rises closer to a majority, we can put in place more developed plans, however we are not a vanguard, not a set of leaders and the final decisions will be made by the majority.
I think there is a bit of a difference between what you view as Socialism/Communism and what we view those terms as meaning. It seems that you think that state ownership of the means of production is what defines a socialist/communist society, we don’t.
Our aim is to achieve a society based on common ownership, which necessarily means that there will be free access to all goods and services, the abolition of the wages system and the end of the capitalist state. Engels said:
“The society which organizes production anew on the basis of free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machinery where it will then belong—into the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze axe.”
You might find the following website useful in understanding our case for a classless society based on common ownership:
https://www.worldsocialist.org/?mtm_campaign=forum
Hope this helps
Hi McDonald, welcome to the forum. I hope you become a regular contributor.
My view on this is that in a Socialist Society, issues such as big v small (which is effectively what you are asking about) will probably have some of the same debate that Capitalist society. That is to say there will be an ongoing debate between different view points about what decisions were made.
Taking the example you have been used, there will be some members of society that highlight the large strategic advantages of bigger road planning, and that others will see more localised planning as being the most important thing. Administrative structures will move and change to adapt to different majority view and that they will then change as different systems are used and are found wanting. I have no doubt there will be high levels of “heat” in the debate, just as there are now.
The big difference will be that the decisions and the planning will not be influenced and distorted by the current system on vested interests. Democratic changes will be made about how we organise our lives, I hope that we will acknowledge that mistakes can be made and that the system of democratic planning is a multifaceted thing.
In the current society, if you have wealth and own the means of production, you have far more influence that those who don’t. So for example, Elon Musk’s view on what is appropriate regarding mineral extraction in Greenland, is far more influential than some poor bugger that lives next to the proposed Greenlandic mineral mine
It may be that in the debate distinct parties will form where individual groups join together to support a particular view point or strategy. For example some citizens might be more environmentally inclined, whilst other groups may have slightly more varying viewpoints. I would imagine that these groupings would be much more issue by issue based, that the current political party system which has its basis on sectional class issues. Perhaps they would be loose confederations a bit like the parliamentary parties that emerged in the late 18 and early 19th Centuries (without the vested interests)
I have often thought that the way the Socialist Party organises our party is an example of how democracy would act in a socialist society. I have seen over many years the ways in which we organise ourselves change and adapt democratically. We might not agree with each other, however we recognise that all members (even though they have different views in terms of what might be best) are taking the best view of what they think will create the most effective outcome.
None of us are trying to manipulate the organisation to get the best outcomes for ourselves, or to foster our own career pathways, as is the case in other Party Organisations. As we have no leaders we effectively have a collective leadership of all members. None has more power that the other. In some circumstances individuals have more knowledge of a particular issue than others. So if our Head Office needs a new central heating system, the views of a member who was a central heating engineer might have more influence around the decisions than members who didn’t have that knowledge, but that position of influence is transient and specific.
As the way we work is completely open to examination (all of our executive committees are open to observation to anyone who cares to watch the meeting or read our minutes) nothing generally secret (there are one or two occasions where personal information about party members, etc, which we do keep things confidential), debate is open, democratic and task focused.
