[Bijou Drains]

Major McPharter wrote:

I must agree, i prefer to meet up face to face  and shake hands with old comrades. Even if it is only say every 3 month it would be nice for a chat and a cup of tea or maybe something stronger.

I'm with you Harley, bollocks to tea!

[Bijou Drains]

Vin, my view is that we have to be very careful on this change. It could be one of the biggest changes the party has undertaken and we need to get it right. I know that a lot of members are comfortable on line, however there is a significant minority who are not. We need to be very careful not to disenfranchise them.Personally I woulld favour a nationally based party in terms of some aspects of the party membership, with a branch structure which covers other areas of party activity.In my opinion branches are very useful iin terms of organising propaganda meetings, running stalls, membership applications, etc. I think it would be useful to go back to a situaton where branches could be financially independent to some extent, retaining and controlling more money, in order to aid flexible decision making, for instance in situations where propaganda opportunities come up at short notice. Also having experience of both on line meetings and face to face meetings, I am strongly of the opinion that where possible face to face meetings are far, far superior.There are however areas where a national organisation would be more beneficial, for instance resolutions for conference, ADM, etc. If for example a resolution, change to rule, etc. could  be submitted by a set number of members, for argument's sake say 8, from anywhere iin the party, I think it would have the advantage of encouraging more debate within the party and would probably result in better resolutions.How it would work out in practice needs careful thought and planning, we can't afford to screw this up. I can invisage a situation where this goes wrong and it acts as a mortal blow to the party.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

L BirdThis is a serious question. As you clearly do not agree with or have any sympathy with the views of the SPGB, why on earth do you spend so much of your life on this site?You clearly think we are not a party putting forward a Socialist Programme, you clearly think whatever we do we cannot develop beyond the limited influence we have on the working class and you clearly think we are all as thick as mince.

And here's a serious answer, Tim.I clearly do agree with much of what the SPGB says that it stands for: socialism, end of money, democracy, Marxism, etc. alanjjohnstone seems to think that, perhaps some day, I'll join the party (though perhaps he's changed his mind over time).It's when we get to the detail of what you're claiming to be socialism, democracy, Marxism, that the problems arise. I think that if you did put some emphasis on those issues, that you have the potential to grow as a party (which is going to be needed in the future, at some point, when a Labour government fucks up).But your (and I mean all the posters here) understanding of socialism, democracy and Marxism is so far removed from, well, socialism, democracy and Marxism, that I'm forced to argue the point.I don't think that you're 'all as thick as mince', but I do think that none of you have any idea about what Marx was up to.The dominant ideology seems to be some form of bourgeois individualism, and a desire to see a 'socialism' based upon the myth of 'Individual Freedom'. It's nothing to do with democratic social production or Marx.

Thanks for an honest reply, I appreciate it.The point of this forum, at least as I see it, is to help in the process of enabling people to develop Socialist consciousness and to debate issues that relate to that.If your ongoing contributions had been based on the idea that we were for want of a better phrase "your enemies" then I could see no fruitful point in engaging in debate with you, considering how long the debate was going on. I appreciate that you have honestly held points of disagreement with us, however I am heartened to hear that you recognise the areas where we agree.I also understand that you have spent time in Trotskyist and Leninist organisations and that they are very different from the way we organise politically. I hope it is clear in the discussions that have taken place that we are unlike those kind of elitist and leadership driven organisations And I can fully understand your reticence with regard to internal party democracy, considering that experience. I hope it is also clear that we are very different to organisations like that.

[Bijou Drains]

L BirdThis is a serious question. As you clearly do not agree with or have any sympathy with the views of the SPGB, why on earth do you spend so much of your life on this site?You clearly think we are not a party putting forward a Socialist Programme, you clearly think whatever we do we cannot develop beyond the limited influence we have on the working class and you clearly think we are all as thick as mince.Your actions remind me of a teenage boy who keeps calling at a teenage girl's house just to tell her that he's not in love with her, he doesn't really fancy her, he doesn't want to go out with her, etc, etc. but who then asks if he can come around tomorrow just to say the same things again.I can only think that you're secretly in love with us and can't bring yourself to pop the question.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Yeah, even I laughed at that, Tim!I can't help feeling, though, that if you put as much time and effort into understanding Marx, as you did with your post, you'd start to get to grips with his social productionism.Anyway, brightened up my day! Cheers!

Thanks for your very gracious reply

[Bijou Drains]

The Scene – The Reading Room of the British Library.The time 2.35pmDateline 21-07-1871Amidst the dust and books of the reading room sits a man with a white beard and a slightly darker moustache.He mumbles to himself in German as he works his way through the pile of books he is reading. Under his breath the words “Das dumbkopf Prudhon, ein scoundrel!!! Ya, Ya, ein scoundrel!A young man strolls casually past the man’s desk, pauses and then speaks with a slight Liverpudlian accent.Young Man               “Oh Hiya Karl, fancy seeing you in here!”Karl Marx                   muttering under his breath “Oh Jesus, not him again” and then out loud with a strained politeness “Oh Ya, Hello Herr Bird”L Bird (for ‘tis he)     “I’m really surprised to see you here, I was just wandering past, you’re the last person I expected to see”Karl Marx                   “Yah, really, viz, dis comment you surprise me, you were “just wandering past” yesterday, and the day before, in fact every day for ze last three bleeding veeks!”L Bird“Hey Karly, you’ve got such a sense of humour. That’s probably why we’re bezzies, yeah”Karl Marx“Nein, nein! Please stop wiz all of this bezzies, ya. I am acquainted wiz you und zat is it, yah! Und also stop viz der Karly”L. Bird“Ha, ha, Karly, you are such a card. It’s just you and I agree on so much, I mean at times you would think we’re practically one mind. I suppose I’m the only one in the world who really knows you.” (L Bird starts humming the melody of “I know him so well”)Karl Marx“L Bird! You are briefly acquainted viz my writings, you have made some schoolboy errors in your understandings of mein theories, dis does not make you mine intellectual interpreter or mine bezzie, now if you vould excuse me I haf some important work to complete.”L Bird(gazing longingly into Karl’s eyes), “ Karlykins has anyone told you how beautiful you are angry?”Karl Marx“L Bird, vill you just fu…… “(Marx’s sentence stops when he hears a cough behind him, he turns and then speaks again to the source of the cough) “Ahh Freddie, how good to see you, my friend. What news of our work?”Friedrich Engels“Karl glad I found you.” (Turning slightly towards L Bird he nods briefly and grunts a curt greeting to our Liverpudlian hero)Karl Marx“Ya, Ya tell me has the post brought any news of the development of the movement on the continent, is there news of any further publishing of our articles?”Friedrich Engels“Unfortunately there is no news in the post this morning, my dear comrade. I have been asked to deliver a message to you, I couldn’t see that it was important but I have made haste to find you.”Karl Marx “Ya, Ya, my dearest, oldest friend (a tear of sorrow is seen to appears in L Bird’s eye) tell me the news.”Friedrich Engels“Vell it vos a very strange message from your housemaid Helene Demuth. She said I needed to tell you that as it was such a beautiful day, Jenny had taken the children to Brighton for the day. She was obviously knew that you would want to know they would have a nice sunny day for their outing because she told me to let you know the coast is clear. She is such a thoughtful woman.”Karl Marx (excitedly)“Yaaaah, Yaaaah, ding dong, you are right ein very thoughtful woman und if I may say so, very inventive as well! Tell me Freddie, was Helene wearing the nice maid’s outfit I bought her?”Friedrich Engels “Ya, ya, funny you should mention that, she vas and that i should let you know that she vas. She also said that I should tell you that she was going to be using ze feather duster today and that she might need you to help. I think she wanted to clean up your old military uniform, she certainly said something about giving your helmet a right good old polishing”Karl Marx“Mein Gott, woof woof, down boy, I must get back home as quickly as I can Freddie can you put these books away for me?” (at this Marx rushes from his seat) L Bird“But Karl, Karl, we were having such a lovely time talking about how much of an inspiration I was to you, please don’t go, I want to talk to you about voting on gravity”L Bird(turning to Engels) “I know we don’t agree on a lot of things, but I’m sure you agree with me that it’s fantastic how Karl is so keen to break down the barriers of the sexual division of labour and help out with what some people think of as women’s work”Friedrich Engels“ya, ya, most of the time L Bird you talk a load of old cobblers, but on this occasion I must agree, Karl is an inspiration to all of us”

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Marcos wrote:

LBird wrote:

Marcos wrote:

What I am indicating is that there are not homogenities of thoughts among the so called materialist-idealists like you 

You really should put your glasses on, Marcos!What I write is 'idealists-materialists', but I know that 'facts' play little part in the philosophical method of the 'materialists', like you.Just like Lenin, they like to 're-write' to suit their own political purposes – hey, Marcos, that can be your job under your 'materialist' regime – you can 're-write' history, too, not just my words.

So, let's re write history in other form, your idealist-idealist thoughts.

[my bold]Why should reading prove so difficult for materialists?Perhaps the Soviet Union re-wrote history because they were illiterate? But I can't believe that Marcos and Tim can't read. It's an enigma.

And this year prize for the most piss poor, weak and risible response to a posting goes to …….. sound of envelope being opened …………….. Ladies and Gentlemen, for a record breaking 4th year running I give you the one and only, the legend, the man who makes Jimmy Tarbuck sound witty, put your hands together for Mr L Bird!!!!!Returning to an earlier theme, does anyone know where I can get an emoji of straws being clutched at?

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Don't worry, don't take fright, Tim, that a non-materialist might seek to join your party.You've all played a blinder on this site, discouraging any class conscious, democratic worker from actually joining!I suspect most parties set up sites on the internet, to try to attract members, but not yours, eh, Tim?You can sleep safely tonight, with your cherished elitist beliefs.I don't know why the party doesn't just be truthful, and have a banner over the login, saying 'No Workers' Democracy wanted here!' At least workers like me wouldn't get sucked in, then. And you wouldn't have to work so hard to defend your materialism, which is the whole purpose of the party, as far as I can tell. Although, quite cheekily, you carefully hide this core ideological belief, which I don't think is actually mentioned in your 'principles'. You should really be open, and make 'materialism' a core principle of membership.Yeah, 19th century Religious Materialism, guaranteed no workers' democracy – that'll really draw in the workers of the 21st!

We don't have any problem with a class conscious democratic worker joining our party, sadly, as you have demonstrated time and time again on this forum, that is not a description that could be applied to you.We are a materialist party, I have no problem using that term. You're right, we don't want a non-materialist joining, similarly, we don't want people who believe in transubstantiation joining, we don't want nationalists joining, we don't want followers of the tooth fairy or magic alien lizard king joining either. As to what we mean by a materialist, we would define the use of that term and contrast it with your idealism in exactly the way that Marx did:"To Hegel (for Hegel read L Bird), the life-process of the human brain, i.e. the process of thinking, which, under the name of 'the Idea', he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of 'the Idea'. With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought."However you did finally you get one thing right, and bloody hell that must be a first. As i have highlighted in your post, and it actually illustrates the Leninist, Trotskyist, elitist nature of your political thought, you're right we have not set this website up to "attract members", we have set this website up to make Socialists, who will hopefully then join our struggle.From a Leninist point of view (the kind of view you hold) this must seem like madness, surely a political website must, as you say, "attract members", No doubt Party Membership in the organisations you have previously been in and, as is indicated by your post, clearly want to join, is available to anyone, regardless of what they think.Let's face it in your type of Leninist organisation it deosn't matter what the "rank and file" think because "the membership" have no contribution to make other than their time, money and energy.The kind of democratic centrism you adhere to specifically excudes democratic control of the party, that is left to the elite (who you no doubt view yourself as part of).In the Socialist Party there is no rank and file, or any leadership for them to be rank and file to. All members are equal, no member has any more authority than another (a concept you  clearly struggle with). A member of the Executive Committee is of no more importance than a member who has just completed joining. To be a member of the Socialist Party you need to understand these principles, clearly you do not.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

You may well be right about the presence of the many politically conscious aware workers, but where are the organisations? Workers unorganised, are impotent, as well you know. Our contribution in the SPGB is to help grow that needed organisation, and we must be sure that we are not stifling it. 

I agree with you, alan, about the lack of workers' organisations.Once, I thought that the SPGB was trying to fulfil that role, and that I would join, to help the process.

what makes you think we would allow you to join, you're an elitist Leninist who doesn't agree with our Declaration of Principles. We are not like other parties you have stated you have been in (SWP, etc.) .You see we don't practice the kind of "democratic" centralism you clearly favour. All members of our party are conscious socialists. You can't just sign a piece of paper to join, safe in the knowledge that a Leninist elite will make the decisions and the members function is to agree. All our members are involved in every aspect of party democracy and therefore we ensure that they are able to participate. I'm afraid, from what you have written here, you don't measure up at present. That's not to say you won't develop Socialist consciousness, but that you still seem to be a good distance from meeting the requirement at te moment.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Just to say, publishers do play a valuable role, when they select and market content, we will still need some of that function even in socialism: teh alternative is to look at the wild west of predatory publishing of fake open access journals with made up editorial boards.

[my bold]No, you're wrong, YMS.Whilst 'they select', they have the power of selection. This power, within a democratically productive society like socialism, must be under democratic control. Only the social producers can 'select'.The 'alternative' is democratic control of publishing, not your supposed contrast of 'no power' to 'elite power'.You're not a democrat, YMS, so you can only conceive of either 'complete anarchy' or 'a good elite'. As such, you're not a socialist, because socialism is the democratic control of production.

The question is, L Bird, does the whole population select and carry out the business of every selection (apparently your preferred choice). Or do we democratically select the selectors, trust them to get on with doing their job under our scrutiny, and then act if they do not act in our interest. (SPGB approach)?

[Bijou Drains]

As predicted L Bird has ignored all of the difficult questions and tried to pretend they didn't happen. I'll ask again. Is it your opinion that we are all materialist Leninists because we think that ideas are nothing more than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought?

[Bijou Drains]

Just a thought and it might be slightly off topic, but would it be possible for one of the clever bods on the internet committee to produce an emoji of a tumbleweed.It might be something forum members could post to keep themselves amused while they're waiting for L Bird to reply to awkward questions that expose the stupidity of his contributions.As I say, just a thought I had whilst waiting patiently for L Bird to grace us with a reply.

[Bijou Drains]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

LBird wrote:

Hi Sympo, above is yet another example from a follower of Engels' 'materialism', who are unable to argue with Marxists, and so are forced to make false statements about Marxists.Apparently, 'water' and 'wine' talk to Tim, and so he doesn't need to explain to you how he knows 'water' or 'wine'.If you ask him, he won't mention the socio-historical production of knowledge, but will simply say 'he knows', as an 'individual', using his 'biological senses'. He won't mention Marx, society, workers or democracy – or, indeed, scientific method.And he seems to think that ignorance of these issues within his party will impress workers enough to join.The fruits of 'materialism'.

Hi Sympo, sorry, that shoud have read the insane, narcissistic, love child of Mother Theresa and Paul Daniels. You'll like him, but not a lot.

Hi Tim, still unable to engage in a philosophical debate, eh?Still, whilst your god 'matter' gets on with building for socialism, you can lie back and continue to denigrate Marxists, who insist upon workers' democracy, and wait for 'material conditions' to do what you should be doing.The fruits of 'materialism', personified. Well done, Tim!

I'd happily engage in debate, but debate is a two way thing and unfortunately, as readers to this forum will know all too well, you never answer any questions about your contributions and then when you get forced into a corner, which you inevitably do because of your elitist and at times just plain daft ideas, you resort to insults which is then followed by prolonged silence.All I'm doing is saving a bit of time by cutting straight to the bit where you insult people and then hopefully your prolonged silence will come about much more quickly.

I wish I was as good at predicting the lottery numbers!!!For my next trick, I will predict that he will leave a gap in his comments long enough so he can pretend that the awkward questions we have asked him don't exist and then he can bang on about his cockamamie ideas for a bit longer.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Pluto was a planet, then it was not, then it was once more. A vote decided that. And that is my only comment on the Sun.

That's what's at issue here, alan.Who has the power to decide?The materialists – twc, robbo, Vin, Tim, YMS, etc. – claim that Pluto itself tells them that it is a 'planet'. They claim that this is an 'objective fact'. They deny that humans created 'the planet Pluto', and can change it. They deny that 'the planet Pluto' has a history, dependent upon social factors.You've shown, by your example, that they are wrong.In fact, humans have the power to change 'the planet Pluto', and Democratic Communists argue that this power should be under democratic controls. The materialists are happy for an unelected elite to have this power.This is the core of Marx's 'democratic social productionism'.You have to choose a side, alan. The undemocratic, elitist materialists, or the democratic social productionists. That's politics, I'm afraid. If you don't choose, you'll get caught out, when they move on from questions of 'planet status' to questions of 'our status'. They'll support an elite of 'Specialists' (ie. unelected academics), and deny power to the majority of 'Generalists' (ie. workers).This is the political warning that Marx gave, in his Theses on Feuerbach.

It's nice to see that Goofy has some Mickey Mouse ideas about Pluto, I won't mention Uranus people might be having their tea.No Doubt L Bird you are going to say that we are all materialist Leninists because we think that ideas are nothing more than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.

[Bijou Drains]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

Marx didn't say 'the world only exists in our minds', Vin, so, no, you're wrong.

No Marx didn't!  You did!   So there is a reality outside of our brains?  If you now accept this then you are making progress. What about the proletariate ruling in communism to prevent 'elite' groups from taking control? And the worldwide vote on the truth? Still sticking to those?Oh and the organised social violence??

Now where getting to the awkward bit for him, expect abuse followed by silence

[Author]

Posts