[Bijou Drains]

moderator1 wrote:

Reminder: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.

Just for clariification, which post is this referring to?

[Bijou Drains]

moderator1 wrote:

Vin wrote:

Could mods deal with abusive trolls and spammers BEFORE other members are forced to respond??? 

This is part and parcel of good practice which I do has a matter of course.  Perhaps you have failed to notice but several spammers had their posts deleted and their accounts blocked in the last couple of months. Abusive trolls are always issued warnings and when necessary issued with an indefinite suspension.

Hi Brian and VinI think the issue at the heart of this current debate is not the frequency of the abusive post, it's also the nature and the seriousness of the post.I would argue that whilst L Bird is a serial offender and at times his posts are quite abusive, he is at least attempting at times to engage in serious debate. In short he can make a bit of a twat of himself at times but his intentions are not always to make a twat of himself.This is in contrast Bob Andrews who, in my view, has never actually posted a serious post and unlike L Bird who sometimes makes a twat of himself, Bob Andrews  is just a twat.In addition to this there is the seriousness of the trolling, in the case of L Bird, he accuses people of being dim and of being his intellectual inferiors, presumably in an attempt to boost his obviously critically endangered sense of self worth.His insults are not particulalry troubling and if the worst that happens to us is that L Bird calls one of an idiot or an imbercile, well I can cope with that.On the other hand Bob Andrews appears to want to use this forum, not only to disrupt the forum and the SPGB, presumably as a last hurrah for the last remnants of the Ashbourne Court group before the grim reaper subjects them to the "final dialectic", Bob also wants to use this forum to project his pre historic, homophobic, bigotted and at times slanderous views. (is Bob the reincarnated spirit of Terry Lawlor?)I think that, considering the homophobic nature of various comments by our knuckle dragging friend, the "three strikes and your out approach" is not enough. His posts are far more than a breach of the rules, they are homophobic, unpleasant, and appear to be a deliberate attempt to provoke a responce from Vin, which will result in a reaction leading to the suspension of an active party member.My advice, as I have given elsewhere, would be for Vin to ignore these personalised attacks. However I can fully understand that Vin feels that the issue is not being taken seriously enough by the Moderator.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Perhaps I'm being too generous towards you, Tim, and it's not forgetfulness or conscious political tactic, but that you simply don't understand discussions about epistemology, and are not capable of following a political argument.The surprising thing is that it appears to be widespread within the SPGB, if this site is anything to go by.It's a strange political party that can't discuss issues surrounding social power.

that's right L Bird, I simply do not understand discussions about epistemology, I am not part of your elite group who do understand them (bows down and tugs forelock) , therefore when I vote on the "truth" of epistemological discussions in your proposed Socialist Society, I will probably not understand what I'm voting about and make a complete arse of it, or is epistemology not going to be democratically decided upon?

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

So what you are saying is. is that there is a small group of people (possibly only 1) who understnad Marx, and the rest of the population of the earth do not understand Marx. Sounds like you've identified an elite group with specialist knowledge, there, matey.

I've clearly answered this point many times, and I can't believe that you and the others are so forgetful, so I have to assume that this is a political tactic to discredit those who are critical of the SPGB's elitist support of unelected 'Specialists'.So, to add to robbo's version of 'What LBird says', we now have Tim's version of 'What LBird says'.If anyone is genuinely interested in critically assessing my views, and want to ask further questions about them, I can only ask that they first read what I write, and not what SPGB members and supporters make up, to hide their own inability to understand and debate.As I've said, this is a political tactic to discredit criticism, not simply personal disagreement or dislike.

it's interesting that you criticise me for not reading what you wrtie, but in your reply you left out what you did write, which was:"I've tried to help you make the leap, by providing a shortcut, many times, but you're ideologically unwilling to learn. Doesn't it worry you, that you'll probably die not understanding Marx, his social productionism and his democratic science? So many have already done so, mate"Were you embarrased by your elitist statement?Now I cannot understand how you could possibly claim that you are not claiming that you have knowledge and understanding that others do not, To break it down for you, "You will probably die not understanding Marx" I take from YOUR WORDS that Vin does not understand Marx. You follow that up with "So many have done so already" so there must be many people who have lived who haven't had this knowledge of Marx, So theer is a group of people who are classified by you as not understanding the things that you do. You therefore must by definition consider yourself to be part of the elite group who understand Marx..

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

This is completely untrue – 

How do you 'know' that? Has it been voted on? If you can claim something is 'untrue' then surely you can also claim something is 'true' but as you argue 'truth' must be voted upon. Or are you using 19th century 'religious materialism' to claim you 'know' something not to 'true'?

I'm afraid that you're going to have to read some books on the subject, Vin.About 25 years' worth.I've tried to help you make the leap, by providing a shortcut, many times, but you're ideologically unwilling to learn.Doesn't it worry you, that you'll probably die not understanding Marx, his social productionism and his democratic science? So many have already done so, mate.

So what you are saying is. is that there is a small group of people (possibly only 1) who understnad Marx, and the rest of the population of the earth do not understand Marx. Sounds like you've identified an elite group with specialist knowledge, there, matey.

[Bijou Drains]

Vin wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

 You do always make such a Tw@t of yourself, Sunderland is for the most part South or the River Wear. Geography not your strong point, Bob?

He is not just a twat, he is a  serial rule breaker and hiding like a coward behind a false front. 

A waddn' fesh yerse wi the geet glake, marra. He can gan'n poss his dutt, for aall ah mind, A've hockled better things.

[Bijou Drains]

Bob Andrews wrote:

Look at Vin! The roughest, toughest, Charles Hawtreyest, He-man stuffest hombre north of the River Wear…and he aint no ginger beer.

You do always make such a Tw@t of yourself, Sunderland is for the most part South or the River Wear. Geography not your strong point, Bob?

[Bijou Drains]

Got to say I thought it was god awful. It was like a sketch from a really poorly produced ITV sketch show. I was half expecting Bobby bloody Davro to turn up with the punch line. As to political content , there was none. It appeared to be accusing the Tories and Labour of Yahboo politics and then doing the same themselves, horrible!

[Bijou Drains]

L Birdyou state that in a Socialist Society all members of society would be allowed to control the "social production of truth" but the reality is that you demonstrably do not believe this.

[Bijou Drains]

Sympo wrote:

Vin wrote:

You cant have harmony and capitalism

Why exactly though isn't it possible for nations to "cut the cake" so that both nations feel like they have gotten their fair share? Doesn't states often want to avoid war?

i suppose it's  a bit like the mafia. Yes at times organised criminals can get together to share out the spoils of their ill gotten gains in a way that is established as fair. The mafia did this to some extent in the 40s and 50s. But then one section or gang decides they do t like the way the deal is cut so gang warfare breaks out. Similarly with capitalism, one group don't like the way it's working for them and in some cases war can be the consequence.

[Bijou Drains]

Prakash RP wrote:

 What do you think a true communist should do if they're offered a prestigious award such as the Nobel Prize ? And what's the rationale behind your stance on this issue ? How do you justify the fact that prizes carry cash ? To my way of thinking, I don't think money can measure the value of everything. Man made money to measure the value of commodities. And it happens to be only commodities that possess value. Money canNOT measure the value of non-commodities.because non-commodities, just because they're non-commodities, have got NO value. There're things, such as oxygen in the free air or daylight from the sun, which we don't have to pay for because they're really and truly valueless non-commodities. They're valueless really and absolutely yet NOT in the least valueless. In fact, such a thing, such as oxygen in the free air, happens to be valuable immeasurably― so much so that it outmatches even the costliest commodity. It happens to be so useful that we cannot dispense with it while the costliest commodity of the world happens to be dispensable outright― so much so that not only do millions worldwide do without it, they even don't need to know what it is. Goods and services bought and sold for money are commodities. But prizes are NOT bought NOR sold, RIGHT ? Prizes are won by their winners, and what I view as most intriguing is the fact that they bring an amount of cash to the winners. I do not know what economic logic justifies the fact that prizes bring material reward to their winners. Prizes are NOT commodities, and so they canNOT possess value a commodity is possessed of. Because a prize is, like a non-commodity, valueless totally, we canNOT exchange it for money.. Thus far, what a prize means appears clear as day. But as we take cognisance of the fact that prizes bring NOT only honour, recognition, and fame but lump sums as well, it turns a RIDDLE I'm unable to crack right now. Do prizes possess value ? What's the rationale behind the fact that prizes are associated with money ? What economic logic justifies the fact that prizes carry financial reward ? I wish communists would help find answers to these unanswered, as I view them, questions and thus help puzzle out the RIDDLE at issue.

I wouldn't worry too much, mate. I don't think your going to be troubling the Nobel Prize Committee any time soon!

[Bijou Drains]

Bob Andrews wrote:

I fail to see why a question about Islington Branch takes us off-thread. Members of the branch were prominent in the unpleasantness that led to the eventual reconstitution of the SPGB, publishers of Socialist Studies ( unavailable in all good newsagents ).What Islington Branch really was is open to conjecture. There are people who happen to enjoy naming names and airing wild allegations. I am not one of them.

Looking on the whole situation with hindsight and also from the perspective of not being directly part of it, I think there were a number of factors.Looking back now, the late 70s and early 80s saw an influx of new younger members into the party, of which I was one. I can understand to some extent the culture clash between these new younger members and the older members of the party. Lets face it the majority of the Socialist Studies group were older members. I think if the same thing happened now, god knows we all hope it will, I think some of us older long standing members might struggle to manage that any better than was the case in the 80s.I also think there was a feeling amongst the older members that there should be some degree of deferrence to them, that the newer members should doff their caps to the wisdom of those who had been in the party longer. Well that was never going to happen, but again, would those of us who joined at that time, who are now the older, wiser members, not have similar feelings?I think another factor at that time was the growth of the Party at that time away from being London based. Groups and Branches were being started all over the place, 3 in the greater Manchester Area, 2 in the North East, there was socialist activity in Dundee, Belfast, etc. etc. It has often been said that the SPGB should have really called themselves the Socialist Party of London, hisorically we didnt have a huge base outside London. As the Party grew from being London based there were branches in the Party that embraced the new branches outside of London and those, including the ones that became Socialist Studies, who didn't really engage with these branches. I think again this can be explained by age. The members of branches like Islington were young and able to travel to other parts of the UK, whereas some of the older members were, understandably, less willing to leave the capital. Again this led to distance and mistrust between branches in the rest of the country and some of the founders of Socialist Studies.I agree there were personality clashes, that the branches that became Socialist Studies did indulge in undemocratic practices, but the diffferences were, in my opinion, more about age and personality, than political diferences. I think the fact that the invective from Socialist Studies was aimed at London based SPGB members, rather than those in provincial branches, indicates that the matter for them was not one of politics. I cannot remember any of that group criticising the likes of Dick Donnelly or Vic Vanni.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

But what are we?

'We'? According to Marx, 'we' (humanity) are the 'social producers'. The link between the 'social individuals' making up this 'active producer' is 'democracy'. Without democracy, the notion of the 'social producers' must involve either a group elite or elite individuals.The notion of 'individual production' is simply the most elitist formulation, in which every individual forms a separated unit, much like 'individual consumers' in a 'free market'.'Socialism' involves social production (as the name suggests), and for any democratic ideology (like socialism), the only politically acceptable production is democratic.This is all a long way from your 'individualist' ideology, YMS.

I can go along with your use of the term "producers", in that within our social word all are producers of whatever is considered at that time to be the social understanding of the world. I would politely, and without taking the piss as you accuse me of frequently,  however, point out that on another post you used the term "workers" not producers, if this was a slip of the tongue (or fingers) fair play.I queried the apparent excusiveness of that, but, alas, no reply. Some clarification of your use of this term would be appreciated. This is because it gives the impression of a class based sociaty, as there would be members of the world community that were not workers, Would, in your view the democracy of a Communist/Socialist sociaty be one wheer ALL members of the community were involved in ALL decision making and that no part of that community had the right to exclude any other part of that community from the decision making process.To clarify a little further, am I correct in assuming that your argument is based, among other things on the ideas put forward in the German Ideology? If so, again no problems there. Karl's view was clearly expressed in the oft quoted:“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.”Iin the spirit of one member of the working class, speaking to another member of the working class, with the caveats that I agree to not try and take the piss and working on the agreement that you are happy not to try and patronise. Would you be able to briefly clarify your views on these areas?

[Bijou Drains]

ALB wrote:

There is an interesting side to this. Assuming that Steve Colborn is still a Socialist and still committed to the interests of the working class which I can't imagine he's not (even if he has forfeited his right to remain a member of our Party), he could be an experiment as to how a Socialist MP or councillor might behave. So it will be interesting to follow his interventions in the Town Council's deliberations. We could even start a thread on "Councillor Colborn's interventions" based on reports in the local media. I think I will.

Yes Adam it is important that we monitor this massive development in revolutionary politics.I think the transformation of Seaham into a tourist trap on par with Waikiki Beach, Venice or the Seychelles, aided by Steve Colborn's transitional demands for the removal of a couple of dozen dog turds, may well prove to be a the crucial breakthrough workers need in the journey to overthrow capitalist oligarchy.Vladimir Lenin, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro, eat you hearts out, the new vanguard leader has arrived, Steve Colborn.Oh sorry the Seaham Community Party already has a leader, a guy named Barry Taylor, Steve must be following him!

[Bijou Drains]

ALB wrote:

Here is the Swansea manifesto:

Quote:

BREXIT: DOES IT MATTER?That’s the important question – says Brian Johnson,The Socialist Party of Great Britain candidate, Swansea WestWill BREXIT – whether hard or soft – do anything to solve the problems people in this country are suffering from – job insecurity, inequality, poverty, crime, poor healthcare? The answer has to be ‘no’. And the reason is that these problems don’t come from particular constitutional arrangements. They come from the way society is organised – production for profit and ownership of the vast majority of the wealth by a tiny minority of people: the global system of capitalism. The other partiesThis is the system all other political parties exist to administer. They have different ideas on how that system can best be maintained, but all agree it must be retained.Many of their supporters have good intentions but are unaware that, in campaigning for these, they are helping to maintain this built-in system of minority privilege. So, however different Corbyn’s policies may seem from May’s, they offer no alternative to the present way of running society.No matter how well-meaning politicians may be they can’t control that system – it controls them. The best any government can do is try to ride its storms.So what's the alternative?We propose an alternative based on ownership of capital and market forces that currently exists in the UK, Europe and worldwide. This alternative is a society of common ownership that we call socialism.Not ‘socialism’ as you may understand it. Not the type of dictatorship that collapsed in Russia and elsewhere – which were forms of state capitalism in fact. Not any of the schemes for state control advocated by some in the Labour Party.For us socialism means something completely different and something much better. We are talking about:a world community without states or frontiers based on participatory democracya society without buying and selling where everyone has access to what they require to satisfy their needs, without the rationing system that is moneya society where people use the earth’s abundant resources rationally and sustainably, and contribute their knowledge, skills and experience freely to produce what is neededTo sum up:If you don't like present-day society – with or without Brexit.If you’re fed up with the way so many people are forced to live – hanging on for dear life to a job that gives little satisfaction and doing it just for the moneyIf you are sick of seeing grinding poverty alongside obscene wealthIf you are sick of the Earth being abused by corporations who don’t care about the future or the environmentIf you think the root cause of most problems is the market system and the governments that maintain that system. . . then you’re thinking like we are.What can you do?The new society is one without leaders just as it is one without owners and wage-slaves. It is a wholly democratic society, one which can only be achieved when you – and enough like-minded people – join together to bring it about peacefully and democratically. If you agree with this, you will want to cast your vote for our candidate. In voting for Brian Johnson, the Socialist Party of Great Britain candidate, you will be voting for the socialism you – and we – stand for.

in my opinion that is one of the best pieces of introductory Socialist literature I have read. Genuinely, congratulations to the comrade/s who put that together.

[Author]

Posts