[Bijou Drains]

Can we move the discussion on, please. I personally don't want to see anyone barred from the forum, if possible.L Bird, can I just clarify a few of points you made earlier, just I am genuinely unsure which view you are taking:Are you saying that (in a Socialst Society) you believe there should be limits to who takes part in democratic decisions or are are you saying there should not be limits to who should take part in democratic decisions in a Socialist society?If you are saying there should be limits, who then would make the decisions that limit participation?In addition, just so I am clear, you are saying that your view s that in a socialist society all scientific theory should be decided upon the basis of democratic voting by the whole of the population?

[Bijou Drains]

Vin wrote:

I have said similar things in the past when I first joined the forum and I was very surprised at the reaction to me wishing to have a cheese burger in socialism. If you like the ocassional pork pie then you may need to keep your own pig. Apparently some believe that we won't be allowed to slaughter animals to eat them in socialism.  We will all be vegitarians.Harry Young said we were only interested in beer and bingo up here in the north east and we ew don't care for ShakespeareBring socialism on! More beer, bingo, pork pies and cheese burgers! We can ban Shakepeare instead 

Got nothing against Shakey, just some of the pseudo inellectual posers who pretend that every word he wrote was a pearl drop from heaven and that every joke he wrote was the funiest thiing ever written, he only had two jokes, joke no 1 a man dresses up as a woman and is mistaken for a real woman and no 2 a man prentends to be someone else and gets into trouble for it.

[Bijou Drains]

Prakash RP wrote:

 I said I expect a true communist to lead a decent lifestyle that will be healthy and meaningful too……….. There truly exists NO good reason why the sensible fail to see the basic distinction between a meal ( both the decent one and the poor man's dish ), medicine, clothes, shoes, a house, a car, a PC, books, pens, songs, dance, drama, etc and drugs, drinks, gambling, etc.  drugs, drinks, matrimony etc are stuff that you don't at all need to live unless you're incurably addicted to such silly stuff…………………………….. I think communists are sensible people, and so I wish communists would make the Principle of healthy and meaningful living their life principle and try their utmost to remain true to it. I also wish communists would awake to its significance. A communist, by my view, must appreciate that their way of living, like their words and actions, ought to be inspirational for the benighted millions, the born poor and deprived, that sweat blood, like beasts of burden, to produce all wealth and luxuries but lead a hard and humble existence themselves throughout their life.

You take the dictatorial, non-democratic view, that the things that you see as of being of value, must be the things that all "true" communists must see as of being of value. However you fail to see the irony of you claiming to be a socialist/communist (which necessarily is democratic in nature) whilst at the same time dictating how others should behave! It is not for you to decide how another human being should live their life, it is not for you to moralise and judge the actions of your fellow workers. Your definition of what is sensible or wholesome, is not every other worker's definition of sensible and wholesome. To shock your sensibilites even further I can tell you that I even indulge in the occasional pork pie!You state that things such as dance and drama are worthwhile things whereas drink and matrimony are silly. Given the choice of an evening in the pub with a couple of my friends sinking a few beers, or the choice of going to a theatre and watching a load of people poncing about in tights and telling me its ballet, I would be in the pub every time. I don't however insist that those who enjoy ballet, etc. should live their life the way I dictate. As to the areseholes who go to the theatre to watch Shakespeare and laugh at the appointed time, at jokes they've heard a thousand times, that weren't even funny when they were first written, just to prove that to everyone else there that they are "cultured", don't get me started!You talk about the luxuries of life, you think that we should leave the finer things in life, good food, first class travel, indulgences, etc. to be enjoyed by the parasites of the capitalist class! Only they, you say, should enjoy the fillet steaks, the lobster thermidore, etc. etc. Bollocks to that. My view of a socialist society, isn't one of fasting and abstinence, I want the best to be available for all, on the basis of their self determined needs and wants. In the meantime, nothing is too good for the workers. So if I can get back enough of my surplus value to get the odd fillet steak or bottle of premier cru Chablis, I will and I'll enjoy every bloody sip!

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Well here's a simpe enough question to ask L Bird. In your vision of unfettered democratic socialism, will there be limits to who votes and who doesn't?

That's a democratic decision.I know that this answer doesn't fit in with your elitist vision of 'fettered undemocratic socialism'.Why not read the LibCom article?

Sorry L Bird, I am not being arsey, I genuinely find your answer amibiguous, do you mean by "that's a democratic decision"  that there will be a democratic decision about who votes and who doesn't, or do you mean by "that's a democratic decision" that a full vote of all people is a democratic decision i.e. That's what a democratic decision is. I am not being picky, I just wanted to clariy in a comradely way.YFSTim

[Bijou Drains]

ALB wrote:

Unlike the regular nuisances here Prakash does agree with the objective of a world classless, stateless, wageless, moneyless society of common ownership and democratic control. The trouble is that he seems to prioritise his code of behaviour for socialists within capitalist society telling us what we should or should not do (most of which we wouldn't dream of doing anyway). Which is annoying and puts people off. And he goes too far in what is to be shunned. Also, as has been noticed, his code assumes that only men can be socialists. Pity really that he doesn't concentrate instead on spreading the idea of socialism/communism as here:http://prakashrp-1.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/on-definition-of-communism.html

L Bird is a regular nuisance and L Bird also agrees with the idea of a world, classless, stateless, wageless, moneyless society of common ownership and democratic control. But similarly to L Bird, this joker also believes and dictates that his view of what a socialist/communist should be is the only acceptable way for socialists to see the world.I see very little difference in their authoritarian, vanguardist, quasi religious approach.Personal liberty is, to my mind, very much part of the Socialist case. these two posters fail the "Socialist test" in this area.Anyway sorry I couldn't add any more, I've got a hotching hangover, never mind hair of the dog and all that!

[Bijou Drains]

Well here's a simpe enough question to ask L Bird. In your vision of unfettered democratic socialism, will there be limits to who votes and who doesn't?

[Bijou Drains]

Prakash RP wrote:

Dear all, I feel I should bring to your notice the following message made by Tim Kilgallon. I received it in response to a comment by me. Copies of both by comment and Kilgallon's are presented below. You may access them by clicking on this link too : https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/messages/view/3783#new . I'd like to know how you view it.  Participants: Tim Kilgallon and Prakash RP Prakash RP29/03/2017 – 2:41pm' …  the no booze idea gets the thumbs down from us. 'You're also free, I think, to give the thumbs down to the no-drugs idea or the no-bribes idea. You're free to give the thumbs down to ideas like no-sexism, no-racism, etc as well, just as you're free to give your thumbs down to the NO-CLASSES, the NO-PRIVATE-PROPERTY, or even the NO-EXPLOITATION-of-man-by-man idea, aren't you ? But, sir, are you a communist ? Could you clarify what led you to believe that you're communist ?   Tim Kilgallon29/03/2017 – 7:14pmNewListen bonny ladi dont need to justify my political beliefs to you. I'm a communist/socialist not a bloody monk. If you don't want to drink alcohol, smoke of gamble, feel free to make these choices.  Do NOT DARE to tell me how to live my life. Now piss off you stupid sexist clown. 

 just to clarify, this was in response to an unsolicited pm from this joker, not a comment. I stand by what I said but cannot elaborate as I have to rush off and put a few bets on before I head off to the boozer to have several pints of beer, with perhaps a number of whiskey chasers. I don't smoke, but am tempted to have a cigar today just for the hell of it! 

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The post now appears to have disappeared but from memory in regards to Lydon thread,  Bob Andrews commented "There's never a Mark Chapman around when you need one".  (29 Mar at 3:44 PM)..Mark Chapman killed John Lennon…i took that to be an inference that he would approve of John Lydon being murdered for expressing political ideas. I don't think i imagined the post and can only surmise that the Moderator was on the ball and deleted it. And perhaps i should not have raised the topic and let it be. 

I agree with you but the mod has been a help, in this matter. But perhaps we should get back to the issues raised originally and concentrate on the things we said today, rather than rake helter skelter over past posts.

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Just to be clear, this forum does not endorse murder and suggesting such an act, in my view, deserves a permanent ban from the forum.

agreed

[Bijou Drains]

Middle aged? John Lyndon? Funny how middle age gets older the longer you live. Never been much more than a gobshite.John Lydon + Donald Trump, the great rock and roll swindle meets the great political swindle. 

[Bijou Drains]

mcolome1 wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

gnome wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

Is this brocialism?

Dunno, never heard of it.  Has it something to do with a particular brand of vegetarianism that favours the consumption of broccoli?

Bugger me, no drinking, no smoking, no gambling, no sex and you've got to eat bloody broccoli, sod that for a game of soldiers.

What about masturbation ? 

well at least that way you get to spend time with someone who really likes you!

[Bijou Drains]

gnome wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

Is this brocialism?

Dunno, never heard of it.  Has it something to do with a particular brand of vegetarianism that favours the consumption of broccoli?

Bugger me, no drinking, no smoking, no gambling, no sex and you've got to eat bloody broccoli, sod that for a game of soldiers.

[Bijou Drains]

Prakash RP wrote:

[ This is the 3rd part of my reply to ALB's comment dated 23 March 2017. ]And did you ever care to think over the point that if socialism approves of the membership of those silly spineless people that seem to be unable, like Lenin, Mao, Leninists, and Maoists, to stay alive without the stuff like matrimony, the same way as a drug addict must take drugs in order to survive, the distinctions between scientific socialism ( i.e. communism ) and democratic socialism just disappears ? How would you differentiate a communist and a democratic socialist, I wonder. Just because matrimony and private property are inseparable, both historically and logically, if you approve of one of them, you canNOT, by any sound logic, refuse to approve of the other. And further, private property forms the basis matrimony is resting on. You canNOT make an edifice stay erect without its foundation, can you ? Approving of the stuff like private property implies approving of the division of society into the propertied class and the non-propertied class, RIGHT ? This is certain to lead to the approval of the exploitation of the non-propertied millions by the propertied few simply because in a class-ridden, unequal society, the non-propertied millions must consent to being EXPLOITED by the propertied in order to survive. The non-propertied must sell their LABOUR POWER, the only saleable stuff ( commodity ) they're in possession of to the propertied, i.e. the capitalists, the only people that own the capital needed to purchase their labour power and thus earn some money they need to buy the bare necessities of life for the SURVIVAL of themselves and their nearest and dearest ones, OK ? Thus, it ought to be clear as day now to the sensible that the approval of matrimony means, in turn, the approving of private property, the exploitation of man by man, the wage slavery, the production and exchange of commodities, the concentration of wealth at one pole accompanied by the impoverishment of millions at the other, et cetera, et cetera. Furthermore, there still remains the IRRECONCILABLE contradiction between yourself as a husband and as a father of your kids and yourself as the member of the communist party. As the husband and as the father of your kids, you're bound to spend all of your time and earnings to ensure the social and financial security and decent lifestyle of your spouse and children and decent upbringing of your children, et cetera, i.e. to discharge your matrimonial and familial duties and obligations. Nevertheless, as a communist, you have to spend all your time and money on COMMUNIST missions you must accomplish, RIGHT ?

It appears that is only room for men on your ascetic high horse, presumably women aren't allowed to climb up there, despite making up approximartely 50% of the working class.I think I'll decline the offer of climbing up there with you, it sounds a pretty miserable place!

[Bijou Drains]

ALB wrote:

Drinking, smoking, gambling and being married are not the same as being "addicted" to them. In fact I'm not sure what an "addition to matrimony" might be.

Smoking, drinking, gambling AND being married, is an oxymoron, surely?

[Bijou Drains]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

So have they abandoned entryism in respect of the Labour party?

I think they are busy entering and trying to take control of the Skegness and District Amateur Dramatic and Allotment Society, and then plan to turn that into a Revolutionary Vanguard Party, in preparation for their planned seizure of state power sometime in 2018.However rumour is that there has already been a split between the "Dramaticist" element in the Skegness group of the IMT and the "Horticulturites" in the same group, with both sides claiming the support of different factions in the Ecuadorian Tendancy for Workers Control (Marxist Leninist). The ETWC (ML) have two members, they Mr Pedro and Mrs Maria Garcia-Lopez of 27 Simon Bolivar Avenue,Guayaquil, who are said to now be sleeping in separate bedrooms.My sources report that it is likely that both factions are likely to launch their own Internationals, claiming each to be the reconstituted 4th international, sadly however there appear to be further difficulties in the Dramaticist group with one side claiming that men dressing up as pantomime dames is a misognistic ritual that supports the Patriarchal status quo, whilst the other side claim that there opponents are homophobic mono culturalists who deny the right of experssion to oppressed minorities.further news will be added as soon as I get it, but I would expect a noticable fall in the quality of vegetables in the annual Allotment Society Vegetable show this year.

A further update has been received from our correspondent in Skegness on the IMT and their on ongoing attempts to inflitrate and take control of the Skegness and District Amateur Dramatic and Allotment Society.Following the departure of elements of the SWP from the TUSC, a process of assimilation between elements of the IMT and dissident elements from within the Skegness area branch of the SWP is reported to have taken place.This process progressed rapidly and an international reconcilliation conference was held (in the Skegness Allotment Society potting shed). In addition to Trotskyists from the IMT and the SWP, the "conference" also granted observer status to local members of SPEW (The Party for Trotskyists who don't have enough UCAS Points to join the SWP)It is reported that an initial dispute broke out over the issue of the roll call, some members argued that the delegates from SPEW should be counted as part of the roll call, whilst others argued that they should not. After two and a half hours heated debate it was eventually decided by all members that the SPEW members should be counted in the roll call as observers and the roll call for the International Unity Conference was taken (5 members present, with two observers). It is thought that this is the highest number of Trotskyists to be in complete agreement with each other since 1942.Unity however was short lived. The heated topic of "This years Panto" was the subject of furious and accrimoniuos debate:A group within the SWP memebrs proposed the a pantomime with the title:"Dick Livingstone, Mayor of London" – A pantomime loosley based on the life of a former Mayor of London, who wanted to make London a safe place for cats (especially Fat Cats)In contrast to this elements within the IMT proposed:"Syndicalistarella" – A pantomime based on the story of the forgotten, half starved and often ignored step sister (Syndicalistarella), done down and ridiculed by her two ugly sisters (Lady Labour Reformism and Princess Bolshevism), who finally gets her chance to shine, however it all goes sadly wrong and Daniel De Leon turns into a pumpkin at midnight.A compromise option was also proposed in the form of:Red Robin Hood, – A story of the redistribution of wealth by a organised and centralised vanguard party with an organised cenral committee under the leadership of a single informed individual (aka as Vladimir Ilyich Hood).Our correspondent reports that eventually the conference broke down in disarray with three distinct factions all emerging, all three elements claim to be the legitimate Skegness and District Amateur Dramatic Society and Allotment Society and all three elements have spoken of their plans to not only put on the pantomime favoured by their grouping but also to oppose the "Social Fascist pantomimes" of the other groupings, by force if necessary. All three groups claim that the other groups have been infiltrated by MI5.A spokesperson for MI5 said "Sorry, Who?"

[Author]

Posts