[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

As I've said several times now (and will probably get banned for repeating myself), if anyone is interested in my ideas (and those of Marx), I recommend that they read what I write (and what Marx wrote).But probably of more political importance now, also to ask robbo and YMS to explain why the SPGB argues for the political concept of 'Limited democracy', and that an elite of 'Specialists' will predetermine the nature of those 'Limits'.It throws a whole new light of the SPGB's 'Parliamentarianism', doesn't it?

L Bird, I have missed you, you do make me laugh.You seem to have a made a real issue of specialism and seem to see the development of specialisms as being somehow anti-democratic. I do find this particularly funny, as you then go on and claim to be the specialist on Marx. You seem to associate specialism with power or authority (perhaps this is the consequence of your earlier encounters with Leninist parties).Within our party we have recently appointed some members to take over designing and developing the layout of the Socialist Standard. To do this task, other more experienced members have agreed to show them how it is done and develop their "specialist" knowledge as to how to do this.As a party member, I have no need to vote on every aaspect of how they develop the layout of the Socialist Standard. For example, I don't give a flying f*ck whether they use a Microsoft based programme or an Apple based programme to design the layout, such things bore me rigid.All members of the party can, however, if they wish, raise the layout of the Socialist Standard through the democratic channels of the party, should I and or other members not be happy with the finished product. However I doubt this will be the situation, as I'm sure that the members delegated to undertake this task will do that to the best of their ability.and in the best interests of the party.Similar examples could be given for various positions within the SPGB. We as an organisation trust our members to get on with using their specialist knowedge to the benefit of the party, election to (or in many cases, volunteering for) these specialist positions does not confer special privilege. They are trusted to do the job, until that trust is shown to be misplaced, which to be honest it rarely is.The issue you seem to have is with trusting others, you seem to see the need to micro manage everything, which I find very interesting.In your previous postings, you have dismissed my interest in the workings of the human mind as "cod psychology". Perhaps then you would indulge my interests into the functinoing of your mind by answering yes or no to the following questions about your early life and the issue of trust?Question 1. – When you were an egg, was your shell colour similar but not exactly the same as the eggs of your siblings in the nest? (Yes/No)Question 2. –  Do you have a slight memory of haing a different mother bird to that of your sibling eggs? (Yes/No)Question 3. – Was your egg, much bigger than those of your siblings? (Yes/No)Question 4. – When you hatched did you find you squawked a great deal and made much more noise than those around you? (This habit may have carried on into adult life) (Yes/No)Question 5. – As a a young bird did you feel there were unexplained differences between you and your siblings? (Yes/No)Question 6. – As a very young bird, did you find an irresistable urge to kill your siblings by throwing them out of the nest? (Yes/No)Question 7. – Did you feel a need to monopolise the food supply from you "mother" at the expense of all others around you? (Yes/No)Question 8. –  Do you feel the urge around September time to depart for the sunnier climes of Africa, only to feel a similar urge to fly back to the UK in February? (Yes/No)I would say, using my considerable knowledge of cod psuchology, that if you have answered yes to all of the questions above, you are probably completely cuckoo, something which I think most of us have suspected for some time.

[Bijou Drains]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

strange that no one in this party has any idea what form of gorvernment they want or how to run it. everyones just saying burn everything down and everything will be fine. On one hand you will say you favor democracy then say you favor anarchism. Seems like you have no comcrete plan or idea of where to go if you were actually elected. You guys are very utopian, you think if you abolish the government people will act pecfectly and all have the same ideas and beliefs which would lead to a perfect society. The problem with that is that we have free will and are not a collective mob like ants or termites. Government is nessesary in society to keep order and stability, without a buffer to prevent people from commiting crimes or maintaining the law of the land there will be civil unrest and chaos. That is the only role of the government, to maintain law and order and prevent civil liberties from being violated in my opinion.now go ahead and say the same thing over and over again

Perhaps I can help you understand our views, as it seems you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick.We are for a Socialst/Communist society (In our view they are one and the same thing and have been used historically to mean the same thing). We think that the only way such a society (a society without a state, without money, without social class based on the buying and selling of labour), is through democratic means, i.e. that a majority of people understand and want socialism and all that it entails.We do not propose to smash the state, overthrow the state, have an armed revolution, through the use of a minority of "educated" leaders, as the Leninists or the Anarchists do. We recognise that there can be no Socialsim without Socialisits. As you rightly imply, if we were just to destroy government as it stands, with no Socialist majority, chaos woud probably ensue, as the requirement for a socialist society (a majority of socialists) does not exist..Our view is that the primary function of the state is to maintain the ownership of the means of producing life in the hands of a minority. That is not to say that theer are not some socially useful functions of the state, however this is not the state's primary function. We argue that the state should be replaced by a democratic "administration of things", i.e. an administrative body which does as it is told by the majority. As such we do not see ourselves as "leading" this transformation, merely being part of it.I always think that our party organisation gives the best example of how a Socialist administration would operate. Like other political parties we have committees and members taking reponsibilites for organisational administration, for example branch secretaries, and our executive committee. Members appointed to these committees are tasked with organising things in the interests of the party, but hold no special position within the party, they are merely administrators. As such they can be removed and replaced if they do not do as they are instructed to by the party membership, and every member of the party has equal control of the party. As such there are no positions of power. The socialist who has just joined the party, has as much of a say in running the party as the member who has been a party member for the last 60 years.Interestingly most people who put forward the view that without a coercive state machine put forward a similar view to yourself, that without that state machine to repress people there would be an unleashing of anti social and destructive behaviour. When asked who would behave like this, it is always other people, they themselves would remain completely in control of their behaviour. We are not saying that there would not be times when the community as a whole has to act democratically to restrain the behaviour of difficult individuals, mental ill health, for example would not be abolished with the abolition of capitalism, however that restraint would be democratic, tolerant and measured.

[Bijou Drains]

I think I can safely say on behalf of  NE branch, the no booze idea gets the thumbs down from us.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Did I mention that you get on my t*ts

'Repetition', surely, mods?!

Possibly also deviation and hesitation

[Bijou Drains]

gnome wrote:

Capitalist Pig wrote:

its great that your so well educated in history but can you be a little less condecending?

The word you're (an abbreviation of you are, not your, which is a second person possessive adjective, used to describe something as belonging to you) struggling for is "condescending".

LMFAO

[Bijou Drains]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

you can think what you want but there is evidence that shows our genetics can be infulenced by our behavior. thats why I brung up neuroplasticity. mcolomethanks for the very arrogant and snarky remarks alan.

Oh dear, you really haven't read my post have you.I've also got to say that with your use of the phrase "I brung up" and your use of the term "snotty", I very much doubt your pose a child of the Amercan Dream. Both of those terms are indicative of UK use of the English language, rather that US usage,

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

I must admit I find the thought that they might be a product of you and I's social interaction a fairly uncomfortable concept

Yeah, Tim, revolutionary ideas are an 'uncomfortable concept', especially for the ideological conservatives who wish to preserve 'what exists', and deny humanity's ability to alter the status quo, or to build a world to the liking of the majority, or to allow democratic methods into 'pure, unadulterated, disinterested science' (TM, Bourgeois Social Productions, Est. 1660).Perhaps the SPGB is a lover of 'comfortable concepts', eh? Perhaps you are in your spiritual home?Ooohhh… wash my mouth out! Your material home.

Did I mention that you get on my t*ts

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

It will come as no surprise L Bird, that you have a tendency to get on my t*ts, but never the less, a genuine warm welcome back.

But, are your 't*ts ………………..r a social product of our interaction? 

I must admit I find the thought that they might be a product of you and I's social interaction a fairly uncomfortable concept

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I'm not really qualified to comment on this article but i think it may arouse some interest from others and perhaps LBird might be provoked by it.Mostly it is based on Thomas Kuhn, if the citations is to go by, who i have never read.http://dissidentvoice.org/2017/03/historical-materialism-versus-historical-conceptualism/

I've had a brief skim of the article, alan, and this stood out:

Quote:

Therefore, materiality; i.e., material reality, is the product of consciousness;

This is an idealist ideological statement.Its opposite, which Religious Materialists like you would argue for, would be:

Quote:

Therefore, consciousness; i.e., conscious reality, is the product of material;

Of course, Marx subscribes to neither of these.Marx would argue that 'social reality' is a product of 'social theory and practice'. Marx was an 'idealist-materialist', who saw humanity as the creator of its world. Not 'god' (consciousness, ideal) nor 'matter' (rocks, material), but social labour, human activity, theory and practice.We create our 'rocks-for-us'. We are our own creator. That's why we can change our creation, rather than just simply contemplate 'matter' and worship the divine. We create time and space, and the laws of physics, as Pannekoek argued.

It will come as no surprise L Bird, that you have a tendency to get on my t*ts, but never the less, a genuine warm welcome back.

[Bijou Drains]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

ALB wrote:

Alan, I think you've misunderstood the reason for continuing to argue with critics like Pig. It's not to convince them (some of them are pretty pig-headed) but to deal with the arguments and prejudices they put forward as these are held by others who might be more amenable, as well of course to inform ourselves and hone our arguments.Anyway, to return to the subject.

Capitalist Pig wrote:

it is supported within the scientific community that our actions and our thought patterns can turn on and off certain genes. Its called neurplactisity.

Are you sure that this is what "neoplasticity" means?  As far as I can see, it actually argues the opposite of the view that we are prisoners of our genes. The clue is in the name itself: neuroplasticity. which would suggest that the brain is "plastic", i.e. not "hardwired".  Take this passage from the wikipedia article on it:

Quote:

The adult brain is not entirely "hard-wired" with fixed neuronal circuits. There are many instances of cortical and subcortical rewiring of neuronal circuits in response to training as well as in response to injury.

In any event, this is the opposite of your original claim that genes influence what we think. "Turning on and off" genes (if that's what happens) would not alter the fact that what genes govern is our anatomy and physiology, in this case that of the brain, not what sort of ideas we hold..

the actions and thoughts of a person can change the way genes are expressed making the appearance of a religious gene. I'm not a neuroscientist but this is pretty easy to understand.

Didn't think it was possible for one person to get so much wrong and destroy his own argument in so few words. Well done CP, you deserve some kind of award for this feat.Neuroplasticity is the ability of the nerves and brain to alter and replace functions in response to environmental factors. For instance it has been noted that in people who have sufffered head injury or stroke that areas of the brain that have been damaged or lost may have their functions taken over by areas of the brain that previously provide other functions. A similar process has been noted around the work done with infants with cerebal palsy through a process that became known as conductive education. What this means is effectively the precise opposite of the argument you are attempting to support., i.e.. that the brain is somehow hard wired to perfom in a particular "genetically predetrmined" way. This would mean that individuals and their brains would not be influenced by external factors such as the ideas of others, the development of its own understanding of the world, its own thought processes, etc.I will try and keep this simple for you.The argument you are putting forwrd is that some "genetic" predisposition exists which exists which makes it more likely that children born to (and not necessarily brought up by) religious parents, will be predisposed to religious thoughts. As these religious people are more fecund (which is debateable in itself) they will out reproduce athiests (who are claimed to be less fecund)The contra argument (which you are putting ironically through your mis use of the concept of neuroplasticity) is that this detreminist "we are controlled by our genes" approach is not iin keeping with reality.What might be called the "Central Dogma" of simple molecular biology, (which is more or less the crude view taken in the bad science article quoted}, states that biological information is transferred sequentially and only in one direction (from DNA to RNA to proteins). The logical consequence of this approach is that it leads to belief in absolute determinism, which leaves you utterly powerless to do anything about the health of your body, your thought processes, your behavious, etc.  it's all driven by your genetic code, which you were born with.However, scientistific research has completely shattered the base premis of this argument, it appears we actually have  control over  how your genetic traits are expressed (and this is the key word here) this may range from how you think, how the environment and experience influence what you think, to what you eat and the environment you live in.The Human Genome Project set out to map out all human genes and their interactions, which would (acording to the central dogma of simple molecular biology) than serve as the basis for curing virtually any disease, including diseases of the mind. however, not only did they discovered that the human body consists of far fewer genes than previously believed, they also discovered that these genes do not operate as the central dogma would have predicted.A simple example of the way that environmental factors can impact on the expressino of genes is the experiment carried out by John Cairns, a British molecular biologist which produced evidence that our responses to our environment determine the expression of our genes. Cairns took bacteria whose genes did not allow them to produce lactase, the enzyme needed to digest milk sugar, and placed them in petri dishes where the only food present was lactase. Much to his astonishment, within a few days, all of the petri dishes had been colonized by the bacteria and they were eating lactose. The bacterial DNA had changed in response to its environment. So, information flows in both directions, from DNA to proteins and from proteins to DNA, contradicting the "central dogma."Not only that, the central argument of the article is also very questionable. In many deprived areas of the UK the level of child birth is extremely high, but the level of religious observance is virtually zero. In Northern Ireland, the level of reproduction in the catholic population has been outstripping that of the protestant population for many years, however the level of religious observence is falling drastically in both communities. if we are genetically pre ordained to have religious beliefs by our ancestors, how is it that levels of religious belief of falling in many parts of the world?

[Bijou Drains]

He most probably has it, but if he's from Glasgow a copy of "No Mean City" is a must, although it's a novel, it does give a very clear social history of Glagow between the wars.

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I should have done a direct link, ALB, rather than a c and p. so thanks for thatOur new leader will be blogged by ourselves (is he going to be photoed…the case is the face ) and just maybe someone will pick up on it. I will remind Libcom discussion list of the outcome to perhaps spark some exchanges….(BTW, Is my name going to be included? Party Leader Johnstone has a nice ring…or maybe just simply Fuhrer Johnstone will suffice, i'm sure Matt has already called me that at a branch meeting)But really this is another event that the Media Committee should make the most of with a press release to all the news outlets with a background explanation of our democracy and no leader principle. They have the email list so it is simply drafting the statement and clicking send. Perhaps the "lucky" winner can be carried down Clapham High Street on a "throne" or "litter" or "sedan chair". A bit of street theatre of the "Heid-yin" riding on the backs of his party slaves with devotees following in the procession…a video made and posted on You Tube and Facebook…Didn't someone say we lacked humour in our publicity?

So only males are allowed to be in the lottery then?

[Bijou Drains]

ALB wrote:

Haven't you any relatives in Co Donegal or Co Monaghan? Resuming the family business is a done deal there.

i can see my future as smuggling pease pudding, stottie cake and broon ale going north and bringing truck loads of illicit irn bru, Edinburgh rock and scotch pies back the other way.

[Bijou Drains]

An aspect of Scottish independence not so far discussed is that if Scotland is independent as part of the EU presumably that would require the resumption of a hard border between the EU (Scotland) and the remainder of the UK. I don't know if you still have the family steel bonnets, Alan, but there might be reviving for us to do.During the lawless periods on the border whisky was distilled and smuggled across the border both ways, (Black Rory was a famous smuggler of illicit hooch out of Rothbury). Northumbrian whisky died out after the Act of Union but I might have to get the whisky still boiling again! (All profits to the party)I wondered why there was a set of spurs on my dinner plate tonight Alan, with a little note from my beloved saying  long live Kinmont Willie!

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I would have thought the news of the 2nd Indy Ref ould have provokes some interest in our fellow members but it may well be correct that the tongue-in-cheek reference on another thread to the Socialist Party of the Home Counties or Socialist Party of London is truer then we believehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/kent-and-sussex-regional-branch-maidstone?page=19#comment-38685Perhaps, it is the realisation of the very weak state of the Party in Scotland that it might be better to ignore developments there. However, i thought my slightly heretical suggestion that we combine publicity with other political parties and groups and share a platform with those who share moreorless our political conclusion on independence for Scotland would have resulted in some sort of accusation of breaking our hostility clause.Although it is not viewed a likely prospect ..May refusing the referendum or insisting it is on her own time-table, we may well face a Catalonian-like unauthorised referendum, with certain political sanctions upon the Scottish Government and the SNP.,…perhaps a recipe for UDI.But i did onder about members who individually favoured a vote stay in the EU referendum on the grounds of unity with migrant workers yet a Vote No in the 2014 Scottish Referendum because it divided UK and Scottish workers if their position has changed on the 2 nd referendum.As for the Scottish claim on Northumbria and vice versa…As a Border family i refer you to my SS articlehttps://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2014/no-1318-june-2014/scottish-english-who-caresSome dates954 Edinburgh is lost to Scottish king Indulf.1018 Lothian is lost to the King of Scots Malcolm II.1139 Matilda grants Northumberland north of the Tees to David I of Scotland.1157 Henry II reclaims Northumberland from Scotland

Another habit of the border familes was to give the first born son his mother's maiden name as a first name. hence the use of first names like Graham, Elliot, Ridley, Robson, Percy, Charlton, etc. as first names. I came across one or two guys with the first name Johnstone when I worked in Tynedale.

[Author]

Posts