[Bijou Drains]

Looks like a sophisticated game of monopoly to me! Perhaps I'm just an old fart who prefers to meet friends in the pub rather than on facebook and prefers to play and watch football rather than play FIFA or Championship manager.

[Bijou Drains]

Vin wrote:

So opposition to standing at elections is opposition to the party's Declaration of Principles?

Yes opposition to the party (ever) standing at elections is opposed to the D of P. However I would argue that those who currently think standing at elections (and I hasten to add I am NOT amongst that group), but that there will be a time for the party to do so, are not opposed to the D of P.

[Bijou Drains]

Vin wrote:

John Pozzi wrote:

Hi Vin, In the GRB eco system national debt-money and commercial banks are obsolete. There is only GRB –  The People's Bank – Earth. John

I must have misunderstood your post. What does this mean? "Does the GRB supply everyone with a basic income and free telecommunications for life? Yes.Do GRB investments in communications convert the internet to the shareholders GRBnet? Yes.How do landless shareholders get land? The GRB reserve settles national debt for state assets."John Pozzi  Is 'income' money?  Is 'investment' in a money form?

I've had a quick look Vin, and sadly it appears to be another "reform capitalism to make it work in the interests of the people" scheme.. Yet another example of so called radical thinking, that when examined in a bit of depth is just a rehash of the old failed attempts to make the slaughterhouse work in the interests of the animals.As can be seen from the flyer, workers will receive a "basic income", what Mr Pozzi is saying is that we workers (who produce, distribute and create all of the value  in society) will get a few crumbs extra from the bakery, whilst the owners of the bakery still live of the profits off our labour.According to Mr Pozzi, the good news is their will be no multi national debt and a we'll have a people frinedly world bank, whoopy do.. All of this will masquerade as "world socialism". Perhaps Mr Pozzi could spend his time more fruitfully by examining the case for REAL world sociailism, and start to really think about how we can genuinely transform society, in effect, stop acting like a sheep in wolf's clothing and become a real revolutionary!

[Bijou Drains]

cyberrevolution1 wrote:

DJP wrote:

cyberrevolution1 wrote:

i agree with you that the SPGB is a luxemburgist movement

The SPGB isn't really "Luxemburgist" either, but certainly closer to Luxemburg than Lenin.But yes, that's not what you were asking.I think we have to utilize every method we can, and also look into the psychology of how people make and change beliefs, I think this aspect has not adequately been thought about in the past.What do you think?

thats an interesting way of looking at it. There's a book called the sane society by Eric Fromm, a book that combines psychoanalysis with Marxist thought. It speaks about the human situation, and how people are living an unfulfilled existence due to the materialism and consumerism of modern capitalism. I think theories like this would be a great place to start understanding how the people's minds work under celebrity culture capitalism, and see how to convey socialism in a way that would ring true to the masses

Fromm put forward some interesting ideas, you might find some of the works of Claude Steiner of similar interest. My own view is that their is no magic bullet, and that that fact is actually part of the Socialist case that we fail to utilise. The Socialist case is multi-dimensional, it appeals on lots of different levels and to lots of different frames of reference. I think we need lots of different propaganda approaches. If we limit ourselves to one approach we limit the appeal of the Socialist case.

[Bijou Drains]

Matt wrote:

I don't think so. Ours were educative, the movie is a 'bums on seat' commercial venture.I really don't take movies seriously.

What? not even Bambi?

[Bijou Drains]

LeftOfNorthWest wrote:

Relatively new to the world of socialism and definitely new to the world of socialist forums, I have found myself to be left of centre on the political spectrum after being coerced as a impressionable wayward teen to be actively involved with uglier side of the right wing and ultimately seeing the error of my ways in recent years.I identify my views as democratic socialist and I am here on this forum to converse with others with a similar wave length on current affairs and political on goings.  

Welcome along to our forum, Left of North West. You may find our views rather different to ones you have encountered before, but we're (generally speaking) a friendly bunch. I hope you take time to find out about our ideas and principle and that in time they become ones you agree with and want to help us in our work.RegardsTim

[Bijou Drains]

Cyberrevolition1, I can see to an extent where you're coming from, there is a history of populist movements and even fascist/nazi movements wearing pseudo socialist clothes in their own propaganda. These movements have also included "leftist" elements, the Strasserites in the Nazi party, for example. They may complain about "crony capitalism", unfortunately they usually want to replace one set of cronies with their own particular brand, and even if there were no cronies, we'd still have capitalism and all of the shite that brings. The Socialist Movement does its best to counter the falsehoods and horse shit of the likes of Farage and Trump, but we need help. If you agree with our Socialist Principles why not join us and add another voice to that movement?yours for Socialism Tim

[Bijou Drains]

robbo203 wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSnrDRU6_2    Hmmm, I think this is just sensationalist nonsense which does the cause of fighting climate change no good. It undermines the credibility of the argument that climate change is indeed happening by linking it with some totally improbable apocalyptic scenario. It thus ironically disempowers and demotivates the struggle against climate change. I wish people would not resort to hyperbole to make a point but RT seems to be prone to doing this  

Never mind the humans, what about that poor bloody penguin,

[Bijou Drains]

Polly Parrot wroteIf you post the quote with Marx's statement of 'universal', I'll post the correction of Marx, who often uses sloppy terms which contradict his whole thesis, about socio-historic production (ie., not 'universals', 'absolutes', etc., which are 'divine'). Marx was human, y'know![/quote]Good job our feathered friend is around to keep us right! Ladies and gentlemen the ego has landed.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

blah blah etc etc

So do you support society-wide central planning then LBird as in everyone getting to vote on the totality of production?  Yes or no?

This response proves, once again, that 'materialists' simply cannot conduct a reasoned debate, but must always fall into abuse, because they always get politically cornered, when 'democratic production' is mentioned.Further, the 'materialists' never read what I write, and make up their own version of 'what I say', and then pass that around amongst themselves, and convince themselves that that lie is 'what I wrote'.robbo is arguing against a bogeyman of his own making.If he isn't aware of his own individualist (and elitist) politics, surely someone else here is?And will join in to defend Marx's vision of a self-emancipatory, conscious, democratic, socialism.

This response proves once again that L Bird refuses to answer a straight question!

[Bijou Drains]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Lbird,but the point is that Socialism is about achieving definite ends, not using the least labour possible: we might, like ancient peoples choose to throw labour unnecessarily at a task because we enjoy doing it and want to show how much labour we have.

Much as it pains me, I must agree to some extent with L Bird (I assure you it is on this issue only) if we have a situation where labour can be allocated to a number of different project, then society, or the part of society that these projects impact on, must have some idea of the relative amounts of human endeavour involved in the different projects in order to be able to vote rationally on the choices at hand.Similarly in particular organisations where the availability of certain skills may for whatever reason be temporarily reduced, having some idea about the way in which these skills resources can be most beneficially allocated in a democratic fashion, would be essential.

[Bijou Drains]

 No, unfortunately I don't just accept.Your oh so predictable attempt to divert from the point by bringing in other issues is in vain.You have stated frequently that any socialist society must involve votes on all scientific theories. (Or have I got that wrong?)You have attacked me specifically and the SPGB generally for not accepting your view of science.You have labelled those who dispute you're view as amongst other things, Leninists, Stalinists, elitists, etc.I have now put forward a question about the practical application of your proposal. As a matter of socialist principle you should be willing to defend your views, especially when you have made the above mentioned defamatory comments.Show the courage of your convictions for once and answer the question, or are you a coward?

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

You're going to have to turn your well-known habit of 'psychologising' upon yourself, Tim, in your desperate search for an answer for your failure to engage in conversation with grown-ups.My comradely advice is to look at the content of your last post, and try to judge whether it's from someone genuinely interested in political discussion, or from someone who has 'issues' (to use the current pop-psychology term).And don't blame me, Tim – I'm only the messenger. If you must have a tantrum, smash your keyboard against the wall – you'll feel better, and I'll feel free from your 'issues'.

Just answer the question, or are you scared it will expose you and your stupid proposal. If I am the fool and you are the master, just sweep me away with one mighy thrust of your huge intellect! Or if you can't then let others on here be the judge.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

How about a trade. If ALB answers your question to him on this thread, then you agree to answer my question to you on the "good article" thread?

Since you appear to be incapable of reading what I write, and, through your own frustration at your own lack of comprehension, always turn to abuse, I think that I'll decline your 'trade', since I would be trading my valuable discussion for your childish taunts.

The only person on this borad that believes that this is the reason you refuse to answer my question is you (and I doubt you even believe it)I asked a straight question, putting a scenario that was basd on your crack pot idea of voting on every scientific theory, it was not abusive, it did not have reference to your previous replies to similar questions (because you haven't ever replied to a similar question).therefore my ability to understand what you write is irrelevant. You as usual resort to your elitist sterotyping of anyone who doesn't agree with your cockamamie ideas.So FOR ONCE, stop avoiding a straight question and explain to us all how the practical application of your proposal would work,

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

That's because they are measuring actual labour rather than socially necessary labour. Don't know how you would measure the latter. Not sure you can.

I know that you won't take kindly to my appearance on this thread, ALB, so I'll make it short and sweet.Since this form of 'labour' is 'socially necessary', only the society that determines its own necessities can 'measure' its labour; and furthermore, only it can determine its 'measures'.Within a democratic society, like socialism/communism, only the democratic producers can determine their own necessities and their own measures.I would suggest that 'voting' would be an appropriate method for 'measuring'.So, I think we can 'measure socially necessary labour', and indeed will do so within socialism. This social estimation will not, of course, involve 'money'.

ALB wrote:

In criticising various schemes for "labour money" in his day Marx suggested it couldn't be.

Do you have an information where Marx suggested it could be, where he wasn't talking about 'money' (or any of its supposed 'objective' forms)? I suspect that Marx didn't talk about the future social measures of 'necessity' which we might use, but you might know of some discussion which touches on this area.If you don't wish to reply to my question, just ignore this post, and I'll leave the thread alone.

How about a trade. If ALB answers your question to him on this thread, then you agree to answer my question to you on the "good article" thread?

[Author]

Posts