Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
James 19 –
One of the facts of history that the UKIPers, swilled eyed head bangers, Ultra tories, et al, hate having pointed out to them is that it was their hero Winston Churchill who was the PM when Britain ratified the European Convention on Human Rights.The idea, put forward by some here, that ‘democracy’ has ‘limits’, when discussing social production, is clearly mistaken, because only democratically organised humans can determine their own ‘limits’.
So where does the following statement
The limits to democracy will be set democratically and will likely vary according to the particular circumstances. </em
Not state this????
For me to preempt the decisions about democratic limits would by definition be undemocratic, in the same way that L Bird stating that there will be votes on scientific theories is by definition undemocratic.
By insisting that socialism will necessarily entail voting on scientific theory L Bird is taking an elitist view (that he knows best) and denies the fact that a future society may take the view that it wishes to democratically place limits to democracy around the “scientific theory”.
L Bird is really very guilty of “making recipes for the cookshops of the future”
As the UK is no longer in the EU, and come under the European Convention ON Human Rights, a case can’t be brought at ECHR in Strausberg.
The European Court of Human Rights is a court of the Council of Europe and nothing to do with the EU. Britian joined the Council of Europe in 1949 and ratified the European Convention on Human Rights in 1953. The Human Rights Act incorporated the ECHR into British Law. Despite what Farage and the slack jawed loons say, leaving the EU has had no impact on this. The Human Rights Act still applies and all UK citizens have eventual recourse to the ECHR
I’m fairly sure I read Marx’s description of the difference between private property and personal property a little while back. (Might have been the Civil War in France, I recently moved house and my books are still all over the place). He used the term abolition of private property in terms of the creation of private private property from the (then historically much more recent) enclosures of what had been common property from which capital had accumulated leding to factories, etc. and personal property, that being homes, furniture and personal posessions, etc.
robbo203 wrote: “…democracy has its limits…”
I don’t suppose that you’ll tell what these limits are, and who determines these limits, and how they do so.
The limits to democracy will be set democratically and will likely vary according to the particular circumstances. For instance democracy very likely wouldn’t entail a world wide plebiscite on what I was going to have for my breakfast, however democratic decisions about what different types of foodstuffs would be grown might limit my choices to the extent that a breakfast of lark’s tongues in aspic might not be on the menu. However if for some reason there was a pestilant plague of larks, it might be decided (through whatever democratic structure had democratically been decided upon) to get those delicious little song birds back on the menu.
Similarly with music, the amount of resources used to produce musical instruments might be decided by democratic methods, what people use the instruments to play would not. I would argue that the stradivarious violins and the 1950s Les Paul Guitars would be commonly owned and accessed by the most proficient musicians (which again might be decided by some democratic method)
How much of the community resources are used to record and distribute recordings (although the amount of resources used to do this now are far less than they have every been and in a resource rich society should not be an issue) might be decided democratically, what people choose to listen to from what is produced would not.
(and as it happens, his list of favourite artists reads exactly like one of mine!).
Hang on, should the proletariate not have had a vote on that???
Whilst I acknowledge the influence of marketing on music, I would argue that with greater creative access you get greater musical creativity and that creativity always out does the marketing strategy of capitalism.
Whether it’s Robert Johnson screwing a pick up on a guitar, Elvis Presley blending blues with country music, Charlie Parker using contrafact to change melodies, the 60’s British blues movement sending blues back to America, punk rock cutting out the record companies and making their own records, through to kids now, using YouTube to publicise their own music and blending old with new, the greater the access the greater the music.
A socialist society would surely open up a plethora of musical avenues, not ones limited by “what sells” or whose daddy owns the record company.
L Bird’s concept of the tyranny of the majority, where somehow musical production is based on some kind of voting system where only the popular is produced sounds like some kind of Eurovision hell to me.
Perhaps our feathered friend would benefit from reading a little more William Morris.
I forgot, BD, that you won the Chase and are just the person to have on a quiz team.
Is that not elitism, comrade?
ALB –
With the exception of the Animals all of them
Kinks – Ray Davies
The Small faces Marriott – Lane
The Who – Townshend
Cream – Bruce and Clapton mainly
Free – Rogers and FrazerBijou Drains wrote: “No doubt if you get your way all we’ll get to listen to will be The Birdy Song and the Feckin Beatles (the world’s most over rated band)”
Hey, I’ve got a soft spot for The Animals, and Eric Burdon’s voice!
It’s not that I dislike the Beatles, but that I think the view that they were muscial geniuses without compare in their era is an overstatement. I don’t think they were head and shoulders above their contemporaries. The Kinks, The Small Faces, The Who, Van Morrison, Cream, Free (and maybe the Animals) were producing equally good if not better music at the time.
Which goes to show the individuality of musical taste and why Socialism and the release from the fetter of the money system, will unlease an even greater variety of musical talent.
Bijou Drains wrote: “So if everything that is social produced must be subject to democracy, presumably, this would also include music, art, literature,etc. as all are socially produced.”
L Bird wrote “If these social products were not subject to democracy, BD, who do you have in mind that would have power over them?”
So we’re going to have a society that votes on whether or not a song can be produced, whether or not a book can be produced, whether or not a painting can be produced.
I don’t think your a Socialist after all, you’re really Simon Cowell’s evil twin, who’s been taking too much bad acid!!
No doubt if you get your way all we’ll get to listen to will be The Birdy Song and the Feckin Beatles (the world’s most over rated band)
You do right to be suspcious of Freud, but fair play to him he did have moments of high insight (the unconscious mind for instance).
I would argue that in a more limited sense abstract thinking is present in some some animal minds. If you think of Pavlov and his dogs, the association between ringing bells and food is to an extent abstract.
I would argue that in human babies that abstract is far greater, Attachment theory suggests that out experiences of the first two years of our lives are highly important for all kinds of symbolic thought and associations, Object Relations theory and Fairbairns six ego positions theory are all very much based on the importance of symbolic thought in pre verbal children (although a word of caution, the whole world population have not had a vote on any of these theories)
ALB, I think there’s a whole different thread on when abstract thinking begins, however there is a plethora of evidence that shows that abstract thinking is a process that infants use, even before they develop language. There is similar evidence that similar processes continue into adult life, it’s just that we are less aware of that form of thinking.
That’s why Paul Gascoigne, who can hardly string a sentence together can be considered a genius with a football, similar for musical genius, artistic genius, etc. None of which require thought in the form of language.
ALB – Although I agree with you, I must take you up on the point you make “because no one can think without language”, Babies don’t have language, but it would be wrong to assume that babies do not think. The concept of pre verbal thinking is acknoledged from Freud to Vygostksy.
