Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
kenax wrote:nope, here for the first time. my name is Karel Kosman and my company's name is kenax, which i usually use as a username. you can search on the web for those names and you will see they are connected. i was merely trying to get the word out about my direct democracy site and thought it might be a useful tool for socialism as well. along the way got caught up in a good discussion. i plan to read the last two suggested articles. my main motivation is i've grown sick of the system and wars and just throwing in my two cents to try and make a positive change.
And just to say Karel that it is good to have discussions with people who are genuinely interested in exploring our ideas. The World Socialist has a long history of putting our ideas out in the public forum for discussionJust to add a little to that. You say that direct democracy is a good idea for the administration of what could be termed the "political" decisions which effect every one, why do we need to limit democracy to the political, who not expand that to the economic sphere.Why shouldn't the whole world's population be involved in deciding what happens to the whole world's economic resources.The car plants, mines and factories were not built by the individuals who now "own" them, they were built by many thousands and millions of people, the mines and the railway lines, the power stations and the hospitals were the product of the many, why should their output and services not be controlled and directed by the many, rather than the few, who through the theft, violence and the threat of violence of their ancestors, through the expropriation of the wages system, through the modern day casino of the stock exchange, lay claim to the common product of all mankind?In short what is good for political decisions, must be good for economic decisions.To add to that our model of democratic control is reflected in what I believe to be the most democratic movement in the world, which was established by our founding members in 1904. You are welcome to examine any decision or discussion about decisions our party has made since its founding, we have no secret meetings, no unrepresentative cabals, no leaders, no hidden agendas. If you have the desire you can come to any of our meetings or conferences, executive committee meetings, etc. Nothing is hidden, all is open for discussion
ALB wrote:Part Two on the Chartists was ok too.I now know how to pronounce Engels properly (it's more like eccles than angles).Wally Preston would be thrilled
Ike Pettigrew wrote:Bijou Drains wrote:I just had a DNA test and It emerges that my DNA make up is as follows:54% Irish – no great surprise there24% British mainland – again no great surprise12% Western European – Perhaps a bit of a surprise3% Iberian – Perhaps Spanish sailors shipwrecked off Mayo after the Armada?3% Italian Peninsula – Lots of Romans up in the North East manning Hadrian's Wall (which for the information of Southern based media does not mark the border between Scotland and England!!!)2% Greek – No bloody idea1% Georgian Caucasus – ?????1% Eastern European Jew, again no idea.The point is that we are all mongrels and the idea that there are "ethnic Norwegians" is as improbable as the idea that there are "ethnic British". You spoke in one of your earlier posts about Vikings and the fact that they were ethnically European. I worked for a long while with families on the Northumbrian side of the Borders, Black and Blackmore (Black Moor) is a very common surname and there is lots of evidence that many families are descended from the Black legions posted on the Roman Wall, living there for centuries before the Viking invasions.If your going to start dividing people up by "ethnicity" then there are going to be bits of me scattered all over the globe, wouldn't it be ironic if the bit of me that is "ethnically" Jewish was my foreskin.I'm not sure how to respond to this since it's self-evident to me that ethnicity is a socially-constructed concept. I know that my Britishness is an invention. But it represents a shared heritage and experience over at least centuries, and the result is a shared way of life and understanding of certain things, the components of what we call a 'culture'. I'm not suggesting that that identity is to be preserved in aspic and is unevolvable, but nor do I think it can be disregarded as a factor in the direction that individuals and societies should go. You are free to disagree and say that there is no such thing as identity, humans are mechanistic cogs and all that matters are the social relations and forces of production. You're entitled to take that view. I respectfully disagree, sir!
I don't disagree that having a culture is an important aspect of well being. I am not in favour of a homogenised Socialist Society, a kind of marxist McDonaldisation of the globe. However neither do I see culture as being necessarily tied only to ethnicity. In my youth I was invovled in pigeon racing and there is definitely a pigeon racing culture which connects those invovled in pigeon racing regardless of ethnicity or geography.There are lots of other cultures, there is an SPGB culture, there are drug cultures, music cultures, food cultures, etc. We all have multiple cultural identities at any one time. For instance I am a Northerner, which amongst other things, means I say thank you to the bus driver, I am also a pub goer, which means no matter what fracas is breaking out, I will always ensure that a person carrying several pints of beer is protected from the dreaded fate of spilling beer. As stated earlier I can converse with pigeon fanciers about the use of pot eggs and the widowhood system, as well as understanding the etiquette of ADM and conference. I was brought up living next to an Anglo/Burmese family and can make a very good bitter melon curry, my family are of Irish origin (mainly) and so I am also happy to have a conversation about the (remot)e possibility of mayo ever winning the Sam McGuire again, I speak Dialect Geordie to some of my friends using loan words from Romany (Gadgie and Charva, for instance) and I don't see any of this as a negative or a dilution from my feelings of self worth or my heritage.The fascinating thing about them is that although they seem to be immutable the fact is that they are all ever evolving. In my area the group of people who seem most likely to use Geordie dialect appear at times to be the Sikhs. I have worked with lots of people from immigrant communities in Newcastle who when asked if they were British will say no, but when asked if they are Geordies will say Whey Aye!
Ike Pettigrew wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:And once again this forum is being de-railed by those who are unable to rise above being baited. No wonder people like Ike treat us like a joke.Joking aside, let me assure you that I do not regard the SPGB or its case in any sense as a joke. I have never said as much and never would. I take socialism very seriously and I maintain that it is possible and could happen. My contributions are in the spirit of debate, nothing more. I could be wrong.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I would have liked to see other contributorss offer their info on de-population of areas of Britain.Ireland another region that certainly isn't over-crowded once outside Dublin CityAm I to take it from this that you think a higher population is a 'good' in its own right? I know you're just responding to an argument put by anti-immigration people, but I'm trying to fathom the logic. Even if a country has lots of open spaces, how does that justify open borders or mass immigration, especially when it goes against workers' wishes? Isn't there an argument that, first, open space is a good thing to preserve for its own sake, and second, open space is not necessarily habitable, and third, a higher population would put strain on space due to the need for supporting infrastructure? These seem reasonable arguments to me, and that's before we even get into the arguments about ethnic cohesion and the problems caused by imposing diversity on people due to taking a purely 'economic' view of everything.You call this "racism", which I think is a made-up word used against workers you don't like. Are Norwegians racist if they want to keep Norway ethnically Norwegian? Can you not understand that the motivation to keep Norway Norwegian or England English or Germany German might have behind it something deeper than sentimentality and that workers have real concerns? Such concerns, when expressed, don't make somebody a lackey for the local ruling class. Britain once had a modern population of 30 million or so. I should like to see us return to that. In an ideal world, I would like the entire country to return to forest and woodland and become wild, made up of a population of strong, independent people who can look after themselves and have little need of the state or money or capitalism. Wanting less people around is not to say I think people should have less children, rather I think the priorities of the country should change. We don't need incessant growth. Less people would be a better quality of life and result in a hardier and more independent-spirited people – who might be more inclined to ditch capitalism. When it comes to population, I believe in quality over quantity. I don't see the benefit of having more people just for the sake of it.
I just had a DNA test and It emerges that my DNA make up is as follows:54% Irish – no great surprise there24% British mainland – again no great surprise12% Western European – Perhaps a bit of a surprise3% Iberian – Perhaps Spanish sailors shipwrecked off Mayo after the Armada?3% Italian Peninsula – Lots of Romans up in the North East manning Hadrian's Wall (which for the information of Southern based media does not mark the border between Scotland and England!!!)2% Greek – No bloody idea1% Georgian Caucasus – ?????1% Eastern European Jew, again no idea.The point is that we are all mongrels and the idea that there are "ethnic Norwegians" is as improbable as the idea that there are "ethnic British". You spoke in one of your earlier posts about Vikings and the fact that they were ethnically European. I worked for a long while with families on the Northumbrian side of the Borders, Black and Blackmore (Black Moor) is a very common surname and there is lots of evidence that many families are descended from the Black legions posted on the Roman Wall, living there for centuries before the Viking invasions.If your going to start dividing people up by "ethnicity" then there are going to be bits of me scattered all over the globe, wouldn't it be ironic if the bit of me that is "ethnically" Jewish was my foreskin.
kenax wrote:additionally, let's just assume that these two systems cannot be combined and you swing the pendulum to the extreme, perhaps like the Soviet experiment. where there was still an elite, rich class, like the politicians, sports, those could by Tatra, the Russian equivalent of limozines, while the rest had to wait years for a crappy Lada. there would be a line-up two blocks long every time the state was ready to distribute another round of toilet paper. westerners visiting the country would be shocked to find out they had to pay $2 for each square of toilet paper from their hotel. meanwhile, every four years the population had the opportunity to elect from communist party A, or B, perhaps C. whatever form of socialism, why cannot the people submit their own ideas and vote on them also? under communism people were not even allowed to leave, because most would, considering that free enterprise leads to more efficient means of production and the people in the west were better off because of it.kenax, you are right to condemn the elitist system that operated in the old Soviet block, and very insightful to understand that there was a n elite ruling class in that system, the World Socialist Movement first condemned that system of State capitalism in 1917! Just as we condemn the similar systems in North Korea, Cuba, etc.You imply that there is a pendulum between state ownership and private ownership and that we are in favour of some position aong that spectrum. However we would view all positions on that spectrum between full state ownership and full private ownership as different variations of capitalism and that no position along that spectrum can rid us of the evils of the capitalist system, just as you point out was the case for the Soviet system.Our position is probably very different from any organisation you have come across with the title Socialist. We put forward the idea not of state ownership, or private ownership of the means of production, but rather of common ownership.
The primary lesson of enquiries into abuse is that perpetrators of abuse will deliberately target areas of work where they can have easy access to vulnerable potential victims. In the 60s 70s 80s and 90s, it was the clergy, youth organisations, teaching, etc. in later years it has been spotrs coaching, the media and TV, etc. It now appears that the "aid industry" is the area tha abusive people are attracted to. However the key element is that without the economic vulnerability that capitalism creates much of the vulnerability that attracts abusers would cease to exist.
ALB wrote:The government has long wanted to get at Oxfam because of its documenting of the effects of capitalism and its (reformist) political campaigning against these. It looks like they are seizing the opportunity to try to put a stop to this and silence a critic.I don't disagree that Oxfam have been a thorn in several governments' sides, however, I think it would be wrong to say that all that Socialsits can learn from this scandal is that governments like to use these situations to create a witch hunt,One of the characteristics of any kind of abuse is that there has to be a differential of power. If you look at the Weinstein case the differential between economic and status creates a power that allows the abuse to occur. If you look at the situation in the news today of Barry Bennell, the football coach, the power he had over the children he abused was considerable and it derived from economic power. You can look at the Child Sexual Exploitation scandals in Rochdale and Rotherham, as well as examinig the aid workers scandal, teh conclusion will always be the same, economic power is often a huge factor when these scandals break.Whllst politicians and the heads of charity claim that they will bring in regulation and put an end to this, as long as the current economic system prevails, the power differential associated with it and the potential for abuse this brings, will continue as long as that system prevails. Although it would be wrong to say that sexual abuse will disappear when capitalism disappears, the idea of the creation of a Socialist society, which removes economic power of one human being, gives us another reason to organise to get rid of this hateful system!
Vin wrote:Please forgive me for not reading the entire thread but am I correct in believing that it is being suggested that socialist society will by guided by 'time and motion' studies. This reminds me of what we used to call Taylorism and it horrified workers. My apologies if I have completely missed the point and just ignore meHere is a summary of Taylor's suggestionshttp://www.netmba.com/mgmt/scientific/Socialist Christmas, perhaps?http://non-carborundum.tumblr.com/image/105344661344
Alan Kerr wrote:Robbo We could say that Crusoe counts the labour in his product. If you mean exactly the same thing then say that Crusoe attaches a value to his product. But Crusoe gets at the labour in his product by counting. Things like size, weight, taste… attached to his product are rather to do with use-value.Is it just me but can I hear the sound of straws being clutched at?
LBird wrote:Bijou Drains wrote:LBird wrote:You now seem to be saying that 'adults and non-dementia sufferers' would constitute an 'elite'.Dictionary definition of "Elite"" Noun 1. a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society"Seems to me that by selecting out infants and people with dementia, which apparently you agree with, you have selected out a group of people, creatign a select group that by definition is an elite. Not my words, but your.I am examining your propositions, your view of things, not giving mine.
[my bold]I'd read your chosen definition again, BD, you don't seem to understand it.'A select superior to the rest of society' is an elite, not a majority.You seem to be wanting to define a 'majority' as a 'dictatorship' – the politics behind that attempt is nothing to do with democratic socialism. Perhaps your own version of 'straightness' is beginning to show, after all.
I'm not defining anything, just running some suggestions past you about how you envisage a Socialist Society would operate.So let's go through this again. A group is selected that has the qualities considered to be superior in taking part in votes, in the example I've given this group is selected on the basis that it doesn't have severe dementia and that it is over the age of two years old. This gives us two groups of peopleGroup A – people who have severe dementia and people who are aged under 2 years of age.Group B – people who have the superior attributes that they are over the age of two and that they do not have severe dementia (superior qualities or attributes to group A when it comes to taking part in votes on social production)If you are not in group B then you are from Group B's position "the rest of society. By definition group B must be an elite. Not only that they are an elite that you feel should be chosen to take part in votes about social production.By the way I haven't defined a majority as anything, I am asking about your views, not mine.However, putting discussion of whether this group is an elite or not, am I right in concluding that you are of the opinon that on the basis of what has been discussed so far, you are of the opinion that some groups of people (the size is irrelevant) sholuld be excluded from voting on social production?
LBird wrote:You now seem to be saying that 'adults and non-dementia sufferers' would constitute an 'elite'.Dictionary definition of "Elite"" Noun 1. a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society"Seems to me that by selecting out infants and people with dementia, which apparently you agree with, you have selected out a group of people, creatign a select group that by definition is an elite. Not my words, but your.I am examining your propositions, your view of things, not giving mine.
Alan Kerr wrote:@Bijou Drains The means to work have now grown too big for the household. We can use big means only in common. We need to both own and to control big means in common. This does not refer to the private household.So Crusoe's is not a private household? You can't have it both ways, Bonny Lad!
LBird wrote:You haven't returned the courtesy, BD, and answered my question. Fair dos, eh?But, attempting to make an answer out of your post, if your list of areas which you will deny democracy really extend beyond infants and dementia sufferers (which you probably would be able to make a good political argument for, and would probably win a vote) to physics…… then you intend to deny democracy within a central part of the theory and practice of social production.If I've understood you properly, why not simply say to workers that this is what you intend, to leave political power within the hands of an elite within certain areas, and list those areas?I think that in these areas that you'd lose a vote, and the revolutionary, class conscious proletariat would make a start on making all science comprehensible to all proletarians.That is, education would be democratised. If you oppose democracy within education, then you should say so, openly, and explain why you hold these anti-democratic views.I think you have misunderstood my intention, or more likely I have not explained it clearly.I am not denying democracy to anyone, I'm actually asking what your opinion on the matter is.If you are stating that you think that there is a good political argument for not extending the franchise on the social production of ideas to dementia sufferers and infants, which I am inferring you do (please correct me if I'm wrong), are you not, by the exclusion of these people from the democratic franchise, saying that there are SOME people within the community that cannot be part of the franchise and SOME that can. So therefore, within your own model of democracy there are a group who can vote on the production of social ideas and another group who don't have that privilege, is this in itself not the creation of an elite?
LBird wrote:Bijou Drains wrote:Come on then, in the spirit of democratic, friendly discussion, I'll give it one last go and ask you a straight question, in the hope of a straight answer.My question is:In your view does democratic decision making extend to every member of the community and to every question of social production?I've always given a straight answer to any straight question – the problem is, some posters don't seem to like my straight answers, and proceed to attack me personally (and then complain when I reply in kind).But, since you're claiming to be asking 'in the spirit of democratic, friendly discussion', I'll give it a go, too.In my view, within World Socialism, every question of social production extends to every member of the community, thus only democratic decision making is politically acceptable.If you don't agree with 'democracy' within all social production within World Socialism, that's fair enough – but the ball's in your court to explain why you oppose 'democracy', and, if not everywhere, within which political contexts you intend to deny democracy within social production.
In the spirit of democratic debate, I genuinely thank you for you straight answer to my straight question.Perhaps I could trouble you with another question in the spirit of democratic debate?Given then that you think that EVERY question of democratic production extends to EVERY member of that community, can I assume that you think that EVERY 2 years old child and ALL people who have a severe dementia will be voting on whether or not Grand Unified Theory can be used to explain the phenomena of neutrino oscillations that indicate that the Standard Model in Physics is incomplete in its application to quantum mechanics?
