Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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?
Alan Kerr wrote:@Bijou Drains buy some raffle tickets from me and you will be likely to win a prize.Solving workers' problems is too important to leave to guess, and more so since guess will not work. By counting, we do not need likelihood. We get security.So presumably you count up the hours you spend undertaking household tasks and undertake time and motion studies when you wash the dishes?
LBird wrote:Brian wrote:LBird wrote:OK, I've quite properly given you the chance to explain your version of the 'what' to workers.Since you seem unable to do so, the field is left open for Marxists to point out that 'The Marxist Theory' of Brian's hidden ideology is actually "Engels' Materialism", an ideology followed by Lenin, which not only is no use to workers in the 21st century, but wasn't any use in the 19th or 20th, either.So, simple answer to your question of 'how relevant', Brian – 'materialism' isn't relevant in the 21st century.It's only role, as ever, is to deny democratic social power to the proletariat, and to reserve power for an elite. Marx pointed that out, in his Theses on Feuerbach.Your failure to address the question and make yet a further attempt to go Off-topic is in my opinion proff positive that you are unable to answer the question.
Brian's topic: "How relevant is the Marxist theory in the twenty first century?"LBird's answer: "Your 'Materialism' (which you claim to be 'The Marxist Theory') isn't relevant in any way at all to the 21st century (and never has been)".Simple enough, and direct, answer, Brian.Or do you want me to outline why your 'Materialism' isn't?The obvious starting point is that, as Marx argued, your 'Materialism' wasn't democratic in the 19th or 20th centuries, and still isn't in the 21st century.If we aspire to build a 'democratic socialism', then a 'democratic theory' is required from the start. 'Materialism' isn't democratic, and so is of no use for this purpose.I'm not making any false claim here, because you've often said in the past that you won't have democracy in all social production – you reserve at least some to elite control. The real problem is that you never explain how an elite theory can be used to build a democratic society, in the 21st century, or any other.
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?
Vin wrote:There appears to be a number of issues being conflated here. The issue of Trolls, abuse, personal attacks and the discussion of 'internal matters'. I suspect there is unanimity of objection to the first three, which leaves the last one. Integral to and inseparable from the socialist case is the revolutionary movement's democatic strucure and organisation. It is going to be very difficult if not impossible to avoid revealing and discussing 'internal' matters while claiming to be open and democratic. Then there is the use of the modern means of communication to increase democratic participation. Should this be abandoned? If 'internal matters' are referred back to spintcom as Alan suggests then there would be no facility for non-members to contribute; of course this may be considered a good idea.Isn't the subject of this thread an 'internal matter'? Is it OK for non-members to contribute?I'm not suggesting that there should be a code of "Omerta" with regard to anything to do with internal party democracy, I am however syaing that perhaps we should (me included) be a little more thoughtful about how we do this. For instance, generally speaking, the current discussion about the changes to party structure has been a lively and informative debate.However there have been times when internal party discussion has disolved into petty bickering, which does the party no good whatsoever and we end up in the "you spilt my pint" school of debate.I agree that democracy is integral to the Socialist case. But with democracy comes democratic procedure and a degree of responsibility. If we are discussing Party democracy perhaps we should consider what would be and what wouldn't be considered acceptable at a party conference or adm discussion. A little bit of thought goes a long way (again I include myslef in that)
Alan Kerr wrote:Robbo203 and ALB,By Justus von Liebig's "Law of the Minimum" we may learn 2 ways to grow a tonne of corn.By the same law we may learn that we use a different size land area to get a tonne of corn for each way.Now which way saves and which way wastes labour?I see three ways to count labour 1) price or 2) count social labour itself or 3) guess it.You assume that we want to save labour, this is based on considering labour a commodity. If I want to make my garden as labour free as I can I may consider using plastic turf, paving stones or concrete. However I may enjoy gardening and consider every hour spent in the garden a bonus. Similarly in a Socialist society withthe proper use of labour saving machinary there is likely to be an abundance of labour and the things we may wish to count (such as water use, impact on the environment, land use, etc.) may be far more important and counting the socially useful labour is likely to be relatively unimportant.
admin wrote:Quote:So perhaps the goal of the forum should be to concentrate on information-sharing and political education which may require a re-design of the forum webpages.The website already serves that purpose. There are about 800 users signed up to the website. They do not necessarily login when looking at pages. When they do login there may be weeks of a break from their last login..At the moment I write this there are two users, myself and Alan, but eleven 'guests' some of whom are not logged in users. They are not necesarily in this forum, but may just be perusing content.The best thing members can do is to visit others websites, blogs, and fora and providee links occasioanlly to relevant articles or content on our site or the blogs which link to us.I'd like to see many more guests.The next best thing is to be friendlier ot each other and not take criticism as a personal attack.
I don't think that the goal of the forum is limited to just propaganda and sharing information. The forum also helps socialists to connect and in my opinion, if used properly, helps maintain morale. Being a good distance for HO, in an area where the level of activity is a minimum, the forum is a life saver for me, in helping me to keep in touch with relatively sane people. The importance of comradeship is often overlooked and the presence of the forum has been a big part in me getting back to being more active in the party.I do agree that there is too much bile and invective on the forum and that it must look a little unedifying for visitors. I know I have been guilty of that on a few occasions myself. One of the difficulties with social media is that it when your participating in it it feels like a conversation between two people down the pub, you get a bit relaxed and you say things you shouldn't on the spur of the moment. We all need to remember (me included) that this is every much a published media outlet as the Standard.There are undoubtedly some complete bell ends posting on here (we all know who they are). As has been demonstrated by the lack of responses (or interest) to Knob Andrex's lame attempts at humour, if you ignore them they don't get the feedback they desire/require, in their fruitless attempt to boost their already crushingly low sense of self esteem, by actually having someone notice them. As members of the Party (and ex-members who are still Socialists) it is important to show a bit of self discipline and treat these toss pots with the level of interest they deserve.In a similar vein. If Party members were at a Party sponsered public meeting, it would be very disappointing if members of the party used that meeting as a forum to sort out internal party issues. Thinking about this topic and the forum, prior to this post, it occurs to me that the forum is to some extent a kind of party propaganda meeting. Again we need to be more thoughtful about airing our dirty laundry in a public meeting, again we need to be more thoughtful. The PM function can be used more effectiely in thes matters and as has been shown, by including a number of participants in the PM thread it is possible to have the internal debate without it turning into a public slanging match.In terms of propagating the party case, I don't think for one moment that the forum is going to be as useful as the Standard, the website, public meetings, one to one contact, etc. It may bring a few interested souls into the sphere of the Party and that's good. Although other political groups use their equivelent sites as a recruiting grounds, we have to remember that their views are poorly defined , their membership is not dependent on understanding, it doesn't require the knowledge and understanding becoming an SPGB member does. It is a false comparison.To me the importance of the Forum is to keep members and sympathisers in touch, to help us develop our ideas by discussion and debate and to sharpen our case by discussing key issues. We also need to remember that party members are all human beings with all of the failings that go with it. We are not all expected to be friends, but we can all be friendlyYFSTim
ALB wrote:Bob Andrews wrote:just to make a cheap score off old enemies like…lemme see…Peter Faultless, one time member of Birmingham branch.A few more off-guard comments like this and we'll be able to work out who you are and why you went funny.
Dont worry about it Adam, some of us already have!!!
