[Bijou Drains]

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?

[Bijou Drains]

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?

[Bijou Drains]

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)

[Bijou Drains]

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.

[Bijou Drains]

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

[Bijou Drains]

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!!!

[Bijou Drains]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

Bijou Drains wrote:

Ike What you seem to be saying is that under a Socialist Society there will be an organised form for the "Administration of things", Yes I think that all in the SPGB would agree with that.You also seem to be saying that in a Socialist Society there will not be "perfect harmony" on all issues and that human beings will have strong disagreements with each other. Yup, I think that's likely to happen, believe it or not it even happens within the hallowed ranks of the SPGB, we sometimes disagree with each other about issues as important as trellises.As a result of the above, you state that it is likely that some people who lose out on the democratic process will be disappointed and may have to go along with the majority decisions. Again can't see that anyone in the SPGB would disagree with this, some members of the Party had trellis related disappointments, such is life.Leading on from this, you are concerned that in a Socialist Society we will have to make some uncomfortable decision, for example ensuring that people with paranoid schizophrenia receive help and support in a way that keeps them and others safe, even if they don't want that help. Again, as long as there is democratic oversight of this, I have no concern, as long as the decision making system is open to question and the people that make these decisions are accountable.This seems to lead you to the conclusion that Socialism is not feasible because it will not create a paradise on earth where we all agree on absolutely everything and there is no conflict.

That is not how I reached my conclusion.  You are dishonestly characterising my tentative conclusions and the process by which I arrived at those conclusions; and, you are characterising my objections in childish terms, a classic dishonest debate tactic, in which you substitute your wording/verbalisation for what I actually have said.  Your verbalisation of my objections makes it seem like I am some sort of bright-eyed child who doesn't understand how the world works.  For instance, you say that I think socialism will not happen because it will not be a paradise on Earth, but I already know it will not be a paradise on Earth in the very best of circumstances and that was not how I phrased my objection and it is not the basis of my objection, as anybody who reads my posts can see.

Bijou Drains wrote:

Socialists do not propose a paradise on earth,

I have NEVER at any point said, implied, suggested, or inferred that socialists do propose a paradise on Earth.  I already know the socialist case. You have simply not read my posts!  You are arrogantly pretending to know what my objections are without actually taking the trouble to understand my objections.  Your actions are dehumanising and an attack on my dignity as a person.  You are showing that you have no respect for workers, you are in fact contemptuous of workers.  Instead, you just want to spout your programmed dogma, like a robot.  I have a right to assert my dignity and autonomy as an individual of conscience and intellect, to hold my own views, and to question your dogma and politely put forward objections, ideas, issues and problems.  

Bijou Drains wrote:

but a democratic system of common ownership of the means of production, which will overcome many of the difficulties created by capitalism. Could it be perfect? No. could it be better than the present shambolic, destructive, divisive system of society, I'm bloody sure it could

But my point (among others) is that these are just fine words, empty words.  My interest is in how things work in practice.You refer to a democratic system.  A demoratic system is not necessarily actually democratic in reality, and I would argue that yours will not be democratic at all.  In very basic terms, let's say hypothetically we have a society of three people.  If two of these people decide to outvote the other, that's not democracy as I would have it.  You think taking a vote is democracy.  That tells me you prioritise form over substance: you want the plastic badge that says 'Democracy' and that's enough.  But I would argue that to be truly democratic, a society must have strong minority protections.  Private property ownership exists partly to provide this protection.  As a minority of one, I can turn round and say: "Well it's my land, you can vote how you like, but you won't be crossing that fence and anybody who does will be shot."  That is an important element of what I consider democracy.

Bijou Drains wrote:

You also seem to think that for what I can only assume are genetic reasons that black people are incapable of creating a society based on private ownership, let alone common ownership,

What I have ACTUALLY said, if that is of any interest to you, is that there are different types of people in the world and that these different types of people should be allowed to run their own societies according to their own preferences.  I object to the imposition of systems on groups of people, be it capitalism or socialism or something else.  I also raised the possibility that both capitalism and socialism might not be suitable for black Africans, that they may be able to develop their own social systems or anti-systems, as the case may be.

Bijou Drains wrote:

from what I can gather this is based on the question of levels of IQ. Would you be willing to illucidate your thoughts on this, as I for one am a little confused on how you came to this conclusion.

I don't recall mentioning IQ in the relevant posts, but anyway, while we're on the subject, and since 'hard evidence' seems to be needed round here, could you provide me with some evidence for your Party's assertion that average IQ levels are the same for all geographic human groups?  Also, would you accept that if it could be proved that there are significant differences in average IQ levels, this might be relevant to the practicability of socialism, in the same way that it is relevant to the practicality of capitalism today?

I think you'll find that I have never stated what your views are, that's why I have stated frequently, that to me it "seems" that this is what you are saying. I am not arrogantly pretending to know what your objections are, again that is why I have used the term "seems". What I am saying is that this is what I have inferred from what you have said (by the way I think you could benefit from looking up the difference between implication and inference, it "seems" that you don't understand teh difference between the two).You state that I am dehumanising you and attacking your dignity as a person, I think this is a classic over reaction of someone who has been asked a few awkward questions and is using a histrionic response to hide the inadequacies of their arguments. How can debate take place, if any challenge is responded to with the exclamation that "you are dehumanising me", for fuck's sake, what does de-humanising even mean. How can I be attacking your dignity, what dignity have you got,, how am I attacking it by questioning your ideas. You have stated in your previous posts that you consider yourself to be an objective and reasonable thinker, I would question that, but how can it be that the objective reasoner exclaims dehumanisation and attacks on dignity as a person, every time their "objective viewpoint" is questioned. Howver, I do agree you have a right to assert your intellect, I only wish you would.I don't think that the Party has ever asserted that average IQs are the same for all geographical groups, as someone who has more than a little professional experience in the "IQ industry" I would argue that all that IQ test measure is the ability of people to complete IQ tests. Evidence of the usefulness of IQ tests is provided by high IQ clubs, who are so intelligent and useful that they gather themselves together, not for the purpose of curing illness, or dealing with hunger, but with the pressing world problem of completing logic puzzles and other such useless tasks, a lot of use those fuckers are

[Bijou Drains]

Ike What you seem to be saying is that under a Socialist Society there will be an organised form for the "Administration of things", Yes I think that all in the SPGB would agree with that.You also seem to be saying that in a Socialist Society there will not be "perfect harmony" on all issues and that human beings will have strong disagreements with each other. Yup, I think that's likely to happen, believe it or not it even happens within the hallowed ranks of the SPGB, we sometimes disagree with each other about issues as important as trellises.As a result of the above, you state that it is likely that some people who lose out on the democratic process will be disappointed and may have to go along with the majority decisions. Again can't see that anyone in the SPGB would disagree with this, some members of the Party had trellis related disappointments, such is life.Leading on from this, you are concerned that in a Socialist Society we will have to make some uncomfortable decision, for example ensuring that people with paranoid schizophrenia receive help and support in a way that keeps them and others safe, even if they don't want that help. Again, as long as there is democratic oversight of this, I have no concern, as long as the decision making system is open to question and the people that make these decisions are accountable.This seems to lead you to the conclusion that Socialism is not feasible because it will not create a paradise on earth where we all agree on absolutely everything and there is no conflict. Socialists do not propose a paradise on earth, but a democratic system of common ownership of the means of production, which will overcome many of the difficulties created by capitalism. Could it be perfect? No. could it be better than the present shambolic, destructive, divisive system of society, I'm bloody sure it couldYou also seem to think that for what I can only assume are genetic reasons that black people are incapable of creating a society based on private ownership, let alone common ownership, from what I can gather this is based on the question of levels of IQ. Would you be willing to illucidate your thoughts on this, as I for one am a little confused on how you came to this conclusion.

[Bijou Drains]

jondwhite wrote:

I have only just noticed this now but a journal called Transform has been published by Left Unity in three issues last year, the first of which can be read onlinehttp://leftunity.org/transform-journal/http://www.prruk.org/transform-new-thinking-for-a-new-political-era/

At £7.50 a shot, I can imagine the working class of the world are queuing up to get a copy of the latest pronouncements of the likes of kate Hudson and Paul Mackney

[Bijou Drains]

jondwhite wrote:

Society for Socialist Studies (Canada) call for papers

Quote:

Rekindling the Socialist Imagination 29 May to 1 June, Regina This year the Society for Socialist Studies meets on Treaty Four territory and the homeland of the Métis. Regina is where the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation penned its 1932 Regina Manifesto, which laid out a program for eradicating capitalism and replacing it with a planned socialist economy. It is also the site of the 1935 riot, which resulted when homeless and unemployed men demanding dignified work by trekking across Canada to Ottawa were stopped and attacked by the RCMP and city police. The symbolism associated with the Regina location of this meeting gives us a chance to re-evaluate the past and present of socialisms. In this moment of severe austerity in Saskatchewan and elsewhere, we are in desperate need for new and rekindled visions of just socialist futures.This year we invite papers inspired by broad socialist traditions including anti-racist, feminist, eco-socialist, and anti-colonial, and we encourage conversations between socialisms and other freedom struggles, including Indigenous and Black liberation struggles, among others. We especially encourage papers that look at the successes and failures of past and present socialisms, from the CCF’s slide toward social democracy to the current enthusiasm for democratic socialism in the US and UK. We invite critical reflections on what has been left out of socialist visions and how we might put social movements, ecology, decolonization, and opposition to all forms of oppression squarely at the centre of our rekindled socialist movements, theorizing, and praxis.We welcome submissions to our open sessions as well as independent papers. To submit a paper proposal, complete this form electronically and submit it as a file attachment to rosa1919@uvic.ca by midnight (Pacific time) at the end of January 31, 2018. Please place the words “Call for Papers” in first place in the subject heading. If you know the paper is being included in a sessions proposal, you DO NOT have to submit a separate form for the paper.

Although I would not discourage genuine Socialists from submitting the genuine Socialist case, it sounds like another group of reformists and shitehawks, who wouldn't know what Socialism was if they found themselves in one of William Morris's bloody dreams. They refer to the CDF with some degree of admiration (the CDF were a precursor party to the NDP, the Canadian 3rd Party)Is it just me, but this kind of equating Socialism with every kind of identity politics, really boils my piss.I may be turning into a grumpy old bastard, but for fuck's sake, don't these people have any shame? I mean, at least have the good grace to read a book or two before proclaiming you're a bleedin' Socialist!!!

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Just to re-phrase the assertion to reflect the actual point of dissension" Far too many fucking other people…"

Or possibly too many other people fucking!

[Bijou Drains]

Is that a photo of the three remaining members of Socialist Studies on the front cover?

[Bijou Drains]

Dave B wrote:

one of my commie sci fi friends has been watching it thinks it is fairly good , mildly entertaining funny but a bit simple. has seen about 8 episodes

I have a couple of Trot mates who are the same, mildly entertaining but a bit simple

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/21/amazons-first-automated-store-opens-to-public-on-mondayFor retail workers under capitalism, it will be a serious threat to livelihoods but for socialism, an organised means of distribution, a step beyond bar-codes.

Also buggers it up for those of us who like to take advantage of a little bit of five finger discount, not that I would in anyway encourage or support shoplifting.

[Bijou Drains]

ALB wrote:

I still think these are references to matching living labour, i.e the work resources available to socialist society, to what  needs to be produced in a given period, which will obviously have to happen and will involve calculations (though not just of labour time available but of the availability of other productive resources too). In other words, it's about current production e.g. about the labour-time needed to produce a steam engine from materials already available. But the amount of labour-time spent during the last stage of the production of something (which is what would be involved here) is not the same as the amount of socially-necessary labour incorporated in it (which includes the labour-time spent on producing the raw materials, energy, and wear and tear of the machines). In Marxian terms, it's v + s (as opposed to v + s + c). In conventional economics it's "value added" not total value.Note also the clear statement that "value" won't exist in socialism.

My own view is that it will be in some ways more complicated than that, for example we would need to factor into the development of a nuclear power station things like the time spent educating the nuclear physicists, the training of the building workers, etc. There would also be the need to consider the other options, if we build (a) then we don't use those resources to build (b). for argument's sake a gneral hospital. In addition there would need to be consideration of facts such as environmental impact, etc. etc. etc.In that sense I don't see the problem of accountancy that Mises raises as being particualrly difficult, because the issues go beyong just the numbers and into democratic debate. The problem will be in ensuring that the democratic debate is as well informed as it can be.That is why I think in some ways it will be simpler, because these are the kinds of decisions we all make on a household basis or even on an organisational basis every day. Shall I have coquille saint jacques for my tea, or should I have a fish finger sandwich, doesn't come down purely to cost, have I got fish fingers in the freezer might be a factor, can I be arsed to mess about with the coquilles Saint Jacques, 'cos there's a match on the telly tonight and I'm running late anyway, I really like a fish finger sandwich and I've got some really nice bread in as well as lots of nice butter, may all be factors in choosing the fish finger sandwich. Similarly the party doesn't base all of its decisions about the use of human resources on monetary costs. When we decide a schedule of meetings or how volunteers are going to use their time for the party, we don't carry out a socially useful labour time calculation before we get started. Yet decisions about what we are going to do get made and resources allocated as required.

[Author]

Posts