[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.

[Bijou Drains]

Bob Andrews wrote:

My roots lie in the lumpen-proletariat and I spent christmas and the New Year in Bodrum. On a State pension. So I don't consider myself poor. Try the Tressell definition on workers today and they will look at you as if you were barmy.The only time my old dad went overseas was when they sent him to war.Bodrum was heaving with Geordies. A strange people. Their sole interest, apart from drinking, was starting punch-ups with  the locals after deliberately misinterpreting something said or done as an insult or a challenge to a fight.Totally upset my holiday.

one area of poverty that relates to your old man is the absence of contraception. If he’d had access to that facility, his life and this forum, would have been spared the blight that is Bob Andrews.Also the only fact that you expect people to believe that you can manage a fortnight in Bodrum on £130 a week shows how full of the brown stuff you are.Pleased, however that the good people of Tyneside managed to upset your holiday, a bit disappointing that you didn’t get your comeuppance, still there’s always next year 

[Bijou Drains]

Vin wrote:

Bijou Drains wrote:

 Alan I don’t care what you say, my mother tried, my partner has tried. I’m not eating fucking  Brussels sprouts 

Brussel sprouts are OK with beef and Yorkshires and a glass of devil's liquor

if you have to add all of these different ingredients to them (bacon, butter, gravy, whiskey, etc.) to make them taste nice, it’s because they don’t bloody well taste nice! QED

[Bijou Drains]

pfbcarlisle wrote:

Paddy Shannon – The Vegans are Coming!

They are, but don't worry, they're all a bit washed out and low on energy. Most of them have dental problems and if the odd vegan and his droogs are up for a bit of the old ultra violence, the lack of omega 3 can lead to memory loss, so they'll probably forget who they were fighting. In addtion the Vitamin B 12 means there's a good chance they've got pernicious anemia. Shouldn't put up too much of a fight. If you want me I'll be on me oddy knocky down at the Korova Milkbar, supping a couple of pints of Milko Plus and listening to a bit of old Ludwig Van

[Bijou Drains]

moderator1 wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

you decide who you want here.

Our moderator is very even-handed, Ike.I think every member of the forum has been warned to stick to the topic and desist from personal comments. I know. I have been suspended a fair number of times. Vin, i believe, holds the record.  Despite holding political views that i sometimes find offensive and which have the potential consequence of providing support for the nastiest of people, this discussion list abides by its guidelines https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum-rules-and-guidelinesI think how we deal with those who break the rules of the forum, in a little way, reflects our response of how we consider rules inside socialism will operate. 

Actually, its not Vin who holds the record, he's had 3 suspensions.  In fact its LBird with 5 suspensions.The rule of thumb on the forum is the first breach of the rules draws my attention but I rarely take action.  The second breach means I automatically post a reminder that a breach has occurred.  Further breaches of any of the rules by the same offender means a 1st warning is posted.  After the 3rd and final warning a 30 day cooling off period is actioned.  If a breach occurs during this period its an automatic suspension – the length of which depends on the seriousness of the breach and the past record of the offender.  For example, LBird got suspended for 60 days on his last breach due to him failing to get the message that the rules are there for a purpose so as to enable and encourage discussion and not further argumentation.  I only action indefinite suspensions on spammers and those who make threats of violence.

Surely this post is off topic (breach of Rule 1) and queries a moderation decision (breach of rule 14). Thankfully I’m not taking it upon myself to chastise Mod 1. I would never chastise, that would be a breach of rule 14. In line with rule 15, I may send a PM to the moderator about this, but rest assured, I will not post it on the forum,  because that would be a breach of rule 15 and woe is on the face of those who breach rule 15. So sayeth the lord (AKA Mod 1)

[Bijou Drains]

moderator1 wrote:

Vin wrote:

I am about to be suspended by mod despite the new protocol. Most comrades have gone off topic on numerous occasions but have not recieved warning. I feel as if I am being targeted perhaps because of my 'previous'Shouldn't the users that responded to my off topic be warned too?Am I alone in believing this?Is a suspension warranted?in a couple of minutes I have found that Posts #588 586 573 552 555 556 558 560 546 are off topic and received no warning. There are many more. Which is why I started this thread How mod rules can be used

 "Despite a 3rd Final warning and a PM this user continued to breach the guidelines and rules and is suspended for an indefinite period." 14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.

Let's have a look at this in a little more detail"Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not the contributors" – At no point has Vin questioned this or tried to take responsibility for moderation, he has merely pointed out inconsistencies. This is not in breach of the rule."if you believe that a post or a private message violates a rule, report it to a moderator" – Vin has clearly stated in previous posts that he has PM'd the moderator with regard to what he believes are violation of the rules. The rule does not state that discussion of possible breaches should not/cannot be discussed on the message board. Again this is not a breach of the rule."Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violation of the rules" – I have not seen any point in any post where Vin has chastised others for their perceived violations of the rules. He may have criticised, he may have pointed out inconsistencies, he may have questioned modertaion decisions, but he has not "chastised" anyone. He has not breached any rule.So just to be clear, I am neither Vin is not in breach of rule 14what then about rule 1515. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.  Queries about PARTICULAR moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderator by Private Message – Again Vin has made it clear that he has sent such messages to the Moderator. At no point does the rule state that discussion about moderation decisions cannot be discussed on the forum. – No breach of ruleDo not post such messages to the forum. – Again Vin has not posted these messages, he has referred to the messages, but he has not posted the messages. Ther is nothing int he rues that states that messages cannot be referred to.You must continue to abide by the moderators' decision pending the outcome of your appeal – Again at no point has Vin failed to abide by a moderation decision. He has questioned decisions, it's diffiuclt to say how any member could not abide by the ruling, could they insist that they have not been warned, or not been suspended? Not only that as Vin has not appealed against a decision, this part of the rule does not apply.The rules are, in my view, currently being interpreted as stating that questining moderation decisions is a breach of the rules, I believe this to be an incorrect interpretation. Not only that, I believe that such an interpretation is undemocratic and also completely at odds with the historical practices of the SPGB.

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

First of all this was not a party statement but a round-up of this thread but it seems some of us cannot agree even on that.ALB, i struggled to find the right word to relate to veganism/vegetarianism. Originally i had "recognise the benefits of" but actually felt "acknowledge the value" was more neutral.Again your amendment for a more appropriate word for point 2 is acceptable. I had already mentioned other livestock advantages earlier so didn't repeat that. I think the medical consensus is meat eating is not healthy "in excess" – and excess is where the debate lies and continues to be disputed. As for BD suggestion that we cannot trust scientific opinion due to vested interests, indeed that is true, Ronald  Reagan re-classified tomato ketchup as a vegetable to satisfy lobbyists in the introduction of 5 – a – Day. What is healthy and how much of it is healthy seems to be an eternal debate…re alcohol , coffee and what not is constantly featured in the media. But some things are universally condemned as unhealthy – smoking. (My bug-bear is shift-work and how workers are not sufficiently compensated for the harm that does to a person's health.)We do take cognisance of who sponsors and support scientific research. But it is recognised by responsible food authorities that a more grain/vegetable diet is healthier such as the Mediterranean Diet and the Japanese. Both those include animal protein but not to the degree being consumed in the average person's diet. The Paleolithic diet plan of high meat intake has been discredited. And our sugar addiction is being addressed by government action, as was the high salt consumption saturated fats and other aspects of the processed food industry. " I do not agree that we associate ourselves with a steady state, zero growth economy." – I'm not going to go the SS and or pamphlets producing the relevant quotations,BD, I'll leave the fact-checking to yourself, but that statement is the party position.Moral shmoral…It is wrong to kill and inflict pain on living creatures if there is no need, just as it is wrong to kill and injure another person unnecessarily. Any argument that condones needless suffering inflicted upon any sentient life,  and evidence of those feeling animal are increasing and expanding with every new research, is simply psychopathic. (Again i will add various caveats, we do exterminate viruses, parasites and some pests and i will also reserve my personal judgement on the worth of vivisection).  Since i have some quotes from the SS in front of me, this is what we have said.“All socialists are of course opposed to cruelty to animals but, just like the rest of the population, have differing views as to what constitutes cruelty. Some may go shooting birds and rabbits, some go fishing, some eat meat, some are vegetarians, some perhaps are vegans. There is no line or policy on the matter, because we are an organisation of people who have come together to campaign for socialism and nothing else. We wouldn't go so far as to say nothing can be done to improve the lot of animals within capitalism nor as to denounce the RSPCA and the Cat Protection League as reformist enemies of the working class…." “Socialists are not unduly sentimental about animals, and consider that a human’s first loyalty should be their own species. Nevertheless, the degree to which human society is ‘civilised’ can reasonably be gauged by its treatment of animals and the natural world as well as by its treatment of humans, and socialism, in its abolition of all aspects of the appalling savagery of capitalism, will undoubtedly do its part to abolish all unnecessary suffering by non-human sentient creatures.”“we contend that humans and other animals do not have rights…but this does not stop some socialists responding to the cruelty that the profit system inflicts on the vast majority by becoming vegetarian or vegan." “In a genuinely socialist system of this kind cruelty to animals can be expected to stop as it would have no basis for occurring. The ending of the oppression and exploitation of humans by other humans—and the cruel treatment meted out as a matter of state policy by soldiers, police and prison guards …will make humans generally less tolerant towards cruelty to other animals.” Capitalism is a particularly nasty social system to human beings and also animal-life, whether domesticated or in the wild. Socialist understand that there is a little that can be done until socialism is established regards all the problems and issues that impact upon the quality of life of workers. But as i said this thread is repeating itself and no longer serving any constructive function. This is my last post on this thread. 

Alan I don’t care what you say, my mother tried, my partner has tried. I’m not eating fucking  Brussels sprouts 

[Author]

Posts