[Bijou Drains]

Alan Kerr wrote:

Let’s try once more.Anyone is free to answer these questions about The Socialist Preamble. In The Preamble, there’s a first step that starts from small capitalist manufacturing firm.In the same Preamble, there’s a next step that starts from big capitalist firm with machines.Could we have reversed that simple order of steps?Steve in post #6 says“I guess I would say that the answer is YES, depending on your definitions and interpretations and NO depending on your definitions and interpretations.”(Post #6)Maybe only Steve knows just what he means by that. But no matter what Steve means this question is also to Steve. How could we make the very first machine? Of course, we could not make the very first machine by machine because it’s the first one. That would be a ridiculous answer. So how could we make it?

Is it just me? When you keep referring to "The Socialist Preamble" what are you referring to?

[Bijou Drains]

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that this shows the value of social media in getting a message across. I think it's to be expected that The Scum will get it wrong, (I don't even think it is a deliberate distortion, just shit thick journalists).It might mean that a few of the readership might be curious enough to find out about what we are really saying. Another good point is the reference all the way through to us as the Socialsit Party, they might get a few complaints from the SPEWERS,I am also happy with this bit in the article as well "The party argues that Mr Corbyn's definition of socialism isn't good enough, and they want a "class-free, state-free, money-free society with free access". Too bloody right, pity they didn't mention that it has been our principled standpoint for 113 years!I do think that photoshopping Jezza into Thatcher was a bit childish though.

[Bijou Drains]

Alan Kerr wrote:

Form F wrote:

Alan Kerr wrote:

@Form FThank you,Of course, the manager of the capitalist firm tries to make most profit in shortest time. 

This doesn't answer my question. How does the manager make the choice?

I’m no expert. But I would choose 1) on money cost and 2) on the way to turn capital over in shortest time. For a big firm I would get the best deal I could for kiln. 

my experience is that assuming the manager is a man he would either;a) give the contract to his mate from the same Masonic Lodgeb) give the contract to a bloke he knows who will take him down to the golf course and then fill him full of lagerc) give it to the same bloke he always does, cos he can't be arsed to look any further.d) undertake some basic research and award it to the one which meets his half baked ideas of how the job should be done, with no real reference to the people who are going to use the wood or live in the house that was made by the wood.Which is the real nature of capitalism, not the ultra efficient notional vision of the Thatcherites or the Adam Smith Institute

[Bijou Drains]

Matt wrote:

Quote:

The problem is, and this is no fault of Brian's, that the current moderation guidance is not fit for purpose.

I dispute that contention about the guidance. One can always find fault with a moderator's decision, but not him personally. He is only a volunteer and should be helped.

And if you read what I have written, not what you think I have written, that is precicely what I have said. In my view the guidelines are not fit for purpose.I stated that this is not Brian's fault, but I think there should be a facility for the moderator to suspend a poster (not the post) in the event of extreme behaviour like that demonstrated by Bob Andrews.Yes we have a long history of engaging in debate with a variety of different people with a variety of different views. However Knob Andrex is not debating or constructing argument, his purpose is clearly to insult and denigrate, his intention is to be some sort of parody of Jeremy Clarkson.His latest post is an insult to all female members of the party, past and present. In a meeting anyone who was there to just hurl insults would be asked to leave and if they didn't they would be thrown out for disrupting the meeting. I suggest that the moderator be given the power to throw this clown out of the meeting (figuratively).

[Bijou Drains]

Matt wrote:

There is absolutely no need to personalise this.

These are nice sentiments, however the difficulty is that trolls like Bob Andrews and l Bird, continually personalise things. How can someone not take a personal attack (such as Vin has been subjected to by Bob Andrews) as not being pesonal?

[Bijou Drains]

Matt wrote:

Yes but the WSM_Forum is an email list and functions differently. We can put people on moderation, where their posts are screened for a period in the email lists.You are not allowed to post nor respond to hostile criticism. (You will be moderated)You are not allowed to criticise moderating decision either. (You will be moderated)Most of the members are inactive on the WSM_forum now.We can't do that moderation as in screening posts on the web forum.So the moderator has to abide by the rules of the web forum and issue warnings before suspension.The moderator should be left to deal with troublemakers and party members should resist responding to them in a similar vein.It is a simple matter to help the moderator and flag an offensive post and let the moderator deal with it, rather than attacking him and insisting he removes posters from the website.He can not do that. He can only suspend them, after warnings, as he does.Party members should and must, exercise self discipline.This would assist the moderator greatly.

The problem is, and this is no fault of Brian's, that the current modertation guidance is not fit for purpose. There should be some mechanism whereby if a poster has made a posting which is so far beyond the pale, then the poster would be subject to immediate suspension. To give an extreme example, if a poster made postings insupport if ISIL, would we seeriously have to wait for three occurances to remove them from our discussion board?

[Bijou Drains]

I would guess that one of the big objectives of trolling, ring pieces like Bob Andrews is to cause disharmony between Socialists.I know from personal experience that both Brian and Vin are committed and active Socialists. If Socialists like Vinand Brian are arguing with each other, then they are not putting that energy into fighting the real enemy the vicious, inhumane, system of society that we currently have to endure. Surely we are better fighting the common enemy.As to The clearly provocative, sexist, homophobic, parody of a human being that is Bob Andrews, it is clear what his objectives are. He clearly has some kind of familial link to the dead hand of the Ashbourne Court Group,  it is sad that the legacy of the life time of commitment to Socialist activity that the members of that group have undertaken, activity that I would be proud to have been able to have carried out one tenth of, should  now be represented by the clearly anti socialist sewage of  Knob Andrews

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Marx, Letter to Annenkov, 1846, wrote:

…those who produce social relations in conformity with their material productivity also produce the ideas, categories, i.e. the ideal abstract expressions of those same social relations. Indeed, the categories are no more eternal than the relations they express. They are historical and transitory products. To Mr Proudhon, on the contrary, the prime cause consists in abstractions and categories. According to him it is these and not men which make history. The abstraction, the category regarded as such, i.e. as distinct from man and his material activity, is, of course, immortal, immutable, impassive.

http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1846/letters/46_12_28.html'Matter' is such a 'category'. Not 'eternal', but 'historical and transitory'. Not 'immortal, immutable, impassive', awaiting our 'discovery'.Those who think that 'the prime cause' is a 'category', like matter, which is 'distinct from [hu]man[ity]', rather than human activity, are not Marxists. They are the idealists. 'Materialists' are idealists. Engels didn't understand that, and neither do the 'materialists' who mistakenly follow Engels.Humans socially produce 'matter', and so can change it. 'Matter' is a social product.Even the bourgeoisie have changed from this 'category' to others. Thus, even the bourgeoisie are more advanced than 'materialists', who continue to live in the intellectual world of the 18th century, prior to Marx.

the problem is, my feathered fiend, is that you conflate Matter with Materialism. they are two different concepts and the words have effectively two different derivations although coming from the same latin root.material (adj.) mid-14c., "real, ordinary; earthly, drawn from the material world;" a term in scholastic philosophy and theology, from Old French material, materiel Matter " from Latin materia "matter, stuff, wood, timber".Your use of the word matter is a more modern usage to describe the "theory of matter". Adhering to Materialsim, does not per se adherence to modern theories of matter, which must by their very nature be subject to scrutiny and change.So to summarise basically, your talking bollocksYou may find the following link useful:http://blog.planetjamie.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Arse-Elbow-smaller.jpg

[Bijou Drains]

Vin wrote:

Bob Andrews should be removed from the forum. His attitude to women is unacceptable to socialists

Not only that his repeated homophobic remarks should not be tolerated on this forum.

[Bijou Drains]

Alan Kerr wrote:

Project Management also calls for choosing.The new society must still choose.How will they choose? Question #386This is really the same question as #289Crusoe also had to choose.For help see this month’s Socialist Standard.But don’t be slow.On the amount of dithering here, average worker will decide that the new society must descend into famine, dictatorship and Lenin’s New Economic Policy.

There is no need to choose one or the other, they just manufacture kiln dried and air dried tmber and then monitor which ones people choose to use in their different construction projects. Then as the stock of either or both begins to diminish the planks are replaced with new stock, etc. etc. If there is little or no demand for either, then the stocks are not replaced and productiv resources are shifted to something that people want.

[Bijou Drains]

Sympo wrote:

Hud955 wrote:

"I don''t think that religion creates class division.  Religion is used to justify or excuse class division, it is also used to motivate others to act in the interests of elites."Just to be clear, what I meant with "class division" was "members of a class who don't identify their interest as identical to those class members of a different faith, race, nationality etc". I didn't mean "when people of a society are divided in classes". I guess I could have used a better phrase (though I can't really think of one at the moment)."You cannot serve two interests, your own and those of your masters.  Those that can be scared or intimidated by religious claims are also less likely to make a firm committment to socialism."I agree with you. A religious person who blindly obeys a religious authority is probably going to be told a bunch of anti-socialist stuff (Khomeini said for example that Islam was in favor of private property)."But people with looser forms of religious belief and less commitment to authority might well come to recognise their class interests and take a clear class view."What is your personal opinion on letting people of "loose" religious beliefs enter a World Socialist party? As I have understood it the present policy is to not let any religious person in, regardless of how strict they are.

My view, and it is only my view, is that there is a difference between religion and belief in things spiritual. Religion and religious belief implies the adherence to an organised belief system. To me there is no place for people who carry an adherence to an organised belief system in the Socialist Party. However a personal spiritual belief, is not something that is part of an organisational system, so for instance a person might believe in a personal karma, where if they do good to others, good will come to them. Although, I would view that as superstitous and illogical, I would not personally view that as a bar to being a party member.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Brian wrote:

The decision reached will be based on …  There will be no need for a vote when the situation itself will determine the outcome. 

[my bold]I'm not sure how 'the situation itself' will obviate the need for conscious human activity, Brian.

Brian wrote:

In short, we will decide when and if its appropriate and acceptable to use technology in a given situation.

[my bold]Ahhh… so, it's not 'the situation itself', then?So, 'who' is the 'we' that do 'decide'?And, 'how' does this 'we' make a decision, if not by democratic means ("no need for a vote")?

In honour of the great L Bird, they could choose two short planks

[Bijou Drains]

Not only that Michel L Bird has so far failed to give us any indication about how the truth behind the following crucial questions will be established in a future society:1. "What came first the chicken or the egg?"2 "Is the glass half full or half empty?"3. "How much is that doggy in the window?"4. (One for the football fans, or as you would call it Soccer) "Who's your father referee" (The current consensus goes along the lines of "you haven't got one, you're a bastard, you're a bastard referee")5 (And probably the most important question) is it "the one who denied it, who supplied it" or is it as, I suspect "The one that smelt it that dealt it"(On a serious note, perhaps when reading through L Bird's ridiculous, long winded, pompous, pseudo-intellectual postings, you can now see why those of us who are serious about promoting Socialist ideas on this forum, get a little bit tetchy at times!)

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim, I only got to Question 1, and since I've answered this time and time and time again (to you, Vin, robbo, YMS, etc.), it appears that you either can't read or won't read what I write.When you've gone back and read what I wrote in answer to this question the last few times, I'll then take your request seriously. Until then, I can't treat your post as a serious attempt at political discussion.So, post a quote of mine, answering that question the last time it was asked, and we might start to make progress. From Question 2.

Actually L Bird, what you really mean is that you wont answer these questions, because you know fully well that you would look even more stupid if you did answer them. And you wonder why people take the piss, what a pillock

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

LBird wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

If it is workers' democracy we want, …workers were discouraged not by lack of consultation but the amount of it…after meeting every day and every week…many compulsory…

So, alan, you're arguing that the Soviet Union's version of 'consultation' amounted to "workers' democracy"? Wow!

Previously I have tried (sometimes by your own admission successfully) taking the piss out of you, but I think after reading the above I have to admit that at times I'm beat,L Bird you really are beyond parody, your ability to misconstrue any statement made by another is an absolute marvel of the modern world. I would go as far as to say, and I don't say this lightly, your ability to misrepresent any comment made in a negative and derogatory way goes beyond that of my late mother in law, and that is my friend very great praise.L Bird, a one man mixture of misunderstanding, misrepresentaion and misconstruction, I salute you sir!

Tim, you could try reading the political discussion, and then making some political comment, about both sides, but you regard yourself as a 'Genius Jester', whose 'witty quips' keep us all in tucks of laughter, 'The Joker'.Perhaps 'A Joke' would be more accurate for your knowledge, if only you had Rabbie's power.Anyway, back to the grown-ups' political discussion…

The point I am making, L B, if I may call you that, is that what Alan was saying, i.e. that workers in the Soviet Union, were pissed off with being corralled into taking meaningless votes about fuck all, in no one's mind other than your own, could possibly be construed as "arguing that the Soviet Union's version of consultation amounted to "workers' democracy"". Which is what you stated. However your elitist stance is that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow your intellectual inferior. As an aside I wonder what kind of life events have made you have such a fragile sense of self esteem that you have to continually buld up your intellectual prowess, at the expense of others.The point I take from Alan's quote from Lee Harvey Oswald, is that choice, selection, voting, in whatever form it takes is meaningless unless it has an impact on individual experiences. This is of important and relevant to this discussion, not because Alan equates the Soviet Union to Worker's Democracy" but because have proposed a system of society where regular plebiscites are held over every theoretical aspect of science.Moreover your proposal gives rise to several questions, which have been repeatedly asked by posters on this forum, none of which you have given substantial answers to. So I will put these questions to you again in the vain hope that you will use your "massive" intellect to provide any form of answer to themQuestion 1 – You repeatedly state that you are in favour of workers' (or sometimes you have used the phrase proletarian) democracy, if that is the case, how can this be implemented in a classless society, where by definition there is no working class or capitalist class?Question 2 – You state that you are in favour of plebiscites to establish the "nature of truth" and of "scientific theory". In the event of these plebiscites taking place, what is the fate of any minority who do not agree with the outcome of the vote? Would they be free to continue to hold their views, despite the democratic vote? Would those that voted for scientific theories that lost the vote be banned from applying the theories that lost the vote in their research? Would those who persisted in holding these views be subject to any form of sanction?Question 3 – Which leads on from question 1, if, as could be construed from the phrasing you use, only "workers" i.e. those that contribute useful work, are part of the franchise, what are the rights of those who do not contribute useful work, fro example the retired, people with disabilities, the seriously ill, etc.? If as could also be possibly construed the franchise for these plebiscites was open to all, how far would that franchise stretch, would there be any exclusions?Question 4 – Although you state that this system relates to science, where do the boundaries of this start and stop? What, effectively is science and what is not? It would be very easy to define research into cell formation as science, but what about perception of the world, is that scientific?Question 5 – What about resources? as scientific theory is built up of lots and lots of interrelated theories, presumably each plebiscite decision has a knock on effect on all of the other theoretical positions that are built up from that theory. therefore it is conceivable that, in your system, if a major theoretical concept is overturned, hundreds, if not thousands of subsequent votes would need to be taken. Where is humanity going to find the time and the resources to conduct these seemingly endless series of plebiscites? I fully expect that you will waffle on about your superior intellectual power, or my bourgeois individualism, or accuse me of being a Leninist/Trotskyist, materialist fuckwit, but I am a kind of a glass half full kind of character, so here's hoping.

[Author]

Posts