[DJP]

LBird wrote:

You won't even accept that it just might be an ideological belief, and that someone might have an interest in deceiving you.

I've never said that I do not accept the possibility of being wrong…. Again I don't think anyone has.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

I must admit that I'm still missing your point, DJP.

I'm partly playing devils advocate in the hope that it might start an interesting debate. This podcast might help make the point for me. The questions I am thinking of are "what does it take to change a belief?" and "how do we know when we're deceiving ourselves?"http://youarenotsosmart.com/2014/09/30/yanss-podcast-033-the-psychology-of-forming-keeping-and-sometimes-changing-our-beliefs/

LBird wrote:

Or are you saying that academic 'psychology' can't be challenged on ideological grounds?Or that bringing 'ideology' into discussions is impermissable, because there is a 'Truth' out there, and 'ideologists' like me are just spoiling perfectly decent objective discussions between non-ideological individuals?

No I'm not saying either of those things. It's only you that suggests that anyone does. Ad infinitum it would seem..

[DJP]

Well there's my point proved in one post 

[DJP]

rodshaw wrote:

Maybe we should switch to using 'producer' and 'parasite' instead.

But then we get into the issue of productive and non-productive labour, in value terms….

[DJP]

ALB wrote:

This is what we mean when we use the term, but are we sure it is what most of those who read or hear us understand us to mean

Most people probably don't mean the same thing as we do when we use the term, but then "those whose living does not come solely through ownership of capital" is a bit of a mouthfull…

[DJP]

Yes. You should always park your van front facing outwards.

[DJP]

I'm lost as to what point is trying to be made here..

[DJP]

I don't think you're talking bollocks. Just seems that the answer to the question put both ways round is the same… Don't you think?

[DJP]

SocialistPunk wrote:

So when people say "It's a nice idea but it'll never work" or "What about the fact people will always want more than they've fair share", is their rejection based on conscious understanding or something else? 

When people say "It's a nice idea and it will work" or "It's a fact that people will not always want more than there fair share", is their acceptance based on conscious understanding or something else? 

[DJP]

It's foolish to think we can have pre thought out black and white answers to what is not a black and white situation, real life never is. The procedures are drawn out in the rule book. Should such a situation arise in the future it would be up to the membership then as to how to deal with it…

[DJP]

ALB wrote:

The only of reason I can think for charging a member (apart from breaking the rules or expressing anti-socialist views) would be alleged strike-breaking or stealing from the party or a trade union, not for breaking some capitalist law.

I think physically assaulting or threatening other members, or members of the public whilst representing the party should be taken seriously also..But I don't think we should go spanish inquisition, the argument is that socialism is possible and necessary, not that socialists are angels – though in my case that is obviously the truth.

[DJP]

Vin Maratty wrote:

How does being gay link to rape an paedophilia? I don't see the connection.

It doesn't.I guess the only link with those and the resolution is if you classify paedophile or rapist as a sexual orientation.

[DJP]

The closest I can find is this. As far as I can see there are no resolutions reffering to admitting homosexuals into the party, and why should there be? We don't ask for information about this on admission as there is no reason to.."That this Conference regards Clause 4 of our Declaration of Principles as committing socialists to opposition  to all prejudices, based on gender, race or sexual orientation. "

[DJP]

gnome wrote:

If we had any suspicion about any applicant's 'credentials' then clearly it would be infinitely advisable and far, far simpler not to admit them in the first place.  Those of us who've been around for more than a few years know that it's become virtually impossible to expel anyone from the party…

Actually I agree. The EC does have the right to veto membership applications, precisely for reasons such as this. But as we don't check peoples criminal records, and I don't think we should, I'm not sure how we would know…

[DJP]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I'm asking about what would the Party response be to having unsavoury characters in its ranks.

I think we should burn them at the stake until they repent, and then drown them for good measure.In all seriousness you know the answer already. If someones actions are deemed detrimental to the interests of the party then charges can be bought and they can be expelled from the party. We have the democratic framework to deal with these things…

[Author]

Posts