[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

My, LBird, aren't you confirming exactly what i accused you of…interpreting what i say as you wish to read it. 

I can only go by what you write, alan, and ask you to confirm my understanding, as a Democratic Communist, of what you are writing.

ajj wrote:

 It is like insisting that production will only be determined be the democracy of the producers and not the consumers i.e. sectional ownership and not common ownership or social ownership.All people are involved in participatory democracy within socialism, to answer your last question.

So, you do agree that the social production of truth will be controlled by the social producers using democratic methods?That is how I understand the political content of what you've written. If this is not the case (and it might not be what you intend to say), then I'm entitled to ask you just what  "All people are involved in participatory democracy within socialism" means.If you mean that 'nature' is nothing to do with 'all people' (that 'nature' is the political province of 'elite experts') and that 'truth' is produced by a disinterested elite who employ a politically-neutral 'scientific' method, and so is outside the control of any 'participatory democracy', then you should be clear about just what is covered by "All people are involved in participatory democracy within socialism".FWIW, I am open about my particular political beliefs on this issue – to me, everything is covered by "All people are involved in participatory democracy within socialism".And to be even clearer, by 'everything' I mean 'The Universe'. This agrees with Marx's usage – we socially produce Our World, the Universe-For-Us. We create Our Nature, the organic Nature-For-Us. And since we create it, we can change it.If you, or the SPGB disagree with these politics ("All people are involved in participatory democracy within socialism"), then you should be open about it, and openly state just what is not involved in this 'socialism' of yours, in which 'all people' are not 'involved in participatory democracy' about their world, their socio-natural world.I can suggest a list of what you might consider is not involved in your version of "All people are involved in participatory democracy within socialism" – nature, maths, physics, matter, reality, logic, science…It's only being politically open to specify what is not covered by your statement.Of course, I'll then ask you to specify 'who' or 'what' does socially produce whatever you list.This seems entirely appropriate to a thread with this title. Who is 'rethinking' and what is 'the Marxist conception'?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

No….the sensible suggestion as i pointed out was one that is already in practice, so if you like society made that democratic decision already. My only suggestion is that such a tool can be expanded and used in all manner of situations requiring oversight if we so wished. So when i propose an obstacle to elitism and specialisation, you say i am for it…

[my bold]That's a strange claim, alan.If something is 'already in practice', that it is tantamount to being 'already' a 'democratic decision'. Wow. Don't mention that to any conservatives that you argue with about politics, because they'll have a field day with you!It doesn't take much to then claim that 'capitalism is already in practice, so if you like society made that democratic decision already'.

ajj wrote:

I have already in an earlier post declared that no one size fits all and historic and social conditions will determine the nature of local organisation. I recall reading about a parallel system of civic administration existing in indigenous regions of Mexico where once the state apparatus is dismantled it will present an organic alternative. I think one of the Zapatista successes was to build upon what already existed.

So, the Zapatista is a model for 'socialism'? This has the feel of you claiming it's an example of 'Already Existing Socialism' – bit too 'Uncle Joe' for me, alan. 

ajj wrote:

We do have a difference in how we feel socialist ideas should be expressed. We agree that DOTP is not a phrase either of is bandies about and your ill-founded suspicions of why i used it is an example why –  the tone of our words and language can be so easily misconstrued. I'm accused by you of throwing out the baby with the bath-water when i signal that Marxian arguments can be alternatively expressed. Only a hair-splitter would consider Occupy's 1% V 99% to be misleading in reflecting the class nature of society but even some of my comrades seek to amend it to be more accurate by saying 5% V 95%.(i was reared on the the 7:84 divide from the 70s theatre group). I happen to prefer "class war" to "class struggle".

But you wrote earlier that you've moved away from classes ('bourgeoisie' and 'proletariat'), so I'm not sure what you actually mean by preferring 'class war', alan. Once again, it seems that you, like other SPGB posters, keep the 'terms' but empty them of any revolutionary content.So, I agree that 'we do have a difference in how we feel socialist ideas should be expressed' – I'm all for 'class war' meaning 'class war', where the exploiting class is removed and replace by the exploited class. No all-embracing 'humanity', but a fundamental separation within 'humanity'.

ajj wrote:

I have no desire to restrict myself to a limited lexicon of acceptable revolutionary expressions. Where is the poet in you, LBird?I am not averse to stretching the definition of workers, producers, toilers, to the people and mankind, humanity, no matter how amorphous such a wide-ranging definition is to yourself. I do try to avoid the qualification the common people, though.

'Poetry' will reflect the politics of the 'poet', alan! Unless your 'poet' is the mythical bourgeois intellectual who transcends society and history, and is able to get to the 'real existence of humanity', the timeless essence of all biological individuals, which can be expressed by Special Genius.

ajj wrote:

When Marx wrote in the 19th century, the working class was a minority of people but one that has grown into the vast majority until it is now just "us" and "them", no middle class, no peasantry (and who cares if they are a class or not)…workers democracy is the democracy of the majority. In numbers, the workers are The People (name of the SLP journal, btw), they are humanity, they are mankind.   "The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interests of the immense majority." Substitute socialist for proletarian and i see no great dilemma in the choice of words. 

[my bold]Yeah, substitute 'socialist' for 'proletarian', then substitute 'humanity' for 'socialist', then substitute 'specialist' for the generality of 'humanity'… I never took you for a Stalinist substitutionist, alan! Even Trotsky could see where that one would go!No, I'd suggest that your removal of 'workers' and replacement by 'people', 'majority', 'humanity' or 'mankind' just empties Marx's revolutionary theory of all of its social and historical specificity.By "workers' democracy" I mean workers (all of them) and democracy (voting by workers).So, if I'm asked 'who determines physics', I would answer 'workers by voting', and would remove Hawking unless his theory and practice reflected our needs, interests and purposes.Of course, Religious Materialists claim that Hawking is a genius and 'knows nature', a 'nature' that the majority can't know (and so can't vote upon), and that the 'nature' that Hawking 'knows' is sitting 'out there', outside of any social production of it.Or do you agree that your 'People' can democratically decide their creation of their nature? If so, perhaps our argument is only about 'terms' rather than politics. But, I'm inclined to think that your use of 'The People' is much the same as your use of 'Workers' – empty rhetoric, when it comes to our real world.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

LBird, you are demonstrating a knack of interpreting what i write as you wish to read it.I made a very sensible suggestion of how democratic control is enacted that does not involve voting or electing and one that is not a utopian proposition but a practical projection of the present reality which will be adapted and adjusted as seen fit and which makes any specialist unnecessary for control and those chosen to administer important parts of socialist society will be random and temporary positions. No elite can form but you accuse me of promoting such. I'm lost at such a reading.

But I'm simply unpicking what you're writing, alan.For example, 'who' determined your 'very sensible suggestion'? You? The SPGB?I merely point out that 'sensible' is always a social and historical product (not an 'objective' or 'eternal' 'sensibility' that an elite has neutral access to), and so I argue that only the social producers can determine what is 'sensible' or not, and that such a 'sensibility' would be democratic sensibility, not an individual sensibility.And then, you contrast 'utopian' with 'practical', which (although you seem to be unaware of this) is always a conservative tactic, which stresses the 'existing', the 'real world', of 'practical matters' over the 'theoretical', the 'planned', the 'democratic mandate for change'. Within the socialist movement, this obviously owes its origin to Engels' Socialism Utopian and Scientific, which is a maked divergence from Marx's own views, about the necessity for 'theory and practice' (or, in your terms, 'utopia and practice').And you seem to be saying that 'doctors' are not 'important', because, given your own argument, we'd have to make doctors 'random and temporary' if they wield power.On the contrary, as a Marxist, I regard doctors as powerful, and argue that they should be democratically controlled, that is, neither a self-selecting and regulating elite, nor a random and temporary appointment.

ajj wrote:

You can continue using Marxian language but some i find very counter-productive such as "dictatorship of the proletariat". We have already expressed a preference to the term socialist rather than communist even though neither is fully comprehended and invariably require elaboration.

Well, I don't use the term 'd of the p', so your use of this in this discussion is very suspect. It suggests that you wish to associate my democratic arguments with dictatorial ones. But, having said that, I would defend that historical usage of it, and any worker who reads about Rome would soon come to understand its very restricted, emergency, meaning within Marx's time, related to its classical meaning in Roman politics.

ajj wrote:

I am happy in these modern times to use people…humanity…whatever…as substitutes for workers…working class…producers…whatever. Hopefully, when i use words, they are understood by my fellow-workers (another hangover from my IWW days) since, of course, i am not addressing any specialists in Marxology, academic or autodidact who require their special technical language and terminology.  

So, 'humanity'. No 'exploiting class' confronted with an 'exploited class'. No 'bourgeoisie' and 'proletariat'. No socio-historical term, but an all-embracing, non-political, 'humanity'. Not my preference, alan.And your last sentence really shows your views of the educational potential of workers. That they'll never understand Marx.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

In political discourse, there are two words i do dislike…one is proletariat and the other is bourgeoisie.There has been previous debates on which term we should use for the working class…i think i am prone to saying working people these days…and as you have noticed, dropping the working and going for the people. …Since i was suggesting that decisions about how we organise a socialist society after it is achieved is best left to those with the task of implementing it under conditions and circumstances we are not aware of and therefore should not pre-empt, i think we have made class redundant as it no longer has any meaning in a class-free society. …

Thanks for your open and clear post, alan – it's something that the rest of the SPGB should do.It allows me to judge far more clearly why I don't agree with the SPGB. Dropping the names for classes, dropping the term 'workers', avoiding talking about classes… it's all very far removed from Marx.

ajj wrote:

Perhaps you confused by my meaning of the building socialism once we have acquired political power and displaced the capitalists and assumed i was discussing building towards socialism.

I've addressed this in my previous post, alan. The proletariat become the social producers within socialism, so one can't separate the two issues, as you wish to do, between 'building' and 'acquisition' – the 'builders' are the ones who 'acquire'. 

ajj wrote:

As Robbo has tried to do on a different thread by highlighting the literal meaning of a phrase, i think you make an ado over nothing. As Citizen (another useful word for us to use more) Wolfie Smith says: Power to the People!

Yeah, elites always accuse democrats of 'making an ado over nothing'!I just warn workers to beware of those who use the term 'The People'. It's simply a way of pretending to workers that they themselves will be the power within socialism, whilst the elite really plan to represent 'The People', and use the usual scaremongering tactics of claiming that Marxists are going to get rid of doctors and allow roadsweepers to operate on your brains!I must say, alan, that I've always taken you for a non-elitist that is just confused about Marx, classes, democracy, workers and social producers, but your present willingness to be open has made me realise that you too share the basic ideological assumptions of all the others in and around the SPGB.Personally, I'm going to remain with Marx's terms, bourgeoisie, proletariat, class struggle, democratic production, workers' power, etc., and that 'socialism' means 'the democratic control of production'.The best thing about this thread is that you are now being much more open, and less coy, about political and ideological issues, which can only be to the advantage of any workers reading who are unsure about the direction in which the SPGB is heading, compared to my views.That doesn't mean that they'll reject your views and accept mine, of course, but it allows them a fighting chance of getting to grips with the issues that they have to confront and make decisions about.Are 'workers' to be the class that morphs into the 'social producers' of 'socialism', by their own self-development, consciousness, and democratic power, or is there a group called 'The People' led by 'Specialists' who will prevail?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

Unless you can clearly state 'who' 'consciously applies' and 'how' they do so

And you LBird are overlooking my earlier statement that the "who" and the "how" is actually being undemocratic by usurping the power of the people by decreeing the "who" and the "how" in advance  (and so would we be).

[my bold]But you've given the answer to 'who' as 'the people', alan.That is an ideological assumption, alan. You should be open to yourself and workers about this political assumption.For my part, I don't share your ideological assumption.I share Marx's ideological assumption, that 'the proletariat' will decide. In more historically general terms, the 'proletariat' are the 'social producers' within capitalist society, so the victorious revolutionary proletariat become the 'social producers' within socialism.For Democratic Communists, 'workers' and 'social producers' are a synonymous category, the former just being more historically specific.So, to sum up, Marx's answer to 'who consciously applies' is 'workers', whereas your answer is 'the people'.[quote-ajj]I suggested that it is simply a speculative venture to discuss that issue when we do not know, nor can fully understand, the circumstances of the unfolding socialist revolution that would usher in the next society which will determine the evolution of the different democratic processes that will arise around the world to administer and run society. All we can do is generalise right now. [/quote]But, you are  (as we all do) making 'a speculative venture'.It's just that mine is commensurate with Marx's, unlike yours.Marx 'speculates' that the 'democratic proletariat' will build socialism, and you speculate that an (at least potentially) 'undemocratic people' will build socialism. I say this, because, like the other SPGB supporters, you don't want to make it clear that only democracy can determine the 'truth' for the social producers within socialism. Thus, you ideologically leave room for 'elite power', the rule of 'The Specialists', who will themselves represent 'the people'.I will say in your defense, though, alan, that you seem completely unware of the political consequences of your ideology of 'the people'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I entirely agree with the above.  We = social individuals, where "the labour power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour power of the community."

[my bold]As I said to alan earlier, you're using the words, but missing the meaning.Unless you can clearly state 'who' 'consciously applies' and 'how' they do so, you'll remain in the world of 'free individuals', and a system of production that reflects those needs, interests and purposes.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

But what are we?

'We'? According to Marx, 'we' (humanity) are the 'social producers'. The link between the 'social individuals' making up this 'active producer' is 'democracy'. Without democracy, the notion of the 'social producers' must involve either a group elite or elite individuals.The notion of 'individual production' is simply the most elitist formulation, in which every individual forms a separated unit, much like 'individual consumers' in a 'free market'.'Socialism' involves social production (as the name suggests), and for any democratic ideology (like socialism), the only politically acceptable production is democratic.This is all a long way from your 'individualist' ideology, YMS.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Education is not a one way street: of course there will be social education, but unless you are dividing society into two parts, the educated and the educator, the co-producer of the education product will change it.

Only the 'materialists', as Marx said, 'divide society into two parts'.For Communists, the social producers self-educate, so the community educates and is educated.There are no 'individuals' who 'escape' this process – unless one subscribes to the ideology of 'individualism', as do you and robbo. That is, we're 'co-producers', you and me aren't.Youse two just pay lip service to 'democratic association', and I've warned alan that the whole SPGB seems to be doing this, too, whilst they follow the ideology of 'materialism'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I don't regard social education as coercion, I was simply point out that there wouldn't be any, and if any individuals chose to decide they wanted matter, they could have it.  Indeed, if a minority feel they need to have matter, the community would provide it.

I take it then, that you'll be spending some of your time in socialism producing 'angels' and 'fairies' for those who insist that your community provides them.As for your political opinion that it's possible that there wouldn't be any social education, well, perhaps in the deep backwoods there won't be.But I'll bet that you'll find angels and fairies there…. along with long suppressed diseases, like polio and TB……and you'll soon be celebrating with your 'free community' and be slapping palms, shouting 'High Six!'.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

Refering to humans as  'workers' or 'producers' in communism/socialism is what leads to Lbird's confused condition, he cannot escape left wing thinking. What if I  choose the right to be lazy, will that mean I will be  excluded from the democratic votes? I may even choose to be an elite scientist. Will that mean I am not a 'producer' and therefore excluded from the democratic process?The means of production will be under the democratic control of the community – of us all, not 'workers' or 'producers'. Why refer to us all as 'workers' or .'producers' or  It could be misleading and co by implying 'non-producers' and 'non-workers'

You don't understand Marx, Vin. For him, all humans are 'producers'. We collectively produce our world.It's just that under class societies, this social product is under the control of the exploiters, and not the direct producers.These issues of 'activity/labour' are philosophical issues – I've tried to explain the depth of what you're getting into, and help you out, but you won't accept my help.In your terms above, 'the community' is the 'active side'. And I agree with you – its social production must 'be under its democratic control'.Note – 'democratic' is not 'each individual separately', as YMS  and robbo insist. You have to decide whether you agree with Marx or with the 'individualists'. Who is the 'active side' in epistemological terms – 'the community' or 'each individual'?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

Why can't 'a community of free individuals' producing 'in common', using 'combined labour power', 'consciously' decide by democratic means, to change 'matter' for a different concept, which better reflects our social and democratic production of our nature, a nature-for our needs, interests and purposes?

No reason at all why they can't, they're free to do so.  They're free to rename the moon.  Free to decide gravity doesn't exist.

Yeah, you're right – it's entirely possible that Newton's concept of 'gravity' doesn't really exist. It's up to us as the democratic producers to determine whether 'gravity' suits our needs, interests and purposes, for our social production, or whether a different concept is more suitable to explain our nature.

YMS wrote:

 Of course, as a free association, this only applies to the willingness of the members of the association to comply without coercion.  

This sounds like you're going back on all your talk about 'community', 'in common', 'combined', and simply reverting to 'free individuals'. This is what I explained to alan, earlier – the SPGB says things that it has no intention of allowing to happen.This is the whole political point, YMS. There is no 'Robinsonade' world of 'individual gravity' which you alone know, to the exclusion of the society in which you collectively produce.As to 'coercion', since your kids will be brought up in an education system determined by the 'community', 'in common', 'combined', then they'll be taught the best that society 'knows'. And if their education is telling them that 'gravity' was a concept that is now outdated, and has been replaced one that suits us all better, your 'individual gravity' will have the 'existence' to them, that 'angels', 'grace' and god' has to us.If you regard 'social education' as 'coercion', then you'll be off to the backwoods of Montana, with the rest of the 'free individuals', armed and dangerous.

[LBird]

I should point out the political importance of this question of 'matter'.If one follows Marx's ideas about democratic social production, then the class can always say to the party 'Only we can know our nature'. When the The Party claims to already 'Know Matter', the class can insist 'but we haven't produced our social theory and practice, yet, so how can an elite party claim to already know what we haven't yet produced?'.This is the political problem that Engels didn't realise, when he amended Marx's concept of 'inorganic nature' to become the contemporary bourgeois concept of 'matter'.For the bourgeoisie, 'matter' is the correlation, within their physics, with 'property' within their social production. That is, both concepts must predate any conscious control of them. 'Matter', like 'property', just 'is'.For Marx, 'inorganic nature' is something we consciously change, into our 'organic nature', a 'nature-for-us', a social product that we can change. We have democratic power over our product.And as I've said before, Marx was well aware of this problem with 'materialism' – it must posit a 'knowing elite' who know the 'material' prior to society as a whole. It's an ideology for an elite, as Lenin well realised.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

There will be no proletariat in the future society, but it will be organised by the free association of producers, democratically.or, put another way "a community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common, in which the labour power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour power of the community."

Yes, I know the 'words' as well as the SPGB, as I've told alan.So, here we go again.Can this putative 'free association of producers, democratically' decide to get rid of 'matter' and replace it with something else?If not, why not, and who decides this?Why can't 'a community of free individuals' producing 'in common', using 'combined labour power', 'consciously' decide by democratic means, to change 'matter' for a different concept, which better reflects our social and democratic production of our nature, a nature-for our needs, interests and purposes?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I'll take your latest post as one of waking up on the wrong side of the bed by its relatively uncomradely tone and patronising language, LBird.

No, I'm fine – I'm only reflecting the SPGB's 'uncomradely tone and patronising language' to workers, alan, but, as I keep pointing out, just like the SWP, the SPGB doesn't like workers talking to The Party in the same way it talks to them!

ajj wrote:

As i said, in my posts, it will be future society that will determine the democratic processes…

Yes, and as I asked in my posts, is this 'future society' (your conceptual term for the 'active side') a 'democratic' one or not?It's a simple question, alan, that the SPGB should be able to answer.I'll spell it out for you, though.Is 'future society' an 'elite', or is 'future society' the victorious, class conscious, democratically-organised proletariat?If it's the former, this elite will decide the 'democratic processes' for the producers.If it's the latter, the decision about 'democratic processes' will itself be a democratic one.Once we've settled that, alan, we can get on to the 'practical' stuff that the SPGB is desperately trying to get workers onto, with the aim of hoping workers don't question the 'theory' that will drive the 'practice'. You simply want workers to accept, unquestioningly, your 'theory' (which is a bit rich, really, since you keep telling us that you yourself don't understand 'theory'). In fact, you want workers to be just like you, and put your trust in an 'elite' of 'theorists' who already 'know' all the 'theory', and just get on with the 'practical'.As I've said before, Marx's method is 'theory and practice'. You don't agree with this, alan, which is fair enough, but you should openly tell workers that you disagree with Marx, and that your method is 'practice and theory'.

ajj wrote:

As for Hawkings, his insistence upon using a Dalek-voice machine when he could be communicating with Cary Grant clarity to convey his message is enough to make me question him. 

For me, it's the content, not the sound.Cary Grant spouting Religious Materialism would be much the same as Lenin and Uncle Joe doing so. And the Daleks of the bourgeoisie.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

I'm always surprised that there is so much reticence for others to mention "workers' power", 'democratic production', 'social individuals', even Marx, when it comes to these discussions.

Perhaps not in these exchanges with yourself, LBird, but they do feature very much in our promotion of socialism.

Yeah, and I think that that itself is indicative of the real problem.That is, I've read Marx (and Engels, etc.), so I know what he actually said (and can quote him), and so in your debates with me youse are all continually found out.For your propaganda for the masses, who are mostly not yet socialists and haven't read Marx, youse can say anything (including mention of workers, democracy and society) without those readers being aware of what youse actually stand for. To those who regard themselves as workers and want to see a real democratic society, it can ring a bell.But, it's become obvious to me that youse are only using these terms as bait, much as bible-bashers mention all the 'nice stuff' in the bible, and which can appear attractive to the socially concerned and unwary. That is, the bible-bashers have a hidden agenda, which only becomes obvious when subjected to  critical examination. When we bring up all the Jesus stuff which is anti-rich and pro-poor, the bible-bashers scuttle away. I've had plenty of doorstep 'conversations' with Jehovah's Witnesses and US Mormons, and believe me, if they have kids and young people with them, my views tend to 'convert' them. It's not what the religious adults intended, of course, and they usually give up and go away before I close the door, probably to 'save' their young from the 'conversation'.Well, same process here. I put some meat on the bones of your claims, about "workers' power", for example, and you all shy away from the political consequences of it. For example, workers' control of production means the control of intellectual production (ie., academia, universities, research, physics, logic, maths, etc.), not just the control of factories (ie. 'widgets', the 'material' stuff the workers can touch).So, not surprisingly, regarding these terms, 'they don't feature very much in these exchanges with me'.I've read many of your archives, blogs, Socialist Standard articles going back a century, and even some specialist stuff that a comrade sent to me, like Alison Assiter's 1979 article about Engels and epistemology, so I know both your strengths and weaknesses.Unfortunately, the weaknesses prevail – there seem to be two groups in the SPGB: one group, like you, doesn't really understand  what all this stuff about "workers' power", democratic production, social individuals actually means, so are quite happy to mouth the 'correct' platitudes; the other group, the Religious Materialists, can really understand the political consequences of these terms, and don't like it one bit. So, they, as you say, don't use them in our debates.So, the SPGB seems to consist of the ignorant and the religious, the former unaware, the latter faithful to 'Matter', and a Democratic Communist is running rings around youse.I'm surprised in one way, because you've set up a site to attract workers, preferably who already know Marx, and hope to encourage them to join the SPGB and help build for 'socialism'.But, asked what 'socialism' means… and it all goes to ratshit. I'm a worker and a Marxist, and I can tell quite clearly that youse are not. Youse seem to favour an elite of 'Specialists', and place your hopes in 'disinterested experts' who will give 'advice' which has to be taken. None of you have any intention at all in building a society in which the masses determine for themselves whether, for example, 'matter exists', or whether that concept can be replaced by another of our choosing which better reflects our needs, interests and purposes.From what mod1 wrote earlier, youse seem to think that 'experts' already know our needs, interests and purposes, and that their 'expert advice' is not to be gainsaid.Finally, it's ironic that in the latest edition of the Socialist Standard, the SPGB criticises Stephen Hawking about his views on psychology, but presumably accepts that he 'knows better' than us about nature and physics.Believe me, I'll know when this party is ready for my membership – when it starts criticising Hawking for his maths and physics!Well, I won't be voting for him, when we elect the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, in our socialist society!

[Author]

Posts