[LBird]

[LBird]

robbo, you're moving outside the bounds of rational debate, and entering the territory of meaningless denunciation.It's impossible, by any rational political measures, to argue that a 'democrat' is a 'Stalinist'.But it's not impossible to argue that a 'materialist' is a 'Leninist'.I think that you're assuming that because I do the latter (argue that 'materialism' is politically synonymous with 'Leninism'), and you regard this as mere name-calling, that you can then justifiably call me names.Perhaps the only way out of this debate, is for you to refer to some thinkers who'd agree with you, and we can all read them, and then judge the validity of your claim that 'democracy equates to Stalinism'.Of course, for my part, I can provide many thinkers who argue that 'materialism equates to Leninism'.

[LBird]

Well, robbo, if your considered reply to my argument for 'democratic control' is that I really mean 'central control', that just shows that you're determined to replace my answer with one that you want to read.The only way to equate the two, is to assume that any 'control' that is not 'individual control' is by definition 'central control'.I suspect that it's your ideology that allows you to do this – that is, the equating of 'democratic' and 'central' is a political and ideological position, that you have adopted.All I can say again, to any workers who are asking about my political arguments, is that they're based upon a political and ideological assumption of 'democratic control'. As were Marx's.

[LBird]

Do yourself a favour, Tim, and stop embarrassing yourself – read the posts on the thread.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

 Further, I answer questions, but the 'materialists' don't like those answers (and can't argue against them),

 So answer the question: If you dont accept society wide central planning then it logically follows that you too accept that there are certain structural limits to the scope of democratic decisionmaking in communism.  Before we move on can you say whether you agree with what I have just said?

I just have, you cloth-eared fool.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

OK so finally finally finally weve got something to sink our teeth into.  If you dont accept society wide central planning then it logically follows that you too accept that there are certain structural limits to the scope of democratic decisionmaking in communism.Before we move on can you say whether you agree with what I have just said?

No, I don't agree.You're equating 'central' (and you mean 'Stalinist', elite, undemocratic, etc.) with 'democratic'. This is a political move on your part, not mere 'misunderstanding'.This then allows you to contrast 'central' (ie. 'democratic') with 'individualist'.As I've said before, your real concern is 'individuals', and not 'social production'.My key political concern is 'democratic social production'.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

I'm afraid, Vin, that any thread he joins turns to bird shit, This one is now polluted.

You really don't like being challenged, do you, ALB?You can't reason and argue, so you abuse.You'd be dangerous, if you were in any position of political power.And you pass yourself off as an intellectual of the SPGB?Dear me! Talk about scraping the barrel! The SPGB must be very desperate.

 But its true what ALB says though isnt it LBird? You derail each and every discussion you get embroiled in with this single minded narrow obsessive mantra of yours and people do get understandably sick and tired of it.   Cant you see that? You are your own worst enemy in that respect and it doesnt help that you persistently refuse to answer questions put to you  – like the one I just put to you whether or not you support the concept of society-wide central planning.  It is an easy thing to just say no if you dont support it – so why dont you? This is why there is never any progress with you. You are constantly arguing in bad faith , not engaging in a genuine democratic debate

The 'derailers' are (mainly) you, YMS and ALB. You're all 'materialists', and are compelled to abuse any worker who challenges your elitism.Further, I answer questions, but the 'materialists' don't like those answers (and can't argue against them), so they replace my 'answers' with statements that I haven't made. You, personally, are a key proponent of this method.It's not 'bad faith' that's the problem – but the SPGB's refusal to have a proper political discussion, because they're losing it. Thus, the constant abuse that I receive.Perhaps you all live in a dreamworld, where the advances of the 20th century have gone unnoticed, but I can't be blamed for that.Though you all try…

[LBird]

Furthermore, robbo, as it must be clear to anyone who reads your posts, your overridding, central, fundamental, concern is 'the individual'.You place this as your highest political starting and end point.On the contrary, mine (like Marx's was) is 'democratic social production'.Once you admit your political ideology (as I do mine), our discussions will proceed far more smoothly.As an example, whereas you talk about 'individuals', I talk about 'social individuals'.To you, this usage of 'social' is a useless appendage, whereas to me it's a defining feature of 'individuals'.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

OK let me put it this way since you obviously are intent on evading  the straightforward question about central planning as per usual…Im all ears LBird

I've never argued for 'central planning', so your 'ears' must be making it all up for you.No doubt, you'll claim that your 'materialist ears' talk to your 'idealist mind', and you always passively follow 'the material', so anything I write will be ignored, 'as per usual'.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I'm afraid, Vin, that any thread he joins turns to bird shit, This one is now polluted.

You really don't like being challenged, do you, ALB?You can't reason and argue, so you abuse.You'd be dangerous, if you were in any position of political power.And you pass yourself off as an intellectual of the SPGB?Dear me! Talk about scraping the barrel! The SPGB must be very desperate.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

Well, as I said about two years ago, Tweety Pie tweets utter nonsense. His last post is a repeat of the nonsense. He has said it a thousand times.  It is entirely incomprehensible. I am sure there are forum rules about repetitive postingsIf there is anything amusing in  all this, it is that he uses 'materialist' as an insult. Guffaw.

Well, it would be 'entirely incomprehensible' to you, Vin. You don't like thinking, do you?Anyway, as you are a 'materialist', I only expect incomprehension and abuse from you.You never disappoint, do you?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Our feathered friend doesn't half lead us on wild goose chases. First, it was about whether the Sun moves round the Earth. Then, it was about whether external reality exists. Now, it's about whether 2 + 2 = 4. All of which are to be settled by a referendum. It's just not possible to have a meaningful discussion with him.

You haven't bothered to respond to some points that I made earlier, but you will always jump to support elitist 'materialists', and fight any mention of 'democratic production'.And you wouldn't know what a 'meaningful discussion' is, ALB.2+2=11You can't explain that, can you?And if you did, you'd destroy the philosophical basis of your post.'Materialists', eh? Not the brightest, but certainly dangerous to those workers wanting to know about 'democratic production', ie. socialism.ALB thinks that he is part of an elite. And as such, he must argue against (or simply denigrate, when losing the argument) democratic production.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

blah blah etc etc

So do you support society-wide central planning then LBird as in everyone getting to vote on the totality of production?  Yes or no?

This response proves, once again, that 'materialists' simply cannot conduct a reasoned debate, but must always fall into abuse, because they always get politically cornered, when 'democratic production' is mentioned.Further, the 'materialists' never read what I write, and make up their own version of 'what I say', and then pass that around amongst themselves, and convince themselves that that lie is 'what I wrote'.robbo is arguing against a bogeyman of his own making.If he isn't aware of his own individualist (and elitist) politics, surely someone else here is?And will join in to defend Marx's vision of a self-emancipatory, conscious, democratic, socialism.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

There is only one way in which any kind of modern system of production can be operated and that is essentially on a self-regulating basis ( via a system of stock control).  Anything other than that is just pie in the sky – totally unfeasible

[my bold]This is not 'self-determination' by the producers, robbo.Only the producers can 'regulate' their production, in their own interests, for their own purposes, for their own ends.I suspect by 'self-regulating', you actually mean 'regulated by individual choices', where there is no social (and thus democratic) consciousness.To you, as you say, 'socialism' must be a 'pie in the sky – totally unfeasible'.To me, 'socialism' must be consciously democratic. If you disagree, you should say so openly. That declaration would clear up many of the political debates that we've beeen having, over years now.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

Yes, but 'labour time' can be voted upon, because it is a 'social unit of account', not a 'universal unit of account'.

If labour time is the only unit employed the planning process then it is necessarily a universal unit of account. There is no contradiction between saying it is a universal unit of account and a social unit of account. It is both in this case.

[my bold]It's a shame that you haven't understood the distinction, robbo.'Only', at a particular time and place, in a particular society, after a particular conscious social decision, is not the same as 'universal'.'Universal' means everywhere at everytime, and outside of human consciousness.I thought that you'd finally got there, and realised the political importance of this distinction, this contradiction between 'universal' and 'social'.The political effect of the choice between 'universal' and 'social' is that of between 'elite' and 'democratic' power.Some elite will claim to 'know the universal' outside of the decision of the majority, because the elite will claim 'the universal' to be, well, 'universal' and outside any 'social', and this 'universal', known only to the elite (and they must argue this, or they'd be forced to recognise the majority could remove this 'universal' and so it wouldn't be 'universal', but 'social') will form the basis of power for the elite.Lenin recognised the political implications of a 'universal' which society couldn't change, which allowed him to build an elite which denied power to the majority.

[Author]

Posts