robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:It is indeed a very good debunking video. Very informative. One to embrace in future when the libertarian right appear on the net. BTW never heard of this Paul Joseph Watson until Robbo mentioned him. DJP, we need to address ALL our critics, even the obnoxious ones.
You are absolutely right, Alan. Even the obnoxious critics like Watson, arrogant little buffoon though he may be, need to be addressed. The kind of illogical incoherent and blatantly false arguments Watson comes out with, I have seen reproduced thousands of times on multiple forums – more or less the same predictable old memes being pumped out on an industrial scale. We should not underestimate their cumulative and toxic effect If the SP does ever get round to stepping up the output of pamphlets here's a candidate for the subject of a new pamphlet – the Ideological Right (you could complement that with a pamphlet on the Left too). That young Libertarian socialist guy in the video who did such an excellent job at destroying Watson's whole case , has provided the kernel of an approach that could be built upon
Sympo wrote:He's awful. He's anti-BLM, anti-Muslim, pro-Trump and believes in "Cultural Marxism"-conspiracy theories (among other BS). Here's a pretty good anarchist reply to a video of his about how great Capitalism is:Anarchist Commentaries Episode 6: Paul Joseph Watson and the Dunning-Kruger Effect – YouTubeSympo ,Thanks for that. Thats a very good and entertaining demolition job on our Mr Watson who is defintely no assocate of our Mr Holmes. (Actually, the terms "plank" and "thick" spring to mind here). This video should be made compulsory viewing for all those little free market bigots out there and boy oh boy are there lots of them, Several anarchist forums Ive been on seem to have been overrun by the Ancap crowd spouting their usual nonsense just like Watson
alanjjohnstone wrote:Rebellion and seditionhttp://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41865121Another over-reaction by Madrid?Yes definitely an over-reaction. If they were clever capitalist politicians they would quietly drop the idea of imposing prison sentences on the "rebels", simply slap a fine on them and ban them from holding office for 10 years or so. Humiliating them and turning them into martyrs for the cause of Catalan independence is only going to make matters worse in the long run. However its early days yet and I suspect the hardline approach is something that is being pursued with the support of other european countries. I suspect these other countries want to use Spain as an example of what could happen should breakaway movements take off in these countries themselves. So they want to nip the growth of these movements in the bud, using Spain as an example. However, when all the fuss has died down the Spanish giverment may well decide on the course of amnesty and pardon for the rebels. We shall see how things pan out….
alanjjohnstone wrote:PHEWWW…when i saw the topic headline, i thought it meant our Robbo…90 yrs of age …a good innings…Yeah, Got me a bit worried as well, Alan!
alanjjohnstone wrote:Another brief letter by yours truly in Weekly Workerhttp://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1177/letters/We are also referred to a couple of times in another letter which i think deserves a response.I, of course, could answer but my own letter may elicit a reply that might require being answered and i certainly wish not to be seen as the SPGB's only Weekly Worker reader and sole contributor.Good stuff, Alan. I might have a go at critiquing one or two of the other letters where the SPGB and Andrew Northall are mentioned. Andrew used to be in the SPGB. How on earth did he manage to convert to Stalinism? Thats a mystery to me!
The domino effect of catalan nationalism, Now Flemish nationalism gets in on the act – possibly https://www.thelocal.es/20171030/deposed-catalan-president-carles-puigdemont-is-apparently-already-in-belgium
Ike Pettigrew wrote:robbo203 wrote:What "territorial instinct"?Why does your neighbour have a wall or fence round his property? Maybe he doesn't, but all mine do. Why? You will attribute this to capitalism. Well let's assume this is correct, we then have to ask, where did capitalism come from? The regression leads us back to human nature: the collection of qualities that are essential to the human being.
As it so happens I dont have a fence or wall around the house I live in and rent. I used to own a little shack up in the mountains behind me plus half a hectare of land which Pepe's goat herd and the odd rambler would regularly walk over. I didnt mind. Nor did any of my neighbours, Its the norm in this part of the world (southern Spain). The hunters too freely walk across everyone's land in pursuit of wild boar though I dont approve of hunting myself, Perhaps in the UK neighbours declare war on each if you so much as move the boundary post by one inch. Here we couldnt care a toss. In fact the catastral maps are notoriously unreliable and vague much to the consternation of northern Europeans who move into the area Private property predates capitalism of course but capitalism considerably reinforced this instiitution. Think of the Enclosure Acts. You infer from the very existence of capitalism that there must be regression that leads us back to human nature. In other words that capitalism is rooted in human nature. But thats nonsense since if it were the case, how is that for the great bulk of our existence on this planet we humans lived in a totally different kind of society in which none of the attributes of capitalism were to be found?. Granted our genetic endowment does influence our behaviour in various ways but this does not happen in the simplistic reductionist manner you portray
Ike Pettigrew wrote:.robbo203 wrote:For the great bulk of our time on this planet, we human beings lived in a small immediate-return hunter-gatherer band societies whose outstanding characteristic was that they were nomadic and lacked any sense of teriitory.Being nomadic does not mean a lack of a sense of territory. Lions are nomadic and also territorial. Lots of animals that do not have or possess any apparent fixed territory are nevertheless territorial. You may also want to consider the possibility that territorialism and its various manifestations like farms, tribes and nations are meta-phenomena that arise from deeper insincts: such as protection of family, etc.
Lions are not particularly nomadic but tend to to stick around in the same locality for generations Farms, tribes and nations are not "meta-phenomena" arising from "deeper insincts", That makes it sound like they represent some kind of unfurling of a pre-ordained human nature which progressively and irresistably moves in a single direction towards some preordained end. Thats nonsense. These are social phenomna and as such are the product of particular historical circumstances influencing the direction that society takes in their own right. We see this very clearly in the case of the invention of agriculture as a human response to a changing physical environment (climate change)
Ike Pettigrew wrote:.robbo203 wrote:That sense of territory came with the domestication of plants and animals – a comparatively recent development. So too is the development of tribes. Band societies are quite different in structure and organisation to tribal societies and if we are genetically programmed to live in any kind of society it would probably be the former since we lived so much longer in that kind of society.These are just shifts in material conditions (i.e. realities). As explained above, I refer to human nature, not as a purely naturalistic explanation or lazy catch-all premise, but as the result of evolution and changes in the environment. .
Well why in that case come out with such a misleading statement as territorialism and its various manifestations like farms, tribes and nations are meta-phenomena that arise from deeper insincts: such as protection of family
Ike Pettigrew wrote:.robbo203 wrote:But even assuming a fixed romantic attachment to some place – e.g. my home town – I dont see how this is incompatible with socialism. Do you? Nationalism is a different though since nationalism is essentially a product of capitalism and nationalist mythology literally had to be invented to bind together the "imagined community" that is the nation state. Read Benedict Anderson on thisNationalism is incompatible with socialism as you would have it, and surely that is your own position anyway. A synergy of the two positions is possible and I suspect that if socialism ever did come about in practice, it would work along ethnic/tribal lines and there would probably be national/cultural borders of some sort. The difficulty here is that our vobaculary might not be able to articulate how such arrangements could work, as we tend to verbally pigeon-hole certain concepts, especially when the relevant word is emotionally triggering. For instance, mention of 'borders' is anathema to you and sends you into apoplexy, but you forget that all sorts of invisible borders exist in everyday life – between individuals, between families, between groups of people. Is this not human nature? I understand the SPGB's case for socialism, but I wonder if you have stopped to consider that you might not be understanding mine? Have you really thought about this beyond your autoscripting posts in which you parrot various received ideas?
Nationalism is fundamentally incompatible with socialism. You forget that nationalism as a product of capitalism is inextricably bound up with the emergence of the capitalist state and that in socialism as classically defined there is no state and can be no state since the very institution of the state itself arose from the division of socety into classes which will cease to exist in a socialist society.There are some proponents of a "stateless" nationalism like the 19th century anarchist Gustav Landauer but I think his resoning is faulty. Nationalism by definition implies the existence of a state and hence classes. And you are mistaken. I am not averse to the notion of boundaries per se. You mention individuals. As individuals we all have a sense what is our personal space and feel uncomforable when this is encroached upon by strangers. Interestingly enough, this varies from culture to culture. Talking of which, I have no problem either with the idea of cultural variation or ethnic diversity. In fact if anything it is capitalism that is the great enemy of ethnic diversity. In a socialist world I would hope to see a great flowering of diverse cultural forms but forms that look outwards to the wider world rather than look purely inwards or react with hostility to other forms
Ike Pettigrew wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:Perhaps not in liquidity cash nor in gold has Bezos $90 billion.Some people on here don't appear to understand the difference and think that valuations printed in the media are statements of fact and reflect the cash position. It's not quite like that.
All you are saying here is that Bezos' wealth comes in different guises, cash and non cash. That includes 81 million shares in Amazon, the valuation of which can fluctuate from day to day. So the total of 90 billion is provisonal , It could be lower next week – or higher. It is a rough approximation and people understand this, but that doesnt justify yor claim that " He doesn't have $90 billion or even a fraction of that." (with the emphasis on the bold part). For all we know his personal wealth based on all conceivable forms of wealth could be 100 billion today!
Ike Pettigrew wrote:He doesn't have $90 billion or even a fraction of that. The valuation, in so far as it's valid at all, is of his stock and assets in whatever businesses and companies he owns or has shares in.If you have information to the contrary perhaps you need to notify the world's media on this matter who are all seemingly uniformly reporting his net personal worth to be about 90 billion dollars. This site fills in some of the details. For example: Bezos, as CEO of the company, owns about 81 million shares of Amazon stock according to a recent SEC filing. A little back-of-the-envelope map means he made $6.44 billion in a single day, putting his net worth just over $90 billion.(http://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-net-worth-2017-10/#bezos-net-worth-jumped-644-billion-in-a-matter-of-hours-1) If you have evidence to show that this is incorrect then produce it!
Ike Pettigrew wrote:As a Yorkshireman myself, I fully support this proposal. Independence for Yorkshire! I will leave you with the Yorkshire National Anthem, which your Yorkshire branches had better learn if The World's Greatest County is finally to achieve independence… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUsQ9Qs2DQoLOL. Dont be surprised then if the Westminster parliament implement their version of Spain's article 155. Living in Spain Im constantly reminded these days of the stupidities of all nationalism – Spanish nationalism, Catalan nationalism and now it seems Yorkshire nationalism. How any sane person can be bothered beats me
The MSN article cited above states that the gain in Amazon stock price added nearly 7 billion dollars to Bezo's wealth "overnight" . Next time some brainwashed prole suggests that the superrich deserve every penny they own – "cos they earned it" – perhaps it might asked how Bezo managed to pull off that remarkable feat in his sleep. LOL
Ike Pettigrew wrote:The root of my disagreement with socialism is that it does not take account of all general factors in human nature: most especially, the pre-rational tribal instinct and the territorial instinct that human beings have. You will say that human beings have no such instincts (or there is insufficient evidence for the notion) or that even if they do, they are unimportant. I think differently. Thus we are at deadlock. You have your opinion, which is that human beings can be 'educated' (i.e. cognitively re-engineered in a Promethean manner); I have mine, which is that human nature is immutable (and even if not, in my view it would not be desirable to change our essential nature).What "territorial instinct"? For the great bulk of our time on this planet, we human beings lived in a small immediate-return hunter-gatherer band societies whose outstanding characteristic was that they were nomadic and lacked any sense of teriitory. That sense of territory came with the domestication of plants and animals – a comparatively recent development. So too is the development of tribes. Band societies are quite different in structure and organisation to tribal societies and if we are genetically programmed to live in any kind of society it would probably be the former since we lived so much longer in that kind of society. But even assuming a fixed romantic attachment to some place – e.g. my home town – I dont see how this is incompatible with socialism. Do you? Nationalism is a different though since nationalism is essentially a product of capitalism and nationalist mythology literally had to be invented to bind together the "imagined community" that is the nation state. Read Benedict Anderson on this
Vin wrote:imposs1904 wrote:Just put this here.Link: A Cat Among The Pigeons (1906)Robbo, you may find this interesting.
Yes indeed Vin, Cant see the point in banning religious-minded socialists from the party, providing they dont peddle their religious beliefs as party members. I have said it umpteen times before – the ban is completely redundant ot surperflous because if they did happen to flout socialist principles in some way this would "come out in the wash" and can be dealt with directly in terms of the particular principle being flouted. Ditto the argument about "materialism". It is totally possible to adopt a historical materialist position and entertain religious ideas. Each case should be judged on its merits.I wont push the argument because I know I would be flogging a dead horse in the Party at the moment. Its a pity because while I would be delighted to rejoin I cannot in all honesty accept the claim that religious beliefs are necessarily incompatible with socialism which you are obliged to accept as a condition of membership (even if I am not religious myself) Mind you, that is not going to stop me being an active and enthusiasitic supporter of the Party!
alanjjohnstone wrote:You may have missed it but our blog drew had this post on antifahttps://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2017/10/anti-antifa.htmlThe writer Diana Johnstone (no relation) has just written another critique of antifa. It, too, is worth quoting from https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/10/25/the-harmful-effects-of-antifa/Quote:Antifa contributes to this confusion by giving precedence to the suppression of “bad” ideas rather than to the development of good ones through uninhibited debate… Antifa is notoriously generous in distributing the fascist label. Most of the people Antifa targets are not fascists …By claiming to defend helpless minorities from a rising fascist peril, Antifa arrogates to itself the right to decide who is, or might be, “fascist”…Actual defense of a truly threatened community is best done openly by respected members of the community itself, rather than by self-styled Zorros who arrive in disguise… Antifa claims that it is in favor of free speech in general, but racists and fascists are an exception, because you can’t reason with them, and hate speech is not speech but action. This amounts to an astounding intellectual surrender to the enemy. It is an admission of being unable to win a free argument. The fact is that speech is indeed speech, and should be countered by speech. You should welcome the chance to debate in public in order to expose the weaknesses of their position.Some perrceptive comments in that critique. Perhaps a detailed postion paper needs to be put out by the SP given the influence of antifa on the left. I have posted various articles on FB forums such as ALB's excellent peice on "From No Platfrom to Safe Spaces" but to mixed reception
davestephans wrote:Sorry 'm so demanding. Can you recommend books or readings on strategy and practices of the Right? Was reading about Left Unity, thinking about herding cats, and want to learn more about how they are so cohesive and effective. Part of it it the democratic and independent nature of the left, I know, but jeez, we ought to be able to come together more. We have some smart people too. If liberty and equality, as is thought by some are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost. AristotleDave Socialists wouldnt really regard themselves as part of the Left, strictly speaking, so "Left Unity" is not a burning issue with us. The left-right distinction is an expression of the capitalist poliical spectrum in which the left as much as the right share certain common assumptions with regard to the kind of society they seek to bring about. Neither seeks to transcend the wage labour- capital relation. Neither seeks the abolition of commodity production or the state. All these things are key aspects of the kind of society we socialists want to get rid of – capitalism Some leftists purport to have sympathy for the kind of society we advocate – socialism – as an "ultimate" goal (meaning never) but most harbour a kind of distorted Leninist defintion of "socialism" as something to do with the state. Many who understand that all this leninist version of socialism boils down is state capitalism, still continue to support the futile policy of trying to reform capitalism in the unfounded belief that this will somehow pave the way to socialism. It wont. The struggle to achieve a socialist society has to involve, among other things, stepping off that endless treadmill of trying to mend capitalism as opposed to trying to end capitalism This site contains a vast bank of information on all sorts of topics, going back over a hundred years since the formation of the Socialist Party. Just use the search facility if you are looking for something in particular
