[robbo203]

Its not for me to say, Alan, as I am not in the Party so you can take or leave my comments as you wish but, personally speaking, I would be inclined to let this whole Facebook controversy drop.  I strongly agree with your comment that the members concerned should not have publicised their intention to vote Labour in the absence of  a socialist candidate as that  might well  be construed as support for Labour.  It was imprudent of them to do so and they should have kept their voting intentions to themselves. But thats as far as it goes, in my view.  It deserves a  rap over the knuckles but hardly explusion,  That is going too far and I agree with Brian Gardener's observation on the Facebook page that perhaps some members are getting overly vexed about the whole matter. Its seem pretty clear to me that the individuals concerned dont have any illusions about Labour being anything other than a capitalist Party that is going to do what all capitalist parties do in the long run,  But there are some differences between Corbyn's party and May's party and it would be folly to deny that.   The few more crumbs offered by the former can count if you are personally affected and dependent, for example,  on some sort of state welfare income, The Party talks of socialism being in our self interest but it is precisely self interest that has prompted a few members to consider voting Labour  in this instance.  I wouldn't do it myself but  who can blame them? All the same they should not have blurted out their intentions and I suspect that was done more out of frustration at the prospect of another 5 years of Tory rule.  In one way, even the illusion of change is better than no change at all.  Incidentally, there are one or two other members I am in touch (who shall remain un-named ) who have also indicated they will probably vote Labour this time.  Like the members mentioned, they have no illusions about what they are doing and are no less socialists for doing it, in my opinion. Rather than cause unnecessary upheaval and heartarche,  I would suggest something along the lines of issuing a general reminder to the membership that the Party cannot support or appear to be supporting a capitalist organisation snd that declarations of intent by individual members to vote for the latter can be construed as apparent support.  I would just leave it at that and allow the message to sink in.  There is absolutely no point in expellling good socialists particularly when they want to remain in the Party and have no intention of joining some other Party.  Doing that would amount to a self inflicted wound as I see it.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

In the context of existing socialism, are you telling us that certain forms of what is deemed "democracy" will be imposed across the board upon everybody equally. If so who by? By what authority or body? 

I keep telling you the answer to this question, alan: the revolutionary, class conscious, democratic, proletariat. This is Marx's view, too. 

 More evidence of LBird's anti Marxist,, pro Leninist outlook.  Lbird, like Lenin, envisages  the existence of classes – a proletariat and therefore private property  – in socialism.  Marx didnt"When the proletariat is victorious, it by no means becomes the absolute side of society, for it is victorious only by abolishing itself and its opposite.  Then the proletariat disappears as well as the opposite which determines it, private property " The Holy Family (1845): 

[robbo203]

Still no response from LBird defending his Leninist conception of communism as society-wide centralised planning and  the top down authoritarian model of decisionmaking that this necessarily entails.  This is the guy who whinges on about being "misunderstood" and urges his critics to read what he wrote but seems totally unwilling or unable to submit any kind of  argument whatsoever in response to the very specific and detailed criticisms of what he is proposing.  You have to wonder what lies behind all this evasiveness….

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 This is your 'substantive point', YMS. It's a political argument for the liberal theory of the diffusion of 'powers', similar to legislature, executive, judiciary, etc.On the contrary, my 'substantive point' is that there will be a single world authority, which will have any necessary final say regarding any 'many, varied and overlapping [lower level] authorities'.This 'single world authority' is embodied in the political slogan 'World Socialism'.This 'World Socialism' will be built to the needs, interests and purposes of the revolutionary, class conscious, democratic proletariat.This is the key political difference between us, YMS. You are not a supporter of 'World Socialism', but, at best, of 'World Socialisms'. From my Democratic Communist perspective, you might as well be talking about 'National Socialisms', a particularistic, divided, unco-ordinated, even anarchistic, politics.And behind all this, is your individualism, and 'fear of the mob' of "workers' democratic power".

 This is clear evidence if evidence is needed of LBird's Leninist outlook.  Whats the difference between this and Lenin's declaration that the the "whole of society will have become a single office and a single factory", Local or even regional decisionmaking will not exist in his so called democratic communist world.  All decisions will be handed down  from a "single world authority".  and imposed on the populace throughout the world regardless of whether they like ir or not Of course, there is no way 7 billion plus people can be collectively involved in making the millions of decision affecting the global production system.  Perforce these decisions will have to be made by some kind of vanguard  elite.  This is what lies behinds LBirds vacuous and dogmatic mantras; Though he probably cannot yet see this, it is backhanded attempt to justify the need for a leninist vanguard in the face  of the unsurmountablele complexity of decisonmaking in a system of  society wide centralised planning which he clearly endorses

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

…I, I, I,… me, me, me,… mine, mine, mine,… my, my, my…

No mention of social production, or democratic controls, nor even the odd 'we', 'us', 'our'… as for Marx, Communism, society or history… well, we'll have a long wait before the ideological individualists here ever mention those.

 More evasion from our resident Jehova Witness who intones vacuous dogmas rather than presents coherent arguments and then has the nerve to call others "religious materialists." Answer the questions I posed in post 59 or concede that you have no defence  in the face of the crushing criticism of your  harebrained dotty idea of what communism is about I have incidentally discussed social production and democratic controls in a communist society.  I said quite explictly that communist democracy will be necessarily be polycentric and operating at a different levels of organisation –  global, regional and (mainly) local.  You as a Leninist reject all this and prefer instead a unicentric system of society-wide planning central planning – in effect, a de facto authoritarian structure of decisionmaking since there is no way 7 billion people can be practically involved in this form of decisionmaking.  They will have to be excluded by you and your Leninist vanguard to all intents and purposes

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 You've missed 'Scenario C', Sympo:Scenario C (to use your terms): People democratically elect individuals who are experts on the subject to form a council where explanations are formed about that particular subject. These explanations are then explained to people, and if the people accept the explanations, they make the decision to accept the explanation. If the explanation is unacceptable, new experts are elected by the people.Power always lies with the people, not the experts.

 Our resident Leninist and religious materialist L Bird never tires in offering up his guff by way of trying to explain the inexplicable. So now accroding to L Bird " the people" will elect the experts to develop explanations which are then relayed back to the people to vote upon,  I seriously wonder if LBird has ever once thought about the practicalities of what he is saying.  He is a complete dreamer who lives in a little world of his own There are thousands upon thousands of areas of expertise and many millions upon milions of different kinds of explanations covering every consceivable kind of subject area to which these experts are supposedly  elected to investigate. How are "the people" – presumably the world's population of 7.4 bilion – going to have the time let alone the inclination to discuss and vote upon all these millions upon millions of explanations relayed back to them?  Come to that, how are they going to know who these experts are that they are supposed to elect?  What is the procedure by which they are to be elected? LBird doesnt say,  He has an almost childlike utterly naive view of the world.   At any rate, it seems that according to him, we "the people"  not only have to vote on  the millions of theories offered to us by the experts but on top of that,  we now also have to vote  on the experts thenselves!,  Meaning all 7.4 bilion of us.will have no time whatsoever to do anything in life except vote vote vote  and even then we will only be able to vote on a tiny fraction of what needs to be voted upon according to LBird.  How dumb can you get?  Seriously LBird, get a grip Incidentally, can LBird explain to me what if I want to become an astrophysist but am not elected by "the people" to become a designated "expert"? Does that not I am not allowed to study astrophysics and offer my own opinion in LBird's so called democratic communist society?. Will his thought police be knocking on my door at midnight and confiscating my computer along with my scribbled notes trying to make sense of some arcane astrophysical theory?  How am I going to vote on the theory if I dont understand what its about and if only designated experts are permitted to form an opinion on the matter? Explain L Bird Above all,  and here's the main point,  lets us assume we just abandoned this whole silly harebrained scheme of LBird's and just let people develop their own interests according to their own inclinations.  So some  might very well develop these interest  further and become experts in a field of their own  chosng.  Assuming there was no need for "the people" to vote on the theories developed by these individuals can LBird explain what power these individuals could possibly yield of "the people" in a society where all work in voluntarily undertaken and where all goods and services are freely accessible at the point of distribution? LBird repeatedly bleats that he has answered the criticisms of his critics – well let him answer this one What leverage, L Bird, will these experts be able to exercise of the population at large in a democratic communist society?  The truth of the matter there can be none,  You cannot see this becuase you dont understand what either communism is about or what democracy is about.  . You are no "democratic communist" and that is pretty obvious from everything you have said

[robbo203]

Steve, Could you possibly address the question I raised in post 102 and amplified by Tim  in post 107? How have you disassociated yourself from such sentiments expressed by the SCP?

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 Living longer is no longer a success story of society but a problem and a handicap. I'm not surprised that we have folk proclaiming euthanasia for the old. 

 Indeed,  Alan – like the Japanese finance minister, Taro Aso, at a meeting of the national council on social security reforms who said recently that the elderly should be enabled to "hurry up and die" to relieve pressure on the state to pay for their medical care (Justin McCurry, 22 January 2013. “Let elderly people 'hurry up and die', says Japanese minister”, The Guardian)We are just numbers to the ruling class – or machines that have been rendered obsolete by age.  You wonder why they even bother going through the ritual of currying favour at election times

[robbo203]

A conversation about the MFP with Nick Tapping           https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnEpUdNG7RI

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

ALB wrote:

are parish councils part of the machinery of government or more residents' committees?

The position of Steve Colborn is not quite as clear cut as some members would have us believe.  OK, he joined and was elected as a member of another organisation, but is the Seaham Community Party "political" in the sense we in the Socialist Party understand that description?  More to the point; have his actions been "detrimental" to the interests of the Party?  At this stage I'm much more concerned about those members, and there have been a few, particularly on Facebook, who have openly expressed their preference, even support in one or two cases, for one of the main, and avowedly, capitalist parties.

 Yes I would agree with this.  The situation is not black or white.  It is possible that the SCP is not a poltical party in the full blooded sense of the term and that this entity was only forced to use the term "party" becaue of certain legal requirements.  However, the SCP has expressed certain sentiments of a clear political nature in relation to Rembrance Day etc which i consider thoroughly objectionable as a sociaist.  Has Steve clearly disassociated himself from these sentiments? Regarding some members expressing a preference for Corbyn – again I think we have to be clear about what this actually signifies. It is possible to argue that a Corbyn goverment represents a slightly more positive development than a May government without this in any way suggesting an endorsement of the former or a recommendation that one should vote for Corbyn,  I would never do that and as socialists we are all surely well aware that a vote for Corbyn simply translates into ensuring in the long run a  retun of some future Tory government a few years down the line after a Corbyn gvovernment has failed as it will inevitably do, in the see-saw world of capitalist politics. However, i would be slightly concerned if Britsh workers did vote for still more of the same – i.e. the Tories – without even the pretence of a slight shift in thinking.  Such conservatism in both senses of the word, would be truly depressing.  There is a further point ( though I am not too sure that the evidence entirely backs it up)  that the SPGB as an organisation tends to fare somewhat better under labour governments than under tory governments. Its highest ever membership figure occured under the Attlee govenrment did it not? If the correlation holds I wonder why this would be the case. 

[robbo203]

Ozy, you could also do with contacting the "Center for Global NonKiling".  There is a greak link here to a range of interesting articles http://www.nonkilling.org/pdf/nksocieties.pdf I find your chronic sense of pessimism about the human condition depressing and, frankly, quite misplaced

[robbo203]

Ozymandias wrote:

What a fuckin horrible species we are. Even in "Primitive Communism" they were laying the foundations of private property society through murder, human sacrifice and fetishing their leaders. "

 Where did you get this idea from Ozy?  Here's a few links that might persuade you to think otherwise  https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/14/early-men-women-equal-sc…https://libcom.org/history/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalita… You should read anything by Brian R Ferguson who is the world's leading authority on early warfare, apparently.  He would be highly skeptical of the picture you paint.  Here's a link to his profile,  Scroll down to publications and then articles which you can read for yourself https://www.ncas.rutgers.edu/r-brian-ferguson  

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

 I have to respectfully disagree. He ignored attacks, trolling and off topic posts by LBird, 'Bob Andrews' and many others. I could have respected him if he had acted earlier. He only jumped into action when I responded, which will result in a party member being suspended for the next year while trolls and adverts run free. There is no democratic control of these online meetings.A chairperson is for ONE meeting,  a moderator is for life and cannot be questioned or removed. He has the power and he has used it –  to silence any opposition to his 'moderation'. It is an embarrasment to our movement and cannot continue. We need a party wide discussion on this.Bob andrews is allowed to attack me behind his pseudonym. Why? I am not allowed a psuedonym. Why? Who is protecting 'Bob'  and why? Can you explain why he has been abusive to me, gone offtopic and broken many other rules yet received NO moderation??Are we not a party of equals? Or are some more equal than others?But then 'Bob Andrews' is not a party member. He was expelled along with others for gross undemocratic behaviour

 Hmm Im not too sure that this is entirely true Vin,  Lbird has been suspended in the past  – has he not? – and has frequently received warnings.  I think Bob Andrews has also received warnings though I might be wrong about this.  I cant  explain his behaviour to you as I dont know him or where he is coming from but am inclined to agree that perhaps he needs to be taken more firmly in hand by the Mod. Not that it matters that he is not a Party member.  The rules of the forum should apply equally to everyone on this forum, Party member or not Im not quite sure what you mean about not being able to use a pseudonym on this list.  The vast majoirty of users use pseudonyms of some sort.  Are you not possibly confusing this with sockpuppets?

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

Couldb I suggest that when a thread is 'locked' it should be accompanied with  a reason.It does not look good if a topic is locked simply to prevent someone from answering an accustation , for example. as this would stifle balanced debate, which is indispensible to the socialist movement.

 Agreed but to be fair, Vin, the thread on Fresco which I set up was seriously derailed and some of the posts there should not have come under " general discussion"  at all  but rather the "website/technical" category. I think that was fairly obviously the reason for the Moderator locking the thread but yes perhaps a formal explanation might be appropriate when a thread is locked as you suggest.  I am not a big fan of the off topic rule as you might know but I think while the rule exists, the Mod was carrying out his functions as per the rules….

[robbo203]

rodmanlewis wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

It is amazing how an idiot like Johnson can so distort the meaning of what Corbyn was saying as to interpet it as an   attempt to justify or to legitimate the actions of terrorists .  Perhaps, Johnson  needs to learn the difference between a word like  "justification" – and "explanation".  Corbyn was trying to explain the background  to an event like the Manchester – not "justify" it – and on this occasion he was absolutely correct. 

Corbyn, with his endorsement of capitalism–the cause of all these conflicts–is just as guilty as Johnson.

 That might be true in a general sense – in fact, it is true that in the end he does indeed endorse a system that is the root cause of these conflicts – but that does not mean his particular explanation for the rise of terrorism and the emergence of organsiations like ISIS is not correct.  I believe it is correct and just because Corbyn is a capitalist politician does not precluding the posibility of him being occasionally correct.Without that stupid war in Iraq there would be no ISIS today and to give him his due, Corbyn did at least oppose that war on principle unlike many other capitalist politicans

[Author]

Posts