robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Tim Kilgallon wrote:So what's the alternative?We propose an alternative based on ownership of capital and market forces that currently exists in the UK, Europe and worldwide. This alternative is a society of common ownership that we call socialism.
It is a good manifesto but there seems to be a mistake here…
Vin wrote:I genuinely would love to read LBird's replies to these questions. Does he understand this post? Sure a 'democratic communist' like LBird should have no problem dealing with these question. Thread-hop as much as you wish, they aren't going away, LbirdI doubt if he will Vin. You see, to talk about individuals being able to freely take from the distribution stores according to their self determined needs and to freely and voluntarily contribute to the production of wealth according their abilities is unspeakably INDIVIDUALIST, for heaven's sake. I mean, you can't really go about mouthing slogans like "from each according to ability to each according to need". Where will it all end? Next, people will be calling this Marx's "higher stage of communism"!No, people need to be democratically instructed by the ..er .."democratic global community" concerning what work we shall each contribute and what goods and services we shall each be allowed to consume. All 7 billion plus of us, Now thats "democratic communism", innit?
alanjjohnstone wrote:Quote:you need to be clear about the grounds on which you are expelling him.Rule 6 is quite sufficient and very clear for his branch to proceed to expel him, Robbo. We need not engage in any complicated debate or discussion about the nature of reformism or reforms.
Quote:6. A member shall not belong to any other political organisation or write or speak for any other political party except in opposition, or otherwise assist any other political party.He stood on behalf of the Seaham Community Party, which is registered as a political party by the electoral commission.What is more that he felt the need to do so without resigning and underhandedly maintaining it a secret from the Party. I ask myself, would we have ever heard of his candidature if he had failed to be elected? In fact, would we have ever known if Vin did not have the decency to relay the information to us al?. But i do have to now ask Vin and Linda, directly, when were they aware of this development. The question is unavoidable, i'm afraid, considering their close family ties with ex-comrade Colborn. BTW, i do find it difficult not to say ex-comrade, as his actions count louder than any words he may have in mitigation.
OK I accept your reasoning here Alan. The rules are clear- that you cannot belong to another political party – and although I drew comparsions with Residents Associations being forced by legislation enacted in 2000 to become political parties in order to represent local interests locally, I think Adam's point about the Seaham Community Party contesting elections at county level clinches the argument. I am also sympathetic to Vin's point of view that one should not be overly harsh in judgng Steve Colborn. People dont necessarily cease to be socialists once they leave the Party. It would nice to hear him tell his side of the story though I doubt he would be inclined to do so on this forum
+
LBird wrote:.Unless you agree, with what I'm starting to suspect is widespread within the SPGB, that only 'an elite of the educated and informed' will make decisions for the dumb majority.It seems that my understanding of the revolutionary process to human emancipation is very different from the SPGB's – not least, over this issue of 'democracy'. If you've got a mental picture of the 'ignorant and uninformed' having to be 'excluded', christ knows what robbo's visions of the "hell of workers' democracy" look like.More drivel from LBird, He just dosesnt get it does he? After endless efforts to try to explain what the real issue is here, he comes out again with the same old boring evasion. No LBird it is not a case of "an elite of the educated and informed' making decisions for the dumb majority" that we communists are arguing for.. This is an utterly, sociologically inept, conclusion on your part for two main reasons 1) Because the "decisions" you are referring to are more than just practical decisions about things like the allocation of resources or where a local sweage plant should be sited. There is no disagreement that these sort of things should be subject to democratic decision making despite your deceitful insinuation that I think otherwise. However, you are extending the range of decisions, and hence the scope of democratic decisionmaking, much much further than is warranted to include also things as the "truth value" of scientific theories or the artistic merit of works of art. That is what we object to. Its an utterly stupid idea , Its totally impractical and, more to the point, its totally unnecessary, If a majority of people vote to say a particular theory is correct what is meant to happen following that vote? You never explaim, Are the minority then supposed to abandon their oppostion to this theory becuase the majority,support it? But thats just dumb. If scientific progress was governend by LBirds model we would still be thinking that th sun revolved around the earth and that the eath was not sphere, but flat. Because that is what the majority thought at the time and there would be no mechanism by which this point of view could be altered if minority opinions were banished. In fact if minority opinions were to be banished we would never arrive at communism – and should never according to LBird – since the overwhelming majority of workers today support capitalism and this view should prevail 2). Becuase you dont understand what is meant by an "elite", You lack any real understanding of what communism is about and how it precludes the very possibility of such an elite ever arising. Universal free access to goods and services and the voluntartisic nature of labour itself dissolves completely the very basis of political power in communism. No one would be in a position of being able to exercise any kind of leverage over others. Moreover, you fail to ses that by an" elite" is meant a systematically unified internally coherent body or section of the population sharing a common interest. How could this possibly arise in a communist society with a complex social division of labour? An expert neurologist will be a complete layperson as far astrophysics is concerned while an astrophysicist will be a complete layperson as far as the neourological sciences is concerned, What is the common basis on which these two very different experts can unite as a collective elite to conspire against the interests of the general public in the way you suggest? You dont explain.+ Your whole line of argument is incredibly weak , incoherent and confused. You dont accept that in a communist like any other form of technologically advanced society there must be a complex division of labour, We cannot all become competent neurologists so it is INEVITABLE there is going to be an uneven distribution of social knowledge. If you disagree with that then how do you propose to overcome this unevenness – that we all become accomplished in every conceivable field of scientific enquiry so that we can all grasp the minutiae of every scientific theory going and be able to competently vote on them? But this is impossible LBird as you must surely realise . Even becoming accomplished in just one single field of sceintifc endeavour is an uphill strugge for any one person, involving years of dedicated study and practice. Yet you are proposing that we shall equip ourselves with a godlike omiscience of being able to grasp the sum total of human knowledge! This is a childiish idea. Frankly LBird you are dreamer with your head in clouds more concerned with the sound of pretty words than what they actually signify in real terms
Yes Alan I agree with what you say. I did not know of his new Party's support for the British Legion and presumably also the distribution of red poppies – that obnoxious hypocritical annnual event that the jingoists like to engage in, promoting patriotic values on the pretext of remembering the war dead. Even so, though completely objectionable from a socialist standpoint, this does not really constitute "reformism". My only observation concerning this sad and sorry state of affairs is that, if you are going to initiate expulsion proceedings against Steve Colbourn, you need to be clear about the grounds on which you are expelling him. I am not entirely convinced that the charge of reformism will withstand scrutiny for the reasons outlined in my previous post On a more personal note, does anyone know what prompted Steve to take this course of action? Why did he not simply resign from the Party in the first place? I got the impression that he was a pretty active member of the NE branch so why this sidden change of heart? It would be interesting to hear his side of the story if he is willing to give it
Yes Alan I agree with what you say. I did not know of his new Party/s support for the British Legion and presumably also the distribution of red poppies – that obnoxious hypocritical annnual event that the jingoists like to engage in, promoting patriaotic values on the pretext of remembering the war dead. Even so, though completely objectionable from a socialist standpoint, this does not really constitute "reformism". My only observation concerning this sad and sorry state of affairs is that, if you are going to initiate expulsion proceedings against Steve Colbourn, you need to be clear about the grounds on which you are expelling him. I am not entirely convinced that the charge of reformism will withstand scrutiny for the reasons outlined in my previous post On a more personal note, does anyone know what prompted Steve to take this course of action? Why did he not simply resign from the Party in the first place? I got the impression that he was a pretty active member of the NE branch so why this sidden change of heart? It would be interesting to hear his side of the story if he is willing to give it
Tim Kilgallon wrote:From the Seaham Community Party Facebook site: "We want local people from all backgrounds and age groups to join us to change Seaham for the better. Seaham Community Party are really proud of our town and we would like to continue this regeneration seen at the sea front in to other areas. We will protect Seaham' heritage, Tommy, George Emily Lifeboat and The British Legion. We will reduce Seaham Town Councillors from 21 to 11, therefore saving costs to invest in our town. We will not put the council tax up by 3% like the current party. We strongly support all our local health and well being/fitness. We will save and improve Seahams' Leisure Centre and Youth Centre. We will run activities and support local families and also organise a childrens' summer holiday programme, including trips, events and sports/clubs. We will clean up our streets and parks to make them free from litter and dog mess. A zero tolerance on dog fouling. We will strive to invest and protect our allotments and open green spaces for future generations. We will continue to sup port and improve all of Seahams outdoor events such as the carnival, armed forces day and the fireworks display. We will work hard to enhance Seaham as a tourist destination by doing all that we can to further Seahams reputation as a holiday destination. COME AND JOIN US! Seaham Community Party are honest, approachable, trustworthy and reliable. Vote for us and together we will improve Seaham!"Clearly a set of reformist demands, not exactly a Revolutionary Socailist Party. Incidentally they call us impossiblists for proposing the creation of a society based on common ownership and the abolition of the wages system, the idea of making Seaham into a holiday destination is much more far fetched!!If it is the Steve Colborn of NE Branch who has been elected on this platform, he should hang his head in shame.Not sure if the above would actually qualify as a "set of reformist demands" though, Tim. Reformism, to me, essentially only applies at the level of state power (and above) and has to do with the attempt to ameliorate the consequences of capitalism through centralised legislative and political enactments. In other words, it is capitalism you are trying to reform, not the shoddy state of Seahams' Leisure centre which may need a lick of paint or whatever. Contesting local elections strikes me as being much closer to voting for representaives in your local Residential Association. This Wikipedia link on Residents Associations is particuarly interesting and pertinent – in particular this:"While generally eschewing national party politics, since the reform of UK electoral law in 2000 several British residents' associations have been obliged to register as locality-based political parties to enable them to participate in local elections for borough and county councils." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residents%27_association) The Party has no objections to members joining Residents Associations. Providing these essentially locally based poliical parties, like the "Seaham Community Party", are not linked to national parties based on an unequivocally reformist platform, I wonder if there really is much harm in what Steve Colbourn is doing from a socialist standpoint. You might want to argue that it is all a bit pointless – though that is a moot point – but that does not necessarily make it reformist as such. There are lots of things that the Party opposes which are not in themselves reformist. Racism for example is not in itself reformist though it can certainly be associated with a reformist programme that for example privileges one particular so called racial group
LBird wrote:I'm a Democratic Communist, whose ideology defines 'socialism' as 'democratic socialism'.Another red herring. Of course socialism involves democracy . No one is disputing that. The argument is solely about the limits of democratic decisionmaking even in a socialist society. Do you deny that such limits will exist even in socialism, LBird? Do you agree that there would be a vast range of decisions that would necessarily fall outside the practice of democratic decisionmaking. For example – albeit to take a rather extreme example – whilst you rail against what you ignorantly call the "individualists" on this forum, would you be comfortable with the fact that the democratic community (which in your eyes boils down to the entire global population) should determine how you shoud lead you life, thus: – what work you should do and for how many hours per day- where you may live – what you may study- where you may travel to- your consumption and lifestye choices- your view on what constututes scientific truth- your view on what constitutes artistic beauty And so on and so forth. Also and I have asked this of you before LBird but would local communities exist in your version of democratic communism that would be able to take democratic decision on their own (thus limiting democracy to locals in this case). Can you please answer this question LBird
LBird wrote:The key political issue here is the question of 'independent'.'Independent of individuals' does not mean 'independent of society'.So, we're faced with arguing either that nothing is independent of society (and so this can be voted upon) or that something is independent of society (and so can't be voted upon).The problem is, as Marx says, nothing is independent of society, and so those who argue that something is independent have to then surreptitiously put their own elite in control of this something (which isn't really independent of society as a whole).This is precisely what Vin, robbo, and the rest of the Religious Materialists do. They claim to be dealing with something independent of society ('nature', 'matter', 'Truth', 'externality', 'reality', etc. etc.), which can't be voted upon, but then claim that they themselves, as an elite, outside of the democratic control of the social producers, can determine this 'something'.You are talking absolute rubbish here Nobody is saying 'Independent of individuals' means 'independent of society'. You have totally musunderstood not only Marx but your critics on this forum Independent is an allusion to the will of particular individuals. Society is indeed a socio-historical construction but as a socio historical construction the individual has to adapt it , to fit in with it , to live with it. It is in this sense that the relations of the production are "independent" of the individual – in the sense of exerting an external constraining influence on this particular individual. What you have done is to confuse particular empirical individals with individuals in general who collectively make up society. There is no such thing as a society without individuals and conversely there is no such thing as individuals without society. We are social animals, No one is saying anything different on this forum. But you have completely misunderstood the signicance of what has been said and then drawing a completely invalid inference based on this elementary blunder So its back to the drawing board for LBird! You could do with re-reading Marx through the eyes of Emergence Theory
LBird wrote:Again, what this all boils down to is whether 'democracy' is a core value, or just something employed when it's 'practical'.But, who (or what) determines the 'practical'?Democratic Communists would argue that only the producers can determine whether a political situation is to be based upon 'democratic' values, or upon the 'practice' of an elite.Religious Materialists argue that special elites (in their political/ideological terminology, 'locals') can operate outside of the democratic controls of society. They do this by arguing that 'knowledge' is 'local' to an 'elite' – that is, 'knowledge' is not a social product by society, but a product by a 'knowing elite'.The obvious 'local' elite in political history is the Party, then its cadre, then its central committee, then its leader.You can't get a more 'practical' and 'local' power than 'Uncle Joe'.robbo203 wrote:Democracy for me is about practical decisions not abstract theories…[my bold]What about 'democracy for us', robbo?How do you know what is 'practical', in the absence of 'abstract theories'?Whatever happened to Marx's 'abstract theories' about 'social theory and practice' and 'democratic production'?It's simply an excuse to try to realise the bourgeois myth of 'Individual Freedom' – you're an ideological individualist, robbo.By 'local' you really mean 'yourself'.
More incoherent drivel.I am not a community, I am just an individual and a community involves several individuals, by definition, And democratic decisionmaking, also by definition, is something applies to communities only. I dont democraticaly debate with myself to make a decision, do I? By local I mean the local community, however defined. I cannot say in advance precisely what the spatial extent of a given local community might be, I wouldn't be so arrogant as to presume otherwise but what I can assert fairly confidently that there will be local communties, however defined And you completely twist and distrot what I say about abstract theories , Certainly I agree that the question of what is practical involves a theory but this is not what I was alluding to and you know that full well, LBird. All thinking involves "theory" in this general sense but I am talking specifically about theories in the specialised sense as organised bodiies of knowledge such as scientific theories which I explicitly referred to So to give an example of what I mean – String Theory in physics. Will this be voted upon in a socialist society to determine whether it is "true". Obviously, no. Why? Because 1) There is absolutely no point in the exercise. What are you hoping to achieve by the exercise? If a minority vote to say the theory is wrong and a majoriy vote to say it is right, how are you going to stop the minority continuing to think it is wrong? Should you even try if you believe in democracy. So what have achieved with the democratic vote? 2) Since the electorate in this instance is essentially boundless – meaning global – you have to organise a global vote. This assumes that most people have even heard of String Theory or are bothered to vote on it, Its also assume a worldwide mechnism for the organisation of such vote and the diversion of considerable manpower and other reseoruces to effect such a vote. If you got more than .001 percent of the population voting you would be lucky. So what is practical worth of the exercise String Theoiry is just one theory; there are hundreds of thousands of other theories in ever conceviable banch of humam knowledge. Are you going to organise a global vote on all of these too? What about art? Are you going to organise a global vote on different t forms of artistic expression to determine their artistic merit. Art too is a social construction so, according to you, must therefore be subject to a democratic vote Frankly you have tied yourslef up in knots with this ridiculous argument of yours about democratic decisionamking. Democracy is about practical decisionmaking , about the allocation of resroceus to desired ends – bot scitific truth or artistic merit. We may not precisely know where the dividing lines is between practical decisions and abstract theories but by inference we can be certain that such a distinction can be be made – just as we can be certain that in capitalism there is a capitalist exploting class and an exploited working class even if the dividing line between them is blurred
LBird wrote:Thanks for your very clear political reply, robbo.All democratic socialists should take note of it.Indeed. And if you claim to be a democratic socialist do you also take note of it? Do you concur with the statement I made or not. Yes or no. And if "no", in what way do you specifically disagree with it, Spit it out LBIrd. Lets hear you concrete objections to what was said in post 10 if you have any….
LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:…as a democratic communist…So you agree that we can elect truth then, robbo?If not, 'who' or 'what' produces 'truth'?
You know my answer to this LBird so stop playing games. I see no point or purpose in 7 billion plus people democraticaly voting on literally tens of thousands of scientifc theories to determine their truth status and I see no practical way in which this crackpot idea can ever be put into effect. If you think otherwsie then explain in practical terms how your idea could be put into effect? But you wont will you? You never doDemocracy for me is about practical decisions not abstract theories and the praxis of communist democracy involves different levels of decisionmaking – local regional and global – but mainly local. Which means local people get to decide democratically what applies at the local level – not the 7 billion plus people that constutue the world's population, Or do you think the whole world population should be able decide on where you want to site your local sewage processing plant?
LBird wrote:LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:…as a democratic communist…So you agree that we can elect truth then, robbo?If not, 'who' or 'what' produces 'truth'?
You don't have to answer that question publicly here, robbo, but, for your own development, try to work out for yourself what you think that the answer is, and then try to work out why you think that.That is, come up with a socio-historic answer of what you believe, where that originated, why that originated, and who benefits from your continuing to believe that answer.Of course, you can always refuse to do this historical analysis of a social product, and just continue to claim that, as an individual, you just know eternal truth (probably on the basis that 'reality' is 'obvious' to your biological senses).alanjjohnstone mentioned a history book on the other thread, and you could do worse than reading that, to help situate your political beliefs about 'nature' and 'science' in a socio-historic context of human production.That is, in a social context that we can change.
Perhaps you would do well to stop trying to patronisingly lecture others on what you see as the inadequacies of their beliefs and what they should do to overcome these and focuss instead on addressing the glaring inadequacies of what they see in your own beliefs. But no – whenever your critics on this forum point out these inadequacies to you, or ask serious questions of you, all you ever do is to point blank ignore them and take refuge in a, by now, very well rehearsed little ritual of intellectual evasion. There is more than a touch of the Jehovah Witness way of looking at the world in your case which is richly ironic given your tendency to boringly and oh-so-predictably label anyone who has the audacity to question your presumed elitist expertise as a…err…"religious materialist"!
LBird wrote:Vin wrote:“In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. "(my emphasis) Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political EconomyI know that you're not very good at this theoretical stuff, Vin, so I'll make it easy for you.'Relations of production' are socio-historical products of human activity.This doesn't mean that 'rocks talk to us', as Religious Materialists like you allege, Vin.No worker with half-a-brain listens to this 19th century guff any more, Vin, so you're wasting your time pretending to them that you have a 'special consciousness' and access to something that they don't have. If you agreed that they had the same access, you'd clearly agree that they could vote on this access, but you don't, so you have to deny democracy to those you pretend to able to persuade to give you power within socialism.Have a nice night, chatting to the rocks.
Nice. LBird has taken the art of patronising others to a new level with this contemptuosuly elitist brush off of his but never mind… The odd thing about this quote that Vin cites is that it comes from Marx, the same Marx who LBird claims to faithfully interpret and endorse unlike the rest of us who are supposed to be "Engelsists" prone to engaging in fascinating conversations with rocks. The point about this quote which seems to have eluded LBird competely is NOT that relations of production' are not socio-historical products of human activity – I don t think that is what either Marx or Vin are suggesting at all – but, rather that these relations present themselves as being independent of the will of individuals. That is to say, particular individuals. Or to put it differently, the way society is organised has a certain "objective" character vis a vis these particular individuals insofar they cannot as individuals do much about it. These relations of production exist for them as a set of external constraints According to emergence theory higher levels of reality "supervene" on lower levels of reality but cannot be reduced to lower levels of reality. So society depends or supervene on concrete individuals – you cannot have society without individuals – but social phenomena , like the "relations of production" that characterise society – cannot be reduced to individuals (who in case differ sharply with one another – for instance over the desirablity of a given set of relations of production). Rather, they are what are called "emergent" phenomena that exhibit a degree of relative autonomy vis a vis these individuals. This is the point that Marx was getting at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence The irony about all this is that it is LBird who, after all, reveals hinself to be an an extreme individualist and reductionist (and Anti-Marxist) by denying the emergent character of social phenomena like the relatons of production. These arise out of the interactions between indviduals rather than .their "will". Only particular individuals can express a "will", Society is not an individual that in some reified sense expresss a "will". So what LBird is saying in effect is that the relations of production that characterise a given society are the direct product of some particuar individuals "will". Naturally, as a democratic communist I throughly repudiate LBird's extreme individualism
jondwhite wrote:Indymedia UK has closed down. Add that to Freedom Newspaper and The People (SLP) who also tried online onlyAnd Common Voice/World in Common unfortunately which was a purely internet-based phenomenon (apart from a very brief spell when a physical leaflet was produced for distribution). This is why I say dont go down that road of becoming totally reliant on the internet. Your primary tap root has to be grounded in the physical reality of face to face contacts, not cyberspace. The internet must of course be exploited in any way you can but it should be seen as supplementing not replacing physical organising and activity
