Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Young Master Smeet
ModeratorHollyhead,well, no, it's not a waste of time, we're contesting the meaning of the word. Admittedly, we can call ourselves the Fishcakes Party and claim that Fishcakes is a moneyless, classless and stateless society of common and democratic ownership, but I think that is harder work.The word "Socialism" contains historical usages/meanings that we can recover and shift back to our needs: but that will only start to take off when people need a word to describe a project like the one I outlined above.
Young Master Smeet
ModeratorAlthough his notion of double think is well known, the underlying thesis is broken. His idea was that if you control language and what people say, you will control their minds; however, the apparent truth is that people shape their language through their behaviour, and if a word doesn't exist, they will make one. Whetehr this is down to some innate faculty for language (as per Chomsky) is debatable (and slightly beside the point).The facts are that language is not a mirror of the world, nor is ity necessarily direct. The linguistic philosopher Grice came up with his maxims of implicature, to demonstrate how we communicate by flouting or breaking linguistic rules. That is, that context and discourse determine meaning more than the mere words in themselves. This leads to the revolutionary import of the idea of Marx & Engels in the German Ideology, that social being determines social consciousness.By the same token, the logical positivist J.L. Austin noted that language is performative: we "do things with words". Swearing allegiance to a flag or democracy, even with fingers crossed or with a snigger still remains a declarative perlocution (as the terminology goes), partly because, as noted, language is social, and meaning does not reside internally to the anunciator but in the relations between speaker and hearer: peopel react to our words, and we in turn react to their (or are affected by their choices based on our statements).Language, thus, takes the form of a struggle for meaning and inetrpretation, to define our words and to struggle for understanding of others'.What matters most is what people do with their words, not the words they utter in themselves: for example, a poet praising another's work may be in reality promoting and praising themself by assuming they have the right/capacity to critique (or by inference of similarity). Commitment to high ideals become a means of self promotion, that neglect or forget the practice that underlies those ideas or their actual meaning.
Young Master Smeet
Moderatorhttp://www.leninology.com/ (passim)http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/soviets-without-bolsheviks-the-outside-left-organises/http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/towards-a-new-movement-on-what-basis-do-discussions-begin/People are beginning to discuss what outcome could come of the disappearance of the SWP (I think it is likely to crumble, Labour rightists will not let a single opportunity pass to beat the SWP up over the Comrade Delta affair). While Richard 'Lenin' Seymour is playing the role of internal oppositionist (how long this will be tolerated is questionable), and sending out the call "Stay and fight" its unclear how they can, with the incumbant Central Committee holding all the constitutional cards (even a recall conference is subject to the manipulations of the CC, so its doubtful that could topple them). As some people have noted, as good materialists, the SWP has money, and the actual outcome of the factional spat will be who ends up with the assets, if not the toxic brand.So far as I can see, we can only wish well any attempt to form a genuine, broad (however you define it) socialist movement. Our advice is the same as we gave to the occupy movement: you need to have a democratic mechanism to co-ordinate such a movement (we can call such a mechanisms a "Party"), and you need to aim for political action: you can't abandon the field of elections.After that, we can have the discussion about reformism.Nothing would give me greater pleasure than a call to dissolve ourselves into a bigger, democratic and socialist organisation. Until such a movement adequately addresses the question of Party, Political action and Anti-Reformism, we'll need to stand our ground.
Young Master Smeet
ModeratorNot a lot of time to post, but Ian Bone makes an interesting pont here:http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/01/12/why-no-women-leaders-of-trot-groups/and herehttp://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/01/12/swp-rape-allegation-would-aid-the-edl/
January 10, 2013 at 3:38 pm in reply to: Does the use of censorship have a place among the struggle towards socialism and/or within a future socialist society? #91428Young Master Smeet
ModeratorJust a wee point, I've never defended 'arbitrary' deletion, I've given good reasons why, under conditions of democratic accountability, posts may need to be removed from a forum: abusive posts, legally problematic and disruptive (what you call 'off topic') posts. Now, you accept that there needs to be a moderator who can remove legally problematic and abusive posts, and I've made the case that disruptive ("off topic") posts are a breed of censorship in themselves, and also deserving of deletion.
January 10, 2013 at 2:42 pm in reply to: Does the use of censorship have a place among the struggle towards socialism and/or within a future socialist society? #91426Young Master Smeet
ModeratorSocialistPunk wrote:I have highlighted the problematic part of your assertion. You and JC both referred to the deletion of posts as if abusive posts were/are being deleted for our benefit. Especially the benefit of the abused and abuser. Trying to make out that censorship was not arbitrary, but directed and necessary.No, in the context of a general discussion on the principle of moderation, I have outlined the reasoning behind the necessity for such an institution. I have not discussed any concrete case, just general principles.
SocialistPunk wrote:We seem to be in a position were YMS and JC justify censorship on weak grounds. The abuse is still here for all to see and so could not be said to have been censored to protect anybody. It has also been highlighted with a link to it from another party site, by the abused party. So much for your assumption it's removal is beneficial for the abused and the abuser?You don't need to be telepathic to explain your own reasoning on the subject, just consistent.I don't know why the moderators have acted the way they have. I'm only talking about the basic reasons why we need moderation, and the grounds for which I believe it is reasonable to remove posts from the forum.
Young Master Smeet
ModeratorALB wrote:I'm not sure we can or should use this particular stick to beat the SWP (there are plenty of others).Indeed, however, I'm not sure they will ever live this down, and there will be plenty willing to bring it up at every single turn.
Young Master Smeet
Moderatorhttp://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/944/swp-why-i-am-resigningThis eye witness account suggests why the events were worse(!) than they sounded in the transcript.TBH, this is a really horrible story, full of tragedy all round, no matter which way you turn…
Young Master Smeet
ModeratorActually, the original article you link to is fascinating. I agree with it's substantive point that it is autonomy at firm level that is required. This may be possible cybernetically, along Stafford-Beer's model designed for Allende's Chile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viable_System_Model).It may also point to a refutation of Von Mises: he is right, up to a point. He says rational economics is impossible without monetary calculation. We would say, from an anthropological point of view, monetary calculation is the same as saying commodity relations, which is to say that without economic agents freely relating/negotiating, we can't have rational economic relations. Of course, free agents can negotiate without money. That's one reason why I'm intrigued by the stable matching algorithm, both parties can rank their choices according to any set of preferences (not necessarily manipulable output targets). That may well be one mechanism to achieve moneyless "capital" (really intermediate good) "markets".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_matchingAll that would be required would be that each autonomous agency would have a mission statement and set of preferences to make and mark bids by.
January 10, 2013 at 8:45 am in reply to: Does the use of censorship have a place among the struggle towards socialism and/or within a future socialist society? #91424Young Master Smeet
ModeratorSocialistPunk wrote:JC and YMSLet me clarify this. It seems I am being misunderstood, so I will s p e l l.. i t.. o u t.. simply.I originally drew attention to a couple of posts that had been deleted recently. They helped further inflame the situ as the censored member took offence, as I would if censored. The mod' deemed the posts off topic.At the risk of repeating myself:
TheSmeetAttollah wrote:ISTR that I have addressed it, several times, that disruptive posts (what some people call off-topic) should be removed without mercy, I even gave an example with reference to beginning to discuss rugby on a bakery forum.I don't think you get much plainer and straighter than that, I'm perfectly happy for off topic posts to be deleted (and off-topic posts, by definition, are not relevent).
SocialistPunk wrote:If the deletion of posts (of which I originally drew attention to) is intended to safeguard the forum from abusive posting, according to YMS and JC, then why are there still abusive posts left on this forum?Not being telepathic, I can't say…
Young Master Smeet
ModeratorI'm not seeking an ideal, nor do I think the current set up is ideal, but it'll do.Assume good faith is the real world practice of wikipedia, the gold standard of interweb collaboration (nor is it an ideal, just a working presumption for interaction).
Young Master Smeet
ModeratorI'm not assuming any ideal world: Assume good faith resolves the fallibility issue nicely.I support the status quo.
January 9, 2013 at 9:53 am in reply to: Does the use of censorship have a place among the struggle towards socialism and/or within a future socialist society? #91440Young Master Smeet
ModeratorSocialistPunk wrote:I would be grateful if you could answer this valid point, as YMS refused to touch it.ISTR that I have addressed it, several times, that disruptive posts (what some people call off-topic) should be removed without mercy, I even gave an example with reference to beginning to discuss rugby on a bakery forum.You yourself accept that spam and abusive posts should be removed, and a disruptive post is just an extension of spam.If the technology on this forum allowed individual posts to be moved, I'd prefer that to deletion, but it doesn't.
Young Master Smeet
ModeratorBrian wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:I think consistency is a relatively low priority. Each case will be unique in any case (and if the mods fail to act in one case it has no bearing over their actions in another).You seem to have shot yourself in the foot with that opening sentence because its directly implying that the opposite is the norm i.e. Inconsistency is a relatively high priority. Which is just asking for trouble for without standards there's lack of consistency, and without consistency its really difficult to conduct a review which can be quantified against performance and to also assess what requires improvements in reference to equality of treatment.
Well, no, because my point is that we shouldn't be treating the moderator as if they are the law, or a forum cop. The priority is people agreeing that they want to be on the forum to discuss socialism, and that comes first and foremost, not letting other things get in the way.Rules, and the muliplicity is troll fodder, because they will come, and they will game them, expertly, a general "be excellent to each other" is all that is required.If there is a fight, it doesn't matter who started it, who was insulted by whom and how, what matter is the fight stops, and if that takes banning both parties utterly unfairly, that's what it takes. We need a tartar in the chair.I'll reiterate my central point, if members don't spat and stand on their hindlegs demanding fairness, but instead just get on with debating the points at hand, the problem disappears for everyone.
Young Master Smeet
ModeratorI think consistency is a relatively low priority. Each case will be unique in any case (and if the mods fail to act in one case it has no bearing over their actions in another).More important, than any rules, is to remember the difference between democracy among friends and democracy among enemies. Democracy among friends is the tacit agreement that we want to be together, on this forum, discussing socialism.This is another way of affirming the basic rule of wikipedia: ASSUME GOOD FAITHhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faithThis cuts between members as well as between members and moderators. Assume the moderator is acting in good faith first and foremost, and remember why we're here. The moderator is trying to help discussion. It doesn't matter if you think the moderator is wrong, or has warned you unfairly, it doesn't matter. In the grand scheme of things a warning from the moderator is supremely unimportant, and the response is the exactly same as if it was a fair warning: you back away from any arguments, and get back to discussing the topics in hand.The chair will get it wrong: that doesn't matter, you are bigger than that. Just keep on discussing.If we police ourselves, the moderators don't need to do anything: stay on topic and don't abuse other members. It's that simple, those are the rules. The easy way to abide by them is just never directly address a forum member nor refer to them by name, just like at a physical meeting, you're addressing the chair.And just remember, an argument that lasts a week online would be over in five minutes in the pub.
-
AuthorPosts