Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:I would not, if I were you, put your trust in 'such people'. Every 'such people' the working class has ever trusted has led us into the shit.
I trust the authority of physicists, biologists, doctors, dentists. I have to, I am ignorant and they are informed. Whilst I can, and do .
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:What if 'such people' are unfair and unbalance in their administration. Would we be allowed to point that out?Absolutely, democratic authority means acocuntability. But banging on my door at three in the morning to tell me about a case I can do nothing about would not be welcome. There are times and places for everything.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Are you in favour of censorship?In the sense I discussed above, yes. For example, in a workplace in socialism, if someone engaged in racist discourse, I'd throughly expect them to be asked to stop it, or leave. Now, their right to give and receive racist opinion would not be infringed, in general, since mechanisms for such dissemination would have to be established, but the freedom of association of their colleague in their workplace would have to be maintained and protected. Also, the right to receive opinion also includes the right not to receive unwelcome communication.
Interestingly, this is how the OED defines Censor (n.):
OED wrote:1. The title of two magistrates in ancient Rome, who drew up the register or census of the citizens, etc., and had the supervision of public morals. a. transf. One who exercises official or officious supervision over morals and conduct.b. spec. An official in some countries whose duty it is to inspect all books, journals, dramatic pieces, etc., before publication, to secure that they shall contain nothing immoral, heretical, or offensive to the government. More explicitly dramatic censor, film censor.†a. A person who judges or criticizes.Obs. b. esp. One who censures or blames; an adverse critic; one given to fault-finding.Obviously, the verb to censor comes from the name of the ancient office (I clipped out a few definitions that I don't need). Now, it will be clear, that there will be need for the type of censorship implied by "One who censures or blames; an adverse critic; one given to fault-finding." even if that is not a formal position. Obviously, we're not talking here about someone sitting down and vetting all publications pre-emptively, in the totalitarian sense, but in the sense of someone reminding people with a common purpose that there are rules and expected behaviours. Such people could even have authority, in the sense of knowing what they are talking about and being held in esteem and respect by their peers for such knowledge. they could also have democratic authority, in that they may be elected to such purpose.I'd imagine most workplaces and organisations would have a censor, or a censorship function, just as the Socialist Party has a variety of mechanisms for dispute resolution.Of course, the ancient Roman office was a strike against the Tribunate, to try and claw some power back for the Patricians as they were being forced to surrender access to the consulship to Plebeians. To get away with it, though, they nexploited the need to define who was a citizen and who could take part in elections.
Tom Rogers wrote:As previously stated, the physical fact of race is, to me, empirically self-evident. By denying this, you deny what is plainly in front of you.Well, I'm open to debate, but I also don't believe the self-evident fact that the sun goes round the Earth. If you're unable to defend your position, to given any examples of the evident existence of race, to which I appear ignorant, then I will have to continue to suffer my delusion.
Tom Rogers wrote:OK, but again so what? Just because the characteristics that form a man-made, socially-constructed racial classification are accidental – even random – it does not follow that race itself is not a physical fact.Nearly, except that I am disputing the "physical fact of race". The onus is now on you to demonstrate that there is some "physical fact", some Thing we can call race. Specifically, you'll need to demonstrate how the "empirically self-evident" differences between people differ from the "empirically self-evident" physical fact that the sun goes round the Earth.If you can't, we're left with the relatively banal idea that human beings are not genetically identical with each other, and the differences between any given two people become greater the further back you can trace a shared ancestor.p.s. gender is a social construct, sex isn't.
Tom, what you said was:
Tom Rogers wrote:Thanks. You state [as far you know] that race has no solid basis in biology or DNA terms, but I do not see how that assertion can hold. I am white and it seems apparent to me that there are both particular and average group differences between, on the one hand, myself and other whites, and on the other hand, people of other races: for instance, people of African origin. Apart from anything else, it just seems empirically self-evident that there are differences and it seems to me quite odd to deny this.to which I replied
YMS wrote:there are no inherent sets of characteristics/bundles of features by which any human population can be separated from any other.i.e. that the apparent differences are only accidental, and not a factor of a coherent thing called 'race'. indeed, within apparent "racial" groups, you'll find more variation of genetics/features than between such groups. The coincidence of, say, blond hair and blue eyes is not essential, the two features can be divorced.For instance, I am "white" (well, grey), but I have patches of brown skin (often referred to as freckles, but essentially, they are patches of melanin, which means that the difference between myself and a "brown" person is not qualitative but quantitative).Differences in skin tone are no more significant than difference in height or eye colour.
Tom,the reason we say there is no such thing as race, is that there are no inherent sets of characteristics/bundles of features by which any human population can be separated from any other. The perceptive differences between people are accompanied by overwhelming similarity. What there are are a series of characteristic frequencies. Take a look at the notion "black" how many "black" people actually have black skin? hardly any. Most are a shade of brown. Most "white" people are a funny sort of grey/red colour. Some east asians used to be referred to as yellow, but other than Jaundice victims, no one is actually a yellow colour. The discourse of skin colour is socially determined, and has little to do with the reality of human morphological variation.Lets try an easy counter example. Dapple horses are easilly distinguished from chestnut, but no-one would seriously claim that dapple horses were a different race/sub-species, it's just a colour tone (and no stallion would spend five seconds choosing a dapple over a chestnut mare).Likewise, a horse looking at two humans would probably not notice the skin colour or hair, and just see a human.
You have to laugh through your tears at the evil genius:http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/943/swp-expelled-before-conference-begins
Quote:The four expelled members are Paris Thompson (Leeds), Tim Nelson (Bristol), Charlotte Bence (London) and Adam Marks (London) – the first two had contributions published in the Internal Bulletins, as the documents are known. Ironically, temporary factions are permitted during the three-month pre-conference period and we are in such a period right now (the 2013 SWP conference will be held in London over the weekend of January 4-6). But the SWP constitution stipulates that the central committee must be notified of their formation in a document signed by “at least 30 members of the party”.The 30 members for a faction is hilarious: how do you know you have thirty memebrs before you start asking, and if you ask, your factionalising without permission, so you can't get to 30 members.Also, that Paris and Tim have been effectively expelled for contributing to the Internal Bulletin, the lesson goes out that if you challenge the Centre's line, you're out. Also, you have to think that the Centre must have begun invesitigating those memebrs as soon as they chose to cotnribute, evidence will always be found if you really want to expel someone and have no checks and balances on the process.
Just another small point: note the way the SWP avoids votes. The CC slate is circulated, and ambitious members who come forward will just be added, there are no votes at conference just summaries of debate. There is no way to quantify dissent (an important tool for anyone seeking to build a new majority).Of course, SWPers condemn nose counting, asking why the vote of one person should determine the outcome; and I've seen in practice a reluctance to just settle arguments with a vote, with the 'leading' member able to drag out debate in order to try and get their way.This could be sold, I suppose, as an attempt to build consensus (indeed, wasn't that how occupy worked as well), but we soon see that without the right to be outvoted, a determined minority can come to dominate discussion.
Quote:The systems are expensive, but they do mean that the right items can be correctly and quickly identified and retrieved. Storing them in an optimal way so that the most highly requested items are quicker to retrieve is often part of the system as well. Using staff would take much longer and would occasionally involve errors. It is easy to take all this for granted.Check out the patent for the stock storage system he links to: regulated stock control anyone?Also, note, how the so-called internet revolution is simultaneously a revolution in warehouse management, a material change in the real economy.
At the risk of slightly de-railing:http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/rules_draft.htmThose are the rules of the Communist League (of which Marx & Engels were members). I may have posted them somewhere before. They make for an interesting comparison, since they are dealing with a secret society. Interestingly, they had a membership exam:
Quote:These five questions are:a. Are you convinced of the truth of the principles of the community of property? b. Do you think a strong League is necessary for the realisation of these principles as soon as possible, and do you wish to join such a League? c. Do you promise always to work by word and deed for spreading and the practical realisation of the principles of the community of property? d. Do you promise to observe secrecy about the existence and all affairs of the League? e. Do you promise to comply with the decisions of the League?Then give us on this your word of honour as guarantee!Apart from (d) they could suffice for our membership.What's notable, is that even for a secret society, this is a much more democratic organisation than the SWP's (the 'official' Leninist footnote observes:
Quote:It shows the reorganisation work done by the League of the Just leaders as agreed with Marx and Engels, who consented early in 1847 to join the League on the condition that it would he reorganised on a democratic basis and all elements of conspiracy and sectarianism in its structure and activity would be eliminated. Engels, who was present at the Congress, took a direct part in drawing up the Rules. The draft recorded the change in the League’s name, and it is referred to here as the Communist League for the first time. The new motto, “Working Men of All Countries, Unite!” was also used for the first time. The former leading body, the narrow People’s Chamber (Halle), was replaced by the supreme body — the Congress, composed of delegates from local circles; the executive organ was to be the Central Authority. The relations between all the League organisations were based on principles of democratism and centralism. At the same time a number of points in the draft showed that the reorganisation was not yet complete and that former traditions were still alive, namely: Art. 1 formulating the aims of the League; one of the points in Art. 3, making the sectarian stipulation that members were not to belong to any other political organisation; Art. 21, limiting the powers of the Congress by the right of the communities to accept or reject its decisions, etc.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/rules.htmSlightly more centralised version of the rules. Still more democratic than the SWP.
Wow, the first bulletin contains the mythic SWP constitution. Some snippets:http://www.cpgb.org.uk/assets/files/swpinternalbulletins/PreConf_Bulletin_i_Oct_2012.pdf(Page 25)
Quote:Branches and/or districts elect delegates to Conference on a basis proportional to their membership, as determined by the Central Committee.[…](5) Central Committee The CC consists of members elected by the Conference according to the following procedure: The outgoing Central Committee selects and circulates a provisional slatefor the new CC at the beginning of the period for pre-Conference discussion. This is then discussed at the district aggregates where comrades can propose alternative slates.At the Conference the outgoing CC proposes a final slate (which may have changed as a result of the pre-Conference discussion). This slate, along with any other that is supported by a minimum offive delegates, is discussed and voted on by Conference.Between Conferences the CC is entrusted with the political leadership of the organisation and is responsible for the national direction of all political and organisational work, subject to thedecision- making powers of Conference.Note: there is no specification of the size of the CC, so they can always co-opt oppositionists to the official slate. Also note the CC controls the size of conference, which can make it more manageable.Let's see how they justify this:
Quote:The necessity of a revolutionary party flows from the fact that although the working class must collectively emancipate itself, the ideological domination of the ruling class means there is considerable uneveness within the working class in terms of its confidence, organisation and ideas. The role of a revolutionary party is to draw together the militant minority who understand the need for revolution, not to substitute for the class, but to constantly seek ways to act to increase workers’ combativity and confidence and in the process win wider layers of workers to socialist ideas.[…]And the existence of a leadership is a necessity. Uneveness in terms of experience, confidence and clarity of ideas exists not just inside the working class as a whole, but also within the revolutionary party. The more roots the party has inside the working class, the more it is able to intervene in the class struggle, the greater this uneveness will be.(CC statement in the third bulletin). Note, it assumes that the leadership is the pinacle of this uneven consciousness, and instead of seeking to challenge the "unevenness" seeks to work within it, and in effect justifies a technocratic/theocratic elite dictating to the ignorant, rather than a two way dialogue between revolutionaries and workers. After all, for all we (naturally) assume that we are right, we enter into debate, and have to withstand the possibility that we may be proved wrong.
Quote:The state-of-the-art facility will be controlled by some 160km of robotic shelf space, with newspapers kept in low oxygen to prevent risk of fire.http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2012/12/10/1303512/the-robot-economy-and-the-new-rentier-class/
Quote:So, robot and technology power is reducing the natural employment rate. But rather than our subsidising those who have lost jobs to technology, so as to spread that manna wealth that’s literally dropped onto the surface of the earth at no-one’s physical disadvantage, companies are using monopoly power to extort rents on the capital that is creating all that free wealth.Maybe this analysis is starting to go mainstream, and it should have significant effects. What striver can outstrive a machine?
Cheers for looking. Thought it might be worth a look at (in light of Socialist Punk's question yesterday).
Some fascinating stats from the 2011 census:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20677321
Quote:The second-most common category was "No religion", comprising more than a quarter of the population (25.1%; 14.1 million), up from 7.7 million (14.8%) in 2001.(Note, The Christian 33.2 million is split between several denominations, so it'c clear that no-religion is the biggest "religious" group outright).http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20677515
Quote:The census also shows that, while fewer people own their own home, more people own it outright. Just under 15 million households owned their own home in 2011, either with a mortgage or loan, or outright – a decrease of four percentage points since 2001…However, those who owned their home outright increased two percentage points from 29% (6.4 million) to 31% (7.2 million)…The group that rented from a private landlord or letting agency increased by six percentage points from 9% (1.9 million) in 2001 to 15% (3.6 million) in 2011.
