Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
To recap Lbirds case:There is no objective reality (unsubstantiated major proposition – often backed up by dubious quotations from Marx, if not outrright misreadings, so an appeal to authority).The claim that there is an objective reality backs up existing elites (again, unsubstantiated, and disputed: for example, Trump subscribes, like Lbird, to the Authoritarian Theory of Truth. Trump lies, consciously and continuously, buit relies on his partisans to claim that any fact based rebuttal is in fact ideological opposition – to my mind, the denial of objective reality is in fact advantageous to a ruling elite, since there is nothing ti weigh their claims against).Lbird then backs this up with a number of fallacious argumentations: anyone who disputes his theory is objectively supporting the ruling class ideology, and necessarily defending elite rule (a kind of bifurcation fallacy, there are only two choices, Lbird's theory, or Engelsian materialism). This is then turned into an ad hominem attack on the individual putting the claim, backed up by application of snarl terms ("religious materialist" is clearly a provocation, possibly born of debating experience and an attempt to shoot the fox of being called religious themself).I could go on, but that is it in a nutshell.Questions Lbird needs to answer is: why, in their abstract democracy, do we need the existence of the working class to make socialism? Surely any majority of humans at any time in history could have voted for communism?How can we know the result of a vote, since knowledge has to be voted on, so what is this voting that is outside of democratic authority?Other than the voting, how does Lbird's idea of science differ from Lysenkoism, which demonstrably failed?Marx discussed inorganic nature, and humanities relationship with it, but if inorganic nature possesses no properties, can it be said to exist, and how can an entity with properties interact with it?I could go on, but that will do for now.
LBird wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:It is a key feature of elitism to assume that your audience is at fault for not understanding your arguments, don't you think?But I do think that you understand my arguments, from your anti-democratic, Engelsian, Religious Materialist perspective.That's what I keep telling you, that you need to examine your own ideology.
I am a democratic communist, unlike you, Lbird. I'm not the one who has to twist Marx's words so that when he says "material" he means "social".
Lbird wrote:The reason you don't like my arguments, is that they are democratic, and you all seem to want 'specialists' to make our social production decisions for us.Go on, find one quote where I actually said that?
LBird wrote:So, YMS, read this post, and stop making up stories about what I'm supposedly writing.But you have just said I do understand what you are saying?
LBird wrote:You, like robbo, YMS and the others, mcolome1, should actually start to read what I write, and not live in a mythical world of outrage, ignorance and misunderstanding.Elementary science suggests we have read what you wrote, and reacted to it: so maybe the problem is with how you communicate your ideas. Or maybe the problem is with the ideas themselves. It is a key feature of elitism to assume that your audience is at fault for not understanding your arguments, don't you think?
LBird wrote:No, I'm insisting that only the democratic producers have the right to determine "which form of democracy in practice is most suitable for their conditions".Including deciding not to vote on scientific truth? I'm happy with that, a future socialist society will be free to decide to vote on whether to vote on determining what is true (let's leave aside how we'll know the result of that vote, maybe we can vote on it). If I'm around, I'll vote against.
LBird wrote:If there are any other SPGB members reading this exchange, who disagree with mod1, they should make their opinions known now, otherwise the SPGB will be seeming to endorse mod1's political opinions, philosophy, method, and specific 'theory of democracy'.1) Many party members are not on this forum.2) The party's democratically decided decision making procedure does not include allowing silence on an internet forum to detmerine party policy.What would I know, I'm a democratic communist who wants a conscious association where the free development of each shall be the free development of all. All I know is that Lbird is not a democratic communist. Why does Lbird hide their ideology from us? Come on Lbird, reveal your ideology.
http://socialisteconomicbulletin.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/wages-are-falling.html
Quote:Real wages are falling once more. In addition, nominal wages have fallen in the last 2 months which is highly unusual. Both of these developments are Brexit effects and the situation is likely to get worse as Brexit unfolds.[…]But investment has been falling. It was lower at the end of 2016 than in mid-2015. Without investment it is extremely difficult to create new highly-paid jobs. The new jobs that are being created tend to be lower paid, and push down average wages, even in nominal terms.Ah, at last Lbird has revealed their ideology.I myself am a democratic communist, who wants "an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." Lbird is not a democratic communist, they are a borganist.
https://theconversation.com/islamic-state-prepares-for-life-after-mosul-as-iraqi-morale-runs-low-74869It's turned into a meat grinder: and here's a chance the Iraqi state may not survve victory, if its elite forces are denuded, and th Sunni sections of society support a sustained guerilla campaign.Genius.Meanwhile, in Syria:Ass is losing his grip to the militias he relies on:http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/assad-power-slips-in-syria-as-warlords-grow-more-powerful-a-1137475.htmlOh, and from iraq body count: Saturday 18 March: 85 killed.Mosul: 30 killed by government shelling; 24 found in mass grave; 24 by air strikes.
OMG!! the Tsar has abdicated!https://twitter.com/RT_1917/status/842130728972345347
As I've said, kin from either side of the border: 2,000 years of stealing each other's cattle: the family business will resume if IndyRef goes through…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27472384andhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32350269Both videos have an 'embed' link, so should be safe to post on blogs, social media etc. under the BBC's basic social media sharing policy, so long as they aren't cut into anything else.http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05vdx7tDoesn't appear to be available, but that may be a temporary fault, but I doubt we'd get in trouble over the previous youtubing of it.
ALB wrote:Vin wrote:During my enquiries, I learned that BBC political Interviews cannot be used by political organisations.I'm prepared to believe that if asked this question directly that's how they might be obliged to reply but I'm not convinced they would not and do not tolerate it in practice (unless it was implied that the BBC endorsed the views expressed which of course nobody watching a political interview would think).All political parties do this. For example:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFKIot9UNAkhttps://youtu.be/YEyrw1CgqAUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8e_jPQx9jIWe'd be completely stupid to take our election interviews and broadcasts down.
I think the difference with these is these are reposting of BBC clips, which the bbc seems happy to allow on social media, however to edit and insert into our own work is a different matter (that's a derivitive work).
Vin wrote:All free images, that's why they were crap The video has no copyright issues and no one has yet proved the scurrilouss rumour. 'looks like' 'could be'Sorry if I'm losing the plot here, but, you contacted the BBC regarding the original edit of the video, the BBC asserted their copyright, but later said it was fine to use your edited version of the video.Because it looks to me like the party wasn't mislead, there was a copyright issue, and it was resolvable by contacting the copyright holder? And that's all we need to do.recklessness is an aggaravating factor which could be used against us, whilst visible compliance could protect us from malicious claims (and inadvertent ingringements).
Just to note there is a difference between copyright compliance and the risks associated with using copyrighted works.Copyright is inherent, and exists in the mere fact of intellectual output (in the case of a BBC interview, the framing of the short and the cutting/editting will create an inherent BBC copyright); whether BBC will enforce that copyright is a different matter (and whether other people are runnign risks with copyright also doesn't matter).The point isn't whether works contain copyright material, but whether we have done enough to ensure we have upheld the moral and legal rights of copyright holders (and common politeness). This is a useful resource:https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright
Thump of the 'ecky! It's happened!https://twitter.com/RT_1917/status/841314323016343552
