Conversation between Mod1 and LBird
- This topic has 108 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
So, mcolome1, your reply is to continue with personal abuse?I wonder why the SPGB is so reluctant to enter into political discussion. Whatever the reason, it doesn't look like I'm going to get any sense out of you, either.
LBird wrote:So, mcolome1, your reply is to continue with personal abuse?I wonder why the SPGB is so reluctant to enter into political discussion. Whatever the reason, it doesn't look like I'm going to get any sense out of you, either.The same way like you
Ah, but I'm not allowed to respond to your insults, mcolome1, so it's not the same at all.Here we can see the political relationship between workers and the SPGB 'specialists' that will be produced in any future version of 'socialism' that the SPGB apparently intends to build.
LBird wrote:Ah, but I'm not allowed to respond to your insults, mcolome1, so it's not the same at all.Here we can see the political relationship between workers and the SPGB 'specialists' that will be produced in any future version of 'socialism' that the SPGB apparently intends to build.But hold on here LBird – you subscribe to an ultra-centralised Leninist model of complete society-wide decision making on everything. You clearly do not envisage any form of local democracy operating in your system because this would be a limitation on democracy in your view – it "limits" the electorate on certain local issues to local people. Are you not doing exactly what you charge the SPGB with doing? That is to say, you are an elitist who unilaterally prescribes a particular model of decisionmaking in which the workers have had no say in the making of.
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.
As I've said several times now (and will probably get banned for repeating myself), if anyone is interested in my ideas (and those of Marx), I recommend that they read what I write (and what Marx wrote).But probably of more political importance now, also to ask robbo and YMS to explain why the SPGB argues for the political concept of 'Limited democracy', and that an elite of 'Specialists' will predetermine the nature of those 'Limits'.It throws a whole new light of the SPGB's 'Parliamentarianism', doesn't it?
LBird wrote:But probably of more political importance now, also to ask robbo and YMS to explain why the SPGB argues for the political concept of 'Limited democracy', and that an elite of 'Specialists' will predetermine the nature of those 'Limits'.We don't argue for that, and you have not provided a single quote from me to prove that I have ever said any such thing: I'm afraid you construct straw men (per your birfurcation fallacy) and wnyone who doesn't agree with you automatically supports elite domination.I'll note that my attempt to engage with you, and see if I was understanding your arguments correctly has been met with yet one more example of you withdrawing from debate, rather than seaking to cl;arify your ideas.
Clearly Lbird has stopped replying to Robbo because he has no reply. Nothing new there. Restart the baseless insults later, eh?
LBird wrote:As I've said several times now (and will probably get banned for repeating myself), if anyone is interested in my ideas (and those of Marx), I recommend that they read what I write (and what Marx wrote).But probably of more political importance now, also to ask robbo and YMS to explain why the SPGB argues for the political concept of 'Limited democracy', and that an elite of 'Specialists' will predetermine the nature of those 'Limits'.It throws a whole new light of the SPGB's 'Parliamentarianism', doesn't it?L Bird, I have missed you, you do make me laugh.You seem to have a made a real issue of specialism and seem to see the development of specialisms as being somehow anti-democratic. I do find this particularly funny, as you then go on and claim to be the specialist on Marx. You seem to associate specialism with power or authority (perhaps this is the consequence of your earlier encounters with Leninist parties).Within our party we have recently appointed some members to take over designing and developing the layout of the Socialist Standard. To do this task, other more experienced members have agreed to show them how it is done and develop their "specialist" knowledge as to how to do this.As a party member, I have no need to vote on every aaspect of how they develop the layout of the Socialist Standard. For example, I don't give a flying f*ck whether they use a Microsoft based programme or an Apple based programme to design the layout, such things bore me rigid.All members of the party can, however, if they wish, raise the layout of the Socialist Standard through the democratic channels of the party, should I and or other members not be happy with the finished product. However I doubt this will be the situation, as I'm sure that the members delegated to undertake this task will do that to the best of their ability.and in the best interests of the party.Similar examples could be given for various positions within the SPGB. We as an organisation trust our members to get on with using their specialist knowedge to the benefit of the party, election to (or in many cases, volunteering for) these specialist positions does not confer special privilege. They are trusted to do the job, until that trust is shown to be misplaced, which to be honest it rarely is.The issue you seem to have is with trusting others, you seem to see the need to micro manage everything, which I find very interesting.In your previous postings, you have dismissed my interest in the workings of the human mind as "cod psychology". Perhaps then you would indulge my interests into the functinoing of your mind by answering yes or no to the following questions about your early life and the issue of trust?Question 1. – When you were an egg, was your shell colour similar but not exactly the same as the eggs of your siblings in the nest? (Yes/No)Question 2. – Do you have a slight memory of haing a different mother bird to that of your sibling eggs? (Yes/No)Question 3. – Was your egg, much bigger than those of your siblings? (Yes/No)Question 4. – When you hatched did you find you squawked a great deal and made much more noise than those around you? (This habit may have carried on into adult life) (Yes/No)Question 5. – As a a young bird did you feel there were unexplained differences between you and your siblings? (Yes/No)Question 6. – As a very young bird, did you find an irresistable urge to kill your siblings by throwing them out of the nest? (Yes/No)Question 7. – Did you feel a need to monopolise the food supply from you "mother" at the expense of all others around you? (Yes/No)Question 8. – Do you feel the urge around September time to depart for the sunnier climes of Africa, only to feel a similar urge to fly back to the UK in February? (Yes/No)I would say, using my considerable knowledge of cod psuchology, that if you have answered yes to all of the questions above, you are probably completely cuckoo, something which I think most of us have suspected for some time.
It seems that I've hit a sensitive spot!The political concepts of 'Limited Democracy', 'Elite Specialists', and the nature of 'Limits' which are to be determined by this unelected elite, should really be explained more fully by the SPGB.I'm inclined to think that these concepts are necessary political requirements, of those who share Lenin's epistemological views, that is, Religious Materialism.And the concept of 'World Socialism' also seems to be very far from the political framework of those arguing for Religious Materialism.I'd always assumed that 'World Socialism' was a democratic concept for all socialists, but it appears my assumption is being corrected. If 'World Socialism' involves 'Limited Democracy', just who are the 'Specialists' who will determine those limits, prior to, and to the exclusion of, the producers themselves? Is it to be the SPGB?
LBird wrote:It seems that I've hit a sensitive spot!I'd always assumed that 'World Socialism' was a democratic concept for all socialists, but it appears my assumption is being corrected. If 'World Socialism' involves 'Limited Democracy', just who are the 'Specialists' who will determine those limits, prior to, and to the exclusion of, the producers themselves? Is it to be the SPGB?No you have not hit a sensitive spot. World Socialism still is – not was – a democratic concept for all socialists. It will be the majority, not the so called specialists socialists, like yourself, calling the shots prior to the transformation, who'll decide what the limits on democracy will entail. As its their democratic right to do so, and if they decide your pet theory is an abberation of democracy they'll vote accordingly.
Vin wrote:Clearly Lbird has stopped replying to Robbo because he has no reply. Nothing new there. Restart the baseless insults later, eh?Yes Indeed Vin, He refuses to anwer the simple question of whether he supports the notion of localised forms of democracy and now we know why. Its becuase he has something to hide. He is a Leninist at heart who support the Leninist model of decisonmaking for society but is too embarrassed to come out and honestly admit to his Leninist inclinations, His model of decision-making absolutely guarantees the most extreme form of elitism that is possible Remember this whenever Lbird accuses the SPGB of "Leninism" and "elitism"
moderator1 wrote:LBird wrote:It seems that I've hit a sensitive spot!I'd always assumed that 'World Socialism' was a democratic concept for all socialists, but it appears my assumption is being corrected. If 'World Socialism' involves 'Limited Democracy', just who are the 'Specialists' who will determine those limits, prior to, and to the exclusion of, the producers themselves? Is it to be the SPGB?No you have not hit a sensitive spot. World Socialism still is – not was – a democratic concept for all socialists. It will be the majority, not the so called specialists socialists, like yourself, calling the shots prior to the transformation, who'll decide what the limits on democracy will entail. As its their democratic right to do so, and if they decide your pet theory is an abberation of democracy they'll vote accordingly.
[my bold]Then we have no political disagreement, mod1.Clearly, given your formulation, 'the majority' can decide whether there will be 'limits', and if so, what those 'limits' will be.This is at odds with what you've argued previously, though.Unless you wish to modify what you've just said, and return to your previous stance, that 'limits' exist prior to their social production by the democratic producers?The ball's in your court, mod1.
LBird wrote:So, mcolome1, your reply is to continue with personal abuse?LBird, You have graduated with a Magna Cum Laude in Insults in this forum. I am still attending Grammar School PS Just look that my citation of what you said it says wrote, it does not say "link" like the one you cited about me
robbo203 wrote:Vin wrote:Clearly Lbird has stopped replying to Robbo because he has no reply. Nothing new there. Restart the baseless insults later, eh?Yes Indeed Vin, He refuses to anwer the simple question of whether he supports the notion of localised forms of democracy and now we know why. Its becuase he has something to hide. He is a Leninist at heart who support the Leninist model of decisonmaking for society but is too embarrassed to come out and honestly admit to his Leninist inclinations, His model of decision-making absolutely guarantees the most extreme form of elitism that is possible Remember this whenever Lbird accuses the SPGB of "Leninism" and "elitism"
There is a thread named; SPGB vs Leninism, or Lenin contrasted where he reeceived several knockouts. He is still laying on the floor of the ring, and he has not answered any one of the arguments that were posted against his allegations that the Socialist Party is a Leninist party. He was repeating his old lyrics but he was not able to prove anything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.