Is there a problem with non-members commenting on Party issues on Party sites?
- This topic has 68 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Vin Maratty wrote:LBird wrote:That's the nature of 'science', Vin.You apparently prefer religion. You say that you prefer the evidence of your own eyes and ears, to the evidence of a majority vote.
This is a deliberate lie as I have never said this. How could I believe that? That would mean I don't believe Spain or Austrailia exists. You attribute rubbishy ideas to people then knock them down. Absolute rubbish!
Here's a test then, Vin. It's the same one that ALB and DJP had trouble with.If, in post-revolutionary society, the producers voted to install a truth that 'The sun goes round the earth', what would your response be?Mine would be to accept this social truth (and all truth is social) that 'The sun goes round the earth'.Since I know that my 'individual biological senses' don't 'tell me the truth about the really existing external world', I'm compelled to accept what my society tells me.If that society is based on democratic science, and it tells me something different to what I've previously been told, then I would accept the democratic decision of my comrades. I have trust in my comrades' production methods; I'm a democrat and a Communist.This philosophical, political and scientific position is very different from those who argue for elite science (no democracy), individual sense impressions (no democracy) or that the 'physical' or 'material' tells us what it is, outside of a democratic vote (no democracy).Since I'm a Communist, and argue for the democratic control of production by the producers, then I think that I'm being entirely consistent to argue for democratic control of the production of knowledge: that is, 'truth' is a human vote.Now, you might disagree with me, but you have to tell me why, and not just call me a troll, because my views undermine your faith in Engelsian Materialism (or 'physicalism' or 'positivist science').3rd Warning: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).User suspended for indefinite period.
ALB, the intent of this thread is being led astray. It was to be about non-members commenting on Party issues and sites. To try and discern the limits, or otherwise of this. I personally think ALB, it could or would be to the betterment of the Party, to attempt to allow as much inclusivety as possible, in this area. It would be a good way of engageing with our fellow workers, as well as letting them partake in a truly democratic movements discussions.The last NERB was run in this way and as far as I'm concerned, it was a success!
ALB wrote:And I thought this was a thread to discuss SPunk not LBird.Well, that's a surprise; aren't they one and the same? 1st Warning: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.
I thought they were one and the same. Of course you mean non-members, who at some point , may well apply to join the party, which is partly the reason for this Forum being set up.
steven colborn wrote:ALB, the intent of this thread is being led astray. It was to be about non-members commenting on Party issues and sites.I'm not sure if you're alleging that I'm 'leading the thread astray', steve.I'm a non-member, and if the basic philosophy of the Party doesn't count as an 'issue', I don't know what does.The real problem seems to be, not the non-members, but the members, who either don't know their basic philosophy or, if they do know it, can't defend it from the opinions of non-members.
northern light wrote:Of course you mean non-members, who at some point , may well apply to join the party, which is partly the reason for this Forum being set up.Yeah, the party has to expect, if it intends to get working class people to join, to allow them to test what the party actually stands for. The problem is, if working class people join, you might find the nature of the party changing.I said this, when I joined the SWP, to their members and full-timers, and they weren't happy with that suggestion at all. They regarded themselves as the ones with 'The Truth', and merely wanted working class people to accept their 'party truth'. The fact that workers might reject the party truth, because 'non-members' actually knew better than them, had never entered their heads.It's all part of the Leninist conception of 'consciousness', the belief that there is a small minority who have access to truths denied to the majority. The source of this sort of Leninist thinking is Engels' Materialism, itself a poor reflection of 19th century positivism.What would be the reaction by current members if 'materialism' was rejected? Would they simply leave, and hang onto their religion, or face up to the fact that some non-members might actually join, change the party philosophy, and be correct?
ALB wrote:And I thought this was a thread to discuss SPunk not LBird.Hi ALBI'm not so keen on being referred to as SPunk, here's why.spunkRefers to semenal fluid, and also means to ejaculate. However if you're refering to the below, then I could live with it. spunkA cute guy. Usually only NZ and Australian use.
steve colborn wrote:Is there a problem with non-members commenting on Party issues on Party sites? Comment!I think non members and members of the SPGB should be encouraged to comment on all issues on this site, as long as they follow the forum guidlines and rules.
ALB wrote:Sorry, cobber. I hadn't realised. It was meant to be read as Ess Punk as in 'Ell Bird.No worries mate. Just yanking ya chain.
As I stated earlier Vin, non-members, indeed members to, should be encouraged to take part in the fullest possible range of Party activities and forums and contribute to the same within, of course, Party rules. It is something SPunky and myself have dicussed on numerous occasions and IMHO I think it would give credence and added credibility to our democratic credentials!
I kind of agree with Lbird insofar as non-members joining in any great numbers would change the nature of the party, and I'd add it would probably be in a positive way.What is the 'fullest possible range of party activities'? Are you happy with non-members as supporters running party stalls? Or the party hearing formal complaints from non-members about their treatment by party committees? etc. Anyway question is rhetorical and food for thought.
jondwhite wrote:Are you happy with non-members as supporters running party stalls?Maybe or maybe not. All depends who it is.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.