Minimalism
- This topic has 55 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Jonathan Chambers wrote:Blimey. This is really straightforward. Leaving aside the fact that neither Sussex Socialist nor myself ever said that our motivation was anything like what we’ve been accused of, it is blatantly obvious from OGW’s statement that he thinks that a socialist revolution will necessarily increase production. I’ve merely suggested that that won’t be the case. And what’s happened? A series of distortions and hilarious ad hominem attacks is what’s happened. Shameful
Once again, you “INFER”, what OGW meant, or thinks! I think he made it quite plain what he meant. It was nothing like your inference of his written words. Once again, here is his post. No distortions, merely a restatement of what he actually wrote; “I guess noone was interested in the Marxist view of production and consumption. If your motivation is to have a revolution in order to reduce production and consuption it has nothing to do with marxist socialism”What can only be deemed shameful is your presumption, of what he meant. When in actuality, he stated quite unequivocally his meaning and intent! And in post 27, there was no mention of “increasing production on all fronts”, they were your words not his. Or, if you prefer, your inference of his words, not his actual words.Read post 27 again and you cannot disavow the veracity of this statement
it is blatantly obvious from OGW’s statement that he thinks that a socialist revolution will necessarily increase production.
Blatantly obvious to whom? You, in your interpretation?What one can infer, by your posts, is that, with your minimalist views you do, in fact, imagine a reduction of production and consumption! Or is that a SHAMEFUL misrepresentation of YOUR views? “it is blatantly obvious from OGW’s statement that he thinks that a socialist revolution will necessarily increase production. I’ve merely suggested that that won’t be the case.” And it is blatantly obvious from OGW’s comment, that neither did he, one way or another.
This is not an academic exercise, nor an exercise in semantics. Who can twist and turn like a gymnast the best. No-one is point scoring. I would imagine we all want the same thing? a world that is not Capitalism.
Here endeth the lesson. Lets get over ourselves and get the ultimate over capitalism, IT’S END.How you interpret OGW’s initial comment is your own business, Steve. In the absence of any qualification whatsoever to his suggestion that Marxist socialism will involve an increase in production my interpretation was valid. My argument has been that socialism will increase production where necessary and reduce or halt useless production. OGW disagrees and wants a socialist society so that we can produce even more useless shite that damages the planet and serves no-one’s interests. Or perhaps you want to argue that OGW didn’t suggest that he’s a socialist because he wants – among other things – to gorge himself on even more Big Macs?
Jonathan Chambers wrote:How you interpret OGW’s initial comment is your own business, Steve. In the absence of any qualification whatsoever to his suggestion that Marxist socialism will involve an increase in production my interpretation was valid. My argument has been that socialism will increase production where necessary and reduce or halt useless production. OGW disagrees and wants a socialist society so that we can produce even more useless shite that damages the planet and serves no-one’s interests. Or perhaps you want to argue that OGW didn’t suggest that he’s a socialist because he wants – among other things – to gorge himself on even more Big Macs?Who do you think you are making judgements on what I eat! What do you eat? Do I care? Are you a control freak?This is a socialist Party. There are other organisations for vegitarians, tree huggers, Greens and eco warriors. I am now using your method of argument. You totally ignore my argument and use terms like ‘gorge himself on even more big macs’ and suggest that I wish to increase arms production. These accusations are a smoke screen for your ignorance. If you can’t answer my critiscisms of your untenable position then why not admit it or go away.
Jonathan Chambers wrote: “But look. Are you suggesting that a socialist revolution necessarily entails an increase in productive powers? That seems like a preposterous claim to me.” can you explain and justify this anti – socialist comment. Or will you make a personal attack as is your tactic
You haven’t made any criticisms of what you call my ‘untenable position’. In fact you’ve shown no indication of even the faintest glimmer of understanding of what my position is. And it isn’t that I’ve ignored your argument, it’s rather that you haven’t made one. You have been aggressive and insulting from the outset. You have completely derailed what was promising to become an interesting discussion and now you are resorting to completely unfounded allegations. I’ll tell you who I think I am and why I’m qualified to discredit your defence of shit food, shall I? I’m someone who understands the way in which the profit system degrades the food that we eat in order to enhance profit margins and deplores the disgraceful way in which food is adulterated to the point where it isn’t worth eating. A socialist society will not feed people on mass-produced generic cack that isn’t fit for human consumption and damages the planet in its process of production. Simple as that. Socialism will produce the best of things for everyone as a matter of course. And no, I’m not making any kind of judgement on what you eat. Insofar as you are able to choose what you eat you are free to eat whatever you like. If you want to eat tasteless, textureless, factory-produced, standardised cack that has little or no nutritious value that’s your business.
Jonathan Chambers wrote: “But look. Are you suggesting that a socialist revolution necessarily entails an increase in productive powers? That seems like a preposterous claim to me.” can you explain and justify this anti – socialist comment. Or will you make a personal attack as is your tacticDo you find the the party’s position preposterous
Jonathan Chambers wrote:“And no, I’m not making any kind of judgement on what you eat. Insofar as you are able to choose what you eat you are free to eat whatever you like. If you want to eat tasteless, textureless, factory-produced, standardised cack that has little or no nutritious value that’s your business.”The point is – how will you impose your will on someone in socialism. Is cake and pie a junk food, Is alcohol junk. This is your argument and it is untenable. Where do you draw the line on healthy food? You are not an expert. The experts say that there is no such thing as health food. Just a good balanced diet, which can include a treat such as cake or wine. I don’t eat Big Macs. My point is that socialism will allow me to eat what I want. I actually eat very healthy, go to the gym and run 3 times a week. So your criticism of me is also untenable
Jonathan, you originally stated;
“And I’m afraid you did suggest that socialism will involve an increase in production on all fronts. That’s what I’ve been questioning.”
You never retracted this false assertion, even though it was proven incorrect and was merely your ASSUMPTION, of what OGW meant.
Now you make up even more delusional clains; “How you interpret OGW’s initial comment is your own business, Steve. In the absence of any qualification whatsoever to his suggestion that Marxist socialism will involve an increase in production my interpretation was valid. My argument has been that socialism will increase production where necessary and reduce or halt useless production. OGW disagrees and wants a socialist society so that we can produce even more useless shite that damages the planet and serves no-one’s interests. Or perhaps you want to argue that OGW didn’t suggest that he’s a socialist because he wants – among other things – to gorge himself on even more Big Macs?”
Your words again, not OGW’s.
But now you will not back up your initial assertion, you have gone from claiming OGW wants production increasing on ALL fronts, to merely an increase in production.
Furthermore, where, anywhere, did OGW want production of, as YOU say, more useless shite. Once again, I have read the previous posts and cannot find a single instance to back up this claim.
Also, you state, “How you interpret OGW’s initial comment is your own business, Steve.”
In actual fact, I did not interpret his words. They were expressed quite clearly, with no need for interpretation. Once again, here are his OWN words,
“I guess noone was interested in the Marxist view of production and consumption. If your motivation is to have a revolution in order to reduce production and consuption it has nothing to do with marxist socialism”
Can you not see, that the insults came from you, in your unjustified assertions of things that were never written? Claiming what was never written and using this to perpetuate this argument, YOU generated.
Stop INFERRING WHAT WAS WRITTEN, OR MEANT, just read what was written.
It is YOU Jonathan, who has been AGGRESSIVE and INSULTING from the outset. Not only towards OGW but to myself as well, a stance, neither warranted nor welcomed. It is you, Jonathan, that has let your bias and prejudice for and towards minimalism, et you to act like a pouncing cat on a mouse. Only these mice aint mice, but intelligent, self-aware SOCIALISTS, who will not be cowed by your, less than polite verbosity.
I do not debate with people who listen to what I say then completely change it. You were wrong, you are wrong, yet you continue to pursue this error with the tenacity of a lemming running for the cliff edge.
QUITE FRANKLY, Jonny Boy, I have better things to do. Whether OGW continues trying to point out your error, is his prerogative, as for me!!! I think I’ll continue trying to get socialism, I’m outa here.
Is there any part of this statement that mentions increases in production, either in singular aspects or ACROSS ALL FRONTS, read it carefully now JONATHAN,
“I guess noone was interested in the Marxist view of production and consumption. If your motivation is to have a revolution in order to reduce production and consuption it has nothing to do with marxist socialism”
Any part at all JONATHAN? thought not.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.