Statisation: a possible flaw in world socialism

[Ike Pettigrew]

Vin wrote:

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

Vin wrote:

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

 but isn't the global warming fiasco an illustration of how scientific discussion can be corrupted not just by commercial interests, but also interests that are ideologically-driven?

'Commercial' and 'ideological' interests only apply to capitalism – can you give an example of such interests in the absence of capitalism?

Note to Moderator: I will not engage in dialogue with bullies who repeatedly insult, belittle and abuse others.  It's a point of principle. 

From someone who asserts that people with dark skins are biologically and intellectually inferior to Ike Pettigrew, I will wear that as a badge of honour.

I will not engage in dialogue with bullies who repeatedly insult, belittle and abuse others.  It's a point of principle. 

[Anonymous]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

Note to moderator: As a point of principle, I will not engage in dialogue with bullies who repeatedly insult, belittle and abuse others.  I would add that such people do nothing for the socialist case.

Post 11 to ALB

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

I wish you would grow up and either just add a constructive comment in the thread OR fuck off.

 

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

@ Alan Johnstone and Marcos like a bunch of teenage girls, is just a way of saying that you can't cope with ideas.Loony Party. 

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

@alanjjohnstone That is the mark of a dogmatic mindset or somebody under psychological control. 

Note to moderator: It seems that Ike is a hypocrite as well as a racist. 

[Bijou Drains]

Ike What you seem to be saying is that under a Socialist Society there will be an organised form for the "Administration of things", Yes I think that all in the SPGB would agree with that.You also seem to be saying that in a Socialist Society there will not be "perfect harmony" on all issues and that human beings will have strong disagreements with each other. Yup, I think that's likely to happen, believe it or not it even happens within the hallowed ranks of the SPGB, we sometimes disagree with each other about issues as important as trellises.As a result of the above, you state that it is likely that some people who lose out on the democratic process will be disappointed and may have to go along with the majority decisions. Again can't see that anyone in the SPGB would disagree with this, some members of the Party had trellis related disappointments, such is life.Leading on from this, you are concerned that in a Socialist Society we will have to make some uncomfortable decision, for example ensuring that people with paranoid schizophrenia receive help and support in a way that keeps them and others safe, even if they don't want that help. Again, as long as there is democratic oversight of this, I have no concern, as long as the decision making system is open to question and the people that make these decisions are accountable.This seems to lead you to the conclusion that Socialism is not feasible because it will not create a paradise on earth where we all agree on absolutely everything and there is no conflict. Socialists do not propose a paradise on earth, but a democratic system of common ownership of the means of production, which will overcome many of the difficulties created by capitalism. Could it be perfect? No. could it be better than the present shambolic, destructive, divisive system of society, I'm bloody sure it couldYou also seem to think that for what I can only assume are genetic reasons that black people are incapable of creating a society based on private ownership, let alone common ownership, from what I can gather this is based on the question of levels of IQ. Would you be willing to illucidate your thoughts on this, as I for one am a little confused on how you came to this conclusion.

[Ike Pettigrew]

Vin wrote:

Note to moderator: It seems that Ike is a hypocrite as well as a racist. 

I will not engage in dialogue with bullies who repeatedly insult, belittle and abuse others.  

[Anonymous]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

Vin wrote:

Note to moderator: It seems that Ike is a hypocrite as well as a racist. 

I will not engage in dialogue with bullies who repeatedly insult, belittle and abuse others.  

Post 11 a comment to ALB

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

I wish you would grow up and either just add a constructive comment in the thread OR fuck off.

Abusive?  

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

@ Alan Johnstone and Marcos like a bunch of teenage girls, is just a way of saying that you can't cope with ideas.Loony Party.

Belittle? 

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

@alanjjohnstone That is the mark of a dogmatic mindset or somebody under psychological control.

 Insult? 

[Ike Pettigrew]

Bijou Drains wrote:

Ike What you seem to be saying is that under a Socialist Society there will be an organised form for the "Administration of things", Yes I think that all in the SPGB would agree with that.You also seem to be saying that in a Socialist Society there will not be "perfect harmony" on all issues and that human beings will have strong disagreements with each other. Yup, I think that's likely to happen, believe it or not it even happens within the hallowed ranks of the SPGB, we sometimes disagree with each other about issues as important as trellises.As a result of the above, you state that it is likely that some people who lose out on the democratic process will be disappointed and may have to go along with the majority decisions. Again can't see that anyone in the SPGB would disagree with this, some members of the Party had trellis related disappointments, such is life.Leading on from this, you are concerned that in a Socialist Society we will have to make some uncomfortable decision, for example ensuring that people with paranoid schizophrenia receive help and support in a way that keeps them and others safe, even if they don't want that help. Again, as long as there is democratic oversight of this, I have no concern, as long as the decision making system is open to question and the people that make these decisions are accountable.This seems to lead you to the conclusion that Socialism is not feasible because it will not create a paradise on earth where we all agree on absolutely everything and there is no conflict.

That is not how I reached my conclusion.  You are dishonestly characterising my tentative conclusions and the process by which I arrived at those conclusions; and, you are characterising my objections in childish terms, a classic dishonest debate tactic, in which you substitute your wording/verbalisation for what I actually have said.  Your verbalisation of my objections makes it seem like I am some sort of bright-eyed child who doesn't understand how the world works.  For instance, you say that I think socialism will not happen because it will not be a paradise on Earth, but I already know it will not be a paradise on Earth in the very best of circumstances and that was not how I phrased my objection and it is not the basis of my objection, as anybody who reads my posts can see.

Bijou Drains wrote:

Socialists do not propose a paradise on earth,

I have NEVER at any point said, implied, suggested, or inferred that socialists do propose a paradise on Earth.  I already know the socialist case. You have simply not read my posts!  You are arrogantly pretending to know what my objections are without actually taking the trouble to understand my objections.  Your actions are dehumanising and an attack on my dignity as a person.  You are showing that you have no respect for workers, you are in fact contemptuous of workers.  Instead, you just want to spout your programmed dogma, like a robot.  I have a right to assert my dignity and autonomy as an individual of conscience and intellect, to hold my own views, and to question your dogma and politely put forward objections, ideas, issues and problems.  

Bijou Drains wrote:

but a democratic system of common ownership of the means of production, which will overcome many of the difficulties created by capitalism. Could it be perfect? No. could it be better than the present shambolic, destructive, divisive system of society, I'm bloody sure it could

But my point (among others) is that these are just fine words, empty words.  My interest is in how things work in practice.You refer to a democratic system.  A demoratic system is not necessarily actually democratic in reality, and I would argue that yours will not be democratic at all.  In very basic terms, let's say hypothetically we have a society of three people.  If two of these people decide to outvote the other, that's not democracy as I would have it.  You think taking a vote is democracy.  That tells me you prioritise form over substance: you want the plastic badge that says 'Democracy' and that's enough.  But I would argue that to be truly democratic, a society must have strong minority protections.  Private property ownership exists partly to provide this protection.  As a minority of one, I can turn round and say: "Well it's my land, you can vote how you like, but you won't be crossing that fence and anybody who does will be shot."  That is an important element of what I consider democracy.

Bijou Drains wrote:

You also seem to think that for what I can only assume are genetic reasons that black people are incapable of creating a society based on private ownership, let alone common ownership,

What I have ACTUALLY said, if that is of any interest to you, is that there are different types of people in the world and that these different types of people should be allowed to run their own societies according to their own preferences.  I object to the imposition of systems on groups of people, be it capitalism or socialism or something else.  I also raised the possibility that both capitalism and socialism might not be suitable for black Africans, that they may be able to develop their own social systems or anti-systems, as the case may be.

Bijou Drains wrote:

from what I can gather this is based on the question of levels of IQ. Would you be willing to illucidate your thoughts on this, as I for one am a little confused on how you came to this conclusion.

I don't recall mentioning IQ in the relevant posts, but anyway, while we're on the subject, and since 'hard evidence' seems to be needed round here, could you provide me with some evidence for your Party's assertion that average IQ levels are the same for all geographic human groups?  Also, would you accept that if it could be proved that there are significant differences in average IQ levels, this might be relevant to the practicability of socialism, in the same way that it is relevant to the practicality of capitalism today?

[Anonymous]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

 I will not engage in dialogue with bullies who repeatedly insult, belittle and abuse others.  

To a forum contributer

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

You are dishonestly characterising my tentative conclusions and the process by which I arrived at those conclusions; and, you are characterising my objections in childish terms, a classic dishonest debate tactic, in which you substitute your  You have simply not read my posts!  You are arrogantly pretending to know what my objections are without actually taking the trouble to understand my objections.  Instead, you just want to spout your programmed dogma, like a robot.

[Bijou Drains]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

Bijou Drains wrote:

Ike What you seem to be saying is that under a Socialist Society there will be an organised form for the "Administration of things", Yes I think that all in the SPGB would agree with that.You also seem to be saying that in a Socialist Society there will not be "perfect harmony" on all issues and that human beings will have strong disagreements with each other. Yup, I think that's likely to happen, believe it or not it even happens within the hallowed ranks of the SPGB, we sometimes disagree with each other about issues as important as trellises.As a result of the above, you state that it is likely that some people who lose out on the democratic process will be disappointed and may have to go along with the majority decisions. Again can't see that anyone in the SPGB would disagree with this, some members of the Party had trellis related disappointments, such is life.Leading on from this, you are concerned that in a Socialist Society we will have to make some uncomfortable decision, for example ensuring that people with paranoid schizophrenia receive help and support in a way that keeps them and others safe, even if they don't want that help. Again, as long as there is democratic oversight of this, I have no concern, as long as the decision making system is open to question and the people that make these decisions are accountable.This seems to lead you to the conclusion that Socialism is not feasible because it will not create a paradise on earth where we all agree on absolutely everything and there is no conflict.

That is not how I reached my conclusion.  You are dishonestly characterising my tentative conclusions and the process by which I arrived at those conclusions; and, you are characterising my objections in childish terms, a classic dishonest debate tactic, in which you substitute your wording/verbalisation for what I actually have said.  Your verbalisation of my objections makes it seem like I am some sort of bright-eyed child who doesn't understand how the world works.  For instance, you say that I think socialism will not happen because it will not be a paradise on Earth, but I already know it will not be a paradise on Earth in the very best of circumstances and that was not how I phrased my objection and it is not the basis of my objection, as anybody who reads my posts can see.

Bijou Drains wrote:

Socialists do not propose a paradise on earth,

I have NEVER at any point said, implied, suggested, or inferred that socialists do propose a paradise on Earth.  I already know the socialist case. You have simply not read my posts!  You are arrogantly pretending to know what my objections are without actually taking the trouble to understand my objections.  Your actions are dehumanising and an attack on my dignity as a person.  You are showing that you have no respect for workers, you are in fact contemptuous of workers.  Instead, you just want to spout your programmed dogma, like a robot.  I have a right to assert my dignity and autonomy as an individual of conscience and intellect, to hold my own views, and to question your dogma and politely put forward objections, ideas, issues and problems.  

Bijou Drains wrote:

but a democratic system of common ownership of the means of production, which will overcome many of the difficulties created by capitalism. Could it be perfect? No. could it be better than the present shambolic, destructive, divisive system of society, I'm bloody sure it could

But my point (among others) is that these are just fine words, empty words.  My interest is in how things work in practice.You refer to a democratic system.  A demoratic system is not necessarily actually democratic in reality, and I would argue that yours will not be democratic at all.  In very basic terms, let's say hypothetically we have a society of three people.  If two of these people decide to outvote the other, that's not democracy as I would have it.  You think taking a vote is democracy.  That tells me you prioritise form over substance: you want the plastic badge that says 'Democracy' and that's enough.  But I would argue that to be truly democratic, a society must have strong minority protections.  Private property ownership exists partly to provide this protection.  As a minority of one, I can turn round and say: "Well it's my land, you can vote how you like, but you won't be crossing that fence and anybody who does will be shot."  That is an important element of what I consider democracy.

Bijou Drains wrote:

You also seem to think that for what I can only assume are genetic reasons that black people are incapable of creating a society based on private ownership, let alone common ownership,

What I have ACTUALLY said, if that is of any interest to you, is that there are different types of people in the world and that these different types of people should be allowed to run their own societies according to their own preferences.  I object to the imposition of systems on groups of people, be it capitalism or socialism or something else.  I also raised the possibility that both capitalism and socialism might not be suitable for black Africans, that they may be able to develop their own social systems or anti-systems, as the case may be.

Bijou Drains wrote:

from what I can gather this is based on the question of levels of IQ. Would you be willing to illucidate your thoughts on this, as I for one am a little confused on how you came to this conclusion.

I don't recall mentioning IQ in the relevant posts, but anyway, while we're on the subject, and since 'hard evidence' seems to be needed round here, could you provide me with some evidence for your Party's assertion that average IQ levels are the same for all geographic human groups?  Also, would you accept that if it could be proved that there are significant differences in average IQ levels, this might be relevant to the practicability of socialism, in the same way that it is relevant to the practicality of capitalism today?

I think you'll find that I have never stated what your views are, that's why I have stated frequently, that to me it "seems" that this is what you are saying. I am not arrogantly pretending to know what your objections are, again that is why I have used the term "seems". What I am saying is that this is what I have inferred from what you have said (by the way I think you could benefit from looking up the difference between implication and inference, it "seems" that you don't understand teh difference between the two).You state that I am dehumanising you and attacking your dignity as a person, I think this is a classic over reaction of someone who has been asked a few awkward questions and is using a histrionic response to hide the inadequacies of their arguments. How can debate take place, if any challenge is responded to with the exclamation that "you are dehumanising me", for fuck's sake, what does de-humanising even mean. How can I be attacking your dignity, what dignity have you got,, how am I attacking it by questioning your ideas. You have stated in your previous posts that you consider yourself to be an objective and reasonable thinker, I would question that, but how can it be that the objective reasoner exclaims dehumanisation and attacks on dignity as a person, every time their "objective viewpoint" is questioned. Howver, I do agree you have a right to assert your intellect, I only wish you would.I don't think that the Party has ever asserted that average IQs are the same for all geographical groups, as someone who has more than a little professional experience in the "IQ industry" I would argue that all that IQ test measure is the ability of people to complete IQ tests. Evidence of the usefulness of IQ tests is provided by high IQ clubs, who are so intelligent and useful that they gather themselves together, not for the purpose of curing illness, or dealing with hunger, but with the pressing world problem of completing logic puzzles and other such useless tasks, a lot of use those fuckers are

[Anonymous]

Vin wrote:

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

 I will not engage in dialogue with bullies who repeatedly insult, belittle and abuse others.  

To a forum contributor

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

 You are dishonestly characterising my tentative conclusions and the process by which I arrived at those conclusions; and, you are characterising my objections in childish terms, a classic dishonest debate tactic, in which you substitute your  You have simply not read my posts!  You are arrogantly pretending to know what my objections are without actually taking the trouble to understand my objections.  Instead, you just want to spout your programmed dogma, like a robot.

I think sometimes he forgets to take his Zoloft, Paxil,  Depakote, or Prozac.  He should read two books named: The Prozac Nation and Xanax nation before dealing with socialist ideasIn this forum, we get so many weird peoples which instead of attracting party sympathizers force them to leave and fall into the hands of the left wingers

[Anonymous]

Marcos wrote:

 In this forum, we get so many weird peoples which instead of attracting party sympathizers force them to leave and fall into the hands of the left wingers

I don't think there is any danger of Ike falling into the hands of 'left wingers'. More likely the EDL

[alanjjohnstone]

Ike, i don't think J Surman challenging you on what appears to be climate change denial is a personal attack. She made a valid point that you were unable to defend your opinion with any references.I'm not a climate scientist either, nor an astronomer or physicist or medical doctor or any other kind of specialist. It means i am required to make a value judgement on the expertise and accuracy of those who are. (Bakunin explains the authority of the expert here – https://www.panarchy.org/bakunin/authority.1871.html )When we have 97% of those experts agree on the reality of climate change and who have produced research that has been studied by others in the field to verify the accuracy, then i feel i can accept that prevailing view as a true reflection of reality rather than subscribe to the views of a few that has also been appraised but then rejected. And members of the SPGB are well aware of the skewed nature of scientific enquiry and take into account the influence of vested interests when we reach our conclusions.

Quote:

It's not as if I've just come back from an expedition to Antarctica

Quote:

Actually, Ike, we do possess someone with this insider's first-hand knowledge, not of Antarctica,  but the Arctic.  He was an invited non-member speaker in a debate who then joined the Party, afterward.You can view the original debate on video https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/video/poles-apart-capitalism-or-socialism-planet-heatsA later talk on capitalism and the environment can be seen herehttps://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/video/business-growth-conflict-environment

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Actually, Ike, we do possess someone with this insider's first-hand knowledge, not of Antarctica,  but the Arctic.  He was an invited non-member speaker in a debate who then joined the Party, afterward.

And in fact Glenn Morris will be one of the speakers at the Doncaster Day School on the environment scheduled for Saturday, 24 February.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/event/doncaster-day-school

[moderator1]

Reminder: 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’). 

[J Surman]

re Ike's post 61:Yes, we can all avail ourselves of search engines, however I am interested to know which sites/writers/scientists/politicians/corporations/private interests etc caught your attention in order to have a better idea of what you are trying to say.I have followed the thread but choose to engage in the part of it that particularly interests me – and don't see that as off topic, I was simply asking for more information on some of what you had written as I consider the increasing effects of climate change will impact on both majorities and minorities.

[Young Master Smeet]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

Yes, but this is just words on [virtual] paper.  My concern here is with what your ideas actually really mean and I think the point is conceded: in practice, socialism would be a statist society, albeit a soft state.  I realise that socialism is not a statist ideology, and I do not mean to suggest otherwise, and I also appreciate that the 'state' that would in reality exist in socialism may not be regarded as a state and it may not even be acknowledged as such, but that is what it would be.  Socialism may not be statist, but statism is the result of socialism when you think about it properly.  It's just of a soft state variety, comparable to what you would have under almost-all types of market-based anarchism.

I'm afraid I don't accept that point.  Let us return to the group going to the cinema model, is that a state?  The decision, ultimately, may rest on a minority exercising and effective veto, you may not even get to go to the film you prefer, but because you want to go with your friends, you go anyway.  Lets expand it a little, there's enough people for a film club: you don't have to go see the movies, you can miss a few without doing as much harm as with splitting on a close friend for the night.  Also, you might have delegated functions, instead of choosing from a list of what is on, a person or persons choose the showings, and from time to time you fill in a pre3ference swurvey, or ask them to show a type of movie you like that is underrpresented, you might even, if you can arrange the facilities, allow specialist sub groups to meet and watch unpopular movies in genres they like.Now, that is democracy between lots of friends, where is the state?  There are no guns, no monopoly of violence, people contribute according to their ability, and take according to their need, where the film enjoyment of each shall be the condition for the film enjoyment of all.  There is no need for a monolith co-ordinating everything, but a reproduceable, scalable group relationship.So, not just words on a page, but a practical, real life example, for you to dissect in detail.

[Author]

Posts