Statisation: a possible flaw in world socialism

[Ike Pettigrew]

Bijou Drains wrote:

 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.

It's not that.  My anger was partly because of the behaviour of somebody here, which I'll address separately, and while it was partly because I do think you are distorting what I have said (more on which see below), I will still apologise for my reaction, as that's only polite.

Bijou Drains wrote:

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.

You've just contradicted yourself in that paragraph!  You are dehumanising me.  You think I am stupid, simply because I disagree with you.  You and many other people here hold workers in contempt.

Bijou Drains wrote:

[I don't think that the Party has ever asserted that average IQs are the same for all geographical groups,

This is plain dishonest. Again, it's the usual lefty debate trick of focusing on one word and addressing that literally while ignoring the point being made.  You have either asserted it explicitly or you have implied it.  You deny that there are discrete human races or (depending on who is doing the talking), you say that race doesn't matter.  Logically, the first assertion follows from the latter, unless you deny the validity of IQ altogether.  And of course you do.  The result is the same.  Ergo, all we need to do is swop the term 'IQ' for the term 'intelligence', and we're left with the same questions that remain unanswered.

Bijou Drains wrote:

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.

I notice that while you're asserting your superiority to me, you add in some swear words.  You're sooo superior.I would be inclined to agree that IQ is a questionable concept, but your own assertion here doesn't speak of much insight: surely you realise that high IQ people who attend such meetings don't just attend those meetings or engage in those activities.  Thus, how can you support the generalisation on which your rather shallow and vapid point rests?

[Ike Pettigrew]

Marcos wrote:

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

I do not need to say any more.  The defence could rest here: I could spend the rest of my time on here just quoting and re-quoting the above ill-advised response.  "Here's what somebody in the SPGB thinks of people with mental illness".The truth is that many (I accept not all) members of the SPGB hate workers, and hold us in utter contempt.  The above is a prime example of the mentality and will be re-quoted at each and every opportunity.  For the record, I have never taken psychotropic medications and will not do so, but the insult does touch a nerve with me because my late father suffered from severe psychiatric problems and was regularly hospitalised.  This made my childhood very traumatic and the humiliation alienated and isolated me from others. It's always interesting to note the prejudices of certain people who claim not to be prejudiced, or affect not to be through their political stances.Perhaps you need reminding that getting angry on a forum is not indicative of mental illness or psychological distirubances, and I think it is thoroughly shameful and disgraceful to imply otherwise.  It is simply a reaction to one's treatment by others on the Forum.  Which is not to say my behaviour is perfect – it certainly isn't – but I do make a point of apologising, which you might wish to take note is what decent people do.  I also have the disadvantage of being in a minority, and I have made reasonable points and asked reasonable questions.  If you don't want me here, please just say so and I will delete my account (assuming that's possible) and never return here again.

[Ike Pettigrew]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Ike, i don't think J Surman challenging you on what appears to be climate change denial is a personal attack.

Where did I state it was a personal attack?  I don't think I did.  

alanjjohnstone wrote:

She made a valid point that you were unable to defend your opinion with any references.

Wait a minute…..My point was about the socialist case, on which I was using the global warming thesis as an analogy of how 'democratic' decision-making can be flawed.  I wasn't specifically making a point about global warming.  That's not what the thread is about.  Do you want me to keep to the rules of the Forum or not?  I did also say that as I'm not an expert, I'm not offering any data because I haven't conducted experiments and I don't really want to discuss it.  I think I also allowed that I could be wrong, which I know I could be. 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

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 )

As it happens, I am an astronomer.  But you refer to me as a possible "climate change denier" (which I am not, by the way), as if I might be a thought criminal.  Your view is political, not primarily scientific and the term "climate change denier" is a total non sequitur and embarrassingly shows up your scientific ignorance.  Maybe this just proves that science at this level actually is political, so it's a take or leave situation, and your empiricist pleas for data are self-contraductory and just amount to pretension.  Or it could be that I am right to express skepticism, which incidentally the Socialist Standard has also expressed on this very same issue.  Were the editors of the Socialist Standard wrong to highlight (in a general sense) the exaggerations of global warming thesis advocates?  Were you wrong to highlight their alarmism, as you have done on this very same Forum?

alanjjohnstone wrote:

When we have 97% of those experts agree on the reality of climate change

Not that I am doubting the statistic – anybody can pull out a statistic to prove practically anything – but you will let us have a source for this?  I'd like to see the context and what it is there is a consensus on.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

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…..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

I've seen that previously actually – it is a good talk.  I enjoyed watching it.

[Ike Pettigrew]

gnome wrote:

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

That will probably be a good talk.  Under other circumstances, I would go.

[Ike Pettigrew]

moderator1 wrote:

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’). 

The tone of this thread, I feel, was fine until Vin joined it.  

[Ike Pettigrew]

J Surman wrote:

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.

It's off-topic.  Anybody, including me (I claim no expertise), can pull out evidence/data in this area.  I have no trouble with that, but I wanted the thread to be about the socialist case, as that's my interest – and by the way, my intentions were good-natured and genuinely inquisitve, but my attitude has hardened now that I have been personally attacked, not by you, but by others here.  I'm sick of being called a racist, etc. just because I oppose what capitalism does to the working class of my own country.  We can quibble over whether it's "my country", and I can explain and argue why it is, and no doubt you will tell me it isn't, but that aside, immigration and diversity harm real people, and Vin and others believe that pointing this out justifies personal attacks and insults.  Sure, I'm not perfect either – I often give as good as I get – but it's not my modus operandi to stir up trouble and the tone of this thread before Vin's intervention speaks for itself.If you want me to discuss global warming, you can can start a thread and ask me the questions you want to ask me.  Quite why you'd be interested in my view on it is anyone's guess.  Skeptics are ten-a-penny, which speaks its own story.  However, I don't believe my view is just a 'view', I think there are serious problems with the global warming thesis – you surely watch or read the news, so little of what I say will come as a surprise.

[Ike Pettigrew]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

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.

I respect the fact that you are challenging me in a civil way and answering my points.  I don't agree with you, but I'm not sure what I can add to what I have already said.  Thanks.

[J Surman]

It's a shame you conflate so many disparate parts of what's been written on this thread since i asked my question. I lost interest in the thread as it was developing and haven't been following it so was surprised to find you telling me your thoughts on other contributors' attitudes towards you as you rejected my question. However, it's your choice, plus may i suggest you don't take what others write too personally.

[Ike Pettigrew]

J Surman wrote:

It's a shame you conflate so many disparate parts of what's been written on this thread since i asked my question. I lost interest in the thread as it was developing and haven't been following it so was surprised to find you telling me your thoughts on other contributors' attitudes towards you as you rejected my question. However, it's your choice, plus may i suggest you don't take what others write too personally.

Well, aside from the self-evident irony of your post, taking its content at face value – that's sort of a way of saying I shouldn't take things too seriously, which is sort of a way of saying that I shouldn't think so much and should just conform, which is sort of a good credo for what you probably really believe deep down about people in general.  

[J Surman]

No irony intended. Please re-read your post 81 where you were relating to me some exchanges with other posters. Those posts have nothing to do with me and my suggestion was simply that it's very easy to misinterpret or over react to what others may have written, sometimes it's a good idea to delay replying.Referring to your last sentence on your latest reply to me, no, I really have no wish for people to conform and can't understand what makes you believe that.I wonder, for the sake of other readers, and as we are getting off-topic now, if a personal message wouldn't be more appropriate if you have anything to add?

[Anonymous]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

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’). 

The tone of this thread, I feel, was fine until Vin joined it.  

Rubbish. Ike Pettycrew and other ex member Johnathan Chambers are responsible. If you care to check, I only reply to posts that reference me and are usually abusive. Like this one. Or I have asked a simple question and you spoiled the thread with a personal attack rather than answering the questionBy the way the tone of this thread was already offensive long before I joined.

[Rusty Pigfumbler]

Vin wrote:

 I only reply to posts that reference me and are usually abusive. ( my emphasis )

I wonder why?

[Anonymous]

Rusty Pigfumbler wrote:

Vin wrote:

 I only reply to posts that reference me and are usually abusive. ( my emphasis )

I wonder why?

Because they are postedby nasty abusive personalities, with silly psuedonyms most of whome have been removed from the forum by a vigilant Mod.If you have evidence that I have been abusive, then inform the Mod and he will take action.  

[Anonymous]

J Surman wrote:

No irony intended. Please re-read your post 81 where you were relating to me some exchanges with other posters. Those posts have nothing to do with me and my suggestion was simply that it's very easy to misinterpret or over react to what others may have written, sometimes it's a good idea to delay replying.Referring to your last sentence on your latest reply to me, no, I really have no wish for people to conform and can't understand what makes you believe that.I wonder, for the sake of other readers, and as we are getting off-topic now, if a personal message wouldn't be more appropriate if you have anything to add?

The irony is clearly unintentional and rests on the fact that you seem keen to offer me advice on not taking people's posts seriously while taking people's posts seriously yourself.You're basically a fuckwit – but with a posh accent and letters after your name.

[Anonymous]

Vin wrote:

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

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’). 

The tone of this thread, I feel, was fine until Vin joined it.  

Rubbish. Ike Pettycrew and other ex member Johnathan Chambers are responsible. If you care to check, I only reply to posts that reference me and are usually abusive. Like this one. Or I have asked a simple question and you spoiled the thread with a personal attack rather than answering the questionBy the way the tone of this thread was already offensive long before I joined.

LOL.  You are a hypocritical, fork-tongued, two-faced fuckwit.In common with the rest of the SPGB, you think white women should be raped by foreigners, to bring about socialism, much like a "socialist" might want more profits for British Gas or might want a railway co-operative because that "speeds up the collapse of capitalism".You are a vile, hypocritical, rape-apologising, thuggish, violent, idiotic, narcissistic, self-righteous, childish, fork-tongued, double-dealing cunt.

[Author]

Posts