The gravity of the situation
- This topic has 205 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:…calls us "Leninists" (which they know will infuriate us in view of our consistent opposition to Leninism since the beginning)…
Yes, I was hoping that you would become 'infuriated' enough to actually look at the links between 'materialism' and Lenin.I changed to this method because the method of reasoned discussion, providing quotes and expecting logical debate didn't work.When you all got sick of my providing quotes from all and sundry to back up my arguments, you turned to abuse.It's not my fault that I'm better read in Marx and Engels, and dozens of other thinkers, than you lot. I'm that interested that I've bought and read almost all the books recommended to me, by you and others.
ALB wrote:…whereas we have repeatedly said that we share with the same sort of criticism Pannekoek made of this "mechanical" or "bourgeois" materialism in his Lenin As Philosopher.But Pannekoek talks out of his arse, half the time.We've never got to discussing his thought, because to discuss, one has to expose one's own position of observation. It's pointless discussing Pannekoek unless one knows what one believes in contrast to Pannekoek.
SP wrote:SP suggests that this is the action of a troll. Not necessarily, but it would be cruel to spell out the alternative explanation.The alternative, and I will spell it out, is that I'm better read, more critical, and clearer about my position, than you lot.
ALB wrote:Basically, for whatever reason, you've cried "Englesist", "Leninist" once too much. Enough is enough.No, it's not enough. It must be said until you realise that materialism is a dead end for the revolutionary proletariat.If one is not a Marxist or a democrat in knowledge production, as YMS isn't, this consideration is of little concern. But I'd expect those, like you, ALB, who seem to me to be genuine in their protestations of being Marxists, to take this seriously.Sticking your heads in the sand is not an alternative.Banning me is, however. But, that's your collective choice.
SocialistPunk wrote:Oh well, I see LBird has declined the offer to construct a coherent explanation of his theory for us to digest. Instead preferring the practice of elitist….err…"intellectual" trolling.In my experience if a person can't explain in simple, coherent terms what they want to convey, it usually means they don't know what they're on about.I'm out, and I strongly suggest everyone else avoids temptation to counter attack. It's what LBird wants.I don't want anybody 'out' or 'counter-attacking'.I want a reasoned discussion, rather than to be abused.Further, I've explained in 'simple, coherent terms', but the problem lies with you.Whilst you won't tell us what your 'theory' is, I can't explain why you can't accept those 'simple, coherent terms'.I suspect it's because you're an Engelsian materialist, but you keep pretending that you're just a disinterested observer, trying to 'simply' understand.This is an ideological pretence, but you don't seem to realise it.
I'll tell you what.If five posters vote openly for me to stop posting on this site, I will ask the moderator to close my account, so that I will not be tempted to post again.All I ask is that all those tempted to vote in haste, please have a look at this thread, and see if I've made at least some genuine responses to the arguments put forward by the materialists.That seems a reasonable solution, to me.
LBird wrote:I'll tell you what.If five posters vote openly for me to stop posting on this site, I will ask the moderator to close my account, so that I will not be tempted to post again.All I ask is that all those tempted to vote in haste, please have a look at this thread, and see if I've made at least some genuine responses to the arguments put forward by the materialists.That seems a reasonable solution, to me.Hold your horses!!! I have no reason whatsoever to give you a permanent ban. That action is reserved for spammers and psychopaths only. Indeed, unusually you don't even warrant a suspension on this occasion.However, I mentioned in an email many months ago the key to the door are in your hands. When put into practice this in effect means: you either continue to face your critics by providing them with the answers they are requesting – a re-assessment of your theory perhaps – or you walk away by keeping the door locked?May I just mention that both Marx and Engles were continually re-assessing their thinking on political economy and how it related to the material conditions of class struggle. This, as they found out after the events of the Paris Commune is crucial to refining their methodology and openly admitting they were mistaken – viz Preface 1888 Communist Manifesto..
moderator1 wrote:LBird wrote:I'll tell you what.If five posters vote openly for me to stop posting on this site, I will ask the moderator to close my account, so that I will not be tempted to post again.All I ask is that all those tempted to vote in haste, please have a look at this thread, and see if I've made at least some genuine responses to the arguments put forward by the materialists.That seems a reasonable solution, to me.Hold your horses!!! I have no reason whatsoever to give you a permanent ban.
No, I wasn't suggesting it would be considered in anyway a 'ban'.I'm suggesting that, if five posters have had enough, then I'll voluntarily withdraw from the site. Your role of moderator would be just to meet my wishes to have my account closed.That is, the decision to leave would be mine, not an imposition by the SPGB, which is what the term 'ban' would otherwise suggest.
LBird wrote:moderator1 wrote:LBird wrote:I'll tell you what.If five posters vote openly for me to stop posting on this site, I will ask the moderator to close my account, so that I will not be tempted to post again.All I ask is that all those tempted to vote in haste, please have a look at this thread, and see if I've made at least some genuine responses to the arguments put forward by the materialists.That seems a reasonable solution, to me.Hold your horses!!! I have no reason whatsoever to give you a permanent ban.
No, I wasn't suggesting it would be considered in anyway a 'ban'.I'm suggesting that, if five posters have had enough, then I'll voluntarily withdraw from the site. Your role of moderator would be just to meet my wishes to have my account closed.That is, the decision to leave would be mine, not an imposition by the SPGB, which is what the term 'ban' would otherwise suggest.
The decision to leave will be yours but the action to close the account will be mine. Which amounts to a ban on my part. And like I said that only applies to spammers and psychopaths.Anyways nobody is going to participate in your silly ballot because it amounts to voting for no platform for free speech. So you either close your account or leave it open.Alternatively you can do a Marx and Engles – take a step back – and re-assess.
mod1 wrote:Anyways nobody is going to participate in your silly ballot…Well, I thought it was a reasonable way to break the logjam, which gave others some say.But I think your tone tells me everything that I really want to know about the SPGB.
LBird wrote:mod1 wrote:Anyways nobody is going to participate in your silly ballot…Well, I thought it was a reasonable way to break the logjam, which gave others some say.But I think your tone tells me everything that I really want to know about the SPGB.
People usually break logjams by voting with their feet. Which I suspect is going to happen here. Unless of course you do some serious re-assessment and come up with proposals which address your critics concerns in a fashion that is less dismissive and more explicit when responding to their questions.
Lbird, this debate has been going on for almost a couple of years now, hasn't it?I'm wondering if there are any points of agreement you have reached that you didn't think existed, but more importantly if it has added positively to your own knowledge, that you have gained insight from the views or comments of your antagonists on the thread. I'm not talking about acquiring what i consider negative insightson what you consider the SPGB to represent but actually received vie-points that you didn't know or hold but now do…In othe words have you learned anything other than we are tarred by the same brush as Leninists … i want to know if you yourself have benefited for the better from the exchanges…Did any SPGB member help you out with your own thoughts? Of course the reason i ask, is was this long, long, long interaction worth it, in any way for you? Or could you have been putting your time and energy to more useful ends?
alanjjohnstone wrote:Lbird, this debate has been going on for almost a couple of years now, hasn't it?Indeed, and the only reason I keep coming back to it is that Kbird has a remarkable propensity to latch onto any new user of the forum and start misreporesenting our positions, which needs rebuttal.
L Bird, I would never vote for you to go away, firstly I think it goes against the principle of an open platform which the Party has defended, often physically, since 1904. I think that principle is far more important than your ego driven rants on here. Secondly, such a move would in my opinion give you too much credibility. Once again your "let's have a poll about me!" move reveals your need to be in the limelight. Your attitude seems to be "it's all about me!!!" Can I suggest you grow up a little?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.