[Bijou Drains]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

 Those who argue that the producers can't vote on the issue of 'the existence of matter', which includes you Vin, must argue that this issue is then determined by 'elite specialists' with their own 'decision-making power'.

That doesn't follow.  they could argue that the magic fire dragon makes the world: they could argue that there is no reality and each lives in a world of their own: they could argue that we are in a virtual environment, simulating existence and reality is determined by the programmers: they could argue that reality is unknowable: they could argue that reality is an ideal unfurling in the mind of god and each can know reality through faith alone: they could argue each person has access to direct experience of the world, but we live as we dream, alone: they could argue only non-producers can vote on reality: they could argue the vote has already been taken and can't be re-run.Sloppy argumentation.

They could also argue that the existance of matter should be decided by an interpretation of the entrails of a goaat cast down on a stone plinth.

[Bijou Drains]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

 and support 'specialist power' and 'elite decision-making'.

Who has said this? Apart from yourself?

Did you not know Vin, we demonstrate this by the way we democratically elect fellow socialists into "specialist Power" and then give them "elite power making decisions".I'll give you an example of this, we elected the "Specialist" premises committee into "elite power" and then rather than democratically overseeing their every decision, we trusted them to get on with the job. In such a situation the "elitist, Leninist vanguardist premises committee" took their specialist elitism to the point of ordering a different type of soap for the toilets (Netties to you and me Marra). They took this decision without putting this to the wider party, by means of a party poll (a vanguardist move if every I saw one).What should have happened, if we were to bow down to the superior logic of our glorious leader Kim Jung Bird, is that we should have organised a party poll, with supportive statements for all of the possibilities, Lifeguard, Lux, Dove or my own preferred opition anti-imperialist Leather. Following the vote we would have come together and realised that the democratic will of the glorious leader (Kim Jung Bird) was correct after all and all agreed that the vote meant that reality had changed and that we all now follow the party line with regards to soap in the toilets.You may argue that this would be an extraordinary waste of time and resources, you may also argue that you don't give a flying fuck about which soap is in the toilets ('cos you don't wash your hands anyway you dirty mackem so and so), however to do so would be to expose the fact that you are a crude materialist and that you like talking to rocks.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1986/no-987-november-1986/socialism-and-democracyFor the record, both the author and the reviewer of the book are still members of the Socialist Party and will still hold the same view, including the anti-Leninism.

This is great news, ALB!If they are available, could you persuade the author and the reviewer to participate in this discussion?Since they wrote those words, I could quote their own words to them as an illustration of what Democratic Communists and Marxists argue, and ask them whether they still agree, or whether since that book and article were written, they've changed their minds, and now argue anti-democratic and anti-worker views, and support 'specialist power' and 'elite decision-making'.Of course, I'll argue to them that only the collective producers can determine their product, and all decision-making by the class conscious workers must be democratic. If they still stand by their book/article, I'm sure that they'll agree with me.If not, we can tease out the differences between what would have to be their now anti-worker and anti-democratic position, with what they wrote then, and try to clarify what's changed, both in their own views and in the wider SPGB, regarding workers' power, self-development of our class, and the need for democracy in all social production within a future socialist society.

What would be the point of that when you demonstrably refuse to answer straight questions?

[Bijou Drains]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Many thanks L Bird, I couldn't have wished for a better illustration of your elitist world view, with you at the pinnacle.As to quite who the "my people" you refer to are I have no idea. Sounds like there are a class of people who are different and of a lesser intellectual level than the Mighty L Bird.As to your nonsensical proposal to have votes for every single scientific development, I'll put forward a scenario for you to consider with regard to your proposal. I heavily suspect that you will resort to you usual tactic of obfuscation and sophistry, however we live in hope.This is the scenario. We are living in a socialist society which works along the lines of your proposal for voting re scientific theories. In an area of the world an outbreak occurs of a particular illness at a level of deadliness previously unknown, perhaps a little like the recent Ebola outbreak. Would the development of an effective treatment for this illness be required to go through the lengthy, time consuming process of organising a worldwide vote, with all of the requisite sharing of relevant information, etc.at every stage of the process, before a treatment for this deadly disease could be given to the victims of the disease?

Well L Bird,, (the hypocritical "non – elitist" who talks about the "cruder elements from my neck of the woods" and talks disparagingly about "your people") the cruder element are waiting for your reply to this very basic question. I note that you have had sufficient time to make replies to other posters, Is it that you don't wish to dirty your elite hands answering questions posed by the cruder elements? Or is it, to put it in crude, earthy, working class terms, because your shit scared to give a straight answer to a straight questions? I suspect the latter.

As a strange hush decends on the city of Liverpool, the squawking of the L Bird is eerily absent, the only sound is the rythmic flapping of a crude, childish, ill educated magpie, which swoops to perch an the head of the world famous Liver Bird. The Liver Bird sits quietly as the crude, childish, ill educated magpie asks the Liver Bird a straight question, not once, not twice, but three times. After waiting patiently the chubby (but strangely good-looking) magpie gives up, defacates on the head of the Liver Bird and then flies back to his own "neck of the woods"

[Bijou Drains]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Many thanks L Bird, I couldn't have wished for a better illustration of your elitist world view, with you at the pinnacle.As to quite who the "my people" you refer to are I have no idea. Sounds like there are a class of people who are different and of a lesser intellectual level than the Mighty L Bird.As to your nonsensical proposal to have votes for every single scientific development, I'll put forward a scenario for you to consider with regard to your proposal. I heavily suspect that you will resort to you usual tactic of obfuscation and sophistry, however we live in hope.This is the scenario. We are living in a socialist society which works along the lines of your proposal for voting re scientific theories. In an area of the world an outbreak occurs of a particular illness at a level of deadliness previously unknown, perhaps a little like the recent Ebola outbreak. Would the development of an effective treatment for this illness be required to go through the lengthy, time consuming process of organising a worldwide vote, with all of the requisite sharing of relevant information, etc.at every stage of the process, before a treatment for this deadly disease could be given to the victims of the disease?

Well L Bird,, (the hypocritical "non – elitist" who talks about the "cruder elements from my neck of the woods" and talks disparagingly about "your people") the cruder element are waiting for your reply to this very basic question. I note that you have had sufficient time to make replies to other posters, Is it that you don't wish to dirty your elite hands answering questions posed by the cruder elements? Or is it, to put it in crude, earthy, working class terms, because your shit scared to give a straight answer to a straight questions? I suspect the latter.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

LBird wrote:

They all, including you, Tim, turn to abuse – and I return it. I'm a working class bloke, and when 'fools, morons and clowns' think that they can be funny with me, I'll be funnier.

so presumably that makes you the specialist when it comes to being funny. Perhaps you might even consider yourself to be amongst the elite of funny people. 

No, where I come from, Tim, being funny isn't a 'specialism'. It's a common-or-garden 'generalist' ability we all have.No doubt, your categorising of 'funny' as something that only belongs to an 'elite', says more than I could about your 'people'. I can't say that I'm surprised at this, though, having read what passes for 'humour' from you. If you are amongst your 'elite'… [snigger]…… I suppose that your 'materialism' ensures that your 'humour' is a simple, honest, 'pies-in-the face', physical, slapstick, sort of 'humour'.You really should try 'consciousness', sometime, Tim. Y'know, ideas, wordplay, inventiveness… there's a whole world waiting out there for you, to go alongside your 'materialist' reality. Perhaps, after the revolution, we Marxists can bring some levity into your dour 'material existence'.

Many thanks L Bird, I couldn't have wished for a better illustration of your elitist world view, with you at the pinnacle.As to quite who the "my people" you refer to are I have no idea. Sounds like there are a class of people who are different and of a lesser intellectual level than the Mighty L Bird.As to your nonsensical proposal to have votes for every single scientific development, I'll put forward a scenario for you to consider with regard to your proposal. I heavily suspect that you will resort to you usual tactic of obfuscation and sophistry, however we live in hope.This is the scenario. We are living in a socialist society which works along the lines of your proposal for voting re scientific theories. In an area of the world an outbreak occurs of a particular illness at a level of deadliness previously unknown, perhaps a little like the recent Ebola outbreak. Would the development of an effective treatment for this illness be required to go through the lengthy, time consuming process of organising a worldwide vote, with all of the requisite sharing of relevant information, etc.at every stage of the process, before a treatment for this deadly disease could be given to the victims of the disease?

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

They all, including you, Tim, turn to abuse – and I return it. I'm a working class bloke, and when 'fools, morons and clowns' think that they can be funny with me, I'll be funnier. 

so presumably that makes you the specialist when it comes to being funny. Perhaps you might even consider yourself to be amongst the elite of funny people. 

[Bijou Drains]

I think you could argue that there are strong parallels between the way Stalin operated and L Bird operates. (and no, L Bird, that doesn't mean you are a Stalinist, just that there are parallels.)What is clear from some of the passages above is that Stalin (or his ghost writer) was able to pose as a Socialist and a Democrat in terms of what he wrote, however the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and what he did in practice is obviously somewhat different.In a similar way  L Bird talks extensively about the need for Socialists to be anti-elitist, yet as soon as anyone disagrees with him he accuses them of being fools, morons and clowns, of being his intellectual inferiors and not being worthy of taking him on in argument (I have been target of L Bird's elitist ire on many occasions)In his words L Bird is an anti elitist who deplores the Bolshivik approach, in practice he is demonstrably elitist in his tone, his manner, his uncomradely style of argument, etc. The term hypocrite comes to mind.

[Bijou Drains]

Bob Andrews wrote:

Hang on a minute Bob, he was being sarcastic!

still hearing the voices then, eh Bob?

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

so can we expect your membership application by return of post?YFSTim

Perhaps in 1973 you could've.

your views aren't the same as everyone's in the SPGB, but we don't all agree with each other on everything. 

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

There's also this, also drafted by Barry McNeeney:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/science-and-socialist

Thanks for that, ALB.This point stood out for me:

SPGB wrote:

The parallel between science and the way the SPGB sees the achievement of socialism should be clear. Scientists, like socialists, have to proselytize their ideas; because support for their theories comes as a result of persuasion and argument. They have to form themselves into groups, share knowledge at conferences and map out areas for new research. Conflict within the scientific community and the experimental anomalies generate a crisis, which can only be resolved by a revolution in ideas. The which applies to capitalist society, where problems such as unemployment and anomalies like starvation amid plenty can only be resolved by a political revolution. The organized, instrumental working class must, like the revolutionary scientists, have a clear idea of their identity and form a party if they are to succeed.

[my bold]The only issue (which perhaps can be cleared up) is the division between 'organized, instrumental working class' and 'revolutionary scientists'. I think that the 'revoutionary scientists' would be a subset of a class of 'revolutionary workers', rather than a separate group (ie. a group that has a power which is not under the control of the wider class).That is, 'science' would become a product of the majority, rather than remain, as it is now, a product of the minority.In other words, like all sources of power in a socialist society, 'science' would be democratised.I should also add the McNeeney is suitably critical of Engels' outdated formulations.This bit is also suitably critical of some conceptions of science and its relation to 'truth' and supposed 'objective knowledge':

SPGB wrote:

There is a long-standing row in some left-wing circles, which takes science as described above, in such matters as genetic population control (eugenics), IQ testing and the like; considering that science should be purged of these excrescences or abuses, leaving a pure residue of truth. The aim of such a. programme is the construction of a science which would be in harmony with a future socialist society. This hardly seems possible. For if you take away the influence of capitalist society then, until socialism is created, that new science would need to be created in a vacuum. While we might agree that socialists, to some extent, can create personal relationships which escape the boundaries, scientific or otherwise, of this society; we cannot see the effectiveness of trying to convert the scientific community to the radical science position. For even were this to be done, they would still remain unsocialist. Worse still, the radical science position assumes that a science could exist in the form of a perfect objective knowledge; which was the common sense assumption of the first part of this bulletin from which we were unable to prove that the V/alsby Society argument against socialism was wrong.

[my bold]There's still plenty for class conscious workers to discuss about these issues, though.

so can we expect your membership application by return of post?YFSTim

[Bijou Drains]

ALB wrote:

..".The author, who did actually interview a few members, had to concede that

Quote:

members certainly do not appear to be aggressive or misfits or in any way eccentric.

obviously didn't visit us lot up here in the North East!

[Bijou Drains]

An aspect of cults, and of leftist movements, not mentioned in the article, is their use of language. A common thread of cultish organisations is that they make use of obscure language and phrasiology that is used and understood, in the particular way that it is used by the group, only by members of the group.What this does is give exclusivity to the conversation, creating a sense of ownership and of belonging, that excludes non-members. You can see examples of this in groups such as the Freemasons, youth gangs, etc. etc. however in cult groups the language and the ideas create a particular world view, that can only be expressed through the use of that language style and only understood by someone who is familiar with the language.This creates a unique frame of reference for the members of the cult and as well as excluding non -members from the cult, it also has the opposite effect, members of the cult cannot converse, other than using the cultish langauge and therefore they are unable to communicate effectively with non cult members.In my view you often see this kind of disconnect when members of the SWP are speaking to the general public. Because they can only converse in stock phrases and cliches, supplied by the leadership, they come across as unnatural and weird, a bit like Dave Spart in Private Eye.One of the great things about the SPGB, in my opinion, is that we have never really developed that kind of "in crowd" way of communicating, either in the written or spoken word.

[Bijou Drains]

jondwhite wrote:

ALB wrote:

Meanwhile in another part of Brixton ….http://www.standard.co.uk/stayingin/tvfilm/the-cult-next-door-bbc2-documentary-tells-story-of-brixtonbased-cult-the-collective-and-leader-a3450966.html

I watched 'The Cult Next Door', the level of delusion was staggering – in particular, Josephine Herivel who still supports 'Comrade Bala'.

Funnily enough I get told regularly that I'm a complete cult, at least that's what I think they're saying.

[Bijou Drains]

Bob Andrews wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

We're in favour of free speech because its the best environment for achieving socialism. Just as there are fringe royalist restorationists under capitalism, I expect historical ideas never to completely disappear.

Small wonder this was met with a 'wow'. Does anyone out there have the faintest idea of what the second sentence means? As for free speech, there is nothing 'moot' about it. The SPGB at one time adhered to the argument in J S Mill's 'On Liberty'. Read that and you will get the idea. Latterly however, a less tolerant atitude to free speech has emerged. At a Delegate Meeting it was argued by a Party delegate that should he meet a  member of a  racist party selling literature the delegate would ask him, 'if he repudiated racist attacks and if he didn't ( the delegate would) try to prevent him selling.' Intolerant and potentially suicidal. Have you seen some of those members of white nationalist organisations! The tactic is that which is usually associated with the Anarcho/Bolshevik Left and a departure from the old SPGB's willingness to defend its case against the defenders of capitalism, no matter how unsavoury, with reasoned argument in open discussion.

Just because a party delegate states a view, this does not make it party policy, you have not made a case to say that this has become the approach that the SPGB has ever used.The Bolshevic/Trotskyist argument of physical force toward fascists, is not only dangerous, it gives the racist/fascists a chance to take you on at something they might have a chance with (fighting) against something they have no chance with (logical argument).The view put forward by the alleged delegaate to ADM, is certainly not my view or my plan for action, or the view of the party.I agree there is no moot point about free speech in the SPGB.As to the existance of political parties in a socialist society, I think it perfectly feasible that people will organise in groups to put forward particular viewpoints on how socialist society shoud run. I think, for example there could be fierce debate between those who favour more environmentally friendly production processes and those who are less bothered about those things. I can imaging there would be parties or grouping that might form around single issues, such as th dvelopment of transport infrastructure (prehaps pro rail groups and anti rail groups) and no doubt there will be other issues about matters such as the use of resources in areas such aes health, etc.

[Author]

Posts