Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:You're going to have to turn your well-known habit of 'psychologising' upon yourself, Tim, in your desperate search for an answer for your failure to engage in conversation with grown-ups.My comradely advice is to look at the content of your last post, and try to judge whether it's from someone genuinely interested in political discussion, or from someone who has 'issues' (to use the current pop-psychology term).And don't blame me, Tim – I'm only the messenger. If you must have a tantrum, smash your keyboard against the wall – you'll feel better, and I'll feel free from your 'issues'.
Just answer the question, or are you scared it will expose you and your stupid proposal. If I am the fool and you are the master, just sweep me away with one mighy thrust of your huge intellect! Or if you can't then let others on here be the judge.
LBird wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:How about a trade. If ALB answers your question to him on this thread, then you agree to answer my question to you on the "good article" thread?Since you appear to be incapable of reading what I write, and, through your own frustration at your own lack of comprehension, always turn to abuse, I think that I'll decline your 'trade', since I would be trading my valuable discussion for your childish taunts.
The only person on this borad that believes that this is the reason you refuse to answer my question is you (and I doubt you even believe it)I asked a straight question, putting a scenario that was basd on your crack pot idea of voting on every scientific theory, it was not abusive, it did not have reference to your previous replies to similar questions (because you haven't ever replied to a similar question).therefore my ability to understand what you write is irrelevant. You as usual resort to your elitist sterotyping of anyone who doesn't agree with your cockamamie ideas.So FOR ONCE, stop avoiding a straight question and explain to us all how the practical application of your proposal would work,
LBird wrote:ALB wrote:That's because they are measuring actual labour rather than socially necessary labour. Don't know how you would measure the latter. Not sure you can.I know that you won't take kindly to my appearance on this thread, ALB, so I'll make it short and sweet.Since this form of 'labour' is 'socially necessary', only the society that determines its own necessities can 'measure' its labour; and furthermore, only it can determine its 'measures'.Within a democratic society, like socialism/communism, only the democratic producers can determine their own necessities and their own measures.I would suggest that 'voting' would be an appropriate method for 'measuring'.So, I think we can 'measure socially necessary labour', and indeed will do so within socialism. This social estimation will not, of course, involve 'money'.
ALB wrote:In criticising various schemes for "labour money" in his day Marx suggested it couldn't be.Do you have an information where Marx suggested it could be, where he wasn't talking about 'money' (or any of its supposed 'objective' forms)? I suspect that Marx didn't talk about the future social measures of 'necessity' which we might use, but you might know of some discussion which touches on this area.If you don't wish to reply to my question, just ignore this post, and I'll leave the thread alone.
How about a trade. If ALB answers your question to him on this thread, then you agree to answer my question to you on the "good article" thread?
alanjjohnstone wrote:i have rejoined the forum since the party assisted me on getting back online and it is only right and proper that i engage with fellow members on all party mediums.I was off the internet since xmas eve and for news had to rely upon my cable tv news which was RT, Al Jazeera, China Global and Australia Plus and Japan's NHK. I was provided with ample opportunity to study their coverage and was very disappointed. Australia Plus is more like the BBC World Service , a cross section of docs news and soaps. Al Jazeera was of course lacking reporting of the Yemen, NHK was mostly a cultural introduction to Japan's traditions. RT carried almost zero coverage of Russian domestic politics of current affairs , so i am no surprised they dumped the Russia Today name…I found them very similar to Fox .. experts…such as from the SWP, UKIP and plenty of US right wing libertarians. I'll be happy to find my own fake news rather than have it forced down my throat. I was pleasantly surprised by China Global. a good selection of academic guests and watched a good documentary on migrant workers in china. I also watched a Korean comedy drama series focussed on temp contact workers versus those with permanent positions. The voice over on the opening credits explains getting a decent job has overtaken unification as the most iportant issue for Koreans. Anyways this new computer has all its functions in Thai so it will be a little bit before i am back in the fold again.Hi Alan, welcome back. Hope all is well with you.Regarding news sources, I have always found the RTE (Irish) news service to be quite interesting, it often gives a very different spin to stories that are prevalent on BBC, etc. I don't know if you they are available in Thailand but the Kodi box is a particular favourite of mine, it is possible to get practically every iinternational new channel from the one source. (Rumour has it that you can also watch a constant stream football matches from all over the world for free)
Is it just me, but is there a bit of an absence of squawking today, hope Bird flue hasn't hit Liverpool?
LBird wrote:So, according to the SPGB, almost anyone, or anything (dragons and entrails included), other than the social body which aims to bring socialism. That is, workers.Revealing.I think you're trying to avoid the question, Tweety Pie, just 'cos I'm black and white, that doesn't mean I'm that bad old puddy tat, I promise I won't eat you, just answer the question, sufferin' succotash!
Tim Kilgallon wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote: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?So you have woken from your slumber. As you are now awake, could you please, in the interests of democractic discussion, give an honest straightforward answer to the above scenario. I (and I presume all of the other readers of this thread, apart from you) will take the absence of a straight answer to signify the fact that you have no answer, so come on Birdy boy, knock us all dead with you erudite, reasoned explanation of what would happen in the above scenario, we know you've got it in you!
C'mon Birdy boy, answer the question. I'll tell you what in an attempt to speed along the process and make it democratically accessible, even to dullards like me. Howsabout f you answer the question, without obfuscation, sophistry, derogatory comments or the use of the word Leninist, I'll throw in a box of Trill and a nice piece of cuttle fish, can't say fairer than that.
Tim Kilgallon wrote: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?So you have woken from your slumber. As you are now awake, could you please, in the interests of democractic discussion, give an honest straightforward answer to the above scenario. I (and I presume all of the other readers of this thread, apart from you) will take the absence of a straight answer to signify the fact that you have no answer, so come on Birdy boy, knock us all dead with you erudite, reasoned explanation of what would happen in the above scenario, we know you've got it in you!
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.
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.
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?
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"
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.
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?
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.
