Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
SocialistPunk wrote:Linda, why is it you keep omitting certain facts? Could it be that the facts you consistently skirt around, are the ones that don't sit easily in your narrative?Vin was issued with the indefinite suspension by moderator1 from this forum in March of this year. Vin would have been told of the appeal process, of which he knew from previous suspensions. Yet he chose not to pursue the matter.When Vin was suspended in March 2016, there was only moderator1, monitoring the forum. Meaning moderators 2 and 3 were not involved in Vin’s suspension.June 2016. The IC informed the EC that they would not handle any more communication from Vin.July 2016. The EC made a decision to deal with all communication from Vin that was sent to the IC. Meaning Vin's appeal would be handled by the EC.August 2016. Vin publicly asked the three moderators to reinstate him on the forum. The decision made was that he be advised to follow the existing appeal process, that any other member would be required to do. So despite your claim, the three moderators did not suspend Vin. Perhaps Vin thought the existing appeal process should not apply to him?September 2016. Vin finally engages with the appeal process and sends a request to the EC, asking them to reinstate him on the forum. Meaning Vin left it 6 months before setting in motion the appeal process, to challenge his suspension.No explanation as to why Vin left it six months to appeal his suspension has, as far as I can tell, ever been given. Instead, we’ve had eight months and counting, of yourself and at times Vin, using this forum as a means of circumnavigating the appeal process, often resulting in uncomradely comments and accusations. the latest being, that the IC have deliberately ignored an EC instruction.
I think part of the issue here is that both sides are taking entrenched positions, which frequently refer to past indiscretions (on both sides) and which very rarely appear to focus on a preferred outcome. I think it is important to stress that this has been exacerbated by the lack of EC minutes, which would have clarified things on both sides and provided a means of moving forward.In this context I can understand that Vin would feel frustrated at not being reinstated, despite a rumoured decision by the EC to that effect, however I can also understand that The Mods have a requirement for instruction as well. I think it is fairly clear that the best outcome for the party is that we find a way of putting all of this unedifying crap behind us.I think, (taking into account Vin's understandable frustration at not hearing from the EC) that despite the alleged glove puppet incident, and in the interests of moving forward, it is appropriate that Vin's ban be lifted.I also think that Vin should agree publicly to abide by moderation decisions and the rules as they currently stand, (including disputes about moderation) I also think referring this back to the EC only creates more work for the EC when they (and we) should be concentrating on more important things.If both sides are hoping for complete vindication, then they both really need to understand that that will never happen, nor is it important or desireable. I also think that this dispute is a clear indication that the current rules are not functioning appropriately (which the Mods have openly agreed). It is to be regretted that the time taken up with this dispute and with point scoring on both sides, has meant less has been available to be used more productively and cooperatively creating a better set of rules Can I suggest a way forward would be for the Mods to reinstate Vin, as soon the EC minutes are published. For the Mods to issue a warning to Vin re the use of duel accounts. For Vin to accept this warning and undertake not to use a duel account again. For the "Machiavelli" account to be closed. For Vin to publicly withdraw the comments made on the Machiavelli account. For Vin to abide by the rules as they currently stand and thus we free up the Mods time to get on with amending the rules.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:I'm not sure how familiar cdes Marraty and the comrades who take the role of Mods are with Eric Berne's theory of psychological games. However they may find Stephen Karpman's development of this theory and in particular his concept of the "drama triangle" particularly enlightening.I've been reading up about this, and it's highly suggestive and useful. One thing I'd say is that we need to find a way to cut down on drama. Rules 14 and 15 provide one such route, asking would be "rescuers" to keep their nebs out. Generally accepting the omerta on moderation decisions may help any "victim" in the triangle to re-oriientate themselves as creators, focusing on creating socialist content, and seeing their challenge as to to not bring down the sanction of the moderator.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangleI think we all need to work together to get away from drama, nad back to socialism.
whilst I'm happy to see you've found Karpman's work useful. I would say the Wikipedia entry is a bit superficial.The Drama Triangle is a transactional game and the resolution of games is to reject stylised communication in favour of open honest frank communication.The suggestion that rescuers keep out doesn't really help that. It must be remembered that in the TA model games are played from a sub conscious place and the players are unaware of their actions.Another element of the Karpman Triangle is that at any given time all of the players can swap. The victim can get annoyed at some element of the process and start to persecute the rescuer, who then becomes the victim, they can then look to the persecutor to rescue them, and off we go again, in different positions. Berne's work on Transactional Analysis is fascinating, however a bit like old Charle Marx, it's better to read his original work than some of the interpretations of his work by others. That said TA Today is a really good introductory text.
mcolome1 wrote:I would prefer to have in this forum a proletarian agitator, than a bourgeois provocateur, and a capitalist lover.moderator1 wrote:Reminder: 14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.Hi Mod 1I'm not sure if the above post refers to me, however, just to be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR Mod 1 I did not take "responsibility" for rule enforcement, Nor did I state that I believed that any post violated any rule. Similarly I did not "chastise" anyone for anything. (I gave up chastising when I left the Catholic Church). I also want to make it clear that I'm not questioning a moderation decision, merely expressing surprise. I assume it is within the rules of the forum to be surprised. life would be very dull without surprises.
I don't understand how both Vin and Linda can both be considered sock puppeteers. Surely this would require them both to have their hands up the poor puppet's orifice. Surely such cruelty is beyond even a Mackem?
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:Socialism will fail is sex is not used for group cohesion? Yes and here's why. . . look at the world socialism declaration of principles.point 7) That as all political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the interest of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all sections of the the master class, the party seeking working class emancipation must be hostile to every other party.point
The Companion Parties of the World Socialist Movement, therefore, enter the field of political action determined to wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labor or avowedly capitalist, and call upon the members of the working class of each country to muster under its banner to the end that a speedy termination may be wrought to the system which deprives them of the fruits of their labor, and that poverty may give place to comfort, privilege to equality, and slavery to freedom.http://www.worldsocialism.org/english/object-and-declaration-principles the website declaration of principles is anti-sex. In the make love not war bias of cultural norms it uses language like "hostile" and "wage war" from the patriarch lexicon. So socialism without sex or matriarchy seems to devolve into tribalism imperatives at least here at world socialism website. Conversely, in a society where sex was used for group cohesion, we wouild have a pro-sex bias to language usage and choosing words from the Matriarch lexicon. Instead of "wage war" our declaration would say "seduce". and instead of "hostile", our declaration would say "subvert". And the difference it makes is significant. A small group of people can seduce a larger group of poeple successfully with words or entertainment, or knowledge or yes even sex very successfully. But a small group of people can not "wage war" against a larger group of people successfully. So the sex opposition in our cultural and linguistic norms leads us to see solutions in a way that leaves the solutions for small groups to seduce larger groups to their way of thinking as not an optioin for socialism. I see the attitude in the declarations of principles as the attitude that works well only for a larger more powerfull group with the ability to enforce their will on a less powerfull minority they seek to destoy. That's how war works. you need superior numbers and power. BUT, In a world where sex was used for group cohesion, I'd see the attitude in the declaration of principles as the atttidue that works well for a smaller less numerous and less powerfull group that seeks to seeks to co-opt or seduce a larger more powerfull majority. that's how seduction works. You benefit from being a smaller number and don't need to force people or events against their will. P.s. on a related note, how is it possible to agree with this declaration of principles to "wage war" legally? Presumably they just meen figuratively "wage war" because literally wouild get this board shut down by govt. The langauge in the declaration of priciples is confrontratioinal and aggressive and not inclusive. it's the attitude of chimps beeting their chest proving their determination and threats. Why can't it be the attitude of bonobo's luring in outsiders and seducing them to be supporters? . interesting that this poster is tolerated, whilst clearly posting material which is off topic, disruptive and clearly aimed to disrupt
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:ALB wrote:I have to confess that I started reading your post but then gave it up as a waste of time.thanks for trying. Sorry it was a waste of your time. I have to confess I have the same experience with about 80% of things Mcolme1 suggests i read. Would you like me to try reading anything you spent about 2 hours writing?
Have to say Steve, I have experienced the same sensation as ALB when reading your posts. To be honest I'd find a paper cut on my bell end to be less painful.
Dave B wrote:That kind of thing has been on the agenda for a while as in the link below. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/28/vast-social-cleansing-pushes-tens-of-thousands-of-families-out-of-london It will move up a gear again very soon as they have lowered the Cap on benefits again and will hit the London poor the hardest as you can’t get much in the way of housing or you don’t get much change to live on out of £20-25K per year. It was also covered in I Daniel Blake with the ‘Essex girl’ single mother being socially cleansed to Newcastle. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2016/nov/10/london-boroughs-prepare-for-impacts-of-tightened-benefit-cap Which is pretty shit really because the beer up there is crap never mind the football teams.Whilst taking on board a great deal of what comrade Dave B says, can I suggest that, with regards to his comments on North Eastern beer and football, he can go and stick his head up a dead bear's arse.Without wishing to resort to regional stereotypes, he may be happy with the flat, tasteless, bland beer that passes for ale in "that there London" and the similarly flat, bland, glory hunting, sterility that passes for atmosphere in the 'New Highbury Library". But if he is wishes to experience a proper football match and a proper night out on the "Toon" he should forsake his pseudo northern existence in Manchester and come to the real Northern Powerhouse. I am happy to act as a native guide and translation expert (the natives,apparently have strong regional accents!)YFSTim
Hi Jose Ria it is heartening to hear that people in the US are actively seeking out Socialist ideas. Yes, we do think there is a chance that an American Socialist Party can exist, which has the interest of the 99%, as you put it so eloquently, as its aim. We actually think that such a Party already exists, ironically this year is the centenary of its founding by our American comrades.The party I refer to is the World Socialist Party of the USA. It is a companion Party of the Socialist Party of Great Britain and of the other parties of the World Socialist Movement.We are not a movement based on electing leaders to rule over us, or a movement based on trying to reform a system of society that favours the tiny minority over the vast majority. We genuinely hope that people like you and those you mention, develop an understanding of the vital need to to build a political movement which is based on genuine Socialist principles working to create a world where all of is can enjoy free access to all of the wealth we all produce. I hope that you find find the World Socialist Movement an asset in the development of these ideas and that you agree with our principles and practice and join our movement, working to overthrow the barbaric system of class rule and poverty we currently endure.Yours for Socialism Tim
I'm not sure how familiar cdes Marraty and the comrades who take the role of Mods are with Eric Berne's theory of psychological games. However they may find Stephen Karpman's development of this theory and in particular his concept of the "drama triangle" particularly enlightening.YFSTim
Perhaps you should look up the failure of the "lets" model which enjoyed a similar moment in the sun, in the U.K. Similar ideas have been put forward by the "Social Credit" movement in the 1920s and 30s. Your "radical new ideas" are nothing of the sort. There is a historic archive of our movement taking on these ideas and exposing their weaknesses. I suggest you examine the articles we have on line, which show just how the previous examples of the concepts you have rehashed were doomed to failure, just like yours.Whilst these ideas are, in my opinion, indicative of workers starting to question the contradictions of capitalism, sadly they are not an indication that workers have reached an understanding of the contradictions of capitalism. And by the way I don't want any time back from you as payback for my reply. The whole concept of Socialist Society as envisaged by Marx and taken forward by the SPGB is based on the absence of exchange.I suspect that you understand the fundamental difference betweeen the system of society we are fighting for and the bizarre kind of quasi barter system which is essentially what you are putting forward. But just to make it clear, we are a Party who have based our 112 year history on our "Declaration of Principles". These are not empty historical phrases, but are a set of common aims which all SPGB members understand and agree with and are the principled basis on which we have built our movement. Perhaps you should read them, then maybe you will understand that our movement and Party is fundamentally opposed to the outdated and demonstrably foolish ideas you put forward.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Sign of the times, while most cable news were leading with the US election, CCTV's main story was the talks Chinese Premier Li was having in Russia, making trade deals.Puts something into perspective for what might develop in the futureAccording to that great historical study "1066 and all That" at the end of the First World War, America took over from Britain as "Top Nation" and history came to an en……Perhaps nearly a century later we are witnessing a similar event as the USA loses "Top Nation" status.Am I the only one who's worried that might bring the world to an en……….
Capitalist Pig wrote:America more prosperious? I'd settle for them having better standards of spelling.With regard to the cover, am I the only one who thinks Trump looks better on our cover than he does in real life. certainly looks more human and the hair is less preposterous.Comments like these are why I have distanced myself from this organization over the years.don't bang the door on way your way out, matey.
gnome wrote:DJP wrote:I think we've been talking to a spam bot. This "postcard" is on another thread tooSeveral in fact, of which these are a selection.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/no-junk-mail?page=2#comment-35911http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/practicing-socialism-holocracy-and-motivation-and-effort-considerations?page=5#comment-35978http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/socialism-will-fail-if-sex-not-used-group-cohesion?page=11#comment-36104http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/imagine-you-could-pass-any-law-or-regulation-capitalist-society-order-make-?page=8#comment-36105It appears that non-party trolls can get away with almost any transgression whereas party members have their posting rights suspended for the slightest contravention of the rules…
It seems to depend upon whether or not you speak with a "strong regional accent"
Capitalist Pig wrote:I am from the us and I don't really appreciate the new cover for the spgb. What do you find so offensive about him other than the phrases taken out of context by the media? He wants to bring jobs back to the us, get fair and profitable trade deals, rebuild our infrastructure, and eliminate policies that cripple the economy. I feel like you guys are isolating yourselves from the rest of the world and its people by saying "everyone is evil but us". It is just really hard to call myself a communist and see the socialist standard demonize Donald Trump just because he wants to see America prosperious.America more prosperious? I'd settle for them having better standards of spelling.With regard to the cover, am I the only one who thinks Trump looks better on our cover than he does in real life. certainly looks more human and the hair is less preposterous.
