[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Do animals mourn and grievehttp://www.dw.com/en/do-animals-mourn-their-dead/a-19564029

http://www.tynemouth.frankgillings.com/dog.htmlWllie's still in the same pub, which is known to the locals as "The stuffed dog" It's a really good boozer as well!

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Let's simplify it for you then, Do I exist outside of your perception of me? Again a simple yes or no will do,

Tim, I keep giving you the simplest answers that I can.But you're not using the same Marxist ideology as I am, about the social production of 'existence'.You want to discuss your drunken encounters with your missus, and you as an individual and me as an individual. I keep pointing this out as an effect of your 'materialism', which looks to 'biological senses' as the determiner of 'what exists'.Any answer I give is in the context of my freely exposed-to-all ideology, which is Marx's too. For example, Marx argues that 'senses are social', and so to talk about 'existence' outside of the mode of production that produces that 'existence', is meaningless.I'm trying to give you straight answers, but you just seem to ignore Marx's works – which, of course, you're free to do, but it would be better if you openly state to all, where your concern with you, yourself and your perception, comes from.I'd argue that you're simply repeating the ruling class ideas of this society, and locate your views socio-historically, whereas I suppose you'll locate the origin of your views in you.I won't keep on saying the same thing to you, Tim, so unless you start to engage in a discussion about epistemology, and its social location, then I'm going to have to stop replying to you.

I'll take your reply as you refusing to answer the question because you know the only answer you can give, which is consistent with your previous postings, (which is that I do not exist, outside of your perception of me) is clearly ridiculous.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Thanks for your simple answer (No). Following on from your simple answer to my simple question. I can assume that as I am made of matter, I do not exist outside of your perception of the matter that makes me up. If this is the case, and I only exist in terms of your perception of me, there are three further questions:1. What do I get up to when you are not perceiving me? As according to you my matter has no existence outside of your perception of me.2. Why are you conversing with me when I only exist in your consciousness and have no existence outside of that domain.3. When I come home pissed, yet again, can I send my beloved around to your house so you can explain that it is not me that is pissed, but rather your perception of me that is pissed, and therefore you are to blame? ( I would advise caution, she can be a bit volatile when she's vexed)

[my bold]You'll have to read my post again, Tim.I was giving an answer to a political and philosophical question about 'power' within epistemology.You seem to want to persevere with your 'bourgeois individualist' concerns, like 'I' and 'me', and your biological notions of 'perception'.Since I specifically said that 'existence' is socially-produced, I don't know how you can read that as 'your existence is in my head', but I suppose with your bourgeois ideology, those sorts of beliefs are basic.But those ideological beliefs of yours are not mine (nor Marx's).And who told you that you are made of 'matter'?And why not 'energy'? Your ideology is 19th century, Tim. As are your 'assumptions'.

Let's simplify it for you then, Do I exist outside of your perception of me? Again a simple yes or no will do,

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

A simple question for L Bird, which mirrors one you posed to another poster earlier and which should hopefully elicit a simple yes or a no.Do you believe that matter has an existence independent of your perception of it?

A very simple and reasonable question, Tim.The answer is 'No'.Marx argues that the opposition to 'consciousness' is 'inorganic nature'.Engels thought (given his social circumstances and influences) that this meant 'matter'.According to Marx, 'matter' is a social product, which we can change, rather than, as the bourgeoisie allege, we contemplate.We could expect, if we were Marxists, that 'matter' could change (because it is a social product) to… errr… for example… errr… to… ermmm… 'energy'.So, some societies, from inorganic nature, produce matter.Other societies, from inorganic nature, produce energy.For some, 'inorganic nature' is 'matter'; for others, 'inorganic nature' is 'energy'. We have to choose.For us socialists, employing Marx's ideas, we can situate the social production of organic nature (nature-for-us) in socio-historical context. That is, we regard 'organic nature' as a social product, related to the 'mode of production' that produces it.So, to summarise, 'matter' is a social product (which we can change), and 'matter' has no 'existence' outside of our social production.'Existence' is produced.That's why we do not have to simply, passively, discover, contemplate 'matter', but can change 'it'.Bourgeois physics today is behind Marx in 1845.Theses on Feuerbachhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm

Thanks for your simple answer (No). Following on from your simple answer to my simple question. I can assume that as I am made of matter, I do not exist outside of your perception of the matter that makes me up. If this is the case, and I only exist in terms of your perception of me, there are three further questions:1. What do I get up to when you are not perceiving me? As according to you my matter has no existence outside of your perception of me.2. Why are you conversing with me when I only exist in your consciousness and have no existence outside of that domain.3. When I come home pissed, yet again, can I send my beloved around to your house so you can explain that it is not me that is pissed, but rather your perception of me that is pissed, and therefore you are to blame? ( I would advise caution, she can be a bit volatile when she's vexed)

[Bijou Drains]

A simple question for L Bird, which mirrors one you posed to another poster earlier and which should hopefully elicit a simple yes or a no.Do you believe that matter has an existence independent of your perception of it?

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

lbird wrote:

So, if a democratic vote is not 'binding' (in some sense), what's the point of it?

Exactly!

then presumably we would need a vote on the vote on the result of the vote, followed swiftly by a vote on the vote…………..

I'm not sure what point you two think that you're making, other than, according to you, democracy is pointless and voting is a process without an end product.I don't think arguing this about 'democracy' will gain you any members of the SPGB from amongst those workers looking for answers about 'democratic socialism'!This standpoint is not only opposed to democracy in science, but also to democracy in politics.But… I'm sure you two will claim to have a 'special consciousness', that allows you two to 'know' the product of 'science'.Otherwise, it's the death of any notion of 'science', even a bourgeois elitist one.

Don't get angry with me, let's face it I don't have an existence outside your perception of me. If it's anyone to blame, surely it's you. I am merely a socially construced scientific theory that you have about me, and I would say that as you are conversing with me, without first subjecting your theory of the existance of me to a democratic vote, you are demonstrating dangerously elitist practices! Shame on you!

[Bijou Drains]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

lbird wrote:

So, if a democratic vote is not 'binding' (in some sense), what's the point of it?

Exactly!

Lbird wrote:

There is still only 'one part' in society: the producers.But, clearly, any democratic vote produces two 'parts': the thing voted for, and the thing voted against. This is nothing to do with Marx's point in his Theses on Feuerbach, about an elite which 'outranks' the producers, in the decision-making process.

The same could be said of a Leninist vanguard.  In fact, the ame could be said of genius materialists who know the truth no-one else knows, as long as they are still producers.A vote also produces the people who voted for, and the people who voted against.  The winners and the losers, one part of society will have access to reality, another part will be denied it.And I'll re-phrase that 'meaningless' bit.The majority, in your theory, is still an elite.  That is not wordplay, that the facts.  There is nothing in the definition of elite that requires it to be a minority.And, as we've discussed before: how can we know the result of a vote if the only way to find out the truth is to have a vote?  We'd have to vote on the result of the vote.

then presumably we would need a vote on the vote on the result of the vote, followed swiftly by a vote on the vote…………..

[Bijou Drains]

Twford John wrote:

I see why you would feel uncomfortable about Socialist Party Investments and wish to pass it off as a joke. It wasn't my purpose to embarrass you. What I am trying to get at, and I should have used a less sensitive example, is: do you believe that democracy is, as it were, a trump card. That if a majority of the membership supports a proposal, no matter how preposterous ( and a revolutionary party making capital investments does appear pretty preposterous ),then the democratic decision overrides everything else?

 I see no reason why a Socialist Party should feel uncomfortable about making capital investments.We bought our head office many years ago and and the value of the property has risen consideably. Are you suggesting that we should have not made that capital investment and paid rent, or do you think that we if and when the property is sold we should only sell it at a price that reflects the price we paid adjusted for inflation?Similarly we have retired members who no doubt have pensions partly paid by investments in stocks and shares, should they disinvest, or should we not accept any monies donated by them.If we have capital and we can use it to increase the money we have to plough into revolutionary activity, why should we not? We are not a bunch of moralistic zealots who are attempting to live a socialistic life within the capitailist system, wearing hair shirts and beating our backs with wet copies of Das Kapital. We are realists who realise, that unfortunately we have to live in a capitalist world. If we can subvert some of it to increase revolutionary activity, all well and good!

[Bijou Drains]

twc wrote:

The SPA case, as quoted above, is the only socialist position.The Party has only one Object.  Its Object and Declaration of Principles leave no room for doubt.It is a mug’s game for the Party to attempt to administer capitalism in the interests of the working class.The Party case is that nobody—not even the Party—can run capitalism.  Otherwise what on earth is its case against reformism?The Party case is that capital runs capitalism.Do you really think that anyone—including the Party—can steer capitalism in working class interests?Do you really believe it possible?

that's not what I said, nor is what I said, in my opinion, contrary to the position established by the party in the wake of the W B of Upton Park dispute in 1911

[Bijou Drains]

Surely this whole debate is a nuanced rerun of the Upton Park debate (incidentally does that now become the Olympic Stadium debate?). If referendums are held where real decisions are being made that impact on the lives of workers then surely, in the same way as Socialist delegates to parliament would do, Socialists would make a decision based on what was felt to be in the best interests of workers. If there was a referendum on increasing the pay of ancillary staff in hospitals, I assume the vast majority of Socialists would vote in favour. Similarly if referendums were to be used as a democratic way in which workers could control even small aspects of their lives on a local level, would that be something we should abstain from? If for example a local council put the question of whether a local park should be used as a children's football pitch or turned into a golf course, would it be anti socialist to take part in a decision making process that could be used as an example of the value of participatory democracy?

[Bijou Drains]

ALB wrote:

You're thinking of Ernst Fleishman. His article is here:http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/sex-in-free-society.htmlNot sure, though, that Reichian psychology is valid, though, as it posits a mysterious "sexual energy" which nobody has been able to find but then any talking therapy works whatever the theory behind it.

I would doubt you find many mainstreeam counsellor or psychotherapists taking Reichian psychotherapy particularly seriously. By the end of his career he was selling what were effectively large metal boxes that people could sit in , which he said were orgone accumulators. He ended up being jailed, effectively for repeatedly selling quack remedies. (The orgone accumulator was said to be the inspiration for Woody Allen's Orgasmatron, in the film The Sleeper and also the inspiration for Kate Bush's video for her single Cloud busting). I actually have an Orgone Accumulator, cunningly disguised as a large metal document cupboard. Obvioiusly these are now very rare, due to US law enforcement, however I would be willing to sell it to anyone interested in taking up Reichian Psychotherapy, due to its rarity, it would be very expensive. All monies would go to the party.A friend once went on a course through work developed by a trainer with a Reichian background, which worked on the concept of "body awareness, being in touch with feelings, etc.". As part of it he was given a leaf from a tree and asked to concentrate on the leaf, become "in contact with it" and then think about how it felt to him. When he asked for to give his his feedback to the group about how the leaf felt to him, he said "leafy"I wouldn't necessarily agree that "any taking therapy works whatever the thory behind it". There are some examples of very dangerous "therapies" that have actually made people a hell of a lot worse. Examples include Attachment Therapy (not to be confused with Attachment Based Therapy), and some talking therapies have been shown to exacerbate problems for people who self harm. Also some theoretical approaches to talking therapies appear to be more successful than others in relation to particular difficulties, for instance Dialectical Cognitive Therapy appears to be more effective for people diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder, than other talking approaches.

[Bijou Drains]

SocialistPunk wrote:

gnome wrote:

moderator2 wrote:

This is not an official reminder but more of a comradely early intervention to avoid future problems. Cde. Sarkar is a fellow member of the WSM and we cannot accept having aspersions cast upon his character on the forum. 

If this is not an official reminder to Gorachand wouldn't it have been preferable to send him a PM?  But it occurs to me that he was well within the limits of Rule 7 which permits the candid and forceful expression of views.  Odd too that "aspersions" can be cast upon certain members of the SPGB without so much as a murmur from the moderators.

The moderators were so biased in their approach they even let a particularly uncomradely aspersion made against themselves go unchallenged.

Yes SP but are you a Mod challenging a challenge against a Mod, or are you a forum member challenging a challenge against a Mod and does this make me a Forum member questioning a mod, challenging a mod, challenging a forum member, challenging a mod, or a forum member, questioning a forum member, challenging a forum member, challenging a Mod…….. at the court of King Caractacus

[Bijou Drains]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

gnome wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

I still can't remember the name of D'Arcy's miserable mate. He had a face like a well smacked arse when the heathens of NE branch turned up, with our "strong regional accents".

Harry Baldwin?

No not him, just came back. Cyril Bloody May!!!!!!!

He had the look of an Easter Island statue, that had been "digitally penetrated" and really wasn't enjoying it.

[Bijou Drains]

Subhaditya wrote:

In the book "Sex At Dawn" by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jentha, the authors show that we humans have spent most of our existence( like 95%) as hunter gatherers living in egalitarian groups that were like communes where people shared everything material resources, women and also responsibilites.It was just the most efficient strategy for survival.The thing is sex was used more often for group cohesion than for reproduction. Like 99% of the time we were having sex for social bonding than to reproduce. I dont think those communes would have remained egalitarian and peacefully cooperated  if they practiced things like monogamy which severely restricts pleasure seeking behavior.Now James W. Prescott in his article "Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence" shows that almost every human society he studied had high levels of violence if physical pleasure seeking behavior was discouraged which is true in every monogamous society. The reverse was also true that they were more peaceful much less drawn to violence if physical pleasure seeking behavior wasnt looked down on. People were getting lot more physical pleasure in these places from their adolescence, both premarital and extramarital sex was tolerated. In "Sex At Dawn" the authors even highlighted societies that encouraged promiscous behavior.The thing is we are not monogamous beings at all as the book "Sex At Dawn" shows convincingly. So if you encourage physical pleasure seeking behavior or tolerate it  you might find the average woman is having sex with several males at any given time and the average man is having sexual relationship with several females at any given time.Now socialism is trying to scale up the communes of 100-150 people that existed 10,000 years ago to communes involving millions of people. The thing is the females were shared in the communes to make them work as was parental responsibilities. I dont think people will be inclined to share material resources if the females arent shared. The ideal situation I can think of is where every female is accessible to all men and parental resposibility is shared communally.Discouraging accessibility will also discourage peaceful cooperation and sharing among men, instead men will go violent as James W. Prescott shows the solution isnt monogamy either as it too discourages accessibility to females. We will never have an egalitarian society with men peacefully cooperating with each other if they have to fight over access to females, society will forever remain an unequal place with unequal rights and privileges.If we do decide to tolerate or encourage physical pleasure seeking behavior how we may go about it, the authors of "Sex At Dawn" highlight several communities that do just that often having rituals that encourage female accessibility and  discouraging men from behaving possessively / selfishly.  Ultimately trying to create conditions where every female is accessible to all men.Ultimately I suppose its about encouraging or discouraging certain tendencies to bring about peaceful cooperation among people and I think sex will play a big part in it. I mean sex can be used to bring about group cohesion or divide it.

I take it you've never actually had an adult relationship with a woman. Honestly they're not as scary as they seem, just try talking to one or two of them in a pleasant manner.

[Bijou Drains]

gnome wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

I still can't remember the name of D'Arcy's miserable mate. He had a face like a well smacked arse when the heathens of NE branch turned up, with our "strong regional accents".

Harry Baldwin?

No not him, just came back. Cyril Bloody May!!!!!!!

[Author]

Posts