Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:London group of the Anarchist Federation will be holding a May Day Social on Sunday May 1st from 5pm till they run out of drinks at the Autonomy Club, Freedom Bookshop, Angel Alley, 84b Whitechapel High Street. London E1. You are cordially invited to attend. There will be (short) speeches on May day, drinks and snacks.I'd be interested in any feedback on how this Autonomy Club functions regards number of customers, regular clientele and if it breaks even financially and how the stock and service is organised.
that sounds like your planning a robbery!!!
alanjjohnstone wrote:Quote:"a former government intelligence adviser ('Horizon scanner') "Out of interest what career did she take when she left the government employment? Futurologist with some think-tank?
She was sacked due to unforseen circumstances.
"constitutionalist SPGB"I would prefer the to use Sean Lemass 1928 description of Fianna Fail, I would say we are a "slightly constitutional party"
You might find the work of Robertson and Robertson interesting. Here is a link to James Robertson's wiki entry:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Robertson_(psychoanalyst)Although I don't think it gives enough credit to his wife Joyce.The films they made were truly groundbreaking, I would post my copies on here but they are under copywrite to a charity which supports theri work.here is a link to an extract of one of their films on YouTubehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s14Q-_Bxc_Uthe full film is even more harrowing, as is their film of a child going into a residential nursery whilst his mother has a baby.
Hi Alan
That is something I have been thinking about for quite some time. Wouldn’t it be great to have “Abolish the Wages system” or some other slogan projected across he Houses of Parliament at the height of the tourist season!Hi MeelI think you misunderstand Attachment Theory. Attachment Theory is a theory of causation, as much as a theory of treatmentnumber of different studies have consistently made the link between childhood attachment with the development of adult personality disorders and they have established that an insecure attachment is a highly relevant risk factor for the development of this condition.Bakermans-Kranenburg and Van IJzendoorn report that the usual attachment pattern spread with mothers in the general the population is: 58% secure attachment, 23% dismissive, 19% preoccupied, and an additional 18% as unresolved attachment. Their extensive review of studies over the last 25 years that have used the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) as their basis found that individuals presenting with BPD had very significantly more insecure and unresolved-disorganised attachment than in the general population.Fonagy et al report that 92% of people with BPD presented with insecure attachment (assessed through the AAI),& that the number of people with preoccupied and unresolved-disorganised types was especially noteable.West et al undertook a study of women with BPD, and found that the women mainly had early attachment relationships of the insecure preoccupied type.Patrick et al. found an 83% preoccupied attachmentBarone et al. found high rates (81% overall and as high as 97% in certain BPD diagnostic subgroups) of insecure and unresolved-disorganized attachment as assessed by the AAI in a large sample (N= 140) of BPD patients.it is important to note that Attachment Theory does not attribute poor attachments purely to some kind of “poor parenting only” model. Childhood experiences, like adult experiences are multi-facetted and varied. A child may experience early separation due to being placed in an incubator which is the way a loving, knowledgeable and caring parent would care for a premature baby) they may suffer continual pain due to an unresolved childhood illness (infantile arthritis, for example) which means that the parent doesn’t become the source of relief from anxiety and pain, etc., etc. issues such as autism, ADD, ADHD, may make caring for the child more difficult and stressful for the parent and this may lead to difficulty with bonding and attachment. A child with profound physical disability may spend more time separated from their care giver because of hospitalisation. Children living through war, famine, poverty, may have care from parents who are quite understandably preoccupied with other things.What I do find sinister is that for over half a century overwhelming evidence has demonstrated the need for infants to have early, consistent, predictable, loving care, yet still government policy is about getting children into day “care”; as early as possible, getting them into “learning”; as soon as possible, so that the number of available workers is increased to depress the price of labour and to ensure that children’s heads are filled with the things they need to become the next set of wage slaves When we have a sane society (Socialism) we can provide the support needed for parents of both sexes to enjoy caring for and nurturing their children, helping them to play, learn about the world develop friendships and security
Interesting Abstract:"Personality traits such as low emotional stability and low empathy have a considerable negative impact on an individual's mating success. This impact is more severe in cases where such traits reach extreme levels and are classified as personality disorders. Several evolutionary models have been proposed to account for the relative high prevalence of these apparently maladaptive traits. The present paper contributes to the explanatory power of these models by putting forward the hypothesis that in ancestral human societies selection pressures on personality traits that predict success in intimate relationships had been weak. The reason why is that mate choice had been controlled by parents, mainly fathers, who did not place considerable weight on these traits in a prospective son- and daughter-in-law, and who were willing to impose substantial costs on their children in order to benefit themselves from a marriage alliance"Apart from the obvious massive assumption that "Personality Disorder" has a heritable base, which has been brought into huge question by Attachment Theory, it also makes other unsupported assumptions. One is the low mating success of people with personality disorders, I would question this on a couple of grounds, firstly it makes the assumption that the person who is legally the father is biologically the father, which in recent studies ha shown not to be the case in up to 12% of births, and does not take into account the number of children whose father is unknown. It also assumes that in making an arranged marriage at all levels of society, the parental interest is only in the alliance from the marriage and not the well being of the son or daughter.In a sense the question it poses "why does an unattractive feature like personality disorder continue to be heritable, when it has a negative impact on mating success". Gives the most obvious answer only when you step outside of the heritability trap, the reason it continues to be present is because it is largely environmental, not heritable!
alanjjohnstone wrote:So i am in full agreement with your sentiments that we should have a complete over-haul and subject the WSM to a full MOT. This guest writer topic does not preclude such a wider, broader debate, but i am genuinely interested in who we consider to be "comrades" or not. So let's try and list them.I think I might not have made what I was proposing clear. I was not proposing a complete overhaul of the WSM, or that we"discuss a re-vamp of the whole party image and approach…and willing to re-visit some of our traditional principles even if to just re-affirm , or perhaps elaborate a little more upon them."I was proposing a review and revamp of how the Party interacts with the Internet. With regards to the points you made above, although at some point in time we do need to look at how the movement operates at some time in the future, I do not think this is the pressing need now. As to the D of P, I am quite happy with the way they are worded and what they say. I think their historical form adds gravitas to our case. As to who we consider comrades, I would say, generally speaking, those within our Party, those who are not comrades are those who are not members of our party. I do not think this is a sectarian approach, we are not a broad church Party and although there are those out there with very similar views to ourselves other than acknowledging that they have similar views to ourselves, it serves no purpose I can see to talk about those who for example agree with 90% of what we say as comrades, but not those who agree with only 89%. Where do we draw the line, do we consider SPEW as comrades because they are closer to us than the BNP?
Hi Just to add a little clarification, not all pre-birth "mental conditions" are necessarily genetic. For example Down's Syndrome (where maternal age is a risk factor) is Chromosomal (although the chromosomes contain the genes), as is Fragile X syndrome. Similarly Foetal Alcohol Syndrome, lack of nutrients, maternal over exposure to stress, etc. are not genetic, but may have profound impacts on the developing foetus, however they are not genetic. At present 65% of Congenital Birth Defects have no currently identifiable cause and even factors such as the father's age may have a significant impact on heart disease.I think part of the difficulty is the over simplification of the issue to the reductionist "There's a gene for it" approach. Going back to what was discussed earlier, my own view is that taking account the hereditary nature of personality which to an extent sets the scene, the biggest and most significant factor in the development of personality is the attachment the individual experienced during their infancy and early childhood.
moderator1 wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:I also find it quite surprising that a member of the NERB was censured on the grounds of the hostility clause for retweeting a tweet from the Labour Party, yet we are proposing to give space in our Journal to writers who are not members of our Party.This in fact is not what occurred if by "censured" you mean suspended. What actually occurred was a party member informed a member of NERB that the twitter account they owned contained a retweet from Labour and they should take action to delete it – otherwise it was in breach of the hostility clause.The NERB member took umbridge at this information and responded with an insult which resulted in an indefenite suspension.
That wasn't what I meant, what I meant by censured was they were told they should take action to delete it. The point I am trying to make is that re tweeting something that makes a similar point to ours Although from the labout Party) is not a million miles away from inviting a non Socialist to write in the Standard. I don't think either re-tweeting the Labour Party or getting non Socialist writers in the standard is something we should be doing. I am willing to accept that this might not be a majority opinion of those members of the party registered on this forum.As to the term momentous, I do think that it is a momentous decision to have a change in editorial policy where we regularly invite non party members to contribute, you may not, but that's your prerogative.
Sorry for the delay in getting back. Work and family commitments. I would be happy to do what modding (is there such a word?) as I can, however, as stated my input would be sporadic.As to the points about current use of the rules, I am more than happy to put together a few proposals, however my view (and I accept that this is only my view) is that the whole issue of the use of the internet (How it fits into the democratic processes of the party, where it fits into the administration of the party, how it is effectively administered, where it fits into the party's rules on publishing materials, etc) is a really huge area.I also think it is one that is going to require us to look at all of these areas in great depth if it is not going to cause us great problems in the future. I have started putting some ideas/proposals together, which members of our Branch have indicated they feel is necessary for an Item for Discussion for ADM and think it is a better idea to examine the whole thing, rather than make adjustments to a system that I think needs overhauling.
Don't want to be seen as being overly critical, however I do have a number of real difficulties with this proposal:1. Is it the role of our Official Journal to put forward the views of non-party members?2. Is this forum the correct place to take a decision about whether or not to make a change in the way we fill our Official Journal this forum?In terms of the first point, whilst I accept that guest writers might (and at present there is no way of proving this) increase interest in the standard, does this mean necessarily it is the right thing to do. No doubt an article about the personal life of Cheryl Cole (or whatever her name is now) would increase interest in the standard, but I don't think that would be the correct way forward either. As to the point of writers being "(relatively)socialist thinkers", is this not a bit like being "relatively pregnant". Again is it our role to be "inclusive", I think not. We are a Socialist Party, an EXCLUSIVELY Socialist Party, what next "a broad church approach". I also find it quite surprising that a member of the NERB was censured on the grounds of the hostility clause for retweeting a tweet from the Labour Party, yet we are proposing to give space in our Journal to writers who are not members of our Party.the second, and in my mind possible more important point, is that any decision of this nature should be addressed through the democratic organs of our party, The EC, Conference and ultimately the Party as a whole, not just the very small minority of Party members who are active on this forum. I do think this is a vitally important point, this forum is not the Party, it is not representative of the Party any more than a dozen party members in the pub having a chat when they're full of ale.I've got to say that I find it astounding that without the slightest reference to the democratic organs of the party to agree to this in my view momentous change in editorial policy, you are already inviting suggestions, as if it is a done deal.I really don't mean to be negative, however I do think this should be thoroughly discussed by the whole Party beforer any decision is made!
Apologies for length of time between comments.Re taking up Moderation work, I would be happy to contribute what I can however, as my contributions in the last week or so have shown, I am currently working around 55 hours a week if not more, and my input would be sporadic at best.Re the difficulties outlined about what to moderate and what to not, whilst I understand your difficulties, surely it is the rule against off topic posting, not going off topic that is the problem. If the rules are applied in some cases and not in others, then it appears (and I fully understand the need to moderate some of the posts) that they are being picked on unfairly. if the issue is " when posters use *every* thread as a platform for there current bugbear / obsession / singular interest." the rules should address this, rather than going off topic. Again as Mod 1 says "I only take any action on off-topic posts when its blatantly obvious that some posts are deliberately going off-topic by their lack of serious discussion." this is to an extent a subjective judgement, which can appear to be picking on some posters unfairly as what is serious to one person might lack seriousness to another, and the rules state off topic, rather than lack of seriousness, so in effect someone being less than serious about a topic may, with some justification claim that they hadn't breached any rule.The point I am trying to make is that going off topic is not actually the problem that we face, however the off topic rule is being used to deal with other issues. Surely we should make the rules to suit the difficulties, and I don't see going off topic as being the main issue.
You might find this programme very interestinghttp://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b071skp5My own view is that Oliver James is well worth listening too, although he does sometimes go a little too far on the anit genetics and although he has railed against selfish capitalism, he has sadly come to the conclusion that what we need is unselfish captialism!.A quote from his book, "Not In Your Genes":"Professor Robert Plomin, the world’s leading geneticist, said in 2014 of his search for genes that explain differences in our psychology: ‘I have been looking for these genes for fifteen years. I don’t have any’.
