[Brian]

lindanesocialist wrote:

SP  vin has done this. and repeats yet again that he will stick by the rules,  What he refuses to do  is make an act of contrition to you or  and the other mods or the EC. He has been suspended long enough. It is up to you and the other mods to end the – what is in effect –  lifetime ban. 

May I point out the mod's decision contained an opinion for Vin to consider.  It has no bearing on how Vin decides to word his request to the EC for lifting the indefinite suspension.  If Vin is of the view a simple request will suffice that's entirely his decision.  Likewise if he's of the view that the request should contain a restatement that in the future he'll abide by the guidelines and rules that will also be his decision.What's clear is it's upto Vin to put either decision in motion, for he and he alone holds the keys to the door.

[Brian]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

 

Perhaps if Brian offered sincere his contrition?Brian – Forgive me comrade for I have sinned it is 15 posts since my last sincere contritionFather Kilgallon – Tell me comrade what mispostings have you made since that time.Brian – Well comrade (Brian holds back a tear) I…… I, I  don't know how to say this, but, forgive me I have gone off topic on one occasion and I have questioned a moderator's decision in private message with another comrade, a sin of decent I believe, and lastly…….. (voice becomes low and practically inaudible) I called the almighty infallibility of the EC into question in my private thoughts.Father Kilgallon – Comrade you have committed serious acts of disagreement, however I believe you have made a sincere contition, as a penance go away and read 15 articles by Jim Darcy from 1970s editions of the Standard and when you come out of the coma, whip yourself on the back 30 times with a wet copy of Questions of the Day. Go forth my son and question no more.[/quote]OK silly Vin, silly EC and silly me for posing a possible reason why we are in the middle of the silly season and not being contrite. 

[Brian]

gnome wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

Incidentally, what did the Video Production Committee produce in the five years of its existence (2002-2007)? As I understand it, 'Capitalism and Other Kids Stuff' was not produced by the Video Production Committee.

That's correct although of the four members responsible for its production I think two were members of the the Video Production Committee at the time.The EC declined to officially endorse the video because it did not mention the party or socialism.

April 2005 EC minutes wrote:

9.2.ii) Lawrence & Scholey: "Regarding the video produced by some members, the EC is bound to point out that by not mentioning the Party's name or the word 'socialism', it raises the question of published policy that is beyond the remit of the EC. Therefore, the EC cannot officially endorse it. However, there is no problem in it being used as a link with the Party's website, and the EC hopes that the comrades concerned will continue their efforts to produce party videos which should have an important place in our general campaigning." Agreed: 7 for, 0 against, 1 abstention.

Tends to place the discussion about the present video, which mentions both the party and socialism and was produced by a then member of the Audio Visual Committee, in some sort of perspective…

And what "sort of perspective" would that be, may I ask?  Would it be to do with Vin failing to consult with the EC and then using the party logo without their permission.  And finally not being bothered to send a recording of his efforts to the EC but deciding to put it out on Youtube to ask for comments?If he had not used the party logo and done his own thing just like the past effort with Paddy and co nobody would have anything to protest about.  Until the party decide to produce professional video's that is the only sensible way to go.Silly Vin and silly EC but we all learn hopefully?

[Brian]

mullrae wrote:

The only thing I could find was this but how Marx was supposed to have falsified anything is beyond me https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1867/blue-book-speech.htm any views gratefully accepted regards ian.

Thanks for that.  But until we have a direct link to the Quora post where the original accusations were made and be in a position to rebut them effectively this extract from the Marxists Archive is not that helpful.

[Brian]

mullrae wrote:

Lynx kepler on Quora stated that marx had basically falsified steel and iron imports,exports to belgium in support of the belgium workers union.I followed the link but it doesn't make much sense to me so I wondered if anyone else had any views on Marx and the blue books regards ian.

Could posters please note the above isn't about poverty or the increase in the wealth gap but about imports and exports.  However, although the link did not make much sense to mullrae does not mean to say none of us can.  So a link to the article in question would be helpful.  Also a link to the original Quora answer/comment where this accusation is made would also be appreciated so it can be directly nailed.Quora may I remind posters is used and viewed by millions whereas this site if followed by just a few thousand. Here is a wonderful opportunity to put the socialist case to millions of workers and any rant on here rebutting the accusation is not likely to get any impact.  Fcs sake do the sums!Links mullrae, links please. 

[Brian]

lindanesocialist wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

More generally,  repeated conference resolution that we should put the positive case for socialism (so no starving babies pictures of the Shave the Children kind).

Vin said:YMS Do you think that the video was in part rejected because it displayed some of the horrors of capitalism? This was not mention by the EC Nor has  any member objected until now.

According to Marx and Engels capitalism was progressive which means capitalism does have a positive side.  However, when they weighed up the positives and negatives they came to conclusion that fully developed capitalism in terms of social evolution it was all negative.

[Brian]

Wez wrote:

I'm a latecomer to this debate, but is LBird suggesting that Marx was not a materialist? Surely it was his materialist perspective that rescued the dialectical method from Hegel's idealism?

Not quite.  He's suggesting that Marx evolved into an idealist-materialist or even a materialist-idealist.  Further he's also proposing we are Lenists because Engles failed to foresee the necessity for the democratic control of all theory.

[Brian]

Like this:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipe6CMvW0Dg

[Brian]

Wez wrote:

It's possible that a psychological analysis of the millions who would vote for such a dysfunctional individual would be more productive than a psychiatric assesment of that individual. Such attempts were made by the Frankfurt school, among others, with varying levels of success. The need for and belief in authoritarian social structures together with the leaders that such an arrangement produces does indicate a level of political naivety that implies some kind of emotional infantile state. Nazism and Bolshevism cannot be explained away by a psychological investigation of Hitler and Lenin.

This is presuming that the DSM 5 is unbiased and does not come under the influence of Big Pharma.  But think of the irony here:  Trump nailed to his own petard for supporting the accumulation of capital.That's a thought.  I'll have to edit my Quora answer so it includes the irony.

[Brian]

Wez wrote:

I'm always rather wary about using medical/psychological concepts to describe political ideologies in terms of the personalities of those who subscribe to them. It is possible to deconstruct any political perspectives in this way thus eliminating any reference to the history of political philosophy at all. I'm sure comrades have had their belief in socialism deconstructed in terms of their personalities only too often?

Thanks for that,  My thoughts exactly.  That said I'm going to plagarise it for the original question in Quora.

[Brian]

gnome wrote:

Brian wrote:

At the very least I think at this stage we should not be so complacent and request an outline.

Wot, me complacent?  You must be having a giraffe, Brian.  Seriously though, it may be time for the EC to intervene and if members don't have the time or the know-how we'd better soon find someone who does.

I disagree entirely.  Its for the IC to intervene not the EC at this stage by requesting Darren to provide an outline of his proposals so we have some idea of what they actually entail.  Currently, there's no sign of project management being effectively applied on the proposed changes.I'm a socialists because I'm not in favour of 'one man bands' and most certainly not in favour of 'done deals'.

[Brian]

gnome wrote:

Are you honestly saying that even you don't know what's going on, Brian, and you're a member of the Internet Committee? Strewth !

Yes.  All anybody knows on the IC is there are going to be changes in the structure of the site.  What they actually consist of is being left to Darren's 'good judgement'.  At the very least I think at this stage we should not be so complacent and request an outline.

[Brian]

DJP wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

Time for a six month progress update? Looking forward to this.

Work on the new website has been put on hold until I have done an exam, in early October. The present situation is that the problem of importing multi-leveled content, i.e pages and issues of the Standard, has been resolved. Some custom code had to be written as the Drupal Migrate software does not adequately import such content in it's current form. We have also set up a virtual machine environment and GIT hub depositaory. So that development can easily be shared amongst multiple developers. The remaining work is to combine the import configuration I worked out with the code that has been written. I hope to make some videos available so people can see what we have been doing.

This response fails to provide any positive insight into what is the purpose of the overall changes for restructuring and its content.  Will it be the hub for the WSM/SPGB besides a forum, will the present information contents require an overhaul in editing and updating?  To turn an internet forum into a true consensus-building site we need to restructure it from the ground up.Will it still play to the weaknesses of internet debate by projecting an exclusivness purely on the socialist case? Really, the analogy here is that most internet sites (ours included) tell people to build a house, but let them bring their own tools and pound away at whatever they feel like pounding at. I see a site that sets up construction standards: gives people a basic blueprint, makes sure they are working on a useful task, makes sure they are using the right tools for the job in the right way. Basically setting up a system where the discussion can organize itself fruitfully rather than fitfully.In short, system analysis combined with project and process management.

[Brian]

Brian wrote:

Cjames1961 wrote:

I dont have time to engage in every comment section, my book has all the relevant facts and notes on this subject. Thank you

Having listened to the podcast and glanced through your book, unfortunately I failed to find any facts and notes which explain why a RBE refutes valid economics.  I may well have missed them so it would be appreciated if you would kindly narrow down the search by referring me to the relevant chapter(s) which explain your assertion in more detail.

Hmm.  I always apply the dictum 'Question everything' and the only reponse I get in this case is the seemingly intellectual brush-off with more than a touch of arrogance.

[Brian]

Cjames1961 wrote:

The problem with your analysis is that it violates Karl Marx's later thinking. As Meghnad Desai the marxian economist details in his Marx's Revenge or as I do in my The Singulairty and Soclalism, only the full evolution of capitalism leads us to the end point of capitalism and the arising of a new form of production.  We re dealing with an evoutionary process that brings on the revolution,.

I would suggest that if you and Desai were to put the writings of Marx in their historical context – in that during his time capitalism still had some way to go in becoming the dominant global mode of production – you would reach the same conclusion that Marx reached 'I'm no Marxist'.  The theory that capitalism still needs further development in order to produce the potential for abundance is in my opinion a shallow suggestion for a reformist approach to political activity.  Capitalism, historically, solved the problem of production its incapable of solving the problem of distribution.  Only socialism can achieve this.

[Author]

Posts