Brian
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Jonathan Chambers wrote:Brian wrote:…in a socialist society we'll be more conscious of our potential to engage in productive activity which is beneficial to the individual and the community?
Of course. But the fact remains that there are limits to that potential.
And it will be upto society in general not only to recognise and identify those limits by imposing safeguards, standards, rules and regulations on specific activity but also to ensure candidates become engaged in investigating and assessing their true potential in fields of activity which they find enjoyable and interesting.
Surely Jon, in a socialist society we'll be more conscious of our potential to engage in productive activity which is beneficial to the individual and the community? But having said that society will also put safeguards in place to ensure you don't harm yourself, or others. Also this quote by Marx is when put into its historical context seems to be deliberately ambigious in respect of him being determined not draw up a blueprint on how future society actually "regulates the general production".I think the last part of the quote is telling in this respect "…. ….. …. just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic." In short, projecting his thoughts on how alienation, brought about by the division of labour, could be offset/alleviated by offering a variety of human activity related to becoming conscious of the individuals direct involvement in the general production.The other angle I tend to take is that having a choice on your personal activity also means society is by definition democratic.
admice wrote:So if I wanted to promote socialism locally should I start a group? I live in So California and I can't believe there isn't one near me, but there isn't. It can't be your group, because we respectfully disagree. But a group almost exactly like yours. (Don't sue me).If there is any group in your neck of the woods defining socialism along the lines that we do I can assure you we would have been in contact with them to discuss our respective platform.I'm also interested in what the disagreement you have with us.
LBird wrote:The question is, 'will passive acceptance continue, whatever the circumstances?'.If we Communists continue to offer an alternative, perhaps 'youth' will 'actively choose' to prevent the 'reproduction of capital'.It depends on how "passive acceptance" is defined. For instance in my book the term can also cover reformism. On the other hand seeking a particular reform does not necessarily mean the individual accepting the status quo in all circumstances, especially when it contains a class interest which includes becoming aware of the pitfalls. Oops I forgot in your book 'individual' is prescribed.
LBird wrote:Ozymandias wrote:…right about the youth, they are thick as shit like the vast majority of the proles…Quite frankly, I don't think that 'the youth' are any 'thicker' than many bourgeois professors and other academics. Have you ever talked to 'academics' (or PhD students) about anything removed even fractionally from their extremely narrow 'speciality'? In fact, I'd go further: even within their speciality, they often don't have a clue beyond what they've been taught to think.Nah, give me 'the youth' anytime. At least they've got potential, given the ever harsher circumstances within which they are being forced to survive.Oh yeah, and while we're here, Oz… I'm a fuckin' 'prole'…
Could you please clarify what exactly you mean by "potential"? The youth always have had potential to criticise capitalism "… … given the ever harsher circumstances within which they are being forced to survive."But they – like their elders – rarely if ever take the necessary step to condemn the effect of dehumanisation which wage slavery imposes on our relationships with one another and our creativity. By default the youth fail miserably to motivate themselves to challenge a political system based on the minority ownership of the means of living. And all Brand et al are doing in this respect is challenging the political process and not the political system in its entirety.Indeed, these malcontents passively accept the reproduction of capital and their own labour power whatever the circumstances they happen to be in.
Mcolome1 wrote:I have seen during the years that I have been with the WSM, members supporting capitalist candidates to the the presidency, peoples trying to comeback to the age of the cave, and supporting communes, religious peoples, and peoples supporting state capitalists nation, and I have seen racists peoples too ( I do not know how they have passed the interview and how they have answered the membership questionnaire )Mcolome1(WSM member )If you mean by "members" members of the WSM this is a very serious allegation you are making here. Indeed if I had come across such behaviour it would immediately mean a charge of action detrimental. However, I have never come across the behaviour which you describe.I think in the circumstances some evidence of what you claim would be appropriate.
Go to PM's home page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/pm/contact/ and use the email contact there. No problem.
Ed wrote:What would be great is if central branch could organize itself into a proper functioning branch. Holding monthly branch meetings via the internet. Putting motions to the EC, conference and ADM It's greatly needed imo. Although it is central branch members who will have to be responsible for maintaining it and no one is stepping up to do that, I wish they would.Why not take a page out of what TZM are doing? They hold monthly meetings on TS3 which are recorded and then a link of the recording placed in the description box to be accessed from google. Imo its not the maintenance of the server which would be a problem but the election of branch officers and delegates. But I do not see that as a barrier if members and non-members want a place to meet and have a chat.TS3 by the way is free to non-profit organisations.Most CB members are after a quiet life, and do not consider themselves 'active'.
Vin Maratty wrote:Brian wrote:Yes it is possible. That is if the membership decide further transparency of the party decision making process is required.Surely the party believes, and always has believed, in the fullest transparency? Would a formal decision be required?
O f course the party is in favour of the fullest transparency. Vin democracy is all about formalities. But even once these formalities reach a positive decision there is still the problem of the members who possess the technical skills finding the time to make the decision effective. There is also the issue of deciding what technical tweeks are more important for the Internet Committee/EC/Membership/Non-members. For instance do we remain focused on extending the menu/functions/facilities, or do we look around for a server which can accommodate the bandwith what you are requesting (and more) and in the meantime put the present work on hold until then?Obviously if we had sufficient techies in the party most of these issues and problems would be quickly resolved.
SocialistPunk wrote:I think what Vin suggests sounds like a good idea. This site is a flagship site for the party and it's probably a lot more visible than the other ones. Possibly a perfect way to show off the SPGB democratic credentials.How about it, is it possible?Yes it is possible. That is if the membership decide further transparency of the party decision making process is required.
LBird wrote:ALB wrote:Do you really think that democratic control should extend to what people should think?What's the alternative? Leave it in the hands of a minority, as it is now?What? You actually believe the ruling class myth that 'we are all individuals'? That we all now think as 'individuals', and that future democratic control of our socialisation processes would be a retrograde step? That we shouldn't have a collective say in how we reproduce our society?
Brian wrote:It seems to be implicit within LBird's contributions that he's fixed on one particular methodology ruling the roost in reference to the scientific method.Yeah, the method of democratic control of science. You obviously disagree with me, and seem to be in agreement with twc. But twc hasn't explained, unlike me, what their method actually looks like in practice. In effect, twc's method comes down to placing one's trust in scientists: 'Our betters'. No thanks.I suppose this derail saves anyone from the SPGB having to discuss the method of science. Surely there must be someone reading who can discuss these fundamental issues?
I'm quietly sitting on the fence in actual fact waiting patiently for you and twc to reach some kind of agreement on what specific scientific investigative criteria is acceptable to both of you. At the moment you are both bogged down in a chicken and egg situation with neither willing to give way.I think a good starting point for both of you would be to draw up a terms of reference which is acceptable to both parties. The present stalemate is not good for science or socialism/communism.In regards to your suggestion of placing the socialisation process under the democratic control of society. I would question whether or not this is warranted and even possible seeing that every culture has their own peculiar process of socialisation determined by their particular environmental circumstances. Some would argue that this 'cultural diversity' is essential to group survival and that to try and impose a uniform process of socialisation is in conflict with our ability and willingness to be flexible and adaptable to a change in circumstances. And lets not forget that cultural diversity is what makes us human!
ALB wrote:twc wrote:You came here on a crusade to educate the Party into adopting democratic control of scientific thought. Since, for you, cognition is scientific thought, you sought the Party to endorse monitoring and controlling human cognition per se.It looks, LBird, as if this issue of the limits of democratic control will have to be settled first, i.e. what do you mean by "democratic control of ideology"?
Its not just the implications of "Do you really think that democratic control should extend to what people should think?" which concerns me but also the suggestion on how people should think. It seems to be implicit within LBird's contributions that he's fixed on one particular methodology ruling the roost in reference to the scientific method. If this is indeed his case all sorts of problems lay ahead …..Nuff said. I'll join you on the other thread.
