DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
SP: So deleting threads is "censorship" and bad but outright bans are not "censorship" and good?Think about it this way:Suppose I was to continually post messages about stripping down transit gearboxes into the 'pizza makers forum'. Wouldn't the persistent distraction be an obstruction to the free speech of those who joined the 'pizza makers forum' because they want to know how to make pizzas? How would the moderators of the pizza forum best deal with the episode? Engage in a long discussion on why it is anti-social to post messages about transit gearboxes in forums meant for the discussion of pizzas? This would only contribute from the further derailing of the discussion of pizzas and further encroach on the free speech of those who came to discuss pizza. In certain circumstances it seems simple deleting or moving of posts is the most effective and least disruptive way of dealing with the issuesOn our forums there are no topics which are banned from discussion. All that is required is that posters stick to the rules which are necessary as it is a social space.If you follow your argument against "censorship" to its logical conclusion you would have to argue that we should print every submission sent to the socialist standard, for example.We do and should control the content of party publications. We do not prevent people from issuing their own publications which would be censorship in the real sense.
ALB wrote:For some reason this (and another book review) don't appear in the html on-line version.If you have the texts for these this can soon be rectified.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Members were attacked and abused and nothing was being done about it.Numerous warnings where given and in the end 2 members temporarily banned, how this amounts to 'nothing being done' is beyond me.However. Comrade, it's time to move on!
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:I am moderated for 'quoting' the abuse and saying that it should be stopped. I was the member calling for moderation and I still am.With all due respect, reposting abuse only inflames the situation and commenting on moderation or calling out for the moderator in-thread only derails the topic further. Previously the guidelines and appeal process where not adequately displayed on the site. If everyone sticks to these there should be no need for moderation in the first place.
Hi SP,I may reply in more depth later on. But for now can I ask you if you are in favour of any kind of moderation on the forum at all?Moderation and censorship are not necessarily the same thing, however. But to explain why would require a longer post which may, or may not, come later.
SocialistPunk wrote:Having never seen OGW's post, I have no choice but to accept that the moderator has made the correct decision to delete his post.You are right. However there is a right to appeal, and as this has been used correctly ,the internet department is looking into this right now.
..But the prices given for 1 and 2 in the list are production costs, not market prices – they are not (yet) marketable commodities.
Perhaps listen to the Hardy talk on the labour theory of value.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/audio/labour-theory-valueOr if you have any specific questions I could try to answer them
In a nutshell….
Hardy wrote:[..]it should be recognised that there is an economic basis and that it produces a superstructure corresponding to it, but these various aspects of the superstructure interact with each other, and all of them react on the economic basis itself, so things are not simply in a watertight compartment like economic basis and the rest, nor should it be thought that the rest is simply the result of the economic basis.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/materialist-conception-historyIn mainstream economics 'Marginal Utility' refers to an increase or decrease in utility following the consumption of an additional unit of a good. I fail to see what that article has to do with it?
twc wrote:Our conclusion (since 1904): Control the state to abolish the exploitation.Isn't this an example of a change in the superstructure causing a change in the base?
twc wrote:For the moment, recall how Marx in Capital scoffed at the apparently co-determining relationship of supply-and-demand, which "explains nothing when they balance out".Marx here was also referring to a third thing, price. The base-superstructure analogy is just that, an analogy. It may be a useful illustration in some situations but more often than not it obscures more than it explains.This excellent pamphlet explains historical materialism very neatly and never once makes reference to 'the base and superstructure'. I don't think many other party publications have either – for good reasons.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/historical-materialismIn this study guide 'base and superstructure' is touched on, but it's usefulness questionedhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/materialist-conception-history
This article may be of interest:http://libcom.org/library/separation-economic-political-capitalism-ellen-meiskins-wood
There's a niggle that worries me about all this base-superstructure stuff. In Marx it is hardly mentioned at all and even then in fleeting and loosely worded passages.By splitting things into rigid and separate spheres you probably cause more problems than it's worth. Is this or that part of the base or the superstructure? For instance class ownership property relations, which are a 'base' element, are also a legal relationship, part of the super-structure. A change in the legal structure (the super-structure) would in this case result in a change in the base! To me it's seems a mistake to make rigid splits between economic and political spheres since they are both in a co-determining relationship.
Karl Marx wrote:The specific economic form, in which unpaid surplus labour is pumped out of direct producers, determines the relationship between rulers and ruled, as it grows directly out of production itself and, in turn, reacts upon it as a determined element..Unfortunately I don't think I will have time to participate in this debate further at this time though…
