[Ike Pettigrew]

Vin wrote:

Can admin or mod please deal with the abuse on the forum?

That's like Quasimodo telling somebody sit up straight.You're the biggest abuser here!

[Ike Pettigrew]

Vin wrote:

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

 Apart from that, you also understand nothing about the law.

Do you  have anything other than personal attacks?I gave references on the LawSo you claim there is no Law on racism? 

Vin, you are a total hypocrite.  As somebody else, a party member as I understand it, has already pointed out: you are one of the worst offenders for disruption on this Forum.  You know you are. You have helped ruin this Forum, and now you sit on your high-horse, like Nero, pontificating to everybody else about trolls!  My God!  What a hypocrite you are!  It's plain as day that you are total hypocrite.  Ecverybody can see it, except you.That's what in psychology and psychiatry is called psychotic narcissism.  You are basically a textbook case: a mindless thug driven by a childish ego.  That's you in a nutshell, Vin.

[Ike Pettigrew]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I don't think the SPGB ever endorse laws against "thought-crimes", nor do we agree that the State can legislate prejudice,  discrimination, and bigotry out of existence.If we do close down the forum, it will be after a full debate and a conference/party poll decision. However, that is very different from the forum dying a natural death – something i previously alluded to in a past post.The socialist case has always had problems, Ike, and the main one is convincing our fellow-workers to reject the ideology that they have been indoctrinated into thinking as the only option for them to choose.You may consider our responses to be weak but i'm guessing by your continued presence, there is still something in them that you find of value, otherwise, i would think your conclusion would be that your contributions and exchanges when you engaged in debate would have been all a wasted effort.  

Of course there is value in the socialist case – in fact, I would say the case is largely correct.However, when you come up against reality, rather than adjust and accept that people have certain attributes/characteristics that need to be accommodated for, you double-down and go into denial.I would argue that your position on immigration and diversity is leftist, rather than socialist.  But I have already explained at length why that is, including on a thread I started yesterday, in which I asked what I see as an important question: by supporting capitalism in destroying Wrestern culture, are you trying to accelerate capital's own apocalypse, or are you just well-intentioned but deeply misguided leftists posing as socialists?Now I must go back to work.

[Ike Pettigrew]

Vin wrote:

If you have anything personal to say to posters then send them a PM. See forum rules.

That is completely hypocritical!You have no points to make, Vin.  As somebody has pointed out early on in this thread – DJP, I think – you are one of the worst offenders on this Forum for stirring up trouble.  You are a violent, egotistical, childish, immature and self-righteous thug.That is the truth about you.  

[Ike Pettigrew]

Vin wrote:

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

Wait…Isn't the SPGB position that you are able to debate with people who have nationalist viewpoints, rather than 'No Platform' them?

Perhaps the SPGB needs to rethink its policy as Racism is now illegal? https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racist-and-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance

I rest my case!  The problem with your emotional, ego-driven posts, Vin, is that you succeed in proving my point.  Apart from that, you also understand nothing about the law.If human nature allows a 'world of sisters', as I call your vision, then how do we explain you, Vin?The socialist case has problems when it comes up against the real world.  This has been brought out in the weak responses to my contributions. 

[Ike Pettigrew]

Marcos wrote:

I think that DJP is correct when he wrote that this forum is an embarrassment, and it should not be called a socialist forum, and it should be closed down. We have posts supporting xenophobic conceptions, white reactionary nationalism, rejection against the emigrants and anti-socialist conceptions, and blaming them on the economic problem of capitalism and the problems that workers are facing now. Instead of workers be encouraged to embrace socialism, we see the propagation of apathy, and rejection of socialist conceptions, and reactionary conceptions of renegades and dropoutsIf any sincere worker comes to this forum looking for answers to his/ her question would leave and will join the party of the ruling class, and probably, the reactionary and neo-fascists, and neo-nazis groups that exist nowadays. We just need a few members of the Klan to join this forum. This is really incredible. The forums of the Leninists groups are not propagating that type of ideas, on the contrary, they are being rejected 

Wait…Isn't the SPGB position that you are able to debate with people who have nationalist viewpoints, rather than 'No Platform' them?Yet here you are proposing to do exactly what the "reactionary" Left do, which is silence your opponents, by either banning the commenters or shutting down the Forum, because you can't see off your critics in debate.So if my views appear in some other form on some other forum you establish, will you shut that down as well because you can't cope and can't defeat me in debate?Isn't this, deep down, an admission that there might be flaws in the socialist case when it rubs up against the real world?

[Ike Pettigrew]

LBird wrote:

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

@ LBirdYou are correct, though a paradox arises in that I may ask myself by what measure or standard I consider you correct and we are then back to ideological materialism.  So I will say you are right.  Either way, I agree.

Thanks for your agreement with Marx's Democratic Communism, Ike.Of course, 'measures' and 'standards' are always social products (it's a bourgeois myth that they don't impose their own ruling class measures and standards upon the world that they have created for their interests and purposes, including within physics, maths, logic, indeed, all 'science'), and so for a democratic socialist society all 'measures' and 'standards' would be our creation, and so subject to our democratic controls.Apparently, the SPGB disagree with Marx, and the SPGB wishes to remove the power to determine, eg., physics, from our democratic control, and to simply allow to continue the ruling class physics that were instituted with the emergence of the capitalist class (again, eg., the 'mathematisation of nature', the supposed 'objectifying of reality' to allow 'objective measurement').Marx argued that we create our world, a 'nature-for-us'. Thus, we can change our world. Bourgeois physics insists that, once supposedly 'discovered', their supposed 'objective world' can only be contemplated.Bourgeois 'science' is inherently conservative, and 'contemplation' preserves the status quo. From our perspective, of Democratic Communism, science must be revolutionised, and thus democratised.

But then my question arises: about 2 and 2 making 5 and how you deal with Nature's feedback, that I asked on the other thread.  The rocks say that 2 and 2 makes 4 or 22.  What happens when, in reality, outside democratic communist committees, the rocks deliver the feedback that contradicts the democratic result?Also, and just as an aside, why is it necessary to add the word 'Democratic' to Communism?  Isn't that a redundancy, or are you saying that communism can be undemocratic?

[Ike Pettigrew]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 

Quote:

'birds of a feather flock together'.

I've had contact with a number of ex-pat communities over the years…i recognise one reason is to share experiences and knowledge as a means to make local life easier.But there is often the darker side…the mutual confirmation of their superiority over the locals, especially when that false assumption is seriously challenged.

Perhaps, but is that superiority or is it just tribalism?  I have lived in Galicia (an autonomous Celtic area of north-western Spain), among other foreign places, and I didn't see myself as superior, even though it was quickly obvious to me that things happen there that would never happen in Britain.  In fact, I was quite deferential towards the local people and ways, as I recognised that I was a guest in their country and region and should have no rights.  I know what you refer to, but maybe this feeling of 'superiority' is actually just apartness.  No doubt similar feelings are reciprocated by the native locals.  Probably most Pakistani Moslems in Britain think they are superior to white Britons in certain ways connected to culture – and I would actually agree with them! – but this I regard as just tribalism asserting itself.  A bit like a supporter of Leeds United will forever swear that his club is superior to Manchester United, irrespective of facts.Anyway, I have enjoyed these exchanges, but I will have to depart for now.  I have work to be getting on with.  Must earn a living for the ruling class and profits are down.  More surplus value needed.

[Ike Pettigrew]

Bijou Drains wrote:

I just had a DNA test and It emerges that my DNA make up is as follows:54% Irish – no great surprise there24% British mainland – again no great surprise12% Western European – Perhaps a bit of a surprise3% Iberian – Perhaps Spanish sailors shipwrecked off Mayo after the Armada?3% Italian Peninsula – Lots of Romans up in the North East manning Hadrian's Wall (which for the information of Southern based media does not mark the border between Scotland and England!!!)2% Greek – No bloody idea1% Georgian Caucasus – ?????1% Eastern European Jew, again no idea.The point is that we are all mongrels and  the idea that there are "ethnic Norwegians" is as improbable as the idea that there are "ethnic British". You spoke in one of your earlier posts about Vikings and the fact that they were ethnically European. I worked for a long while with families on the Northumbrian side of the Borders, Black and Blackmore (Black Moor) is a very common surname and there is lots of evidence that many families are descended from the Black legions posted on the Roman Wall, living there for centuries before the Viking invasions.If your going to start dividing people up by "ethnicity" then there are going to be bits of me scattered all over the globe, wouldn't it be ironic if the bit of me that is "ethnically" Jewish was my foreskin.

I'm not sure how to respond to this since it's self-evident to me that ethnicity is a socially-constructed concept.  I know that my Britishness is an invention.  But it represents a shared heritage and experience over at least centuries, and the result is a shared way of life and understanding of certain things, the components of what we call a 'culture'.  I'm not suggesting that that identity is to be preserved in aspic and is unevolvable, but nor do I think it can be disregarded as a factor in the direction that individuals and societies should go.  You are free to disagree and say that there is no such thing as identity, humans are mechanistic cogs and all that matters are the social relations and forces of production.  You're entitled to take that view.  I respectfully disagree, sir!

[Ike Pettigrew]

J Surman wrote:

It's a shame you conflate so many disparate parts of what's been written on this thread since i asked my question. I lost interest in the thread as it was developing and haven't been following it so was surprised to find you telling me your thoughts on other contributors' attitudes towards you as you rejected my question. However, it's your choice, plus may i suggest you don't take what others write too personally.

Well, aside from the self-evident irony of your post, taking its content at face value – that's sort of a way of saying I shouldn't take things too seriously, which is sort of a way of saying that I shouldn't think so much and should just conform, which is sort of a good credo for what you probably really believe deep down about people in general.  

[Ike Pettigrew]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I tried, Ike, but the need to meet resident regulations and for the required visa stamps on my passport brought me back to harsh reality.I freely admit i have a very personal grudge against immigration controls, as well as ideological reasons

Well, I can't blame you for that.However, if you think you've got problems, try being me [on watch lists] and going through U.S. immigration.  It's an….experience.  That said, the U.S. authorities have the right to admit or exclude me as they wish, at their discretion.  They have a right to be rude or nice.  I bear no grudges, as the United States is sovereign and can enforce its borders to protect its own people.That's the way I see it.  But I have some ideological sympathy with your position.  I am not opposed to a world without borders, just a world without boundaries – an important distinction, as I see it.

[Ike Pettigrew]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

But you are very willing to tell other people where they are allowed and not allowed to live, Ike. And you insist that if they do move they must think and act as the locals do. 

Well…..telling people they are 'racist' because they don't want diversity imposed on them is telling people how to live and it's actually also bullying.  I don't believe you can seriously argue that this was done with the explicit consent of the working class or that the migrants themselves are happy to be willing little helpers for middle class white liberals who have modish views and live in Hampstead.I'm also quite amused that you refer to this post-modern slave trade euphemistically as 'free movement of labour' (or a similar formulation was used by you), but it is not the first time I have seen somebody of a leftish persuasion adopt capitalist rationalisations for the unspeakable.And it's not that I am intent on telling others what to do or where to live, etc., it's more that I would like people to live in the environment of their heritage, which I believe is the natural state of affairs.  Obviously there will be outliers – to an extent, I'm an outlier myself – but the norm is 'birds of a feather flock together'.  This is an observable verity.  And let's face it – birds of a feather need space to live in.  You may disagree on a moral basis – you're probably a nicer person than I am – but I'm just dealing with reality here.If you think I am being bossy, very well, but we would have to assume that all these migrants are happy and willing to be our servants and wage-slaves in what is, in truth, a white-privileged caste society.  I don't think they are.  Their motives, as you have conceded, are expedient. 

[Ike Pettigrew]

Again, this is where we differ in sensibility: – to me, rural (pagan) existence is superior to urban;- to me, cosmopolitan means global diversity, not local diversity.We are looking at things from completely different angles – hence our disagreements.By the way, coincidentally I was reading a certain famous author the other day who quoted that very passage of Marx's and predictably misinterpreted it as a slander on rural life.  While I disagree with Marx on the point, I do agree that it is a misinterpretation to say that he was attacking rural folk for being rural.  As with most things, quotes are not properly studied and are taken out-of-context by people who do not respect books and ideas and are more interested in social approval than proper scholarship – something that grates with me.The reason I know you are correct is due to my fluency in Marx's native language and also some background ideas/thoughts on the evolution of language.  Words like 'bigot',. 'idiot', etc. in this context are just dysphemisms for somebody who stands up for himself.  The cultural meme of the village idiot probably has this origin as a slander against rebellious peasant folk.  The term 'Nazi' has a closely-related origin in Bavarian slang as the word for an 'idiot' or 'simple' person, having the exactly similar meaning to Marx's use of those terms.

[Ike Pettigrew]

Well Alan, at least you, me and Vin are keeping the punters entertained.  You and I should start up a double act.

[Ike Pettigrew]

LBird wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

… but what role would democracy play in your 'alt-socialism'? You don't mention it under 'state', 'authority' or even 'political unit', even in your description of our definition of socialism!

But be open about the SPGB's version of 'socialism', too, jdw!You won't say either, 'what role would democracy play in your 'socialism', for physics, logic, mathematics, science generally, etc., etc.Apparently, you completely separate 'state, authority, political unit' from the central theoretical core of social production within society.That is, your 'socialism' shares a lack of democracy with Ike's 'alt-socialism'. Both avoid discussing 'social power'.

I have no interest in your 'democracy', which it seems to me involves turning workers into Voting Noddies.  Shall it be butter or guns for production this year, comrades?  Guns says I.  So I can shoot whoever thought this miserable 'workers' democracy' up. I darkly jest, but for me, your socialism would be a dreary, miserable experience.  Perhaps not for you.  Fine.  You have your way of life, I have mine – but then we come to the problem of how we go our separate ways.On the matter of social power, I am clear in my own mind that there is an objective physical reality and also an objective morality (in the sense of broad precepts) and an objective truth about everything or most things.  It follows that there must be a social hierarchy, which I would anyway consider to be the natural state of affairs; and I think that knowledge, at least in its received form, is ultimately based on authority.But I understand your ideas, and I repeat that I think you put them across well and they can even be accommodated to some limited extent within my views about the metaphysics of social power.  I don't pretend that reality is unchangeable or insusceptible to subjectivity and social influences.  My position is nuanced.

[Author]

Posts