moderator1
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
mcolome1 wrote:Vin wrote:See http://www.GRB.net NOW!!!. Go to www,GRB TODAY!!! NETWORK GRB!!Don't hesitate go to http://www.GRB now for your free Parker pen.!!! Get your free ads at the SPGB website NOW How many more times do we have to listen to adverts before admin removes them
You are talking to deaf mude
Now that the proposal by John Pozzi has been rebutted and I've posted a reminder any more advertising by him will be removed to the Off-topic section.
Reminder: 3. Do not use the forums to send spam, advertisements, charitable appeals, solicitations, or other messages primarily intended to promote a particular product, service, campaign, website, organisation, venture, or event, unless it is relevant to the SPGB or its companion parties, without first obtaining permission from the moderators.
LBird wrote:moderator1 wrote:LBird wrote:It seems that I've hit a sensitive spot!I'd always assumed that 'World Socialism' was a democratic concept for all socialists, but it appears my assumption is being corrected. If 'World Socialism' involves 'Limited Democracy', just who are the 'Specialists' who will determine those limits, prior to, and to the exclusion of, the producers themselves? Is it to be the SPGB?No you have not hit a sensitive spot. World Socialism still is – not was – a democratic concept for all socialists. It will be the majority, not the so called specialists socialists, like yourself, calling the shots prior to the transformation, who'll decide what the limits on democracy will entail. As its their democratic right to do so, and if they decide your pet theory is an abberation of democracy they'll vote accordingly.
[my bold]Then we have no political disagreement, mod1.Clearly, given your formulation, 'the majority' can decide whether there will be 'limits', and if so, what those 'limits' will be.This is at odds with what you've argued previously, though.Unless you wish to modify what you've just said, and return to your previous stance, that 'limits' exist prior to their social production by the democratic producers?The ball's in your court, mod1.
Like robbo has stated several times you have no understanding of democratic principles. I would add you also have no understanding of the democratic process working in practice. Its not a case of "whether there will be limits" but rather the majority recognising and acknowledging there will have to be limits on democracy in order for society to functionally produce needs.For instance, its very doubtful that the majority will bother to take a vote on retaining nuclear weapons, or on voting to dismantle them. What is the point of confirming a decision when we'll already know what the result is going to be? The majority will vote no on the former and yes on the latter because it makes socialist sense.Once the transformation is completed that decision will take immediate effect due to the aprior agreement of socialist consciousness. The actual transformation itself is going to be the ultimate abitrator to determine on what will go forward in a socialist society.
LBird wrote:It seems that I've hit a sensitive spot!I'd always assumed that 'World Socialism' was a democratic concept for all socialists, but it appears my assumption is being corrected. If 'World Socialism' involves 'Limited Democracy', just who are the 'Specialists' who will determine those limits, prior to, and to the exclusion of, the producers themselves? Is it to be the SPGB?No you have not hit a sensitive spot. World Socialism still is – not was – a democratic concept for all socialists. It will be the majority, not the so called specialists socialists, like yourself, calling the shots prior to the transformation, who'll decide what the limits on democracy will entail. As its their democratic right to do so, and if they decide your pet theory is an abberation of democracy they'll vote accordingly.
ALB wrote:I don't understand why there were invited back and one of them given pride of place on our General Discussion thread with his name in flashing lights.I don't hand out "invites" I do however follow the guidelines and rules. In respect of allowing LBird to return to the forum after an indefinite suspension. If he continues to breach the rules I shall automatically issue a further indefinite suspension to him, but also invoke the appeal procedure. Which I very much doubt he'll take advantage of.I do automatically, block all spammers and delete their posts. Has for trolls, their presence is down to the users toleration and their use for turning a negative into a positive. In this respect the 'trolling' by LBird does to a certain extent serve a useful purpose imo in getting the party case for democracy across to the working class.
LBird wrote:moderator1 wrote:Or, are you willing to admit that democracy is limited in practice, but not in principle?This is the key political statement by mod1. Its prioritising of 'practice' over 'principle' is reinforced elsewhere in the post, but this simple sentence ecapsulates mod1's whole political philosophy.It's the 'materialist' philosophy of 'practice and theory'.This is opposed by Marx's philosophy of 'theory and practice'.That is, 'principle and practice' are interlinked.mod1 separates the two, and can imagine a politics where in an ideal world 'principles are unlimited', but in the real world 'practices are limited'.For socialists, their can be no 'limits' to either 'principles' or 'practice', other than the social activity of the producers themselves.This social activity can only be democratic social activity, where the producers themselves determine principles, practices and limits.mod1, like all 'materialists' who follow Engels, wishes to prevent democratic production of principles, practices and limits, and impose prior restrictions upon the social activity of the producers. mod1 wishes to have an elite who pre-decide these issues.So, politically, I'm not willing to admit what mod1 asks in their statement.This is a political debate, about questions of 'power' and 'who wields it' in a future socialism.
You do realise that your unwillingness to admit that democracy is limited in practice, but not in principle places you in an undemocratic and dogmatic position? For the logic of your position means you are actually denying the voluntary associated producers the democratic right to decide on which form of democracy in practice is most suitable for their conditions. This dogmatic position illustrates you are purely concerned with theory alone and when the practice does not fit the theory this is not a signal to change the theory but a reason to embed it in stone. The concept of democracy includes flexibility so the question of principle and practice is continually debated unless you are LBird. This being the case I suspect most users will decline any further discussion with you.
LBird wrote:Vin wrote:LBird wrote:I couldn't agree more, Vin.Why do the posters here continue to pretend to defend a 'democratic socialism' that they do not hold?They are really defending individualism, Religious Materialism, elite science, and their god Matter.Never a word about the democratic production of our world, and the election of our truth.I was talking about your strawmen and you know it. I have told you this before, you are a troll, but a very good one, here to waste our time and provoke emotional response from users. And you do it very well. Had you sussed 2 years ago
It's been open to you, and the others, at any point, to defend workers' democracy, in any or all of the areas that we've spoken about.Neither you, nor the others, ever mention democratic socialism – you defend individuals, Engels' Materialism (nothing to do with Marx's views), the 'science' of the bourgeoisie, and 'matter'.Then robbo creates an argument that I've never made, and the others use that as a basis of their arguments, rather than address what I actually write – read what I've written on this thread, and read what's been argued against.And, usually, after I keep defending workers' democracy, the moderator accuses me of repeating my own arguments, and bans me (but not those who refuse to read what I write, and compel me to keep correcting them – like you, Vin).
It may have passed your notice but we are actually defending and also proposing Direct Delegated/Participatory Democracy which includes this framework being put to the test within workers organisations like the WSM. However, this form of democracy can only be universally implimented within a society of Common Ownership for where a class own the means of living there's no possibility of democracy taking affect on the global population – only class rule. Democratic socialists support the working class setting up democracy within their own organisations. Indeed, we encourage such endeavours for its a definite sign of class maturity.However, it would be a failure on our part if we failed to understand that the concept of democracy is a double edged sword. Because taken to its extreme democracy can if it so wishes take a step back by voting in a dictatorship. Or even, if it so wishes, impliment so many rules and regulations that human needs are impossible to satisfy.Now given this understanding how do you imagine your theory on a limitless democracy will be put into practice in a society of Common Ownership? We have, when all is said and done, provided a framework on how we anticipate democracy will work in socialism. Please note I said anticipate for we understand that the concept of democracy is not written in stone and they are just thoughts we have and do not constitute a theory.If you have any political integrity you have to be prepared to go beyond the thoughts and make a start on embellishing the practical. Which we have done on this forum.This begs the question given your understanding of democracy: are you capable of defending the indefensible? Or, are you willing to admit that democracy is limited in practice, but not in principle?
mcolome1 wrote:ALB wrote:This forum is becoming a cranks' convention. I suppose nobody else would be so tolerant of them but they just take advantage.Something like these:http://www.scope-mag.com/about/issues/spring-2011/convention-of-cranks/
1st warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
Reminder: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.
Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
LBird wrote:All 'logic' is a social and ideological product, which we can change. Just like maths and physics.Agreed, but that also includes changing the concept of democracy to suit the situation. You have logically concluded that the voluntary associated producers will adopt a form of democracy with no limits. In short all decisions – important and unimportant – will be voted on by the community. That's a logical fallacy.
Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
