[moderator1]

Reminder: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

[moderator1]

moderator1 wrote:

stuartw2112 wrote:

I came across this today and wondered whether you were aware of it? The Thatcherite think tank give you a relatively favourable mention.https://iea.org.uk/has-real-socialism-never-been-tried/All the best,Stuart

Thanks for that Stuart.  Posted this in the comments:  http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2016/no-1346-october-2016/what-could-socialism-be

For some reason it wont accept my comment.

[moderator1]

stuartw2112 wrote:

I came across this today and wondered whether you were aware of it? The Thatcherite think tank give you a relatively favourable mention.https://iea.org.uk/has-real-socialism-never-been-tried/All the best,Stuart

Thanks for that Stuart.  Posted this in the comments:  http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2016/no-1346-october-2016/what-could-socialism-be

[moderator1]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

…a complex social division of labour in which each and every one of us specialises in something that particularly interests us …

A good definition of socialism, robbo.'Each and every one of us will specialise in something that particularly interests us' – that 'something' being, of course, democratic social production.Of course, my ideological assumptions are democratic and communist, so I assume 'each and every one of us' is a collective, which aims to revolutionise social production, so that all of the collective benefit equitably, and 'equitable' is democratically decided.For you, though, being an individualist, 'each and every one of us' is assumed to mean as individuals.That's why you won't have the democratic control of social production, because you're really interested in your own individual production, and your own personal benefits, rather than what you are going to have to do to produce for others.That's the crunch in this issue – does 'democratic socialism' actually mean 'democratic' (and so 'individuals' can be voted into doing something that they wouldn't if left to their own personal choice), or does 'democratic socialism' actually mean 'bourgeois individual democracy' (which looks to 'individual sovereignty' in political decisions).That's what's at root in the debates about 'materialism' – individualists are elitists, and so must have something that is beyond democratic accountability, and for that they argue for 'matter'. They want something that they can 'touch', as an individual, and any argument that undermines their individual sovereignty over 'reality' is a political danger to them.So, the materialists, like robbo, won't have any talk about 'democratic production', within which all social products are subject to democratic controls.That is, we can decide whether 'genes' are produced by us, or whether we wish to have a different scientific explanation for our social activities, beyond the 'biological' and 'individual'.That is, we can change 'genes', rather than contemplate them. 'Genes' are a social product, produced by a specific society, at a specific time, for specific interests and purposes. 'Genes' are not simply sitting 'out there', waiting to be 'discovered' by 'disinterested scientists', and once 'discovered', are 'True' forever, as 'Facts' we must simply accept.End of a rather different political story, robbo…

  Another long winded attempt to repeat the same drivel and ignore  the same points made against you LBird.  Nice one.  But why am I not surprised ?  You are a past master in the art of deception and distortion. How  you can possibly deduce from that I said  that I am " really interested" only in what benefiits me and  not how I can benefit others,  I cannot imagine,  But then when it comes to a fertile imagination I defer to you every time L BirdNot content with fantasy you resorrt to fibbing as in this little gem ,  "So, the materialists, like robbo, won't have any talk about 'democratic production', within which all social products are subject to democratic controls,  Actually LBird I specifically set up a thread precisely to "talk" about the subject of democratic production in socialism which you conspicuously shied away from ,  See here http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/socialism-and-democracyMRI scanners, tins of baked bins,  and size 43 brown boots with reinforced toecaps are all "social products",  Could you explain to me in simple terms how you propose to involve 7.5 billion people in a "democratic process" of  deciding on the design and output of these things?  I'm all ears, LBird.  Or could it be that actually it is YOU who refuses to entertain any talk about the democratic production of these social products?The same argument applies to the question of genes.  Genes, you say, are a social product, and in a democratic society, any 'definitions' would have to be decided collectively by all, for the purposes of all, in the interests of all.,  So you propose that 7.5 billion people should "vote on the definition of a gene" –  yes? There are really only two questions I would ask, then,  since youve expressed such a keen interest in talking about this subject:1) Why does it matter so much to you that the definition of gene should be "collectively voted upon"?   If me and my buddy thought  a gene was one thing and you thought it was something else would the fact that you had been outvoted 2 to 1 cause you to change your mind about what a gene was?  Why? 2) How are you going to organise a vote among 7.5 billion people and who is going to organise it?.  Would the vote on the defintion of a gene come before or after the vote on the tins of baked beans once weve had the Revolution? What, in your esteemed opinion, do you consider to be the more pressing subject for the world populace to get to grips with just so I can know for sure where my priorities  should lie?Im sure you are dying to tell us  and I for one would deeply appreciate a direct answer to both of these simple questions

2nd 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.  6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

For my ideology, robbo, 'democracy' is an inherent part of 'socialism'.For your ideology, 'democracy' is not an inherent part of 'socialism'.Thus, based upon your basic absence of 'democracy', you need a political justification as to 'why' have democracy.The 'how' is merely a detail which follows from our opposed ideologies.My political justification is that 'socialism is necessarily democratic'. So, I don't agree with those who argue that 'socialism isn't necessarily democratic'.These are political beliefs which I hold.You don't hold my political beliefs, because your version of 'socialism' is 'individualistic', rather than 'democratic'.Since I hold that 'socialism is democratic', I also hold that all social production within a socialist society must be democratic.Since you hold that 'socialism is individualistic', you hold that some or all social production can be individualistic.Finally, I've said all this before, but you can't accept it, because then your individualism will be undermined. You must have a recourse to an 'individual reality', a 'biological necessity', a 'real world' outside of 'social production', which comes down to your ideology of 'materialism'.You can touch 'matter', and you won't have 'matter' voted out of 'existence', which it could be if we lived in a democratic socialist society, where 'matter' could be changed to something more suitable for our interests and purposes.Just like 'genes' could be.I argue that only society can decide these issues, whereas you, like all materialists, argue that 'individuals' decide their 'personal reality'.

Indefinite suspension: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.  6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

[moderator1]

 alanjjohnstoneOfflineJoined: 22/06/2011Send PM Marx at the MoviesIt's been referred to before on the forum but i can't find the thread.BBC Review From the Berlin Film Festivalhttp://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20170213-film-review-the-young-karl-marx"I have no country to fight for; my country is the Earth, and I am a citizen of the World." – Eugene V. Debs

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

 Further, I answer questions, but the 'materialists' don't like those answers (and can't argue against them),

 So answer the question: If you dont accept society wide central planning then it logically follows that you too accept that there are certain structural limits to the scope of democratic decisionmaking in communism.  Before we move on can you say whether you agree with what I have just said?

I just have, you cloth-eared fool.

3rd and final warning: 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.

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

Our feathered friend doesn't half lead us on wild goose chases. First, it was about whether the Sun moves round the Earth. Then, it was about whether external reality exists. Now, it's about whether 2 + 2 = 4. All of which are to be settled by a referendum. It's just not possible to have a meaningful discussion with him.

You haven't bothered to respond to some points that I made earlier, but you will always jump to support elitist 'materialists', and fight any mention of 'democratic production'.And you wouldn't know what a 'meaningful discussion' is, ALB.2+2=11You can't explain that, can you?And if you did, you'd destroy the philosophical basis of your post.'Materialists', eh? Not the brightest, but certainly dangerous to those workers wanting to know about 'democratic production', ie. socialism.ALB thinks that he is part of an elite. And as such, he must argue against (or simply denigrate, when losing the argument) democratic production.

2nd warning: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

blah blah etc etc

So do you support society-wide central planning then LBird as in everyone getting to vote on the totality of production?  Yes or no?

This response proves, once again, that 'materialists' simply cannot conduct a reasoned debate, but must always fall into abuse, because they always get politically cornered, when 'democratic production' is mentioned.Further, the 'materialists' never read what I write, and make up their own version of 'what I say', and then pass that around amongst themselves, and convince themselves that that lie is 'what I wrote'.robbo is arguing against a bogeyman of his own making.If he isn't aware of his own individualist (and elitist) politics, surely someone else here is?And will join in to defend Marx's vision of a self-emancipatory, conscious, democratic, socialism.

1st warning: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

[moderator1]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

blah blah etc etc

 So do you support society-wide central planning then LBird as in everyone getting to vote on the totality of production?  Yes or no?

1st warning: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

[moderator1]

 report editdeletequotereplyWed, 08/02/2017 – 2:44pm#10Tim KilgallonOfflineJoined: 17/11/2015Send PM  LBird wrote:  Tim Kilgallon wrote: How about a trade. If ALB answers your question to him on this thread, then you agree to answer my question to you on the "good article" thread?  Since you appear to be incapable of reading what I write, and, through your own frustration at your own lack of comprehension, always turn to abuse, I think that I'll decline your 'trade', since I would be trading my valuable discussion for your childish taunts.  The only person on this borad that believes that this is the reason you refuse to answer my question is you (and I doubt you even believe it)I asked a straight question, putting a scenario that was basd on your crack pot idea of voting on every scientific theory, it was not abusive, it did not have reference to your previous replies to similar questions (because you haven't ever replied to a similar question).therefore my ability to understand what you write is irrelevant. You as usual resort to your elitist sterotyping of anyone who doesn't agree with your cockamamie ideas.So FOR ONCE, stop avoiding a straight question and explain to us all how the practical application of your proposal would work,

[moderator1]

Wed, 08/02/2017 – 2:20pm#9LBirdOfflineJoined: 21/07/2013Send PM  Tim Kilgallon wrote: How about a trade. If ALB answers your question to him on this thread, then you agree to answer my question to you on the "good article" thread?  Since you appear to be incapable of reading what I write, and, through your own frustration at your own lack of comprehension, always turn to abuse, I think that I'll decline your 'trade', since I would be trading my valuable discussion for your childish taunts

[moderator1]

Reminder: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’). 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.

[moderator1]

Moderators notice Will posters please note I've blocked #8,9,10,11,12,13&15.  I shall shortly place all these posts in the Off-topic section where they belong.  Any further posts of this nature, posted  anywhere on the forum, will receive a warning.

[moderator1]

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.

[Author]

Posts