moderator1
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
gnome wrote:DJP wrote:The question is, how reasonable is it to expect volunteers to be on call 24/7?
Nobody's expecting them to be but is anyone seriously suggesting that three adults can't work out a shift pattern whereby at least one of them is guaranteed to be awake at any given time?
At least one of the moderators are awake at any given time and covering the forum as and when they can..
gnome wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:Yeah….i think a certain Vin would agree it is about time to ban Mod1 from postingNot only that but we need to address the entire issue of the moderator function. Last night there was a concerted and multiple spam attack on the forum which amounted to well in excess of 100 separate posts over numerous threads. When, after about half an hour, the matter hadn't been addressed I contacted the three moderators and the Internet Committee. I received this response:
Moderator1 wrote:I'm taking a well earned break at the mo. Found the spam about 30 minutes ago and Mod2&3 have been PM'ed that if they need for some practice on removing spam please feel free to so.Moderator2 was also in bed at the time but Moderator3, despite suffering with a serious medical condition, came online and eventually most of the spam was finally deleted some four hours after the onset of the attack. An example of the spam still remains in the rubbish bin.
Excuse me but the truth of the matter is once I realised how serious the spambot attack was I immediately contacted mod3 and we both set to work clearing and controlling the attack. As for the examples in the Rubbish bin they are there for a good reason for Admin finds it helpful for tracking purposes when there's a several examples near to hand.Once the tracking is completed they will be blocked and deleted.
Capitalist Pig wrote:I guess it was a stupid question to ask in the first place. I just wanted to know what the spgb thought about Marxism and its relation to grass roots Communist theory.Not at all. Everybody has gained more learning from your question, and we always welcome challenges of this nature. Please do not refrain from posting the questions which you may find troubling.
ALB wrote:moderator1 wrote:Under…Am I breaking the rules if I suggest that it is unwise of you to intervene in a debate under that name to express a point of view?It means that you cannot later intervene as moderator should this be necessary. Haven't you another hat to wear to take part in debates?
No you are not breaking the rules, but you should have PMed me. There are now 3 moderators so if any problems pop up on this thread the other's can deal with it.
Capitalist Pig wrote:can you explain in more detail 'democracy in production' it is a new concept for meUnder Direct Participatory Democracy (DPD) there’s no need for a vote or ballot to be taken on every issue. For instance, with most of the day to day work carried out in socialism concerned with the production and distribution of human needs, many of these tasks will be to the standard already agreed on before the establishment of socialism.In capitalism political parties represent the sectional interests of the capitalist class with all of them competing for political control of the state and its machinery of government. With no sectional interests being represented under common ownership there won’t be political parties or a state machinery. Nonetheless, political discussion on major issues will be thrashed out under DPD and decisions made on what’s the best course of action for gaining a successful outcome.A DPD cannot be imposed by a hierarchy or a vanguard, its either a bottom up decision making process involving voluntary participation or the concept becomes meaningless. DPD isn’t restricted by geography, artificial boundaries, or to specific community boundaries. status of participants be they delegates or non-delegates, specialists or generalists, scientists or lay-person. DPD can only work on a global scale where the earths resources are under the common ownership of the community as a whole.The basic building block of DPD is the community or neighbourhood assembly, face to face meetings where citizens meet to discuss and vote on the issues of the day. These assemblies elect mandated and recallable delegates who then link with other assemblies forming a confederated council, a 'community of communities'. The difference between this form of delegate democracy and our current form of representative democracy is that in a representative democracy power is given wholesale to the representative who then is free to act on their own initiative; in a delegate democracy the initiative is set by the electing body and the delegate can be recalled at any time should the electing body feel that their mandate is not being met, thus power remains at the base.The discussion on this thread – as on other threads where LBird has left his footprint – is on how far DPD shall go in respect of the extension of the decision making process. In other words does the community democratic control include every sphere of social interaction (like science) or does it limit itself to: impact assesments; health and safety; global resources; productive capacity; calculation in kind; and everything else concerning the satisfaction of human needs.LBird is arguing that democratic control over science is necessary and essential, which includes scientific theory. Others are arguing the scientific community alone and the scientific method is self-regulatory and DPD can be easily included as an add on for peer review and consquential acceptance for the theory to be put into practice.LBird's rebuttal is the scientific method itself contains a fatal flaw by making 'matter' its starting point instead of 'theory'.
From the AtoZ of Marxism available on here under the Publications tab:Science. In academia and capitalist production a theory or practice is said to be ‘scientific’ if it has been peer-reviewed and approved by practising scientists. In socialist theory, however, science means something different. According to Marx, ‘all science would be superfluous if the outward appearances and essences of things directly coincided’ (Capital, Vol. 2, Ch. 48); and ‘that in their appearances things often represent themselves in inverted form is pretty well-known in every science except political economy’ (Capital, Vol. 1, Ch. 19). Marx argued that his scientific method penetrated the surface of capitalist social relations to reveal their inner workings. His labour theory of value shows the exploitative nature of capitalism, whereas political economy takes capitalism at face value as the free and equal exchange of commodities in the market.Marx’s method of scientific investigation consists in uncovering the real underlying and often unobservable mechanisms of exploitation. This is to be contrasted with ‘positivist’ accounts of science which demands that science can only deal with empirically observable phenomena. (See also IDEOLOGY; POPPER.)ReadingA.F. Chalmers, What Is This Thing Called Science?, 1999Science Resource Online: www.scienceresourceonline.com/
Currently I'm finding Quora highly productive for stating the socialist case: https://www.quora.com/pinned/Socialism
Some excellent news. The Quora team have allowed me to edit and update their description and definition of socialism: https://www.quora.com/pinned/Socialism
This article suggests it was also a reaction by the 'stupid people' against the 'smart people' in the elite.https://theintercept.com/2016/06/25/brexit-is-only-the-latest-proof-of-the-insularity-and-failure-of-western-establishment-institutions/
That to my knowledge is not our official Twitter account.
More conversation on this subject here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/TZMUnkitedKingdom/permalink/1208721039160768/
ALB wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:But we did ourselves no favours by designating them a political rival…I'll leave others to recite the conference decision which i would have to search out in the archives to cite accurately but i wasn't too enmoured by the conference decisionWe shouldn't really be discussing this whole issue here, but as we are, here's the result of the 2011 Conference motions on Zeitgeist:
Quote:Motion: "This conference rules that the Zeitgeist Movement is a political
organisation within the meaning of rule 6." Central London BranchFor 49 Against 47
MOTION CARRIED
Motion. "This Conference considers that active support of the Zeitgeist Movement is incompatible with membership of The Socialist Party." East Anglian Regional Branch For 69 Against 30 MOTION CARRIEDI hope you bothered to vote on the first one as the vote was very close. One thing is clear, though, that there'd have to be a mandate from Conference to go down the route you and SP are advocating. Who knows you might get it.
To compare TZM with Social Rebirth is imo an absurdity and ludicrous despite the fact both seek much the same changes we are seeking and neither represent a political challenge to capitalism. As a matter of fact Social Rebirth consists of two or three people at the most who are taking advantage of social medium to criticise and condem the arguments of the various capitalist apologists like David Attenborough who supports Malthus.Nevertheless, there is nothing in the rules or any conference resolution for that matter which stipulates individual party members can not cooperate or engage with groups like Social Rebirth. Lest not forget there are more socialists outside of the party than members. And always will be.In this regard I'm trying to make contact with them to ascertain whether or not they have come across us and been influenced by our arguments. In the meantime, I see no reason why we can't recommend and use the two videos they have produced as a means of advertising the socialist case independent of the party. Also it would illustrate that the 'thin red line' is with time getting decidely thinner!
alanjjohnstone wrote:Quote:Goes to show we are not aloneIf we are not alone, why do we go it alone, Brian?Who is it incumbent upon to seek unity if we share core principles and basic ideas – them or us?
I'm currently trying my best to make contact with them.
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.
lindanesocialist wrote:I have removed the post, didn't realise it breached the rulesPity, for there was no need for you to go that far. All you needed to do was to edit the post to make it clear you were posting the statement on behalf of Vin. That would suffice and keep the post within the rules.
