Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Ian Bone has ben doing his 'memory of the class' routine again, and reminds us of the Limerick Soviethttp://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/limerick-workers-occupy-hmv-shop-shades-of-the-limerick-soviet/http://www.limericksoviet.com/
Quote:The Limerick Soviet (Irish: Sóivéid Luimnigh) was a self-declared soviet that existed from 15 to 27 April 1919. At the beginning of the Irish War of Independence, a general strike was organised by the Limerick Trades and Labour Council, as a protest against the British army's declaration of a "Special Military Area" under the Defence of the Realm Act, which covered most of Limerick city and a part of the county. The soviet ran the city for the period, printed its own money and organised the supply of food. [1]Congrats on a good fight, and a not too bad result, 1.3% is our trend result. I suspect if TUSC hadn't have been there we'd have attracted some of their voters, so it's interesting to see the effect of a head-to-head like this (at the GLA election they didn't contest the seats, that may be why we did slightly better last year). Albeit in Labour heartlands, that is a thumping swing to them, a a body blow for Lib-Dems.According to die-hard Labour loyalist Luke Akehursthttp://labourlist.org/2013/01/a-gesture-of-great-political-and-organisational-self-confidence/Labour are looking to retake Bermondsey, and the sort of people who've abandoned the Liberals in Brixton are the same sort as will abandon them there.
Quote:A NEW scheme to put long-term unemployed to work as council workers is being planned by the Government.Up to 3,000 people on the dole for more than two years will be put to work at street cleaning, cutting grass and carrying out road worksWhile such a scheme might not be too bad, in and of itself, it will have to be managed in a way so as not to remove the stick of unemployment. The work won't be meaningful, nor will it be useful work, if that threatens the profits of a commercial firm that would want to do the work.
Hollyhead,well, no, it's not a waste of time, we're contesting the meaning of the word. Admittedly, we can call ourselves the Fishcakes Party and claim that Fishcakes is a moneyless, classless and stateless society of common and democratic ownership, but I think that is harder work.The word "Socialism" contains historical usages/meanings that we can recover and shift back to our needs: but that will only start to take off when people need a word to describe a project like the one I outlined above.
Although his notion of double think is well known, the underlying thesis is broken. His idea was that if you control language and what people say, you will control their minds; however, the apparent truth is that people shape their language through their behaviour, and if a word doesn't exist, they will make one. Whetehr this is down to some innate faculty for language (as per Chomsky) is debatable (and slightly beside the point).The facts are that language is not a mirror of the world, nor is ity necessarily direct. The linguistic philosopher Grice came up with his maxims of implicature, to demonstrate how we communicate by flouting or breaking linguistic rules. That is, that context and discourse determine meaning more than the mere words in themselves. This leads to the revolutionary import of the idea of Marx & Engels in the German Ideology, that social being determines social consciousness.By the same token, the logical positivist J.L. Austin noted that language is performative: we "do things with words". Swearing allegiance to a flag or democracy, even with fingers crossed or with a snigger still remains a declarative perlocution (as the terminology goes), partly because, as noted, language is social, and meaning does not reside internally to the anunciator but in the relations between speaker and hearer: peopel react to our words, and we in turn react to their (or are affected by their choices based on our statements).Language, thus, takes the form of a struggle for meaning and inetrpretation, to define our words and to struggle for understanding of others'.What matters most is what people do with their words, not the words they utter in themselves: for example, a poet praising another's work may be in reality promoting and praising themself by assuming they have the right/capacity to critique (or by inference of similarity). Commitment to high ideals become a means of self promotion, that neglect or forget the practice that underlies those ideas or their actual meaning.
http://www.leninology.com/ (passim)http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/soviets-without-bolsheviks-the-outside-left-organises/http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/towards-a-new-movement-on-what-basis-do-discussions-begin/People are beginning to discuss what outcome could come of the disappearance of the SWP (I think it is likely to crumble, Labour rightists will not let a single opportunity pass to beat the SWP up over the Comrade Delta affair). While Richard 'Lenin' Seymour is playing the role of internal oppositionist (how long this will be tolerated is questionable), and sending out the call "Stay and fight" its unclear how they can, with the incumbant Central Committee holding all the constitutional cards (even a recall conference is subject to the manipulations of the CC, so its doubtful that could topple them). As some people have noted, as good materialists, the SWP has money, and the actual outcome of the factional spat will be who ends up with the assets, if not the toxic brand.So far as I can see, we can only wish well any attempt to form a genuine, broad (however you define it) socialist movement. Our advice is the same as we gave to the occupy movement: you need to have a democratic mechanism to co-ordinate such a movement (we can call such a mechanisms a "Party"), and you need to aim for political action: you can't abandon the field of elections.After that, we can have the discussion about reformism.Nothing would give me greater pleasure than a call to dissolve ourselves into a bigger, democratic and socialist organisation. Until such a movement adequately addresses the question of Party, Political action and Anti-Reformism, we'll need to stand our ground.
Not a lot of time to post, but Ian Bone makes an interesting pont here:http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/01/12/why-no-women-leaders-of-trot-groups/and herehttp://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/01/12/swp-rape-allegation-would-aid-the-edl/
Just a wee point, I've never defended 'arbitrary' deletion, I've given good reasons why, under conditions of democratic accountability, posts may need to be removed from a forum: abusive posts, legally problematic and disruptive (what you call 'off topic') posts. Now, you accept that there needs to be a moderator who can remove legally problematic and abusive posts, and I've made the case that disruptive ("off topic") posts are a breed of censorship in themselves, and also deserving of deletion.
SocialistPunk wrote:I have highlighted the problematic part of your assertion. You and JC both referred to the deletion of posts as if abusive posts were/are being deleted for our benefit. Especially the benefit of the abused and abuser. Trying to make out that censorship was not arbitrary, but directed and necessary.No, in the context of a general discussion on the principle of moderation, I have outlined the reasoning behind the necessity for such an institution. I have not discussed any concrete case, just general principles.
SocialistPunk wrote:We seem to be in a position were YMS and JC justify censorship on weak grounds. The abuse is still here for all to see and so could not be said to have been censored to protect anybody. It has also been highlighted with a link to it from another party site, by the abused party. So much for your assumption it's removal is beneficial for the abused and the abuser?You don't need to be telepathic to explain your own reasoning on the subject, just consistent.I don't know why the moderators have acted the way they have. I'm only talking about the basic reasons why we need moderation, and the grounds for which I believe it is reasonable to remove posts from the forum.
ALB wrote:I'm not sure we can or should use this particular stick to beat the SWP (there are plenty of others).Indeed, however, I'm not sure they will ever live this down, and there will be plenty willing to bring it up at every single turn.
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/944/swp-why-i-am-resigningThis eye witness account suggests why the events were worse(!) than they sounded in the transcript.TBH, this is a really horrible story, full of tragedy all round, no matter which way you turn…
Actually, the original article you link to is fascinating. I agree with it's substantive point that it is autonomy at firm level that is required. This may be possible cybernetically, along Stafford-Beer's model designed for Allende's Chile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viable_System_Model).It may also point to a refutation of Von Mises: he is right, up to a point. He says rational economics is impossible without monetary calculation. We would say, from an anthropological point of view, monetary calculation is the same as saying commodity relations, which is to say that without economic agents freely relating/negotiating, we can't have rational economic relations. Of course, free agents can negotiate without money. That's one reason why I'm intrigued by the stable matching algorithm, both parties can rank their choices according to any set of preferences (not necessarily manipulable output targets). That may well be one mechanism to achieve moneyless "capital" (really intermediate good) "markets".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_matchingAll that would be required would be that each autonomous agency would have a mission statement and set of preferences to make and mark bids by.
SocialistPunk wrote:JC and YMSLet me clarify this. It seems I am being misunderstood, so I will s p e l l.. i t.. o u t.. simply.I originally drew attention to a couple of posts that had been deleted recently. They helped further inflame the situ as the censored member took offence, as I would if censored. The mod' deemed the posts off topic.At the risk of repeating myself:
TheSmeetAttollah wrote:ISTR that I have addressed it, several times, that disruptive posts (what some people call off-topic) should be removed without mercy, I even gave an example with reference to beginning to discuss rugby on a bakery forum.I don't think you get much plainer and straighter than that, I'm perfectly happy for off topic posts to be deleted (and off-topic posts, by definition, are not relevent).
SocialistPunk wrote:If the deletion of posts (of which I originally drew attention to) is intended to safeguard the forum from abusive posting, according to YMS and JC, then why are there still abusive posts left on this forum?Not being telepathic, I can't say…
I'm not seeking an ideal, nor do I think the current set up is ideal, but it'll do.Assume good faith is the real world practice of wikipedia, the gold standard of interweb collaboration (nor is it an ideal, just a working presumption for interaction).
