SPGB

[Gravediggers]

You've just demonstrated exactly what i claimed - that you can only recognise vanguardism in it's full leninist flowering. Not before. Which means you have only a crude and partial understanding of both its roots and its various manifestations.

Not useful.

Butchers would the Anarchist Federation fit your description above 'of both its roots and its various manifestations'? For clearly, according to your use of the word vanguard, they are also telling the workers what to think and do.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I'm not an 'advanced workers';
Louis MacNeice

And just to keep you happy; why do some working class people vote Tory? Because in my estimation they have, for a whole variety of reasons, not recognised their best long term class interests.
Louis MacNeice

So you are not advanced, because you too " have, for a whole variety of reasons, not recognised their best long term class interests."????

I know you think, just like GD you know their [the working classes] best long term class interests. So why aren't your more advanced to an understanding of their best long term class interests, than say ie the 99.999% of people who don't vote for the IWCA?

ps. I don't agree with GD, but at least he is consistently coherent.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Butchers would the Anarchist Federation fit your description above 'of both its roots and its various manifestations'? For clearly, according to your use of the word vanguard, they are also telling the workers what to think and do.

Several people are now agrseeing that butch's louis's position is vanguardist, according to their definition. Yes he and louis are not part of party [IWCA?], but aren't they even worse, a vanguard of one?

ps. I don't agree with GD, proper tidy, on a lot of things, but at least their position is consistently coherent, if you give them the chance to explain it. Louis and Butchers position on contradictory levels of consciousness, makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[scrappy1]

I'm not an 'advanced workers'; more to the point I'm not a political party, let alone one which claims to be the only one capable of bringing the working class up to a level of consciouness needed, and has an entry exam to make sure it keeps out the ignorant masses.

Louis MacNeice

Surely whether we claim or you believe us to claim, that we are the only political party "capable of bringing the working class up to a level of consciousness needed" is irrelevant. Do you consider our case for socialism to be valid or not?

Feel free to shop around for another organisation which either holds the same views as us, but not smugly as you claim, or one that has different views about improving the world or establishing socialism, whatever definition you wish to attach to the latter.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Feel free to shop around for another organisation which either holds the same views as us, but not smugly as you claim

Which organisations would those be? Surely your hostility cause suggests - in fact explicitly states - that you and you alone have the answers?

 

[Gravediggers]

Which organisations would those be? Surely your hostility cause suggests - in fact explicitly states - that you and you alone have the answers?

The hostility clause specifically refers to 'political parties', and surely the onus is on Louis to name any 'organisations' which have similar aims to ourselves. We are aware who they are but does Louis? scrappy1 is trying to tweek an opinion in this respect.

The ball is firmly in Louis's court, so lets leave it there for now.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

You sound a bit confused again Louis with your initial allegation of me making a contradiction and then here accusing me of being an idealist. I suspect you are after the penny and the bun?

A very useful tactic for avoiding the question of why in your opinion do the workers continue to support capitalism? Possible afraid to reveal your level of political opinion and being called a politician, or perhaps you are a worker who has indeed believed every word of the empty promises made on behalf of capitalism by politicians?

No confusion GD (well not on my part at least); you used two idealised takes on the working class that contradicted each other.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

So you are not advanced, because you too " have, for a whole variety of reasons, not recognised their best long term class interests."????

I know you think, just like GD you know their [the working classes] best long term class interests. So why aren't your more advanced to an understanding of their best long term class interests, than say ie the 99.999% of people who don't vote for the IWCA?

ps. I don't agree with GD, but at least he is consistently coherent.

Firstly, I'm not several people; go and re-read what I responding to (I directly quoted you).

Secondly, you can't see the difference between an individual opinion which is open to change, and a grand truth claim, enshrined in a party constitution for over a century.

This is the sort of sillines which results when you try too hard; just relax a bit more and react a bit less.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Gravediggers]

Just spotted this from another thread. Highly suggestive that butchersapron has been finally rumbled.

vote labour
Last edited by butchersapron; 17-05-2010 at 19:22.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

The hostility clause specifically refers to 'political parties', and surely the onus is on Louis to name any 'organisations' which have similar aims to ourselves. We are aware who they are but does Louis? scrappy1 is trying to tweek an opinion in this respect.

The ball is firmly in Louis's court, so lets leave it there for now.

GD you could usefully take acouple of steps back - scrappy has taken one small one but apprently isn't able to go any further - distance would lend a much needed perspective to your current tunnel vision.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

So you don't think I'm a politician, thank fuck for that. But now I'm a Humpty Dumpty with the way I use language. Louis I'm well aware that you are trying your best to make me look stupid but come on - you are so well known for your use of H&D language when it suits your agenda. And please don't take that as an admission that I use H&D language intentionally.

Of course you're a politician GD; you're 'actively involved in politics, especially party politics'. As you yourself have stated, it's why you're on these boards. It is a bonus that your post also supplies yet another example of your Humpty Dumpty take on language; `when I use a word...it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

Vanguard
Majority
Politician
Socialism

Louis MacNeice

 

[Proper Tidy]

The hostility clause specifically refers to 'political parties'

But you're a political party.

So all political parties are to be treated as hostile because inherently the SPGB believe anybody not in their party are therefore not the most conscious workers and not true socialists.

Basically, organisations that are not political parties are okay - because they don't threaten your hegemony in your self-contained bubble of true socialism.

That is what it looks like.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

But you're a political party.

So all political parties are to be treated as hostile because inherently the SPGB believe anybody not in their party are therefore not the most conscious workers and not true socialists.

Basically, organisations that are not political parties are okay - because they don't threaten your hegemony in your self-contained bubble of true socialism.

That is what it looks like.

To be fair it has proved to be a very effective strategy in maintaining a tiny, marginal left wing group, in a highly competitive market place; they've got a good 'USP'. What it's not so hot on is the achievement of socialism.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Jean-Luc]

Several people are now agrseeing that butch's louis's position is vanguardist, according to their definition. Yes he and louis are not part of party [IWCA?],

IWCA? Are they these people? Who contest elections promising to do something for people and even succeeded in getting a couple of local councillors elected one time and who are registered with the Electoral Commission as a political party.
Are you sure you're right about this, Resistance?

 

[JWH]

they've got a good 'USP'

You need a good USP if you're going to come and "advertise socialism" on the U75 boards, right?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

You need a good USP if you're going to come and "advertise socialism" on the U75 boards, right?

Is that definite article singular socialism, indefinitie article possibly plural socialisms, or simply a group with the word socialist in its title?

Louis MacNeice

 

[Gravediggers]

IWCA? Are they these people? Who contest elections promising to do something for people and even succeeded in getting a couple of local councillors elected one time and who are registered with the Electoral Commission as a political party.
Are you sure you're right about this, Resistance?

Yep that's them. What a shame they are by their own definition politicians and vanguardist to boot. Lol

 

[TremulousTetra]

Secondly, you can't see the difference between an individual opinion which is open to change, and a grand truth claim, enshrined in a party constitution for over a century.


Louis MacNeice

I'll come back to that, but that still doesn't explain your "individual opinion". You seem to be denying the fucking obvious, and I cannot understand why. So simple question. Yes or no?

Louis MacNeice has more of an awareness of the best long term class interests of the working class, than ie a Tory voter doesn't? True or false Louis?

 

[moon23]

Further to my previous reply you last paragraph above contains a glaring ignorance regarding how capitalism actually operates. You assume (again) that the profit motive is the solution to all our problems specifically in regards to the introduction of new technology bringing people out of poverty. This assumption ignores the facts that the introduction of new technology can in many instances put people into poverty.

New technology is only introduced when there is a profit to be made. For example, the massive dam projects in Brasil, China, India and elsewhere are essential to the global economy in that they provide the resources to manufacture old and new technology. However, damming on such a scale - by its very nature - also involves the displacement of thousands of people where little provision is made for providing alternative means of living. If such administration costs were to be factored into the total cost the rate of profit would decrease proportionally.

The consequences of such maladministration results in many of the urban poor moving to the cities and finding themselves directly under the thumb of wage slavery and officially classified by the UN has living under 'extreme poverty'.

A Capitalist State would legally protect the property of those displaced by a Dam so compensation could be paid. In China it's the power of the state that allows for such brutal evictions, that wouldn't happen in a more fully developed Capitalist society like the UK.

The Economies of places with Hydro-electic power will propser as a result in the long-one as a result of the reduced cost of power. That power will enrich people's lifes.

 

[TremulousTetra]

IWCA? Are they these people? Who contest elections promising to do something for people and even succeeded in getting a couple of local councillors elected one time and who are registered with the Electoral Commission as a political party.
Are you sure you're right about this, Resistance?

I think so. I am positive at one time Louis supported them, and I'm pretty certain Butchers did. But I did put [IWCA?] So perhaps for once they might actually give a straight answer to were questioned to clarify their views.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I'll come back to that, but that still doesn't explain your "individual opinion". You seem to be denying the fucking obvious, and I cannot understand why. So simple question. Yes or no?

Louis MacNeice has more of an awareness of the best long term class interests of the working class, that ie a Tory voter doesn't? True or false Louis?

RMP3, you've had my answer:

Because in my estimation they have, for a whole variety of reasons, not recognised their best long term class interests.​

Deep breaths, slow down and relax RMP3, or you'll do yourself a mischief.

Louis MacNeice

 

[moon23]

But you are ignoring the basic nature of capitalism - this is la la land stuff. Capitalism is all about making a profit, whether the means of making that profit is useful, beneficial or sustainable, or not.

To use your example - clothes, medicine and technology are produced primarily to make a profit, not for their usefulness, which leads to pharmaceuticals jealously guarding their patents, leading to prices that are too expensive for the poorest people, who are denied access to treatment by their own economic conditions. The pharmaceuticals are just playing the game though; if profit is your primary motive then it makes perfect sense.

It's also the same reason so much labour, science and funding goes into developing cosmetics, when if profit were removed and judged objectively for social usefulness would be much better directed at finding cheap and plentiful medical treatments for the many diseases and conditions that kill millions of poor people every year.

Technology likewise is driven by the pursuit of profit; so those with the means of production put their research into making a smaller mobile phone - profitable, yes, but not the most socially useful of developments.

And clothing is produced so cheaply because it is made in sweat-shops by contractors to contractors to contractors to multinationals; and those workers are kept dirt-poor by undisguised wage-slavery.

This is fucking simple stuff. Saying capitalism can cure these ills is as silly as claiming we'll all be saved by scientology.

On some occasions making a profit maybe in the short-term detriment of particular individuals . What is profitable is determined by what people desire, if people desires sustainable goods then it will become profitable to produce them, if people need medicine then it will become profitable for people to develop and research more medicine.

The beauty is that Capitalism is an adaptive system that responds to societies needs. Yes there are problems with Capitalism, because their are problems with society. For instance the reason you get sweat shops is because people continue to purchase goods from places that employ sweat shop labour.

 

[TremulousTetra]

A Capitalist State would legally protect the property of those displaced by a Dam so compensation could be paid. In China it's the power of the state that allows for such brutal evictions, that wouldn't happen in a more fully developed Capitalist society like the UK.

The Economies of places with Hydro-electic power will propser as a result in the long-one as a result of the reduced cost of power. That power will enrich people's lifes.

OK look at the way pharmaceutical companies got the use of generic drugs made illegal in Africa costing millions of lives.

 

[Jean-Luc]

The beauty is that Capitalism is an adaptive system that responds to societies needs

No, it doesn't. It only responds to paying needs, ie needs needs backed up by money to pay for the means to satisfy them. The trouble is that under capitalism the amount of money most people have is rationed by the size of their pay packet (or salary cheque) and that this is always less than the value of what they produce -- otherwise where would the profits of the capitalist firms that employ them come from? No, the economic law under capitalism is "can't pay, can't have".

 

[TremulousTetra]

On some occasions making a profit maybe in the short-term detriment of particular individuals . What is profitable is determined by what people desire, if people desires sustainable goods then it will become profitable to produce them, if people need medicine then it will become profitable for people to develop and research more medicine.

The beauty is that Capitalism is an adaptive system that responds to societies needs. Yes there are problems with Capitalism, because their are problems with society. For instance the reason you get sweat shops is because people continue to purchase goods from places that employ sweat shop labour.

I think the current state of the environment, and this book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_(book) explain why there isn't necessarily a natural congruence between the needs of humanity as a whole, and the needs of individual capitalists.

 

[Gravediggers]

A Capitalist State would legally protect the property of those displaced by a Dam so compensation could be paid. In China it's the power of the state that allows for such brutal evictions, that wouldn't happen in a more fully developed Capitalist society like the UK.

The Economies of places with Hydro-electic power will propser as a result in the long-one as a result of the reduced cost of power. That power will enrich people's lifes.

We are not just talking about economic values but also community values where communities would have a direct say on their relocation. The cost of power may well be reduced in the future but there are no guarantees that all will be in a position to afford energy even at a lower rate. Much what happens here in the UK.

You are assuming much to much from capitalism.

 

[The39thStep]

Butchers would the Anarchist Federation fit your description above 'of both its roots and its various manifestations'? For clearly, according to your use of the word vanguard, they are also telling the workers what to think and do.

Fuck Afed

 

[TremulousTetra]

RMP3, you've had my answer:
[/INDENT]

Louis MacNeice

yes I've had A answer, and that was unusually illuminating of you. However;

Louis MacNeice has more of an awareness of the best long term class interests of the working class, than ie a working class Tory voter? True or false Louis?


It is truly fascinating why you were so scared to discuss your 'politics'/"individual opinion".

 

[TremulousTetra]

Of course you're a politician GD; you're 'actively involved in politics, especially party politics'. As you yourself have stated, it's why you're on these boards. It is a bonus that your post also supplies yet another example of your Humpty Dumpty take on language; `when I use a word...it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

Vanguard
Majority
Politician
Socialism

Louis MacNeice

So are you still in the IWCA?

 

[JWH]

Is that definite article singular socialism, indefinitie article possibly plural socialisms, or simply a group with the word socialist in its title?

Socialism (TM)