Blake's Baby

Sorry, again, for the ignorance, but I thought that was the main reasoning behind consciousness and revolution? I thought the argument wasn't that such a trigonometry didn't exist, but rather that it would be far too complex to model and involve too many factors?

To the hypothetical, couldn't you argue that their differing conclusions were reached based on their prior experiences, which were in turn caused by their differing material conditions?

Again, sorry if this is all really fundamental. Materialism is something I'm having a little (or, a lot) of trouble understanding correctly.

I know that you're involved in ~300 debates at the moment, but if you ever get the time and see this, could you explain how one separates materialism from determinism? I'm not sure I understand where the disconnect occurs between a person's thoughts and the material reality (that sentence probably just revealed all of my ignorance, apologies).

Even if you just cite works, it would be extremely helpful. Thanks, regardless!

You're one of the funniest posters on here just saying!!

you're one of the best posters at this forum atm. I've liked your posts for quite a while, but lately they've been of top quality, nuanced and detailed. keep it up!

I completely agree with that charectarization of the SPGB. They have a solid approach to how a socialist society would function, etc. but I really am put off by their tactics for revolution and their anti-Bolshevism. At least they don't support imperialist wars, work with social democrats, etc. etc. like Trots and Tankies seem to do.

You met Buick? When? What did you guys "clash" about? I completely agree as well. His anti-Bolshevism really gets annoying, but he has some very interesting things to say.

Ah, it's Adam Buick is it? He's OK, but Pez is right he needs to get over the 'anti-Bolshevism', it doesn't help his argument. We clashed about 10 years ago, when he used to call me an 'Anarcho-Bolshevik' (I was an Anarchist-Communist at the time, and though anti-Leninist was still I think fair about what the Bolsheviks did that was positive - as were of course Goldman, Berkman, maximov ad the other anarchists I admired).

I've not really followed the discussion but stock control, as long as there's some possibility of human interaction with the system, seems reasonable enough, I don't see why it wouldn't work. At present, the existence of money is irrelevent to the system, so it could be removeed and the system would work just as well.

I was just wondering what you thought about it. From what I read, it seems like a very interesting way to organize production without money or a market in a decentralized form. Idk you can read more about it here in this article: http://www.cvoice.org/cv3cox.htm and in this thread where he argues this point: http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialism-....html?t=176746

Basically, the "system of self-regulating stock control" would be a system of decentralized calculation in kind. Just as today, when a supermarket worker notices that cans of beans are being taken off the shelves at a faster rate and orders more cans, when a "stock" of a certain good is being depleted at a faster rate, more is ordered in it's place. There is no exchange, there is no market, etc. etc. and it seems like a rational system to me. I was just wondering what another left communist thought about this.

What is your opinion of a "system of self-regulating stock control" (like Robo argues) under communism?

Hi L'Enferme, no, I did it myself (did indeed resize it down to about 80x64 or thereabouts, because of the ratio of the original I used). Thanks for the other versions, but honestly, I'm happy with this one thanks. It's taken me about 8 months to get this one to work, and I really don't mind if it looks a little shabby.