tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post4465356060980248111..comments2023-12-16T16:11:07.558+00:00Comments on Boffy's Blog: No To No2EUBoffyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08157650969929097569noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-54448949167502752842009-06-01T08:43:20.116+01:002009-06-01T08:43:20.116+01:00For goodness sake. You weren't able to goad me in...For goodness sake. You weren't able to goad me into deleting your posts or stooping to your level of abuse before, so what makes you think that posting your increasingly hysterical poison pn letters anonymously will bring you any more luck????<br /><br />What was it again that Einstein said about people who keep repeating the same mistake, and each time expect to get a different result?<br /><br />Given that I have actually BEEN a shop steward for the majority of my adult life rather than having just taught them, I think I have a far better grasp of what a steward would think that you!!! In reality, you will find that they have been laughing at you behind their hands, and saying to themselves, "This tart actually thinks he's one of us"!<br /><br />That is symptomatic of your contributions here. Pretending to be someone you are not, whilst all the time your underlying reactionary nature, which that approach signifies sneeks through all of your writing.<br /><br />AS I suggested to you some time ago, get a life, man.Boffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08157650969929097569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-32112936819098028562009-05-31T21:40:30.997+01:002009-05-31T21:40:30.997+01:00Jesus H Fucking Christ. When you have calmed down ...Jesus H Fucking Christ. When you have calmed down and grown up, Arthur, if ever, hopefully you will look back on this and other threads and realise what an insufferably arrogant sectarian windbag you are. What a terrible advert for what purports to be socialist politics and Marxist analysis. I'm only glad so few people will ever read it. <br />I can't imagine a single one of the many hundreds of thoughtful, committed and challenging shop stewards I have taught getting past your first three contributions without laughing themselves to death or calling you a complete tosser. Or both.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-53640624569723152082009-05-31T10:58:40.373+01:002009-05-31T10:58:40.373+01:00Larry,
I don't wish to declare what I know and ho...Larry,<br /><br />I don't wish to declare what I know and how I know it right now. It would involve betraying confidences, and I need to keep open sources of information. As the expenses scandal shows there is an optimal time for making revelations.<br /><br />On the dolls, Llin is largely correct. You can never be actually sure when a spammer is using multiple persona, but there are always clues when you've been doing it for a long time. There are turns of phrase and ways of writing. In literary circles its called the "Writers Voice", but you normally need a reasonable amount to detect it. But, like with the ventriloquists dolls the underlying character always sneaks through. A clever spammer will use dolls that either criticise the main character, or else strike a supportive pose in respect of the target. That way they might get e-mail contact that provides information that the spammer can use. In addition if and when the dolls flip to support the main character it makes it look like they have won some victory over the target.<br /><br />Sometimes they give it aay in the names they choose. For example, I had a long running debate series of debates similar to those here on a Libertarian Discussion Board. The spammer's main character chose a name that ended in ster. Other dolls had names such as abxhgv or else another's initials were R.R. There appears no connection, but if you were a collector of DC Comics in your youth the connection becoems apparent. Many of the villains had names that ended in ster. One of Superman's opponents was name Mr. Mxmptlk, whilst running through the story was the L.L. connection - KaL EL, Lois Lane, Lana Lang, Lex Luther and so on.<br /><br />In the end it doesn't matter. I was happy to confront some of the ideas that BCFG put down to the extent it allowed me to say things I'd have wanted to say at some point anyway. His task was to get me to lose my rag, to resort to abuse and ultimately to ban him or threaten to ban him. When it became obvious that I wasn't going to do that, but simply ignore him his game was up, and he might as well pick up his dolls.<br /><br />In the end, I have the advantage that I'm not a member of any organisation. I don't write this blog to make money, or to win people over to some organisation. Its nothing more than like writing a Diary, and the setting down of ideas that I would have been considering for myself anyway. To the extent that that feeds into a wider Marxist debate all the better.Boffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08157650969929097569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-70332576624582641122009-05-30T21:20:09.690+01:002009-05-30T21:20:09.690+01:00Larry,
I don't know what Boffy means either about...Larry,<br /><br />I don't know what Boffy means either about knowing who BCFG is, but I understand what he means about dolls. Four people all post comments supporting BCFG, each without giving any real substantive arguments for their support, and each does so about 5 minutes apart!!!! Beggars belief that this was just coincidence.<br /><br />MARWRA, particularly picks me out for some reason, and speaks about all these posts I write, about which the workers apparently don't give a fuck. Even the tone of this is not consistent with that previously adopted let alone the fact that MARWRA has not had occasion to speak to me about any of these many posts.<br /><br />No, its just the typical trick of a spammer who uses multiple persona. I'm guessing Boffy recognises the writing style or something of the person behind all these "dolls".Llin Daviesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-66501490391118712232009-05-30T20:20:30.643+01:002009-05-30T20:20:30.643+01:00Whoa. This is out of hand. I’ve read a number of...Whoa. This is out of hand. I’ve read a number of threads here that I was really impressed with, but this debate is ridiculous. Its everything that is bad with the Left. Having said that, and looking back best I can I can’t really blame Boffy. I came here having read the Public Sociologist site for some time, and came across a comment there, which mentioned Boffy’s Blog. It seems to completely contradict the message BCFG puts forward here. It said,<br /><br />“All these blogs are excellent and deserve a wider readership. But there's a few that stand out for some reason or another. First there's Boffy's Blog, written by Stoke labour movement legend, Arthur Bough. His blog is an eclectic mix of polemic, Marxism, current affairs commentary, essays and labour movement history. The AWL apparently banned him from their site for a short period - does that serve as a recommendation? ;)”<br /><br />I don’t know what this legendary status amounts to as I’m not from Stoke, but given that Phil is a member of the SP, and Boffy used to be a member of the AWL, and continues to write articles critical of the SP, such as his comments on the AVPS site over No2EU, it seems unlikely that he would use such a description lightly. I hadn't come here at that time, its only after Boffy had a long running debate with a BNPer at the AVPS site that I began to track his posts. To be honest I was surprised at BCFG's attitude, which is why I decided to comment.<br /><br />I am a bit confused, though, Boffy about your comments here about knowing who BCFG is, references to dolls and so on. Could you explain?Larry Williamsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-88207695684767668772009-05-30T19:09:57.542+01:002009-05-30T19:09:57.542+01:00Trumpton,
Your post of 12:38
You say BCFG was di...Trumpton,<br /><br />Your post of 12:38<br /><br />You say BCFG was discussing the LP and BNP. You need to be more specific as to how this makes him right! How can it be compatible to begin by saying,<br /><br />“I actually broadly agree with your views in this article”,<br /><br />an article which spelled out the reactionary Nationalist position of No2EU, and the need to work through the LP, for him then to go on to attack Montreal, saying,<br /><br />“and would contend that Monty (who also doesn’t give his real name I have noticed) occupies the same fantasy world you live in when debating with me.” because Montreal had argued that it was time to build something outside he LP, but then several days later without any explanation to decide after all that,<br /><br />“Finally on NO2EU I totally understand their position and would support their logic over yours.”?????????????????<br /><br />If that is not political schizophrenia I don’t know what is!!!!!<br /><br />Marco,<br /><br />Your post of 12:43.<br /><br />The point is that you (sorry BCFG) simply cuts and pastes huge slabs of material that are irrelevant to the point at issue, and which often contradict the point he’s trying to make! Take the quotes from Lenin on Imperialism, which he claimed to agree with, but which contradicted his professed support for the Islamists!<br /><br />MARWRA,<br /><br />Your post of 12:50.<br /><br />The only wasters of Internet Capacity here are BCFG and his dolls. Oops, has that given the game away that I knew all along who BCFG was?<br /><br />TonyM,<br /><br />Your post of oh look 12:56.<br /><br />Good to here from you along with all the other dolls, just like a tea party! You, (sorry BCFG), didn’t raise Lomborg other than the fact that I had referred to him briefly in a number of posts, and he thought he’d go on a fishing trip to find another basis for another argument. He hoped all along to provoke me into deleting his posts, or threatening to ban him from the blog in the way I was banned from the AWL site, and the way I was threatened to be banned from the Shiraz Socialist site. That was never going to happen a) because I’m not a Stalinist who believes in banning people, when their ideas can do them enough damage on their own, and b) because I knew by various means who I was dealing with from the beginning!Boffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08157650969929097569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-8720506475884446182009-05-30T12:56:49.327+01:002009-05-30T12:56:49.327+01:00Larry,
Without realising it you are agreeing with...Larry,<br /><br />Without realising it you are agreeing with BCFG.<br /><br />BCFG brought up Lomborg because Boffy had set himself up as the defender of Science. So what is science, a big business conspiracy or is it brilliant people working honestly and independently of the system -maybe yLarry and Boffy could argue this out.<br /><br />BCFG used Lomborg to parody Boffy's position.TonyMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-37917357951267514282009-05-30T12:50:58.737+01:002009-05-30T12:50:58.737+01:00I am boycotting this site in sympathy with BCFG. W...I am boycotting this site in sympathy with BCFG. What a bunch of arrogant assholes.<br /><br />You have asked BCFG to get a life and you waste your time writing this to from now on a dwindling audience.<br /><br />Same goes for Llin, who writes numerous articles about the workers and the workers couldn't give a fuck about anything she writes.<br /><br />You are oxygen thieves and wasters of internet capacity.MARWRAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-1755158127791745362009-05-30T12:43:32.995+01:002009-05-30T12:43:32.995+01:00In defence of BCFG, Boffy provides links to other ...In defence of BCFG, Boffy provides links to other articles, this is in effect cut and paste, so I don't see Larry's point here. To reference other people is not a crime is it. Or is BCFG correct, is it one rule for Boffy another for BCFGMarconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-83736618972775518342009-05-30T12:38:15.743+01:002009-05-30T12:38:15.743+01:00I have read over these debates and think BCFG is c...I have read over these debates and think BCFG is correct in so far as he seemed to be discussing the role of the LP and the BNP in his comments.TrumptonRiotsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-77908502526822001572009-05-30T11:43:00.365+01:002009-05-30T11:43:00.365+01:00Llin,
Thanks for your comments. On Lomborg, I th...Llin,<br /><br />Thanks for your comments. On Lomborg, I think you are right, I should have made that criticism of his position, but this was not really a discussion about Lomborg, it was just spamming by BCFG, a fishing trip trying to find some other statement by which he could provoke a response.<br /><br />A post on the Environment and a socialist poisiton is needed within, which Lomborg's arguments can be dealt with is needed, but I've already got way too many things on the go as well as trying to complete work on my house and other issues to deal with. As well as trying to finish the work on the Economy, I have a large piece of analysis on Venezuela I started a long time ago, another on Cuba, as well as some Economic essays that go back even further.<br /><br />Anyway, for now I have to get back to mixing some concrete.Boffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08157650969929097569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-4110201012539507422009-05-30T11:31:34.797+01:002009-05-30T11:31:34.797+01:00Boffy,
Nicely said. I think you were right, defi...Boffy,<br /><br />Nicely said. I think you were right, definitely he was just a spammer the last post was proof of it. I think you really stung him by pointing out the way he'd flipped on the LP/No2EU question, which showed he was just spamming!<br /><br />To say, <br /><br />"I broadly agreed that the LP was the best vehicle for political engagement.<br /><br />That was the thrust of your argument in this article. It wasn’t dealing directly with NO2EU; you had already done this in a previous article."<br /><br />is moronic even for him, being as everyone can see for themselves that the entire post WAS about opposing No2EU here and now and working through the LP, a position he had begun by agreeing with!!!<br /><br />He'd agreed with it, because he thought he was going to be able to turn the argument around to support his argument in previous posts about supporting clerical-fascists, and his argument that even the BNP could become progressive!!!! When he couldn't do that he tried to find other issues on which to take an oppositional stance, and ended up contradicting himself.<br /><br />Nice job, but my advice would be in future don't engage with such morons. After all it will probably just be him using a different persona, don't waste your time.Llin Daviesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-89566336085051305552009-05-30T11:20:05.878+01:002009-05-30T11:20:05.878+01:00BCFG,
Fortunately a final word. I am very, very ...BCFG,<br /><br />Fortunately a final word. I am very, very grateful for this last post, because it shows in greater detail than I ever could have done what you really are - a spammer. The venom with which you write is even greater than that of your previous poison pen missives, the mixing together of various points of half-baked, half understood issues demonstrates precisely the method of the spammer whose only goal is to provoke a similarly vitiolic response rather than to engage in rational debate.<br /><br />The only thing you have exposed in all of your writings has been yourself. Exposed as a spammer, and exposed for the udnerlying reactionary ideas you hold in your real as well as your adopted character. I'm glad you will be taking your spam elsewhere no doubt using a different name and character. My advice would be if this is what gets you off, get a life!Boffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08157650969929097569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-91113704868892967812009-05-30T10:24:46.060+01:002009-05-30T10:24:46.060+01:00BCFG,
The only reason I did not refer to you as a...BCFG,<br /><br />The only reason I did not refer to you as a chauvinist in my last post is because your own words characterise you that way without it needing to be said!<br /><br />On every issue you have commented on the reactionary nature of your politics comes out. Whether that's because you really are a reactionary, or because you are a spammer forced to adopt a reactionary stance in order to place yourself in opposiiton to Boffy's arguemnts doesn't really matter. The fact, is that the persona you have adopted, the arguments you make are reactionary.<br /><br />The more I think about it the more I think Boffy is right that you are just a spammer. That explains why the persona you have adopted seems to udnerstand so little of the actual socialistic arguments you claim to support, and why you contradict yourself so frequently - for example, as Boffy points out here your change of stance within a single argument about your attitude to No2EU and he LP.<br /><br />On Lomborg, I'm no expert either Larry, but I agree that BCFG again does what he has always done - he says he opposed something, but refuses to give any arguments explaining why he opposes it for fear of being tied down. Its one reason I think Boffy is probably right that he's a spammer.<br /><br />I would take issue with Boffy on one point, though, Lomborg's position seems to be to argue that Government's and Capitalist institutions should undertake this transfer of resources to developing economies. Surely, this is soemthing that a socialist would argue those institutions will not do, and we should not sow illusions that they will do. Surely, a socialist environmental policy requires international action by workers.<br /><br />It is, though, another example of the reactionary politics put forward by BCFG. As a spammer adopting a pseudo Left persona he adopts the charicature of what he thinks is the Left posiiton on the Environment. But, the left even more than the enlightened bourgeoisie - who also recognise this fact - know that issues such as the Environment can only be dealt with on a scale greater than the bourgois state. It is one reason why socialists would refuse to support the nation state as opposed to a larger formation such as the EU. But, that is exactly what BCFG in order to maintian his opposiitonal stance is forced to do, to support the British bourgeois state against that wider formation of the EU. A thoroughly reactionary position yet again.Llin Daviesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-82653767960241155312009-05-30T10:09:38.811+01:002009-05-30T10:09:38.811+01:00BCFG,
Thank you for your comments. I looked back...BCFG,<br /><br />Thank you for your comments. I looked back through all the posts as you suggested to what I think must have been the first exchanges between you and Boffy in a post entitled "The Lessons of Gaza".<br /><br />The facts do not support your contention. Not only was your tone fairly hostile from the beginning, for example accusing Boffy of not criticising Israel when his post quite clearly did so, but despite his polite responses to you, in your post of 17th January 2009, you began with the provocative and insulting statement "Boffy, the Neo-Liberal"!<br /><br />As he points out in his reply, if you make such charges against a socialist without any evidence to support it, then its not a political argument it is simply an insult. And, unfortunately, like most of the posts I have read from you here, you did not produce any arguments, let alone facts to back up your insult.<br /><br />Despite his measured response that certainly did not descend to such insults, in your next post you accuse him of being no different to George Bush! Again despite his measured response to that you goad him even further in your next post now comparing him to Christopher Hitchens.<br /><br />Your method is exactly that of the spammer ratcheting up your level of abuse each time in order to provoke a response.<br /><br />Having then given several posts that again have the hallmark of spam in that they contained large chunks of text simply cut and pasted in without any apparent udnerstanding of their meaning or any real relevance to the discussion, and despite agains Boffy's measured response, you then start your post of 24th January with the comment, "Thanks for that barrage of imperialist apology which is prevalent in your work," in other words yet another groundless insult!<br /><br />Having failed to provoke the kind of hostility you seek as a spammer you begin your next comment with,<br /><br />"Your work is full of slavering, servile celebrations of Imperialism’s achievements, I invite the reader to read your blog and make up their own minds."<br /><br />Where you don't have these kinds of insults, your accusations of pro-imperialism and Zionism, of being no different than Melanie Phillips your posts in that thread were simply full of what appear to be deliberate misrepresentations again designed to provoke a hostile response. To be honest I'm surprised Boffy kept his cool with you for so long.<br /><br />As for your comments here in your latest posts they seem to be yet more vaccuous spam. I don’t know much about Lomborg to comment, but I did read two of his articles linked to by Boffy in another post. You seem to be accusing him of denying Global Warming in your comments here, but its hard to tell because you refuse to be specific. In fact, its clear that Lomborg does not deny that, if I understand correctly he was a member of Greenpeace!!! His objection is that the solutions are framed by big business, and are ineffective, not to mention not being implemented.Larry Williamsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-28525288086918153762009-05-29T20:10:10.672+01:002009-05-29T20:10:10.672+01:00Um, Nurse for Boffy.
Just to clarify a few points...Um, Nurse for Boffy.<br /><br />Just to clarify a few points before my parting shot,<br /><br />I broadly agreed that the LP was the best vehicle for political engagement.<br />That was the thrust of your argument in this article. It wasn’t dealing directly with NO2EU; you had already done this in a previous article.<br /><br />Just one point on the US and Sweden, I would argue that the “civilising” mission is moving in the US direction and away from the Social Democracy of Sweden. Therefore to analyse US consumerism and its effect on class consciousness seems an important and necessary thing to do.<br /><br />I argue that consumerism is a negation of class conflict, hardly an uncommon view and you respond with your pathetic, childish, I am taking my ball home rant. This is a classic response of the fundamentalist.<br /><br />You said,<br /><br />“On rising living standards meaning an end to class struggle, more spam. You give no argument to support this contention."<br /><br />This is spam, I have never said such a thing. But you obviously believe in intellectual apartheid, one rule for you, another for me.<br /><br />On the US students, this was taken from a scientific study. I was just acknowledging that it is not hard fact, not a set of numbers. Open to interpretation. (Your response was idiotic)<br /><br />Your rant about everyone owning a lap top is typical of your hysterical response to my points; in this case the desire to live like the rich and famous is not exactly class conflict. Your analogy is cretinous anyway, a lap top can be carried by a child, a mansion and heated swimming pool uses vast tracts of land, your moronic, Lomborgian comparing apples with bananas doesn’t surprise.<br /><br />Speaking of Lomborg, it is telling that he is your go to guy on environmental issues, consider that “The Skeptical Environmentalist” was so offensive to the scientific community that Scientific American published a ten-page evisceration authoured by four actual researchers, including John Holdren, Obamas scientific advisor. It exposes you for what you are, a fundamentalist, this is enough evidence for any scientific mind to accept.<br /><br />You have provided zero facts to show class consciousness is rising with capitalisms civilising mission, absolutely zero, nada. All you can tell us when not trotting out fundamentalist bullshit is the bleedin obvious fact that we are now coming out of recssion.<br /><br />Your fascistic, arrogant, supremicist response to my points makes a mockery of your Marxist engagement with the workers, you are a fraud. Exposing you has been well worth the effort, my work is now done. Goodbye.BCFGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-68836640382639061802009-05-28T23:35:46.180+01:002009-05-28T23:35:46.180+01:00“I would claim Sweden is less consumerist than the...“I would claim Sweden is less consumerist than the USA. That is what we are talking about, not standard of living. This is why I reject your application of long wave analysis in relation to this debate. It is why I do not consider the facts I presented as contradicting my point.”<br />Spam. Your argument was against my use of Marx’s concept of the “Civilising Mission” of Capitalism i.e. the raising of living standards.<br /><br />On the LP more spam. You state an opinion once again without evidence to back it up.<br />On Carbon Emissions, more spam. Measured in terms of per Capita or per unit of GDP developed economies produce less carbon emissions.<br /> <br />On US students, more spam. You admit you have no facts to back it up, and then try to divert attention by misrepresenting what I said. I made no comments about greed as a motivation only self-interest. Under Capitalism human nature is shaped by the productive and class relations so that such considerations dominate. Socialists argue that co-operation is normal for human beings but class society makes what is normal abnormal.<br />On rising living standards meaning an end to class struggle, more spam. You give no argument to support this contention. As for what is practical etc. that is not determinable from here. About twenty years ago, a prominent Marxist economist said, “well probably we won’t be able to run to giving every worker a Video recorder under socialism”. Today, even tribesmen in Afghanistan take owning such equipment for granted.<br />As for your further comments on this about workers living off others efforts again its spam, and a repetition of your usual spammers attempt to provoke hostility by accusing someone of saying something they haven’t said.<br /><br />The fact that you are a spammer is further demonstrated by the fact that you began by saying <br /><br />"I actually broadly agree with your views in this article" i.e. support for working through the LP and rejecting the sectarianism of No2EU, and then forget you have said that in order to take up an oppositional stance supporting "No2EU". In other words, spamming pure and simple, simply argument for the sake of it. <br />More spam on Lomborg, and No2EU. You clearly know nothing about either which is why you fail to be specific. Your jibes about Marxist fundamentalists and so on show that all you are engaged here is a spammers fishing expedition. I see no point in wasting more of my time responding to spam.Boffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08157650969929097569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-36133670494321449452009-05-28T18:57:16.533+01:002009-05-28T18:57:16.533+01:00Boffy,
here is part 2:
You said re fact 9,
“I’d...Boffy,<br /><br />here is part 2:<br /><br />You said re fact 9,<br /><br />“I’d like to see the evidence that the latter was EVER a significant reason for students attending college. It seems to me were it the case that it simply means students are more honest now.”<br /><br />It’s not a hard fact, I’ll give you that. However, I think your answer is quite revealing. Its one thing to hold to the idea that people are naturally inclined to do things that are in their interests, it’s quite another to say humans are driven by greed. I can easily believe people can be driven by pride or a desire to help others.<br /><br />You said re fact 10,<br /><br />“Nothing you say here as anything to do with class conflict unless for some strange reason you believe that workers should not be entitled to have the same standard of living as the rich!!!!”<br /><br />Everything is black and white for you isn’t it!<br /><br />This is a complicated question.<br /><br />Should every worker live in a mansion with acres of land, a heated swimming pool? –Not practical I would say. More to the point these lifestyles are the result of capitalist relations.<br /><br />Should workers desire to live solely off the proceeds of others efforts? –From a socialist point of view, no.<br /><br />Should workers desire to get control of their own lives and share with each other the proceeds of their labour? –Absolutely.<br /><br />I think fact 10 is more about the first 2 points and less about the last. It’s not a desire to overthrow a class but become part of it. Whether somewhere in this is a negation of the negation and the roots of your co-operative future, maybe.<br /><br />It was previously argued,<br /><br />BCFG:(”I would also argue that there is a vast amount of anecdotal evidence also. Personal experience leads me to this conclusion, that is not something that can simply be written off.”)<br /><br />Boffy:(Yes, it can.)<br /><br />You say personal experience can be just written off, but I would call this observation. This is a vital tool for any scientist, whether one looking thorugh a microscope or a telescope. To write off observation is totally unscientific on your part.<br /><br /><br />You said,<br /><br />“Marx does not hold with economic determinism, that is why he argues the need for Marxists to connect with the working class, and within the conditions that this “civilisation” brings to educate the workers, organise them, and thereby develop that class consciousness. It is the failure of this latter that is as much as anything the cause of the lack of class consciousness amongst workers. It is the increasing involvement of the BNP in doing precisely that in involving themselves in Tenants and residents Associations and other Community organisations, and providing immediate solutions to workers problems – even if reactionary immediate solutions – which accounts for the rise both of the BNP, and the growing extent of racist and nationalist ideas.”<br /><br />Well I did say consumerism wasn’t the only factor. I think this is a fair point, to some extent the left have abandoned the workers in relation to the above BNP activities. So yes, maybe rising education standards do arm workers for the battles ahead but consumerism acts as a sedative.<br /><br />I am not getting into a debate about Lomborg as I could write a novel on this.<br />All I will say is that the scientific consensus argues that his methodology is flawed, distorted and dishonest. Only the corporate interest groups and a few Marxist fundamentalists take him seriously. The latter usually out of some mistaken notion that the climate argument is Malthusian.<br /><br />As for NO2EU, I think their views represent mass opinion on the EU more so than the LP. I also think that this view is not uncommon just in our Island nation, but across Western Europe. Anti common market sentiments on the left have not come just as a reaction to the BNP, they have existed for decades, The EU in its current form will not increase internationalism but exacerbate racism/nationalism. We should stand in opposition to it, in its current form. We should take a pro-active stance against it, not reactive fundamentalising, i.e. sticking to the covenant of Marx.BCFGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-19439519819356376162009-05-28T18:56:28.912+01:002009-05-28T18:56:28.912+01:00Boffy,
It’s me the reactionary dishonest, toe-rag...Boffy,<br /><br />It’s me the reactionary dishonest, toe-rag Hitleresque, chauvinistic moron. (All perfectly acceptable, comradely labels to your sect).<br /><br />Anyway, here is part 1:<br /><br />You said,<br /><br />“Actually, voter turnout in the US presidential elections was at a record high level!”<br /><br />I was looking at the underlying trend; something any good scientist would do. That is not to ignore the recent election. I am not claiming consumerism totally destroys class consciousness. There are other factors that can negate this.<br /><br />You said,<br /><br />“Yes, those that have that higher level of “civilisation”, where workers living standards were maintained rather than being driven down by Monetarist policies!!”<br /><br />I would claim Sweden is less consumerist than the USA. That is what we are talking about, not standard of living. This is why I reject your application of long wave analysis in relation to this debate. It is why I do not consider the facts I presented as contradicting my point.<br /><br />You said,<br /><br />“That has ALWAYS been the basis of political parties concerns!!!!”<br /><br />I do not agree with this. I believe the politics of the LP have become less class conscious.<br /><br />You said,<br /><br />“Not true. The environment in Britain today is MUCH better than it was when I was a kid when building were black, rivers were polluted, the land was scarred and so on. Its poor countries that cannot afford to adopt environmentally friendly measures that proportionally do more damage……….More importantly, this “fact” has nothing to do with the point at issue!”<br /><br />I suggest you take another look at the carbon emissions table. This is one example of where observation can be misleading. (That is not to say the things you mentioned are not important, he pedantically said so not to encourage Boffy’s cheerleaders)<br /><br />As for having nothing to do with the issue, I think it represents on a national level the mindset at an individual level. No care for anything outside personal gratification.BCFGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-80477835418429655582009-05-28T18:38:04.018+01:002009-05-28T18:38:04.018+01:00Llin,
At least you have stopped calling me chauvi...Llin,<br /><br />At least you have stopped calling me chauvinistic!<br /><br />You have misread my statement. I was saying Boffy wears his SUPPORT of the workers as a badge of honour, not his lack of support and was pointing out that in the case of NO2EU, this support, that he usually wears as a badge of honour, was missing. So the rest of your polemic is groundless. I don’t think even Boffy read it in that way.<br /><br />As for hostility, if you look over the history of my debates with Boffy you will clearly see that it is he who started with the personal attacks. I have just dragged myself down to his level of debating. Something I am happy to do, unlike the Bourgeois academics like My Levy.<br />As for hostility to his socialist arguments, he blames the left for virtually every problem within the Labour movement –he takes hostility to the extreme. And anyway I have a lot of time for his argument that co-operatives and not mass nationalisation represents the correct revolutionary path.<br /><br />To Larry,<br /><br />I would advise you to look back over the arguments we have had, going back to 2008 and objectively judge the evolution of my debating style with Boffy.<br /><br />It would be more helpful if the both of you actually engaged in the arguments and not just throw groundless accusations my way.BCFGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-40234383854217664272009-05-28T14:08:32.223+01:002009-05-28T14:08:32.223+01:00I only came across this blog a few weeks ago. I a...I only came across this blog a few weeks ago. I agree with much of what Boffy says. I simply don't understand how BCFG has the nerve to accuse him of not supporting workers.<br /><br />I tend to agree with Boffy that BCFG is just a spammer. He seems to just want to be argumentative for the sake of it, and doesn't even seem to really understand any of the arguments in which he gets involved. That would be okay if he got involved in discussions on a comradely basis, but his whole approach seems to be simply agressive and accusatory. The Left has had all too much of that kind of behaviour over the years.Larry Williamsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-49357236715296638702009-05-28T12:39:16.432+01:002009-05-28T12:39:16.432+01:00Whether I am right that BCFG is some kind of polit...Whether I am right that BCFG is some kind of political islamist or Boffy is right that he's a spammer the fact remains that all of BCFG's comments are marked by a particular hostility to Boffy and the socialist politics he argues. BCFG's comments are also marked by a continual dishonesty.<br /><br />He says, that Boffy wears his lack of support for workers as a "Badge of Honour". I find such a statement particularly distasteful. BCFG, doesn't even tell us who he is or what his Labour Movement credentials if any are. Yet a trawl of the Internet will show that Boffy certainly cannot be accused of not supporting workers in struggle.<br /><br />BCFG seems very happy to simply throw out such insults and accusations, but never to produce any facts. Could he give us one example, of Boffy not supporting workers in struggle?<br /><br />In fact, reading all of BCFG's comments it is him that supports people like Ahmedinejad and Hamas, rather than the workers who are persecuted by such reactionaries, whilst Boffy consistently argues for the defence of the workers!!! BCFG says nothing about the strike breaking activity and attacks on workers in Venezuela, because it contradicts his cult worship of Chavez. <br /><br />As I said before thoroughly dishonest, thoroughly reactionary.Llin Daviesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-66397452115839308852009-05-28T11:49:49.799+01:002009-05-28T11:49:49.799+01:00Even those facts you have presented contradict you...Even those facts you have presented contradict your thesis. But, the more important point is that Marx says that the rise in living standards, the rise in “civilisation”, are the precondition for workers being able to develop their class consciousness, a NECESSARY, but not a SUFFICIENT condition. Marx does not hold with economic determinism, that is why he argues the need for Marxists to connect with the working class, and within the conditions that this “civilisation” brings to educate the workers, organise them, and thereby develop that class consciousness. It is the failure of this latter that is as much as anything the cause of the lack of class consciousness amongst workers. It is the increasing involvement of the BNP in doing precisely that in involving themselves in Tenants and residents Associations and other Community organisations, and providing immediate solutions to workers problems – even if reactionary immediate solutions – which accounts for the rise both of the BNP, and the growing extent of racist and nationalist ideas.<br /><br />”I do not want to get into an extensive debate about Lomborg, other than to say most leading scientists reject his view, yet you seem to be going against the view of science.” <br /><br />Which view of Lomborg is it that you claim leading scientists disagree with???<br /><br />“Finally on NO2EU I totally understand their position and would support their logic over yours.”<br /><br />You claimed to be arguing about the SP not No2EU. Which view in particular are you agreeing with over mine???<br /><br />“Your position again shows your lack of support for the workers, something you wear as a badge of honour. It again shows you telling the workers they are wrong, that you are right and that they should follow your “teachings”. Call it leadership, call it teaching, it isn’t support.”<br /><br />Disagreeing with No2EU, which almost the entire Left does is not failing to support workers, but refusing to support a bunch of Nationalists whose politics are contrary to the interests of workers!!!!Boffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08157650969929097569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-62673493718266032332009-05-28T11:49:21.670+01:002009-05-28T11:49:21.670+01:00”Fact 5:
Political party’s policies are less conce...<B>”Fact 5:<br />Political party’s policies are less concerned about class politics and more about who manages capitalism better. I.e. there has been a shift to the right politically.”</B>That has ALWAYS been the basis of political parties concerns!!!!<br /><br /><B>”Fact 6:<br />The number of industrial disputes leading to strikes has fallen considerably in the last 3 decades, falling to record lows in the noughties.”</B>…<br /><br />There is a good discussion on it here at Dave Ostler’s blog <A HREF="http://www.davidosler.com/2007/06/strike_statistics_for_2006.html" REL="nofollow"> Dave’s Part </A>. The fact, is that industrial action is increasing despite all of the things working against it. The fact, is that the decline in class consciousness and level of strike action is a result of 30 years of lack of civilisation, of economic decline, NOT the opposite!<br /><br /><B>”Fact 7:<br />Younger people (18-25) tend to be the most apathetic and the most hedonistic and susceptible to consumerism.”</B>…<br /><br />And also tend to be the most likely to be engaged in some form of political activity!<br /><br /><B>”Fact 8:<br />Consumer driven societies cause the most environmental damage and use up resources quicker. I.e. They show pyschopathic tendancies.”</B>…<br /><br />Not true. The environment in Britain today is MUCH better than it was when I was a kid when building were black, rivers were polluted, the land was scarred and so on. Its poor countries that cannot afford to adopt environmentally friendly measures that proportionally do more damage. That is why as Lomborg says, its important to divert resources to poor countries so that they can adopt environmentally friendly policies, so that they can invest in renewable technologies as opposed to their reliance on fossil fuels etc.<br /><br />More importantly, this “fact” has nothing to do with the point at issue!<br /><br /><B>”Fact 9:<br />Beginning in the 1990’s the most frequent reason given for attending college in the USA had changed to making a lot of money, outranking reasons such as becoming an authority in a field or helping others in difficulty.”</B>…<br /><br />I’d like to see the evidence that the latter was EVER a significant reason for students attending college. It seems to me were it the case that it simply means students are more honest now.<br /><br /><B>”Fact 10:<br />In the main companies and corporations have realized that rich consumers are the most attractive targets for marketing their products. The upper class tastes, lifestyles, and preferences, trickle down to become the standard by which all consumers seek to emulate. I.e. it is a negation of class conflict.”</B>…<br /><br />Why is it a negation of class conflict???? Nothing you say here as anything to do with class conflict unless for some strange reason you believe that workers should not be entitled to have the same standard of living as the rich!!!!<br /><br /><B>”I would also argue that there is a vast amount of anecdotal evidence also. Personal experience leads me to this conclusion, that is not something that can simply be written off.”</B>…<br /><br />Yes, it can.Boffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08157650969929097569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-64569088079544814072009-05-28T11:46:53.251+01:002009-05-28T11:46:53.251+01:00”(I provided plenty of facts re my last response t...<B>”(I provided plenty of facts re my last response to our sex debate but you failed to respond when these facts were presented. Put a disclaimer on your blog requesting copious facts to back up arguments or you will refuse to respond.)”</B>I need no such disclaimer both because its my blog and I will decide if an when I will respond, and because I would expect any honest contributor to back up their arguments with facts, anyway.<br /><br /><B>”Fact 1:<br />Over the last 40 years voter turnout has been steadily declining in the established democracies. This trend has been most strongly felt in the United States, and has been significant in Western Europe and Japan.”</B>Actually, voter turnout in the US presidential elections was at a record high level! Living standards have been rising rapidly in many Asian economies, and in Latin America, with significant indications of increased political activity and class consciousness. However, this argument in fact, contradicts your thesis as is most clearly demonstrated by your next two comments.<br /><br /><B>”Fact 2:<br />The sharpest falls have come at the beginning of the 90’s, when the effects of Reaganomics and Thatcherism were beginning to peak.”</B>Yes, during that period you describe – the period of the Long Wave downturn that began in the late 60’s/ early 70’s workers living standards, the level of “civilisation” was FALLING, and class consciousness soon after was moving in the SAME direction. The same thing was witnessed during the 1920’s and 1930’s! By comparison, the period when Consumerism is most marked – the 1950’s and early 60’s – is marked by the exact opposite. The number of strikes rose sharply, the shop stewards movement took off, and class consciousness could be seen to be rising sharply!!! The same has been true of all previous such periods of rising workers prosperity as Hobsbawm points out in “Industry and Empire”.<br /><br /><B>“Fact 3:<br />Those democracies that have higher spend on welfare/social goods have seen less of a decline than those following the Monetarist policy.”</B>Yes, those that have that higher level of “civilisation”, where workers living standards were maintained rather than being driven down by Monetarist policies!!<br /><br /><B>”Fact 4:<br />Trade union membership has declined 12% in the UK since the early 90’s, even though research shows unionized workers are better off than non unionized workers.”</B>In fact, as this article shows <A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3526917.stm#membership%20graph" REL="nofollow"> BBC Union Membership </A> since the beginning of the new Long Wave upturn at the end of the 90’s Trade Union membership has stopped falling. The biggest declines came from the late 70’s, again consistent with the onset of the Long Wave downturn, and the decline in “civilisation” attendant upon that. In fact, recent years have shown a repetition of what has happened in previous such cycles – we see a rising tide of workers militancy based upon the increasing confidence that the higher demand for labour creates. As I said some time ago, in this phase of the cycle, that tends to be focussed in countries such as Britain, Western Europe, and the US at first on defensive struggles – those in France and Germany have been the clearest in that, but the refinery strikes in Britain are another, whereas in those economies where rapid growth is occurring in Asia, for example, the struggles already have been far more offensive in nature.<br /><br />In fact, the level of Trade Union membership at the moment in Britain is HIGHER than the historical average over the last century or so, which is around 25%.<br /><br /><B>”Fact 5:<br />Political party’s policies are less concerned about class politics and more about who manages capitalism better. I.e. there has been a shift to the right politically.”</B>That has ALWAYS been the basis of political parties concerns!!!!Boffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08157650969929097569noreply@blogger.com