Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:Tim:"We would then have an endless source of hot air for power generation and bullshit for fertiliser, which could act as a demonstration of the possibility of free access in a socialist society."So, other than abuse, you dont have anything useful to add.If what I have to say is such b.s., then someone as knowledgeable as your good self should find it laughably easy to show where I go wrong, shouldn't you?The fact that you resort merely to abuse suggests to me that describing you as "ignorant" might be to praise you too highly.And I say that with all due disrespect.
I've obviously hit a nerve there, haven't I. Perhaps it's a nerve that's been hit before. It seems to me (which is why I use the traditional working class tactic of taking the piss) that you (and L Bird) take yourselves just a little too seriously.Perhaps I can put it another way. When you are being evicted from your home, when you are about to lose you job, when you are faced with the news that you will probably have to work until you are in your seventies before you can afford to even think about retirement, when you lie awake worried about debts, when you cannot make the bills balance at the end of the month, in short when capitalism is shitting all over you. Philosophy , the dialectic, epistemology, etc. are not the topics that fill your mind.The traditional Trotskyist/Leninist approach of producing long winded tracts about angels on pin heads, designed to do nothing but bolster the egos of the authors, does nothing but obscure the real Socialist task, that is putting forward the case for a Socialist transformation of society.If the hot air, you and your fellow Trotskyist obscurantists, put into discussing arcane disputes from the past, could be used effectively in communicating the urgent need to change the social system which is destroying our planet, killing our children and blighting the lives of millions of humans, then perhaps we would be closer to achieving that goal.All due disrespect? I take your disrespect as a badge of honour. You mistake lack of interest in what you are saying, with lack of knowledge of the subject matter. I have the former, but not the latter. However if it makes me ignorant, to view your petty self esteem building activities as contemptuous (I mean calling yourself Rosa Lichtenstein, no signs of bigging yourself up there, is there), I plead ignorance, glorious, glorious ignorance. Yours for the revolution
Young Master Smeet wrote:Wow, what we need is Lbird to join this thread and we could watch the charge of the hobby horse cavalry.Appropriately enough, the same passage is antidote to both:"My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite."So, Marx, in his own unambiguous published words, has a dialectic method.Short version: he looked at things in thir relationships and how they develop.If we could get Rosa Licthenstien and L Bird into a room together, we could create a pro-epistemology/anti epistemology generator (a bit like the matter anti matter generators in Star Trek). We would then have an endless source of hot air for power generation and bullshit for fertiliser, which could act as a demonstration of the possibility of free access in a socialist society.
To Paraphrase the above comment from Wez:Why do you end your posts with 'The emancipation of the working class will be the act of the workers themselves'?When you also state on your website "I count myself as a Marxist, a Leninist and a Trotskyist"?Will it be the workers who emancipate themselves or a Leninist/Trotskyist vanguard? How about replaceing Max Eastman's statement on the banner on the top of your site with this statement: Leninsm is like a mental disease; you can't know what it is until you get it, and then you can't know because you have got it — Tim Kilgallon
Bob Andrews wrote:Just returned from a brief cut-price sojourn in Alicante which was heaving with retired fellow British proletarians escaping the rigours of a cruel austerity. You couldn't get into the hotel reception for motability scooters. Bit different from when my old dad were in Spain fighting in the civil war – for Franco. Claimed to have bagged himself a couple of anarchists. Any road up, I thought I'd log on and wish all members of the SPGB and Reconstituted SPGB a belated Happy New Year.your father sounds like a charming, thoughtful and humane man, characteristics that you have clearly inherited.
here's one for L Bird!http://existentialcomics.com/comic/143
Major McPharter wrote:I remember well the north/east meetings with some fantastic debates with the mighty Steve Coleman speaking.Good to hear from you Harley. It would be great to get some similar meetings going in the North East again, going to try and get another branch meeting organised at the end of the month if your able to attend?YFSTim
I'm intending to go along to their next meeting, if I can, and put the party case. If any other comrades/sympathisers in the North East fancy it, and perhaps a few bevvys afterwards, let me know.
LBird wrote:Yes, Dave, we all know.Everyone agrees that the material for labour is provided by nature.That's the point.Now, try and work out from this thread what that point is, because I'm not saying it again.Oh L Bird, you really are a teasy weasy little Trotskyist, aren't you!
Osama Jafar wrote:ALB wrote:capitalism states disappear socialist, ant-capitalist (in an earlier post you envisaged markets and money continuing to exist after the end of sovereign states).SPGB version is like that: the dogmatic beaten workers take over the possessions of the conquerer liberal workers to establish world workers dictatorship which mutch worse than capitalism. ending sovergin state incompass ending one of its evils! capital – toward creation of higher society done cooperatively by all human or at least who wish to! i am not socialist – anti qua society. capitalist institutions cant be run except in capitalist way though for non profit.
Not even close, Bonny Lad.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:By 'material', Marx means 'human', as opposed to 'ideal' meaning 'divine'.So, by 'material production', Marx means 'social production'.You're going to have to provcide textual proof of those claims: you've made them before, but if, humpty style, Marx says what you want him to say, thios conversation is pointless.Further, can I ask: what wopuld it take to dirsprove Marx? What would demonstrate that he was wrong on that subject?
In addition, if Marx meant "Social Production", when he used the phrase "Material Production", why did he not just use the phrase "Social Production" in the first place?
A suggestion for my Xmas no 1 would be "Winter's Song" by the Late Great Alan Hull. If Elvis Costello thinks it's the best song ever written then who am I to disagree. Also it's a song which expresses many of the feeling that Socialists have about the hypocrisy of this time of year.Hully was one of the unrecognised geniuses of working class music, in my humble opinion.As to the idea that music changes nothing, I disagree completely. Music and especially lyrics change the way people think. It may not, always be specifically Socialist, but songs such as "The Green Fields of France", "The Band Played Waltzing Matilda" or from my part of the world the songs of Tommy Armstrong, from the 1880-1920s such as "The Oakey House Strike Evictions" and "The Durham Lockout" have influenced the way people think for generations. A well written song can get a message across in three minutes in ways that an academic discourse can never do. Anyway, it's late and I'm off to dream about a guy called Joe Hill
Sympo wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:"Unless she has enough personal capital to live on and not work~: yes."If so, is it in her class interest to abolish capitalism and establish socialism? Sorry if I am being annoying with these questions
It is in the interest of her class, that does not necessarily mean it is in the interest of her.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:LBird wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:…at the risk of coming across as all Jeremy Paxman…There's no risk there, whatsoever!I think Paxman can read, for example.
Well perhaps he can, maybe I have difficulty interpreting your written material (which no doubt is clear and succinct to all who read it with the exception of me).But as you say, your role is one of explaining to the workers (of which I am one) the real meaning of Marx's writings.So whilst I accept that to the rest of the world you have given a clear answer previously, and at the risk of repetition, could this ignorant worker, humbly beseech you, L Bird, the great philosopher of the people to please clarify, just for me – what is your opinion, of Marx's view of where humans came from if the world is their divine creation?
So I take it you don't feel able to explain your thoughts on this issue or you are too embarrassed at the answer you would have to give.
LBird wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:…at the risk of coming across as all Jeremy Paxman…There's no risk there, whatsoever!I think Paxman can read, for example.
Well perhaps he can, maybe I have difficulty interpreting your written material (which no doubt is clear and succinct to all who read it with the exception of me).But as you say, your role is one of explaining to the workers (of which I am one) the real meaning of Marx's writings.So whilst I accept that to the rest of the world you have given a clear answer previously, and at the risk of repetition, could this ignorant worker, humbly beseech you, L Bird, the great philosopher of the people to please clarify, just for me – what is your opinion, of Marx's view of where humans came from if the world is their divine creation?
LBird wrote:LOL!The 'Religious Materialists' always resort to insults!What, perhaps like calling someone a fool? (of course that's not an insult if it comes from the golden keyboard of L Bird.)I find it strange that you appear to have no fear of the mods when you are sending out insults, they only appear as your bogeyman when you are asked to answer a straight question. Could it be that you know you have painted yourself into a corner?So in the interests of clarity, and at the risk of coming across as all Jeremy Paxman, I'll ask again – what is your opinion, of Marx's view of where humans came from if the world is their divine creation?
