Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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?
LBird wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:with all due respect, L Bird, I asked what your opinion is, not Jordan's. So again, what is your opinion, of Marx's view of where humans came from if the world is their divine creation?With all due respect, Tim, you'll have to read what I've already said to YMS, here on this thread, which was already a repetition of what I've said many times.The mod has already given a warning about saying the same thing, over and over, so I'm taking heed.
With all due respect, L Bird, I think you are unprepared to answer a straight question. I don't think for one moment that the Mods will sanction you for giving a straight answer, or that your reluctance to answer is in anyway linked to your concern that the Mods may intervene. I very much doubt that any other reader of this thread thinks your reluctance to answer is due to anything other than the fact that the answer you would be forced to give, is as ludicrous as you are.I think, my little Liver Bird, that you are just like the River Mersey you overlook. A big mouth and full of shit.
LBird wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:LBird wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:Marx regarded humans as divine creators.JUst one question: where do humans come from, if the world is their divine creation?
You'll have to take that up with Marx, YMS.Or, perhaps, actually read Jordan's text.
To rephrase YMS's question, where (in your opinion) did Marx think humans come from if he thought that the world was their divine creation?
with all due respect, L Bird, I asked what your opinion is, not Jordan's. So again, what is your opinion, of Marx's view of where humans came from if the world is their divine creation?Jordan, section 4 Sacred and Profane History (in book, pp. 34-7).
LBird wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:Marx regarded humans as divine creators.JUst one question: where do humans come from, if the world is their divine creation?
You'll have to take that up with Marx, YMS.Or, perhaps, actually read Jordan's text.
To rephrase YMS's question, where (in your opinion) did Marx think humans come from if he thought that the world was their divine creation?
LBird wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:… but I beg you indulge the fool.Since you've been so humble and honest, who I am to refuse?
The Fool wrote:Can you (answering simply yes or no) let us know if, in all of the time you have been putting forward your cockamammie idea that the whole world population should vote on every "scientific truth"…You're wrong again here, Fool, because you're following robbo's 'cockamammie idea' about 'social production', not mine (or Marx's). You'll have to take up your question with robbo, because it's not up to me to answer for robbo's 'ideas', 'cockamammie' or not.Now, if you want to discuss Jordan's opinions about Marx, I'll continue the dialogue. But if you want to discuss robbo's opinions, then please go to robbo's new thread. I won't reply here to any more 'foolish' queries.
I'll take that as a no then, should I?
LBird wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:LBird wrote:this problem goes deeper than me simply being an argumentative bastard.There is an alternative explanation, another feasible reason why everyone disagrees with you, can you guess what it is?
Fools like you, masquerading as 'socialists'?
Hmmm, perhaps not the reply I was looking for, but definitely the reply that could have been predicited.Let me put it another way.Judging from your comments about your contact with other political parties, you quite clearly have been in contact with lots of different individuals over many, many years, putting forward your viewpoints and ideas. It might be fair to assume that these individuals had at least a passing interest in your viewpoint and at least a rudimentary interest in what you have to say. Can I then ask you a very straight question, I know you are not fond of answering yes or no questions, but I beg you indulge the fool. Can you (answering simply yes or no) let us know if, in all of the time you have been putting forward your cockamammie idea that the whole world population should vote on every "scientific truth", have you ever encountered a single individual who agrees with your proposition?
LBird wrote:this problem goes deeper than me simply being an argumentative bastard.There is an alternative explanation, another feasible reason why everyone disagrees with you, can you guess what it is?
DJP wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:I believe the IWGB were behind the Uber court case, and I know they have organised outsourced Universiy of London cleaners.The Uber case was to do with GMB. IWGB was to do with the Deliveroo strike. For a small union, the IWGB seems to be doing very well for themselves.
The IWGB have also organised the first union branch for Foster Carers and are rumoured to be taking a similar case to court re employment rights for foster carers. If that case is won it could have massive implications for 60,000 foster carers in the U.K. Perhaps we are witnessing a rebirth of trades unionism?
