Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi AnarchoBlondeFirst question The EU was set up to favour the sectional interests of the a part of the capitalist class who thought that such an arrangement would be in their economic interest, in the same way the campaign to leave the EU is being largely financed by a section of the capitalist class who think that leaving the EU will have an economic benefit to them. The SPGB isn't concerned with the sectional interests of the capitalist class, it is interested in the working class and achieving socialism. The SPGB has since its formation in 1904, held the view that capitalism cannot be reformed in the interests of workers, therefore the only logical position for a socialist party is to opposes reformism, that is to say reforms of the system distract energy and attention away from the work necessary to create a socialist society, i.e.. spreading the ideas of socialism.Second Question No we would not describe ourselves as an anarchist party. We are a party that has no leaders, we are completely democratic, however where we differ from anarchists is that our view is that where democratic means to take control of the state exist in the form of a parliamentary system, then workers should use this system to take control of the state and then abolish it, rather than the classical anarchist approach of smashing the state from without. Our view is that the route we propose is likely to be the one that leads to least bloodshed and the highest possibility of success. There is no age limit to joining the SPGB and members pay what they can.I hope that starts to answer some of your questions, I'm sure there will be other members contributing along similar lines.
Hi Vin Pouring oil on troubled waters here, but I think that the problem here is one of interpretation of a word, rather than a real political difference. I think I see morality as much more a fluid concept than you. I don't tend to think in absolute terms but I can think of things that are what I would define as immoral. Without going into details too much on this site, but there were actions by a member of our branch recently that came to light that I would say were immoral, I don't say that they effected any economic interest of mine or even the working class, I just think they were plain wrong, and strangely I think they were more wrong because he claimed to be a socialist.ps I also think flagging any post of yours is also immoral
Young Master Smeet wrote:At Last the Truth wrote:The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling football team of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of social football at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant football team relationships, the dominant footballing relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance."There we have it, we simply need to overthrow the ruling football team. When Boro[*] top the league, the workign class will be liberated. [*]Soon to be the only North East team in the Premiership, just saying like.[/quoteBoro topping the Premiership liberating the working class? I thought a socialist majority in Parliament was a long shot, but if we've got to wait for Boro to top the Premier, we may as well give up now
LBird wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:Hmmm…seems as if LBird has been placed into check…Could it well be check-mate…Game, set and match…Here at the Crucible, there are hushed voices as LBird, surveys the table for a shot that gets him out of the snooker and into safety while the opposition prowl around ready to pounce upon their prey…Can it be all over, or will LBird score in the last seconds of injury time?Oh, this is getting exciting…who said i was a boring old debate…it has everything…high tension…emotion…i'm on tenterhooks for the next post …No idea what it is all about but who cares…it is drama in the making…that i can tell.It's relatively easy to understand, alan.First comes the politics of production, which produces philosophy, which produces physics.In production, we have the 'theory and practice' of the bourgeoisie, who employ their concept of 'private property'. By its nature, this concept precludes any 'democratic interference' in itself. 'Private property' just 'is', and it is alleged by those with power to be eternal, and not subject to socio-historical analysis of its emergence, and thus not changable.This concept of 'private property' is thus then similarly reproduced within philosophy, where it is called 'matter'. By its nature, this concept precludes any 'democratic interference' in itself. 'Matter' just 'is', and it is alleged by those with power to be eternal, and not subject to socio-historical analysis of its emergence, and thus not changable.This concept of 'matter' is thus then similarly reproduced within physics, where it is employed in social practice, by those 'practical men' who have not the slightest interest or ability in philosophical issues, and so we have the sight of Einstein and Bohr (the quote was helpfully provided by DJP, earlier) playing with their 'mud pies and rocks', and unable to provide a way forward for a democratic physics (of course, based upon a democratic philosophy and democratic production).That task, which cannot be completed by bourgeois physicists, philosophers, or property owners, is awaiting the class conscious proletariat, when it revolutionises its world.As Charlie said, 'All that is solid melts into air' – including 'matter'.But this sort of revolutionary thinking plays no part in the worldview of the Engelsist-Kautsky-Lenin 'socialists'. They claim to 'know matter' as it is.Dickheads, the lot of them.I know that you're confused, alan, but, for christsake, don't listen to them.
L Bird takes his shot and misses, he's back in a snooker and it looks like he's being asked to play again.
Just a thought, if L Bird is of the opinion that if we don't observe it is doesn't exist. Does he have Life Assurance, because if he has, why? He won't be around to observe it paying out.
Vin wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:I think what he is trying to say is that he doesn't know.Know what?
I don't know
LBird wrote:You want to 'know' without a 'knower'.[/quote] I think what he is trying to say is that he doesn't know.
LBird wrote:ALB wrote:Quote:What does 'exist' mean?Actually, YMS, that's a good question. I think it means "is real". I know this doesn't solve the problem for dualists who think that there is an "inorganic" and an "organic" nature as to which of them is really real or whether they both exist or, for that matter, whether one existed prior to the other.
[my bold]And, for you, ALB, is the 'real' socially produced, as Marx argued?Or is it just 'out there', outside of any relationship to a 'consciousness', as Engels argued?
Careful YMS and ALB, L Bird is trying to create a diversion, rather than answering the question. Keep at him Paxman style!!
Just a point Vin. You quote Engels to support your point of economic interest over morality, What was Engels, the bloated capitalist's, economic interest in developing Socialism, surely his economic interest would lie in the maintenance of capitalism?
I'm not saying that Socialism is a moral argument, I'm saying there is a moral dimension to it, even though I agree that morality is a socially created concept. As for dogs, I'm afraid we're back to the old Mackem-Geordie divide, cats are better!!!!
Young Master Smeet wrote:Oh, the hilarity, I point out the straw man fallacy, and Lbird responds with: an ad hominem (with a touch of appeal to the gallery). No account for the production of quality within his 'ideology' Whenever I asked Lbird to give an account of his ideas, he responded with what he supposes to be my ideas (or a version of what he supposes to be my ideas), a classic straw man fallacy. he would usually couch that with a reference to Marx (an appeal to authority fallacy). What we are left with no account within his schema for how inorganic and organic nature relate to one another. We know that qualite emerges within 'organic nature', but have no idea is human being/consciousness or labour possess qualities.I think it would be fair to say Lbird can't answer that point.Game, set and match to YMS
Do merkats and bees have moral codes? Or are they naturally social animals and form bonds out of necessity to survive?You make an interesting point. However the difference between bees and meerkats is important, it also relates to humans as well. As bees are insects they do not develop or display attachments (in the sense of Attachment Theory). Meerkats, because they are mammals, have evolved, as all mammals have to develop these attachments. Mammal brains appear to experience emotion, which to a certain extent appears to be absent or lacking in reptiles, birds, insects, etc. What are termed "Higher Order" mammals appear to have more complex development of emotions and feelings. Social comfort and well being appears to be more developed as a need in "higher order" mammals, as to an extent demonstrated in Harlow and Harlow's experiments in monkeys, where absence of social care and emotional stimulation, produced infant monkeys that were not only emotionally damaged but were physically smaller but had less well developed immune systems. When given the choice of food from a non comforting source or comfort from an attachment figure, the monkeys choose comfort from the attachment figure. What I am trying to say is that in humans, and other mammals, sociability, caring for each other, concern for each other, even what is known as love, is more than just the necessity to survive, it is hard wired into us.What I was trying to get across to our mutual feathered friend is that our intellectual, linguistic, emotional, moral, empathetic, physical and conceptual development as individuals is shaped not only by our economic environment but also by the development of emotional bonds from conception. Children who have been subject to emotional abuse and neglect have demonstrably smaller brains, with less synaptic development than those brought up with secure attachments. I would argue that a strong argument for socialism is the fact that it can assist in creating an environment where emotional security, love, warmth and affection are more readily available to infants and children than capitalism. Some might call that a moral argument, some might call it a argument from a position of class interest. All I know is that this system of society is not good for the mental health of infants and children of the vast majority of us.
