lindanesocialist
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
'The philosophers have already interpreted the world'. Stop wasting your time on this. I can't believe the party is still stuck with Berkeley.Workers are starving, unemployed, homeless and landless. Reach out to them, me , us . The idealists are the past, we have our material conditions and interests to deal with. Shelter, food, clothes etc etc. LBird is a troll and a time wasterIf you are not arguing pointlessly with LBird, you are attacking and suspending members trying to connect with the real issues that concern the working class Make this a workers forum and we might move forward.
The same questions are appearing on spintcom etc. So I have compiled this list and hope it covers most questions. Feel free to add The Video An Introduction to the World Socialist Movement 1. Produced while Vin was a member of the AV committee, and elected by NERB branch to produce videos, open twitter accounts etc.2. Vin did not request nomination to the AV committee3. Used material already on Party websites4. Used free stock photos, hence ‘cartoon capitalists’5. Used music paid for by Vin was produced over a long period during which many members were consulted on the party’s various sites6. There are already copyright videos by BBC etc on ‘official’ party sites that have noy been sanctioned by the EC.7. Unlike any other video, blog, website, Facebooks, it went through the democratic channels and processes by seeking EC ratification8. Claims that it is ‘unprofessional’. An individual with 30 years experience producing videos for the BBC and others said the video was very good and the cost of adding any improvements would not be worth the expense9. At least 20 members on line have ‘liked’ and have been positive about the video. Including members from three Companion parties.10. The EC first rejected it, then requested change and finally rejected the amended product.
LBird wrote:lindanesocialist wrote:LBird wrote:This is the heart of Marx's ideas: social production. We are the creator of our world. That's why we can change it.So we created the Sun and the moon? Or did they exist before humans?
You're not very good at this epistemology lark, are you, linda?I've already explained what 'existence' is, so if you insist that the world we create 'existed' before we created it, you'll have to tell us how you know that, and who did create this 'existence'.I'd suggest that you 'know' this because someone has told you so (you're a social individual, as Marx says), and you'll have to argue that as humans are not the creator of their world (which goes against what Marx argued, about social production), then a god was the creator.It all fits with Religious Materialism, linda. Don't listen to them, if you want workers to build socialism. Otherwise, you'll hand power over to an elite. The elite who told you the story about Religious Materialism.
Don't need any long words to answer my quetion. Do yo believe we created the world?
LBird wrote:This is the heart of Marx's ideas: social production. We are the creator of our world. That's why we can change it.So we created the Sun and the moon? Or did they exist before humans?
According to his own science, close your eyes and Lbird will no longer exists. God is the master perceiver. Without him there is no matter and therefore no LBird.Case closed
alanjjohnstone wrote:Do animals mourn and grievehttp://www.dw.com/en/do-animals-mourn-their-dead/a-19564029Well, I'm an animal and I can assure you that I do morn and grieve. As for other animals; if they were able to articulate, I would asume they would reply 'Yes'
An AV committee member has shown the Video to a friend with 30 years experience with the BBC in Journalism and commercial video production and sympathetic to our case.He said that he was very impressd with the production quality, he thought the video was very well put together and that there really wasn't that much he could add to it that would justify the cost of doing it.The EC described the video as "generally unprofessional and clichéd presentation such as that it is ineffective in getting the socialist case across. For example among other things the use of overly “dramatic” music, the appearance of cartoon capitalists…." I cannot understand or explain such a contrast of opinion.
ALB wrote:I don't think there is any danger of TV companies going after us, but the chances are increased as long as we keep publicising this possibility…..I agree, it should neve have been raised in the first place. Can't think why it should have been.
Young Master Smeet wrote:If you assume you make an ASS of U & ME. *Badum tish*Crap corporate joke. Point being assumptions don't help in a court case, if it gets that far. Generally we'd have to surrender at the first take down notice.Are you talking about the BBC and other TV programs on the Party's Youtube site, Because they are the only 'danger' to the party's funds.
Isn't this a bit like 'chicken and the egg' conundrum. Why not just have a chicken foo yung?Or in our case – socialism.Or in other words, the car I own already gets me from A to BOr the philosophers have…….
Young Master Smeet wrote:.the words are copyright me, and also performance right is mineIf you intend to sue Vin for using your comments, you wouldn't get much, Vin and I have no property of any value.The performance is yours but the words are certainly not copyright of yours.I and Vin said very similar words at public meetings in 1979-88
Young Master Smeet wrote:Is the clip featuring me still there? That's copyright the BBC (or their production company).Yes it is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic28EwLsLqU with many more BBC, and ITV clips here on our official youtube sitehttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFZgYrHuoQfjE0JBkd_h57gVin assumed that the party had already checked copyright befor publishing
SocialistPunk wrote:sat·ire[ sat-ahy uhr]NOUN1.the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.2.a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.3.a literary genre comprising such compositions.Very selective there SPWiki" it has also been used with subversive intent where political speech and dissent are forbidden by a regime, as a method of advancing political arguments where such arguments are expressly forbidden.Political satire is usually distinguished from political protest or political dissent, as it does not necessarily carry an agenda nor seek to influence the political process. While occasionally it may, it more commonly aims simply to provide entertainment"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_satire
