rodmanlewis
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:Refuweegeehttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/21/syrian-refugees-in-scotland-cold-weather-but-warm-welcome Takes its name from the slang term for a Glaswegian – Weegee. It is the brainchild of Selina Hales, a city native who was prompted by news coverage of Syrians travelling across Europe seeking shelter. Its volunteers are putting together welcome packs, which include a handwritten letter from a local as well as Glasgow-appropriate items including obligatory umbrellas. “I wanted to capture that real Glasgow welcome,” says Hales. “People don’t just want to welcome people but to embrace them and make them feel like a local.”
Presumably they weren't welcoming them with "a wee dram" and halal haggis, or should that be "Halesal haggis"?
Dave T wrote:I know that there are signs that people especially the young are begining to question if not capitalism then at least the neo liberal varient. But does that mean they are any closer to being socialists?It appears to be a technical question of how to reach younger workers, and not waiting for them to find us.
John Oswald wrote:I go into the kitchen to make a cup of tea. Seeing someone on the telly drink tea has made me think of it.I open a tin of Lapsang Souchong. The smoky scent takes me back to a love of mine: Chinese history. I now want to read a book on that. I enter my library to get the book. I stub my toe. Looking down, I see a totally different book which grabs my attention. I think that would be an interesting change. I pick up that book, make Indian tea with milk instead, now that the momentary Chinese interest has faded, and re-enter the lounge. Quickly, my TV show has started, I put my book down and settle down to watch.At no point has my will acted independently of the chain of causation. I could stretch that back to my very conception.Similarly, if capitalism provokes a socialist revolution in human society, that too will be part of the chain of causation, a motivated response.This is more about your individual discipline as to whether you pursue your original objective or allow yourself to be distracted along the way. Presumably having a cup of tea is of peripheral interest to you.
Marcos wrote:The only winner is capitalism and the loser is the working classI agree. There seems to be too much discussion on who is the least bad of the parties. We should be promoting socialist ideas rather than concerning ourselves about who will be the next boss to run British capitalism. Save that for the bookies and their punters.Capitalism is the first class system to be kept in existence by the people it exploits!
alanjjohnstone wrote:Coincidence, i was just doing an anti-nationalist blog post on how few French used to speak French (as we know it)And then i clicked the wrong key and lost the damn thing…this new Apache word processor i had to get with the new laptop is a damn nuisanceGiven the context is that pronounced "Apachee" or "Apash"?
One thing for certain is that workers will get what they voted for, but that's not necessarily the same thing as what they think they voted for.They say you learn by your mistakes, but apparently not by the mistakes of your parents and grandparents.
ALB wrote:Apart from lumping us in with the left, it's not surprising that there are so few so-described parties contesting what is a flash election.
robbo203 wrote:That might be true in a general sense – in fact, it is true that in the end he does indeed endorse a system that is the root cause of these conflicts – but that does not mean his particular explanation for the rise of terrorism and the emergence of organsiations like ISIS is not correct. I believe it is correct and just because Corbyn is a capitalist politician does not precluding the posibility of him being occasionally correct.Without that stupid war in Iraq there would be no ISIS today and to give him his due, Corbyn did at least oppose that war on principle unlike many other capitalist politicansOK, so his analysis of the emergence of ISIS correct, but you won't hear him saying that he was partly responsible by supporting capitalism, and not working for socialism and the end of all war. The least he could do–he calls himself a socialist is to explain in unambigious terms that there is a better society possible, Surely the Labour Party has the resources to run education classes in socialism? That would show worthwhile sincerity. Of course, career politicians and their acolytes are not going to do that. A few months ago he described himself as a socialist, and I emailed the Labour Party for their definition, but they never responded. These people are just as dangerous for wallowing in their sincerity as are out-and-out supporters of capitalism (who are probably just as sincere in that they defend capitalism, not because they think it is perfect or fair, but that it is the only social system that will work, however badly).The Law of Unintended Consequences is, by definition, impossible to predict. Hindsight is the only exact science.
robbo203 wrote:It is amazing how an idiot like Johnson can so distort the meaning of what Corbyn was saying as to interpet it as an attempt to justify or to legitimate the actions of terrorists . Perhaps, Johnson needs to learn the difference between a word like "justification" – and "explanation". Corbyn was trying to explain the background to an event like the Manchester – not "justify" it – and on this occasion he was absolutely correct.Corbyn, with his endorsement of capitalism–the cause of all these conflicts–is just as guilty as Johnson.
ALB wrote:From yesterday's Times:Quote:Weak men more likely to be socialists, study claimsTom WhippleDon't tell John Prescott, but maybe socialists are socialists because they are not that good in a fight.Like Larry Grayson, I woke up this morning feeling as limp as a vicar's handshake. Read what you may into that…I think Brunel need a tug at their coat on this. Their study is unscientific on another level–they fail to define socialism!
robbo203 wrote:Sure I understand what you are saying but the probem is people in the main tend to identify socialism "with the two arseholes at the end"; realtively few are aware of the Marxian/SPGB defintjion of socialis. The whole pointt of the exercise is to highlight the huge gulf between these different versions of (pseudo)"socialism" and the real thing by encouraging people to see it for themselves with a question like "which do you think is the more accurate descriotion of socialism"That still doesn't resolve anything. They may well agree that our defintion of socialism is the more accurate, but that doesn't mean they approve of it.
robbo203 wrote:What about a poll that identifies or lists particular historical figures plus a quote or summary from each of them relating to their particular take on "socialism"?e.g. Marx, Lenin, Tony Blair etc You could then ask people to tick the relevant box as to which of these best describes "socialism".I think that this would at least highlight the point that what we call socialism – the Marxian defintion – differs from the others in a quite profound way and it might get people thinking…We want socialism–the system, not socialism–the word. If we start introducing those two arseholes at the end of the list, then it becomes self-defeating. The last name has had more than his fair share of publicity, why should we give him more?
DJP wrote:Defintions are not things that can be true or false only used inconsitsently or not.I don't think that's strictly true. Definitions have to be meaningful. If not they have to be preceded by qualifications like "alleged", "imagined" or "believed". If someone describes socialism as "common ownership of the means of production and distribution", that is a meaningful definition, although you may not agree with it as a possibility. This is true of defining it as state capitalism, nationalisation or state control. However, if socialism is described as "common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange" this is a meaningless concept because you cannot have common ownership and exchange alongside each other.
maxhess wrote:Has there ever been consideration given to a poll being carried out into how many people know what socialism is?It seems that if we carried out a poll (or had one carried out for us) we might be able to attract a fair bit of publicity for the results. And with Corbyn wanting to win power, might it not be an especially good time to do this?I’m guessing the result would be around 95-98% of those polled would not know, which I think would cause a lot of surprise, and hopefully, a lot of interest in knowing what it actually is?Do you mean they would not be able to give an answer, or wouldn't give the same definition as us? We don't have exclusive use of a definition for socialism.
robbo203 wrote:Not to mention British Nationals in Europe like yours truly…Still not quite sure what the wider implications of Brexit are for us emigrantsAs a member of the working class you are classified as an emigrant (or immigrant). If you were a member of the capitalist class you would have "taken up residence"! I'm sure they don't bother themselves too much over Brexit.
