rodmanlewis
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Dave B wrote:I know all this has got nothing to do socialism etc but this could turn out like “Dallas”, as I suspect Hillary is in trouble.http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45279.htmhttps://www.rt.com/shows/going-underground/354847-wikileaks-dnc-leaks-russia/
So, the choice for American workers is a woman who gives away state secrets and Trump with his finger on the button!
LBird wrote:The assumption that 'ignorance' is 'self-imposed' is a staggeringly elitist assumption.No mention of 'ignorance being socially produced', or by whom this 'ignorance' is 'produced', but a simple elitist assumption that the 'materialists' have a 'truth', that any un-ignorant workers would clearly choose.What I said is "often, self-imposed", those workers choosing to wallow in the fantasies of religion and others leaving their thinking to political leaders. You can't debate with these people because they have given up their thinking to their priests, mullahs and political leaders. And those workers who try to break free from their political and religious bindings are often not able to on pain of death.The question is "Is the socialist/materialist case a valid one?" Whether you consider it an elitist position is up to you.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:'Materialism' denies democracy. 'Materialists' are elitists.Which is itself an undemocratic proposition: shirley we can vote to make materialism democratic?
Materialists don't seek to impose their materialism on other workers. Quite the opposite, they seek to persuade other workers to embrace materialism, to share a world unfettered by, often, self-imposed ignorance.
[/quote]i can't really see why any member would object, if it doesn't work, what harm has been done, if it does terrific. It seems to me a bit like the video issue, some members seem to always look for a reason not to do something, rather than a reason to do it.[/quote]I agree, it's much better than discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, only to find out that angels don't exist…or do they?
Brian wrote:The DSM 5 criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder are as follows (diagnosis would imply that most of these characteristics be present over a significant period of time):A grandiose logic of self-importanceA fixation with fantasies of infinite success, control, brilliance, beauty, or idyllic loveA belief that he or she is extraordinary and exceptional and can only be understood by, or should connect with, other extraordinary or important people or institutionsA desire for unwarranted admirationA sense of entitlementInterpersonally oppressive behaviorNo form of empathyResentment of others or a conviction that others are resentful of him or herA display of egotistical and conceited behaviors or attitudesJust what the doctor ordered…for the American public!
ALB wrote:There is a difference between what what Marx did, said or meant (which is largely a question of fact) and "Communist Theory" (a question of definition). But, unfortunately, the definition of the word "Communist" is just as disputed as is "Marxism".[/quote]Perhaps we should forget previous definitions of "socialism"/"communism" and start with a clean slate. The SPGB stands for a system of common ownership of the means of production and distribution, with the state and its powers of coercion being redundant. There will be no national boundaries, only administrative ones. Do you agree with this or not? If you support some other definition of "socialism"/"communism" then you won't be interested in joining us. Unfortunately, coming up with another word would just muddy the waters further.
jondwhite wrote:I heard recently that Attlee spoke out against what he called "doctrinaire socialists". Is this a simple Labour misrepresentation or is there more to this?Yawn… He probably wouldn't have known what socialism is even if he'd put it in his pipe and smoked it.
jondwhite wrote:What are the legal issues of political parties as unincorporated associations? Especially for resolving disputes with or without recourse to the courts. The issues surrounding Corbyn's leadership election prompted me to raise this.As we are discussing legal issues, what is the legal position of a political party leader? Does he/she overide the powers of general secretary, chairman, treasurer etc? Is this is a case of keeping a dog and letting it do the barking?
alanjjohnstone wrote:More on that Damnocrat VPhttps://www.thenation.com/article/tim-kaine-has-a-troubling-record-on-labor-issues/Kaine has a long history of defending his state’s right-to-work law. A decade ago, when he was governor, Kaine referred to Virginia’s right-to-work measure as “a law I strongly support.”What about a "right-to-be-a-capitalist" and not have to work?
alanjjohnstone wrote:Tsk Tsk, letting one's personal taste in humour overtake the discussion thread…shame on your rodmanlewis…we all have different senses of humour…Some indeed may find Brand's stand-up humour amusingSo, it's OK for Brand to tell bad jokes, but not me?
jondwhite wrote:Quote:The comedian and political activist announced he would be taking a breaking from his weekly YouTube programme, The Trews, in an episode on Thursday. His hiatus came a day after Brand released a YouTube video backing Jeremy Corbyn despite swearing off politics after the general election.Comedian? I thought we were talking about Russell Brand. He's a guy who's fond of the sound of his own voice.
mcolome1 wrote:I am not referring to one aspect of any particular organization. I am talking about the whole body of ideas of any organization that has proclaimed itself as socialisthttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2013/no-1302-february-2013/zeitgeist-and-‘marxism’I agree. It's easy enough to find something to agree with in most political organisations, but to be valid they have to have a coherent theory of society.Incidentally, what's happened to yesteryear's heroes, Zeitgeist and Russell Brand?
Matt wrote:I don't think I said any different. It is on those incorrect ideas any attack must tbe made though and not his motivation or personal integrity, where most of the smear attacks have been made in the media, where I generally come in usually on 'leadership' or some such topic..I can be as hostile as you to his politics, as I would be to Blair or Cameron or May's without being hostile to, or resisting sympathy for the the individual.Just wouldn't be me.Well, the SPGB has spent the last 100 years-plus fighting sincerely-held, but incorrect, political views. Isn't it time we drew a line under this and said "Enough is enough, you people are a danger to society as much as your career political rivals." Additonally, in drawing attention to Corbyn etc, we are giving some sort of credence to their political leadership, as if their views are more substantial than their followers.What political leaders are tacitly saying to the capitalist class is "I am in charge of XXX units of ignorance, I await your instructions."
