rodshaw
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
As an addendum to the above, around 1974, while living and working in London, I was in a pub with some friends one evening and this chap somehow got into conversation with me. He was called Charlie, a postman, and he said he was a socialist. I told him so was my dad, a member of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. I myself still remained unconvinced about it all, but I remember feeling really proud that I could tell him my dad was in the SPGB. Turned out he was a member too! So I gave him my dad's phone number and they had a chat.What are the chances of that happening, eh?
As for me, seehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2009/no-1257-may-2009/how-i-got-be-socialist
So just let me get the gist so far.1. LBird makes a proposition purportedly about science and communism.2. Other(s) make a counter-proposition.3. LBird sneers at the counter-proposition.4. The other(s) sneer back at LBird.5. LBird acts offended at the sneering and threatens to take his ball home. I think he may have a defender somewhere but I’m not sure. Anyway, he decides to carry on fighting his corner, and why not?6. Slanging and personal insults follow. Offence is taken all round.7. Someone makes another proposition purportedly about science and communism.8. Back to 3.Have I missed anything?All in all, a good, grown-up, philosophical debate, which contributes greatly to the sum total of socialist and scientific understanding.I don’t know how many iterations of the cycle there’ve been but keep it up, folks, it could run forever.
Presumably, http://www.worldsocialism.org is doing exactly what it's supposed to do – representing the WSM as a whole. There are links in there to our companion parties as well as to ourselves.
Your 'karmic beliefs', for want of a better phrase, will be proved right or wrong as time goes by because they are rooted in real life. You're not hoping (presumably) that people will get their just desserts in heaven or hell when they die, but at some future point in the physical world. Your beliefs may or may not prove to be correct. There will no doubt be a statistical model for this kind of thing.It's a bit like football managers saying that luck balances out over a season. They may or may not be proved correct when the season is over (and no doubt, the ones who feel they've had more than their share of bad luck will find all sorts of scapegoats – referees, the fixture list, etc.)Of course, that begs the question whether the statistics involved are just a way of formalising the underlying karma…
Young Master Smeet wrote:Lets try this. If we held a vote on this board, and declared Lbird's positions to be wrong, what would be their response? Would they acfcept the democratic verdict of their peers, or would they stick to their guns, as an obstinate minority. I think we all know the answer: the the question becomes, why swhould anyone in socialism behave any differently?Would any of us be qualified to vote?
alanjjohnstone wrote:Perhaps this article might provoke further debatehttp://www.alternet.org/belief/scientific-journal-tries-prove-belief-innate-and-failsI like this sentence:'Humans continue to evolve and the processes that brought about our superstitious nature may no longer serve a purpose.'
According to Wikipedia, the translation of what Marx said is:"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_peopleI assume he wasn't using the word 'soul' in a religious sense.
ParamjeetWhat happened to the questions? Just when I thought you were taking an interest in what we're saying on this website, about common ownership of the world's resources, you post yet another example of your own decidedly non-socialist agenda.Your 'Law and Justice' manifesto says nothing about the class-based nature of capitalist society and proposes no alternative to the capitalist system. That's what this website is about – the abolition of capitalism, and along with it all of its legal system, which is essentially about property and exists to enforce rule by a minority elite. What do you think of that, or aren't you going to tell us?
Meanwhile, in the film industry, Penelope Cruz and her husband are being accused of anti-semitism for denouncing the Israeli actions.
We should get t-shirts made with that on incorporating the names of all the major political parties. Might win us more converts than actually arguing our case!
I'll have to fish out my dad's copy and give it another read too.It makes me hark back to the 70s and to the then newly formed West Yorkshire branch. I had just become a socialist and Robert Barltrop came to Bradford to speak at one of our first meetings. Harry Young, who we are told is the chap on the cover, also came up north on a separate occasion and stayed over at our house.
Some good stuff there.At one point Christina makes the point that evolution has led to human brains that are capable of amazement, and are inclined to be amazed at the complexity of life. Or as Dawkins put it, we look at the world through purpose-coloured spectacles.Playing devil's advocate though, a believer in God might say that the human brain is not developed enough to appreciate God's role in the whole affair (a variation on the theme 'God moves in mysterious ways').I also think that arguments pointing to the lack of evidence of a god are beside the point – believers don't need evidence, they have their belief.
