rodshaw
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“Do you assume that the masses can’t do physics?”
Well, I’m one of the masses and my physics is fairly rudimentary (‘O’ level standard, much of it forgotten now).
How about you, LBird? You’re one of the masses aren’t you? How much physics can you do? Are you self-taught, do you have a first class degree in it, or are you proposing to get one before the socialist revolution?
How much physics do we all need to know before we can start the revolution? How about chemistry, biology, quantum mechanics, musical theory and the rules of football? Do you have an estimate of how long it will all take?
Please tell.
Well, using a keyboard or keypad also requires manual (and mental) dexterity. When computers were new, learning to use one was quite a task for many, adults and children alike. Ditto using a mouse.
Skills come and go and many are specific to a particular age. Not being able to cut a quill (or even hold a pen if you never need to) doesn’t make you dumber.
I don’t know whether we’re a typical family but we help our grandkids with all sorts of activities, including painting and drawing, as do their parents and, I’m sure, many parents the world over. I teach them to play guitar and operate a model railway (not at the same time though). Come to think of it, I have some quills and parchment somewhere and may one day get round to showing them how to cut a quill and write Carolingian minuscules, and no doubt they will find it fascinating for an hour or so but then want to move on to something else.
But they also play Roblox or whatever on their tablets, and go on and on about dinosaurs or Lego Friends or whatever the latest marketing fad is. Just like I used to go on about Dinky toys and Meccano.
In a socialist society I’m sure there will be a blossoming of interest in all sorts of forgotten activities. Maybe even making ink from gall will get a revival and we’ll all dress up in Medieval clothing and write illuminated manuscripts. I could think of worse ways to spend the time, until you get cramp in your hand.
All cracking stuff. This argument has gone way past the full half hour. It’s just been gainsaying for some time now though.
The working class will, of course, collectively decide for itself when it is ready to establish democratic common ownership and will itself determine just how democratic democracy needs to be. But if that means waiting for everyone to gain the same profound knowledge of things scientific (not to mention artistic, musical, sporting etc.) we’ll be waiting a very long time indeed, probably until everyone is telepathic or (more likely) we are extinct.
This attitude suggests that a future socialist world would be based on fear and a total lack of trust of anyone for anyone else, leading to a need for everyone to know everything for fear of being hoodwinked.
If the SPGB are impossibilists, how to describe this view?
Language is constantly evolving. I really liked PJS’s Pathfinders article on that subject in this month’s SS.
Not even an arch conservative language professor would use the word “ye” in earnest nowadays when speaking standard English, or “thee” or “thou”. “You” is now used as subject, object, singular and plural. Good! I don’t see a problem if the word “you” does become “u” over time. Easier to write (especially if you’re not too good with a pen).
Some say that emoticons are a sign of dumbing down – they are not replacing the alphabet, they are a rich addition to it and express more in a concise way. Not that you have to like them.
Can’t hold a pen? How many people can cut and sharpen a quill, or mix their own ink, or, for that matter, fill a fountain pen? We simply don’t need to now. It doesn’t make us dumber, any more than not knowing where Katmandu is.
Maybe people just appear dumber because there are so many quiz shows on air now to expose their ignorance.
I have two grandchildren at primary school and they do history and geography. I wouldn’t be surprised if they know as much as I did at their age.
I went to RC primary and secondary schools. One thing I remember from the former is one of the teachers asking “How do we know we’re right?” and then proceeding to tell us. I forget the detail, but the gist was that Catholics had the answer and we could consider ourselves superior.
Despite my supposed superiority I was in great fear of damnation by eating meat on a Friday or having impure thoughts. But it was ok as long as you went to confession and offloaded your errant ways onto the priest.
One of our secondary school teachers tried to wise us up by saying that often Catholics only knew the first answer to a sceptical questioner but not the second. In other words, we could be floored by someone probing more deeply. Well, yes, I wonder why that was?
I can’t help thinking it will be somewhat amusing to see how they decide who is working class, and whether they tell us how they are getting on meeting their targets.
I remember watching a programme about class, not that long ago, and one chap said he was middle class because he had a TV. If the BBC use criteria like that, they won’t be recruiting many people.
He also featured on TV in the 80s or 90s, in a programme about the English language. I think he was talking about London dialects. He was also quoted in the book the TV programme was based on.
