Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:Marcos wrote:LBird wrote:Marcos wrote:What I am indicating is that there are not homogenities of thoughts among the so called materialist-idealists like you
You really should put your glasses on, Marcos!What I write is 'idealists-materialists', but I know that 'facts' play little part in the philosophical method of the 'materialists', like you.Just like Lenin, they like to 're-write' to suit their own political purposes – hey, Marcos, that can be your job under your 'materialist' regime – you can 're-write' history, too, not just my words.
So, let's re write history in other form, your idealist-idealist thoughts.
[my bold]Why should reading prove so difficult for materialists?Perhaps the Soviet Union re-wrote history because they were illiterate? But I can't believe that Marcos and Tim can't read. It's an enigma.
And this year prize for the most piss poor, weak and risible response to a posting goes to …….. sound of envelope being opened …………….. Ladies and Gentlemen, for a record breaking 4th year running I give you the one and only, the legend, the man who makes Jimmy Tarbuck sound witty, put your hands together for Mr L Bird!!!!!Returning to an earlier theme, does anyone know where I can get an emoji of straws being clutched at?
LBird wrote:Don't worry, don't take fright, Tim, that a non-materialist might seek to join your party.You've all played a blinder on this site, discouraging any class conscious, democratic worker from actually joining!I suspect most parties set up sites on the internet, to try to attract members, but not yours, eh, Tim?You can sleep safely tonight, with your cherished elitist beliefs.I don't know why the party doesn't just be truthful, and have a banner over the login, saying 'No Workers' Democracy wanted here!' At least workers like me wouldn't get sucked in, then. And you wouldn't have to work so hard to defend your materialism, which is the whole purpose of the party, as far as I can tell. Although, quite cheekily, you carefully hide this core ideological belief, which I don't think is actually mentioned in your 'principles'. You should really be open, and make 'materialism' a core principle of membership.Yeah, 19th century Religious Materialism, guaranteed no workers' democracy – that'll really draw in the workers of the 21st!We don't have any problem with a class conscious democratic worker joining our party, sadly, as you have demonstrated time and time again on this forum, that is not a description that could be applied to you.We are a materialist party, I have no problem using that term. You're right, we don't want a non-materialist joining, similarly, we don't want people who believe in transubstantiation joining, we don't want nationalists joining, we don't want followers of the tooth fairy or magic alien lizard king joining either. As to what we mean by a materialist, we would define the use of that term and contrast it with your idealism in exactly the way that Marx did:"To Hegel (for Hegel read L Bird), the life-process of the human brain, i.e. the process of thinking, which, under the name of 'the Idea', he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of 'the Idea'. With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought."However you did finally you get one thing right, and bloody hell that must be a first. As i have highlighted in your post, and it actually illustrates the Leninist, Trotskyist, elitist nature of your political thought, you're right we have not set this website up to "attract members", we have set this website up to make Socialists, who will hopefully then join our struggle.From a Leninist point of view (the kind of view you hold) this must seem like madness, surely a political website must, as you say, "attract members", No doubt Party Membership in the organisations you have previously been in and, as is indicated by your post, clearly want to join, is available to anyone, regardless of what they think.Let's face it in your type of Leninist organisation it deosn't matter what the "rank and file" think because "the membership" have no contribution to make other than their time, money and energy.The kind of democratic centrism you adhere to specifically excudes democratic control of the party, that is left to the elite (who you no doubt view yourself as part of).In the Socialist Party there is no rank and file, or any leadership for them to be rank and file to. All members are equal, no member has any more authority than another (a concept you clearly struggle with). A member of the Executive Committee is of no more importance than a member who has just completed joining. To be a member of the Socialist Party you need to understand these principles, clearly you do not.
LBird wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:You may well be right about the presence of the many politically conscious aware workers, but where are the organisations? Workers unorganised, are impotent, as well you know. Our contribution in the SPGB is to help grow that needed organisation, and we must be sure that we are not stifling it.I agree with you, alan, about the lack of workers' organisations.Once, I thought that the SPGB was trying to fulfil that role, and that I would join, to help the process.
what makes you think we would allow you to join, you're an elitist Leninist who doesn't agree with our Declaration of Principles. We are not like other parties you have stated you have been in (SWP, etc.) .You see we don't practice the kind of "democratic" centralism you clearly favour. All members of our party are conscious socialists. You can't just sign a piece of paper to join, safe in the knowledge that a Leninist elite will make the decisions and the members function is to agree. All our members are involved in every aspect of party democracy and therefore we ensure that they are able to participate. I'm afraid, from what you have written here, you don't measure up at present. That's not to say you won't develop Socialist consciousness, but that you still seem to be a good distance from meeting the requirement at te moment.
LBird wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:Just to say, publishers do play a valuable role, when they select and market content, we will still need some of that function even in socialism: teh alternative is to look at the wild west of predatory publishing of fake open access journals with made up editorial boards.[my bold]No, you're wrong, YMS.Whilst 'they select', they have the power of selection. This power, within a democratically productive society like socialism, must be under democratic control. Only the social producers can 'select'.The 'alternative' is democratic control of publishing, not your supposed contrast of 'no power' to 'elite power'.You're not a democrat, YMS, so you can only conceive of either 'complete anarchy' or 'a good elite'. As such, you're not a socialist, because socialism is the democratic control of production.
The question is, L Bird, does the whole population select and carry out the business of every selection (apparently your preferred choice). Or do we democratically select the selectors, trust them to get on with doing their job under our scrutiny, and then act if they do not act in our interest. (SPGB approach)?
As predicted L Bird has ignored all of the difficult questions and tried to pretend they didn't happen. I'll ask again. Is it your opinion that we are all materialist Leninists because we think that ideas are nothing more than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought?
Just a thought and it might be slightly off topic, but would it be possible for one of the clever bods on the internet committee to produce an emoji of a tumbleweed.It might be something forum members could post to keep themselves amused while they're waiting for L Bird to reply to awkward questions that expose the stupidity of his contributions.As I say, just a thought I had whilst waiting patiently for L Bird to grace us with a reply.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:LBird wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:LBird wrote:Hi Sympo, above is yet another example from a follower of Engels' 'materialism', who are unable to argue with Marxists, and so are forced to make false statements about Marxists.Apparently, 'water' and 'wine' talk to Tim, and so he doesn't need to explain to you how he knows 'water' or 'wine'.If you ask him, he won't mention the socio-historical production of knowledge, but will simply say 'he knows', as an 'individual', using his 'biological senses'. He won't mention Marx, society, workers or democracy – or, indeed, scientific method.And he seems to think that ignorance of these issues within his party will impress workers enough to join.The fruits of 'materialism'.Hi Sympo, sorry, that shoud have read the insane, narcissistic, love child of Mother Theresa and Paul Daniels. You'll like him, but not a lot.
Hi Tim, still unable to engage in a philosophical debate, eh?Still, whilst your god 'matter' gets on with building for socialism, you can lie back and continue to denigrate Marxists, who insist upon workers' democracy, and wait for 'material conditions' to do what you should be doing.The fruits of 'materialism', personified. Well done, Tim!
I'd happily engage in debate, but debate is a two way thing and unfortunately, as readers to this forum will know all too well, you never answer any questions about your contributions and then when you get forced into a corner, which you inevitably do because of your elitist and at times just plain daft ideas, you resort to insults which is then followed by prolonged silence.All I'm doing is saving a bit of time by cutting straight to the bit where you insult people and then hopefully your prolonged silence will come about much more quickly.
I wish I was as good at predicting the lottery numbers!!!For my next trick, I will predict that he will leave a gap in his comments long enough so he can pretend that the awkward questions we have asked him don't exist and then he can bang on about his cockamamie ideas for a bit longer.
LBird wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:Pluto was a planet, then it was not, then it was once more. A vote decided that. And that is my only comment on the Sun.That's what's at issue here, alan.Who has the power to decide?The materialists – twc, robbo, Vin, Tim, YMS, etc. – claim that Pluto itself tells them that it is a 'planet'. They claim that this is an 'objective fact'. They deny that humans created 'the planet Pluto', and can change it. They deny that 'the planet Pluto' has a history, dependent upon social factors.You've shown, by your example, that they are wrong.In fact, humans have the power to change 'the planet Pluto', and Democratic Communists argue that this power should be under democratic controls. The materialists are happy for an unelected elite to have this power.This is the core of Marx's 'democratic social productionism'.You have to choose a side, alan. The undemocratic, elitist materialists, or the democratic social productionists. That's politics, I'm afraid. If you don't choose, you'll get caught out, when they move on from questions of 'planet status' to questions of 'our status'. They'll support an elite of 'Specialists' (ie. unelected academics), and deny power to the majority of 'Generalists' (ie. workers).This is the political warning that Marx gave, in his Theses on Feuerbach.
It's nice to see that Goofy has some Mickey Mouse ideas about Pluto, I won't mention Uranus people might be having their tea.No Doubt L Bird you are going to say that we are all materialist Leninists because we think that ideas are nothing more than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:Marx didn't say 'the world only exists in our minds', Vin, so, no, you're wrong.No Marx didn't! You did! So there is a reality outside of our brains? If you now accept this then you are making progress. What about the proletariate ruling in communism to prevent 'elite' groups from taking control? And the worldwide vote on the truth? Still sticking to those?Oh and the organised social violence??
Now where getting to the awkward bit for him, expect abuse followed by silence
LBird wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:LBird wrote:Hi Sympo, above is yet another example from a follower of Engels' 'materialism', who are unable to argue with Marxists, and so are forced to make false statements about Marxists.Apparently, 'water' and 'wine' talk to Tim, and so he doesn't need to explain to you how he knows 'water' or 'wine'.If you ask him, he won't mention the socio-historical production of knowledge, but will simply say 'he knows', as an 'individual', using his 'biological senses'. He won't mention Marx, society, workers or democracy – or, indeed, scientific method.And he seems to think that ignorance of these issues within his party will impress workers enough to join.The fruits of 'materialism'.Hi Sympo, sorry, that shoud have read the insane, narcissistic, love child of Mother Theresa and Paul Daniels. You'll like him, but not a lot.
Hi Tim, still unable to engage in a philosophical debate, eh?Still, whilst your god 'matter' gets on with building for socialism, you can lie back and continue to denigrate Marxists, who insist upon workers' democracy, and wait for 'material conditions' to do what you should be doing.The fruits of 'materialism', personified. Well done, Tim!
I'd happily engage in debate, but debate is a two way thing and unfortunately, as readers to this forum will know all too well, you never answer any questions about your contributions and then when you get forced into a corner, which you inevitably do because of your elitist and at times just plain daft ideas, you resort to insults which is then followed by prolonged silence.All I'm doing is saving a bit of time by cutting straight to the bit where you insult people and then hopefully your prolonged silence will come about much more quickly.
LBird wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:LBird wrote:ALB wrote:The proposition of the materialist conception of history …is that in the end economic/productive relations, both technological and social, are more decisive than politics. …. This is not a theory of economic determinism and what actually happens in history depends on what people do, especially how political power is exercised.[my bold]ALB's statement reflects Engels' views (and not Marx's), and is just as confused as are the letters that Engels wrote on the subject.Marx's view is that social theory and practice determines 'history'.Or, the social theory and practice of production determines the social theory and practice of politics.In other words, humans can change both social production and politics. Humans, using both ideas and practice, can override both technology and 'the material/economic'.
Hi Sympo, I don't know how familiar you are with L Bird, he believes that we can turn water into wine, as long as we vote for it. If you can imagine the insane love child of Mother Theresa and Paul Daniels, your just about there.
Hi Sympo, above is yet another example from a follower of Engels' 'materialism', who are unable to argue with Marxists, and so are forced to make false statements about Marxists.Apparently, 'water' and 'wine' talk to Tim, and so he doesn't need to explain to you how he knows 'water' or 'wine'.If you ask him, he won't mention the socio-historical production of knowledge, but will simply say 'he knows', as an 'individual', using his 'biological senses'. He won't mention Marx, society, workers or democracy – or, indeed, scientific method.And he seems to think that ignorance of these issues within his party will impress workers enough to join.The fruits of 'materialism'.
Hi Sympo, sorry, that shoud have read the insane, narcissistic, love child of Mother Theresa and Paul Daniels. You'll like him, but not a lot.
LBird wrote:ALB wrote:The proposition of the materialist conception of history …is that in the end economic/productive relations, both technological and social, are more decisive than politics. …. This is not a theory of economic determinism and what actually happens in history depends on what people do, especially how political power is exercised.[my bold]ALB's statement reflects Engels' views (and not Marx's), and is just as confused as are the letters that Engels wrote on the subject.Marx's view is that social theory and practice determines 'history'.Or, the social theory and practice of production determines the social theory and practice of politics.In other words, humans can change both social production and politics. Humans, using both ideas and practice, can override both technology and 'the material/economic'.
Hi Sympo, I don't know how familiar you are with L Bird, he believes that we can turn water into wine, as long as we vote for it. If you can imagine the insane love child of Mother Theresa and Paul Daniels, your just about there.
Vin wrote:ALB wrote:It both answers Sympo's question and shows Vin's assumption to have been mistaken.I had the benefit of being kept in the dark
That's what happens when you become a pitman.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Probably presented with Irn Bru and Vegetarian Haggis http://www.macsween.co.uk/products/delicious-every-day-vegetarian/But there is a halal versionhttp://www.scotsman.com/news/scots-butcher-creates-halal-haggis-for-muslim-clientele-1-1296802Not so sure whether they got around to the greasy Scotch Pie yet or Forfar BridiesI have to admit i never heard or used the word Weegee until i was in the Post Office.Halal scotch pie shouldn't be difficult, they should really be made out of mutton and you could use lamb or beef suet for the pastry. Halal whisky and scotch eggs could be slightly more problematic.If your feeling the yearning for a good scotch pie, Alan, I can recommend this site:http://www.diyscotchpie.co.uk/our-products
John Oswald wrote:Hi. This is not to resume the argument, just to ask something.So, in the 1970s, you accepted the argument in The Western Socialist, but today that is old hat. Is that correct? Thanks.I think the problem with your question is that you haven't defined who you mean by "you". Is the you the SPGB or particular members of this forum?
