Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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?
I think here is a huge difference between liking something and supporting it fully from a political perspective.As a for instance, I like "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists", I have recommended it as a starter to non socialisits, I would be happy to see people reading it, however I am not in agreement with all of Robert Tressell's political beliefs.Surely we have to make more sensible responses to electronic media. If we are stupid enough to spend time on issues such as this then we are in danger of becoming a replica of the Ashbourne Court Group and will deserve the derision we get.
The use of cooking oils has also been linked to the pandemic of obesity. Some heaalth experts are recommending that people were better off when the main fat used in cooking was lard!Some research seems to show that because oils are liquid there is a tendency to use far more when we splash it into the pan, as opposed to the little slither of lard used years ago.
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.have you considered adult Attention Deficit Disorder as a possible explanation!
LBird wrote:You'd have to find someone who can argue with me, to make a WSJ worthwhile.[/quote]No hints of narcissism there then!Good job there's an expert available to keep us all in check.
robbo203 wrote:It seems now that Labour has overtaken the Tories in the popularity contest . Had the election been two weeks later we could be talking about PM Corbynhttp://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/labour-now-has-a-six-point-lead-over-the-tories-new-poll-finds/ar-BBCssDl?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartandhpSeems the tories are stuffed either way. Try and manage parliament and Brexit with the DUP pulling their chain, which is bound to end up like pig's breakfast, increasing their unpopularity. Or go to the country again, face the wrath of Brenda from Bristol and the general public, for having "another bloody election".Seems to me that the sooner we get that "nice Mr Corbyn" into No 10, the sooner we can demonstrate that capitalism can't be made to work in favour of the working class, no matter how nice the Prime Minister is.Then we can get on with the business of replacing it with a genuine Socialist society!!!
Can I suggest that in the interests of the Party we all follow Vin's advice on the matter with SC the moment and leave the issues of voting intention and election as councillor to the branches concerned and the EC. If there is debate to be had it can be done through the correct Party channels when the time comes. I think this may prevent future acrimony and things being said that might be thrown up in the future.
Bob Andrews wrote:jondwhite wrote:With hindsight would you say Camden and North West London branches defiance of a democratic decision was a smart move? With hindsight would you say the statement of the Provisional Committee in 1911 that 'We deny altogether that a member of our Party is elected to Parliament for the purpose of taking party in any kind of legislation whether by voting for it or against it' was a smart move?Democratic decisions are there to be defied, undermined and frustrated.I'm baffled why you have quoted a statement from a 1911 Provisional Committee. What has that fantasy figure, " the Socialist member of Parliament" got to do
Bob, I've printed off your contribution, so I could read it whilst on the toilet. It's in front of me now. Very soon it will be behind me.
