[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 i don't think anyone really should be rejoicing the possible exit of any member of the Party, particularly with our declining numbers.It is also especially disappointing that someone who has only been a user of the forum for only just a couple of days and, therefore, missed the many contributions from the comrade that weren't disruptive but supportive of the Party should adopt such a jubilant attitude. 

 Are you really naive enough to think that it's jsomeone who joined in the last few days, Considering they are referring to past events, do you not think it's more likely to be someone who has been a regular contributor who has set up a second account to send this message, because they haven't got the courage or the integrity to express an opinion like that in an open and honest way? I sincerely hope that Vin and Linda have had time to rethink their contribution and that "drop the bomb" goes and crawls back under whichever rock they crawled out from under.

[Bijou Drains]

According to the Irish comic Tommy Tiernan all we need to do is find out who it is we owe the money to "and shoot the fecker" 

[Bijou Drains]

The song is also known as "the green fields of France" The Dubliners versions of 'The Band Played Waltzing Matilda" and "now I'm easy" are also well worth a listen

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Well, I did float an idea in the discussion of Brexit: the working class aren't propertyless.  They own two related things: citizenship, and the vote.  this gives them an interest in the state (and makes them effectively rentiers, or intellectual property holders), and they vote accordingly.As such this knocks out the idea that the working class is the negation of existing society, since they have a considerable stake, at least, those that are citizens, that is. 

This argument of YMS's rests on the assumption that 'citizenship and a vote' are simply more important to workers than, say, affordable housing, unadulterated food, critical education, etc.On the other hand, it could be argued that once 'affordable housing, unadulterated food, critical education, etc.' become rarer, that the changing socio-economic basis of the 'property ownership' of 'citizenship and voting' will remove their supposed 'interest' in those political benefits.I'd suggest that the latter argument, that 'citizenship and voting' aren't the key interests for workers, and that YMS is wrong, is the Marxist approach.Once workers realise, with the help of socialists, that 'citizenship and voting' can't ensure that they have decent housing, etc., then they will become more critical of YMS's thesis of 'the propertied proletariat', a direct contradiction of Marx's socio-historical views.

tbis whole argument hinges on the premise that we all, as gnome says, have the same brain, that the working class all operate like one monolithic thinking machine. We all have a brain, we all have similar brains however we do not all have anywhere near the same brains. Our brains and the way they function are effected by many different factors.There is a plethora of evidence, for instance to show that cognitive development in children exposed to neglect, privation and abuse is massively different to those children who experience warm nurturing experiences in the first 3 or so years in their life. For example the limbic system of children who have experienced abusive parenting is often massively overdeveloped in comparison to children who have been nurtured. This overdevelopment is mirrored by a lack of development in the  cerebral cortex.  Just as another example of how different factors impact, studies of the impact of lead poisoning on cognitive ability have been highlighted in recent years. The fall in the use of lead in petrol has been linked to many things, including falling crime rates and the Flynn Factor.it is easy to dismiss this as bourgeois science, in fact it's nearly all carried out by waged labour, however it needs to inform our practice.We need to understand that we live in a what some people with Asperger's s Syndrome describe as a neuro diverse world. Yes class and economic circumstances play a massive part in how we think and experience our world, but it is not the only factor in spreading Socialist ideas.The case for socialism is a class based solution, however we need to recognise that the case for socialism is a multi dimensional one. Because of this our approach to propaganda needs to be multi dimensional. Some workers will find the economic arguments attractive, some the social arguments. Some will find written material persuasive some will prefer visual material more their cup of tea. Some may even find strong regional accents light their candle!

[Bijou Drains]

See you at ADM handsome

[Bijou Drains]

HollyHead wrote:

"Power is a great aphrodisiac" (Henry Kissinger) Perhaps it's the sex they're after?

What does that say about people who join the SPGB?

[Bijou Drains]

ALB wrote:

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

We aren't arguing that bonobos can act like humans.  We're arguing that humans can act like bonobos.

That's exactly my point ! But humans are not the "third chimpanzee" but a quite different species with quite different behavioural patterns and possibilities. Our behaviour may exhibit similarities between those of chimps but that's just a co-incidence.

to say that all behavioural similarities are necessarily a coincidence is not really correct. For instance attachment behaviour, which is vital to mammal survival, can be noted in practically all mammals to a greater or lesser extent, precisely because it gives mammals who demonstrate it an evolutionary advantage.There are, however in my opinion, a few very real problems in using animal models to develop information about human psychology.Some animals in certain conditions exhibit behaviour which is similar to human behaviour, however all animals also have many behaviours that differ greatly from human behaviour and humans also exhibit behavours which differ greatly from the animals that they are compared to.Therefore using examples of animal behaviour that are ostensibly the same as human behaviours, to make inferences about behaviours of humans that that are different from the animals that are being compared (which is often what is done in animal studies) makes about as much sense as saying at certain times we behave like chimpanzees, therefore chimpanzees must be able to play scrabble.Another issue is that just because animals are exhibiting the same behaviours as humans, it doesn't mean they are necessarily behaving in that way for the same reason that humans do, there is a similar flaw in classically based studies of human behaviour, as two humans might behave in the same way, but for two different reasons.This leads on to another flaw in animal studies, which is that they can only study behaviour, any study of the cognitive factors which are influencing the animal behaviour, must necessarily be inferred from the behaviour exhibited. In contrast human based studies have the advantage that those involved can give report of the cognitive factors involved in the behaviour studied. Additionally it is clear that animal based cognitions are very different from animal cognitions, as we have the additional feature of language in our cognitions.As Vygotsky pointed out, once we become verbal not only do our relationships with others in our species change, our relationship with our own cognitions also changes, as we move to thinking primarily through the use of language, effectively we begin to have conversations with ourselves. Once this process of verbalisation begins the thought processes we can develop increase in line with the sophistication of our own internal language. As animals do not have verbal language and even if chimps and bonobos do have a form of internal speech, it is clearly no where near the level of sophisticated speech that humans have. Therefore the cognitive processes which drive behaviour must necessarily be very different in humans and chimps or bonobos.

[Bijou Drains]

Twford John wrote:

I see why you would feel uncomfortable about Socialist Party Investments and wish to pass it off as a joke. It wasn't my purpose to embarrass you. What I am trying to get at, and I should have used a less sensitive example, is: do you believe that democracy is, as it were, a trump card. That if a majority of the membership supports a proposal, no matter how preposterous ( and a revolutionary party making capital investments does appear pretty preposterous ),then the democratic decision overrides everything else?

Jim D'Arcy certainly had a bob or two. Now if only I could remember how he got all that money?oh that's right I remember, didn't he own a building company, where he employed workers and by definition paid them less than the value of their labour time? I also seem to recall a rumour that his business was prosperous because he used lumpy labour (non unionised labour that is). Perhaps Twyford John gets his name from being a plumber for D'Arcy. Has he got a mate called Armitage Shanks Fred? Pretty apt name you have there John, considering tha quality of your contribution 

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

gnome wrote:

lindanesocialist wrote:

Workers are starving, unemployed, homeless and landless. Reach out to them, me, us. The idealists are the past, we have our material conditions and interests to deal with. Shelter, food, clothes etc etc. LBird is a troll and a time waster.If you are not arguing pointlessly with LBird, you are attacking and suspending members trying to connect with the real issues that concern the working classMake this a workers forum and we might move forward.

Head and nail come to mind…

[my bold]You have one?It's certainly not a critical one. Or active.But, that's your 'materialist' ideology in play, eh? Passive in the face of 'matter', to the end.If there are any 'trolls and time wasters' on this thread, it's those who deny Marx's 'active proletariat' creating their own world. But I wouldn't call youse 'trolls', just ignorant of anything whatsoever to do with Marx's theories. You are Engelsian Materialists, and you should be open about this, with any interested workers reading.But, you won't be. Elitists always hide their ideology from democratic workers.

there's a lady who knows all that glitters is……. oh hang on I'll get this but……. ok ……. gold and she's……….err…..buying a stairway to hum hum. 

[Bijou Drains]

L Bird is like a person who thinks that learning to play the guitar will make s/he look windswept and interesting. So of s/he goes and spends 25 years learning to play the guitar (L Bird's timescale). The trouble is that after 25 years all s/he can manage to play is a pretty shaky version of "Stairway to Heaven". Undeterred by this fact, our noble guitarist decides to show the world the talent that s/he believes makes them a cross between Hendrix and Kossoff. Despite the less than startling receptiion her/ his little act brings our guitarist is still convinced they are a musical genius and with this in mind continues to play their piss poor version of "Stairway to Heaven" over and over again, what was once sympathy, now becomes derisio , but still "Stairway to bloody Heaven" over and over and over and over…………….The other possibility is that this thread is part of an absurdist art installation L Bird is working on and that these posts will end up being exhibited at the Tate Modern, before being sold off to the same silly fucker that bought Tracey Emin's hacky dorty scratcher

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Do animals mourn and grievehttp://www.dw.com/en/do-animals-mourn-their-dead/a-19564029

http://www.tynemouth.frankgillings.com/dog.htmlWllie's still in the same pub, which is known to the locals as "The stuffed dog" It's a really good boozer as well!

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Let's simplify it for you then, Do I exist outside of your perception of me? Again a simple yes or no will do,

Tim, I keep giving you the simplest answers that I can.But you're not using the same Marxist ideology as I am, about the social production of 'existence'.You want to discuss your drunken encounters with your missus, and you as an individual and me as an individual. I keep pointing this out as an effect of your 'materialism', which looks to 'biological senses' as the determiner of 'what exists'.Any answer I give is in the context of my freely exposed-to-all ideology, which is Marx's too. For example, Marx argues that 'senses are social', and so to talk about 'existence' outside of the mode of production that produces that 'existence', is meaningless.I'm trying to give you straight answers, but you just seem to ignore Marx's works – which, of course, you're free to do, but it would be better if you openly state to all, where your concern with you, yourself and your perception, comes from.I'd argue that you're simply repeating the ruling class ideas of this society, and locate your views socio-historically, whereas I suppose you'll locate the origin of your views in you.I won't keep on saying the same thing to you, Tim, so unless you start to engage in a discussion about epistemology, and its social location, then I'm going to have to stop replying to you.

I'll take your reply as you refusing to answer the question because you know the only answer you can give, which is consistent with your previous postings, (which is that I do not exist, outside of your perception of me) is clearly ridiculous.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Thanks for your simple answer (No). Following on from your simple answer to my simple question. I can assume that as I am made of matter, I do not exist outside of your perception of the matter that makes me up. If this is the case, and I only exist in terms of your perception of me, there are three further questions:1. What do I get up to when you are not perceiving me? As according to you my matter has no existence outside of your perception of me.2. Why are you conversing with me when I only exist in your consciousness and have no existence outside of that domain.3. When I come home pissed, yet again, can I send my beloved around to your house so you can explain that it is not me that is pissed, but rather your perception of me that is pissed, and therefore you are to blame? ( I would advise caution, she can be a bit volatile when she's vexed)

[my bold]You'll have to read my post again, Tim.I was giving an answer to a political and philosophical question about 'power' within epistemology.You seem to want to persevere with your 'bourgeois individualist' concerns, like 'I' and 'me', and your biological notions of 'perception'.Since I specifically said that 'existence' is socially-produced, I don't know how you can read that as 'your existence is in my head', but I suppose with your bourgeois ideology, those sorts of beliefs are basic.But those ideological beliefs of yours are not mine (nor Marx's).And who told you that you are made of 'matter'?And why not 'energy'? Your ideology is 19th century, Tim. As are your 'assumptions'.

Let's simplify it for you then, Do I exist outside of your perception of me? Again a simple yes or no will do,

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

A simple question for L Bird, which mirrors one you posed to another poster earlier and which should hopefully elicit a simple yes or a no.Do you believe that matter has an existence independent of your perception of it?

A very simple and reasonable question, Tim.The answer is 'No'.Marx argues that the opposition to 'consciousness' is 'inorganic nature'.Engels thought (given his social circumstances and influences) that this meant 'matter'.According to Marx, 'matter' is a social product, which we can change, rather than, as the bourgeoisie allege, we contemplate.We could expect, if we were Marxists, that 'matter' could change (because it is a social product) to… errr… for example… errr… to… ermmm… 'energy'.So, some societies, from inorganic nature, produce matter.Other societies, from inorganic nature, produce energy.For some, 'inorganic nature' is 'matter'; for others, 'inorganic nature' is 'energy'. We have to choose.For us socialists, employing Marx's ideas, we can situate the social production of organic nature (nature-for-us) in socio-historical context. That is, we regard 'organic nature' as a social product, related to the 'mode of production' that produces it.So, to summarise, 'matter' is a social product (which we can change), and 'matter' has no 'existence' outside of our social production.'Existence' is produced.That's why we do not have to simply, passively, discover, contemplate 'matter', but can change 'it'.Bourgeois physics today is behind Marx in 1845.Theses on Feuerbachhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm

Thanks for your simple answer (No). Following on from your simple answer to my simple question. I can assume that as I am made of matter, I do not exist outside of your perception of the matter that makes me up. If this is the case, and I only exist in terms of your perception of me, there are three further questions:1. What do I get up to when you are not perceiving me? As according to you my matter has no existence outside of your perception of me.2. Why are you conversing with me when I only exist in your consciousness and have no existence outside of that domain.3. When I come home pissed, yet again, can I send my beloved around to your house so you can explain that it is not me that is pissed, but rather your perception of me that is pissed, and therefore you are to blame? ( I would advise caution, she can be a bit volatile when she's vexed)

[Bijou Drains]

A simple question for L Bird, which mirrors one you posed to another poster earlier and which should hopefully elicit a simple yes or a no.Do you believe that matter has an existence independent of your perception of it?

[Author]

Posts