rodmanlewis
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Tim Kilgallon wrote:I think the idea that people with ADD/ADHD withdraw from society is laughable.
They do withdraw in the sense that they create their own little universes around themselves, making their personal agenda the only thing that matters.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:I think to attempt to catagorise Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder/Attention Deficit Disorder as an invention of the American pharmaceutical industry, is naive. ADD/ADHD is as real and as potentially impactful as conditions such as autism, Asperger's Syndrome or Schizoprenia.These conditions are to some extent exaggerated because of the nature of class society, where the sufferers react to a hostile world in the only way they know how–by withdrawing from it. Non-sufferers make their lives more bearable by turning to drugs.
Vin wrote:I can just see the headlines when we have a few delegates in parliament:SPGB says " No pork pies or larger in socialism" " Alcohol and cheesburgers to be banned under new laws proposed by the SPGB"What's "larger" than pork pies? Pork pies being told about the SPGB banning pork pies?
Young Master Smeet wrote:2: We cannot directly vote on truth claims, we can only vote, if you will, on truth claims about truth claims. That is, we can collectively produce a truth claim about a truth claim. If I wrote 'I am masturbating while writinmg this' that would be a truth claim. Since there are no witnesses to prove that claim one way or another, and the event is unrepeatable, you would only be able to to vote upon an assesment of my truthworthiness and the likelihood of the claim (and how much it gells with other accepted truth claims). That is, you could validate, but not verify. You could then agree a general position on the truth claim (whether you believe or disbelieve, but I am the onjly one who will ever know what really happened here).I would say that the more typos you make the more likely it is that you're telling the truth!
mcolome1 wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:gnome wrote:jondwhite wrote:Is this brocialism?Dunno, never heard of it. Has it something to do with a particular brand of vegetarianism that favours the consumption of broccoli?
Bugger me, no drinking, no smoking, no gambling, no sex and you've got to eat bloody broccoli, sod that for a game of soldiers.
What about masturbation ?
Tim asked to be buggered. Will that do instead? Gambling in socialism?
ALB wrote:In fact I'm not sure what an "addition [sic] to matrimony" might be.Bigamist? Masochist? Creature of habit?
Capitalist Pig wrote:I'm sure trump will dissapoint me on something but I might as well run for president if that wasn't the case. I just feel that your anti-capitalist ideology is preventing you from seeing the good things that he is doing and only focusing on the bad or the percieved bad. I think we can agree on one thing though, he is not bought off by the establishment. The media here has been relentless in their attacks against him through the campaign, as pres elect and now president. The gop is full of neocons and never trumpers, paul ryan the speaker of the house said he would never support trump before he won of course. Washington is full of Obama holdovers which have no intention on carrying out Trump's agenda or even orders. Whether you like him or not trump is in it to win it, he has proved this over and over againIf you admire Trump so much surely you should have the decency to spell his name with a capital 'T'?
ALB wrote:That's not entirely true. There are a number of benefits than can be obtained for workers even under capitalism (not just by trade union action), e.g. health & safety laws. repeal of anti-union laws, less restrictions on meetings and publications, voting against a war. If world socialists elected to office, locally or nationally, are going to abstain on such issues, what's the difference between that and the "Sinn Fein" tactic of not taking their seat?But why should we help workers who resolutely choose to continue to vote for the continuation of the conditions they later fight against? Of course, most workers haven't come across the socialist case, but those who do and reject it should have to learn to stew in their own juice.
ALB wrote:Why did Dawkins agree to his book being called The Selfish Gene? No doubt because its publishers thought it would sell more with that title as opposed to The Cooperative Gene. So, he played a role, unwittingly perhaps, in promoting "Thatcherism" and "greed is good".Perhaps because it wouldn't have jibed with people's perception of the world they saw (and still do see) around them, that we are warlike; bad-tempered; impatient; selfish; self-centered, and don't pay all the taxes we should, and only co-operate when we have to, i.e. when we have to work to earn a living?We co-operate because we need to to survive, not because we necessarily want to. It's a practical decision, not a moral one or "in our genes". It's only "in our genes" to the sense that evolution has given us the thinking capacity take an overview of a situation, and work out what we think is the best course of action to take in particular circumstances. Of course, that doesn't mean that we always make the best decisions.
robbo203 wrote:What do folk here think of this item which I found in my newsfeed today. To me it sums up the utter surreality of life under capitalism. Ms Park is suing Camelot who run EuroMillions in the UK, presumably hoping to get more money fron a successful lawsuit, on the grounds that having won a lot of money from the lottery in the first place, this "runied her life". I mean c'mon…. She said she became "bored of relentless consumption" and now wishess she "had no money most days". Am I missing something here but isnt the point of her taking Camelot to court to get more money by way of compensation for the damage caused by being the recipient of a windfall of money. She owns two properties but professes to be bored with the relentless consumerism she elected to engage in. Hmmm…..This is typical of the madnesses that capitalism throws up, though I thought this sort of thing only happened in the USA! If she wants to offload some of her cash, we would be only too happy to oblige.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I am not so sure that playing the blame game on our fellow-workers, as Rodman suggests, is the proper strategy to follow. Do we preach that they are all sinners and must repent their sins?I wasn't suggesting apportioning blame to the working class. I'm suggesting the opposite strategy to the trots. They try to manipulate workers to get involved in what usually turn out to be futile protests hoping, that after many futile gestures, the penny will finally drop and workers will seek revolution preferably through trotskyist leadership. The trotskyist policy seems to be to rub the workers' noses in it, and hope they will learn by their mistakes.What I am suggesting is that we try to nip the protests in the bud, and persuade at least some workers to look at the alternative that socialism offers. The issue is which members of the working class do we target initially, rather than use a scatter-gun approach?
robbo203 wrote:I sometimes wonder if these sensationalist scenarios are deliberatley fashioned with a view to keep us passive and resigned to a bleak future or no future at all in this case. Why do we find whenever the future is depicted in films or TV it is almost always presented as some kind of grim fascist dytopia from which we can be delivered only by the intervention of some charismatic rebel leader. I think there is a hidden agenda being pushed here….I feel the same about those TV programmes of the "We-shouldn't-complain-because-there's-always-someone-else-worse-off-than-you" variety.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Vin, in my view, the Party has to be more visible and we must also concentrate upon explaining our perceived "impossiblism" is viable and feasible, and, in fact, the only option with any chance of lasting success. We have to present it as the immediate demand and, of course, we do but there are many ways o accomplishing this.But sadly it all comes down to human resources in our case, not financial or logistical limitations. So we have to use what we possess to a certain extent – money – to buy ourselves publicity and that presence i have mentioned. Until we discover the magical technique of increasing our membership, we won't be able to increase our membership and thus our influence.Since when have we been in the business of making demands (immediate or otherwise)? The socialist movement exists to wrest the wealth from the capitalist class, not ask them to hand it over.I fear our publicity is too tame. We have to make it clear to the working class that they have the solution in their hands, and ask them to think carefully what they are voting for when they put the black crayon to the ballot paper. Stop blaming capitalism and start blaming the working class for putting up with it.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Sarkozy faces trial over party finances:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38890993Although not a candidate, it'll add to a kind of sleaze ffect (especially as Fillon's defence is 'Other MPs did the same'Of course, le Pen has been found to have mis-allocated EU funds:http://europe.newsweek.com/marine-le-pens-eu-salary-be-halved-after-misspent-funds-scandal-551025?rm=euIt won't stop the French working class continuing to vote for a master to oversee their continuing enslavement. They'll just choose someone slightly less bad to do the dirty work.
mcolome1 wrote:jondwhite wrote:I blame Mike Pence and the 'pro-life' position being in fact all about being 'anti-women' and stopping women controlling their lives.All our problems are socially produced, they are not produced by an individual
I agree. Enough women have the vote to enable themselves, if they so wished, to change the world so that they can have a full say in what happens to them.
