rodshaw
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
SocialistPunk wrote:Hi rodshaw…because you wish to present socialism as international not national.
Minor point maybe, but actually, no, I don't want to promote inter-national socialism. I want to promote world socialism.Rod
If it came to a vote, I would be in favour of streamlining the names of the various parties, and of adopting a standard logo. I don't see how it could do any harm and it might do some good. Certainly, I prefer to tell people I'm in the World Socialist Movement (or Party) rather than in the SPGB. I always feel I have to qualify the party's name by immediately disowning the nationalistic-sounding GB bit. Especially with all the 'Great British' this-and-that we get shoved at us these days.However, maybe a better policy would be for us to push the recently re-vamped WSM umbrella website as the flagship, and put more content on there. Maybe, for example, the general bit of this discussion forum should be on there rather than here.Also, I would like to know, maybe from Alan or SocialistPunk, if there is any evidence that use of 'Great Britain' in the party name is actually holding the movement back. Are you being told this? Is it putting people off joining? If we could quantify this, it might help decide how much effort was worth putting into the debate.
The ICSU looks to be one of those bodies that could well be enhanced and expanded for use in a socialist society, even though at present, inevitably maybe, it smacks of 'how can science best serve the interests of profit?', or, at best , 'how can science work within the contraints of capitalism?'Having said which, it's the kind of organisation from which you'd hope some kind of socialist understanding would eventually spring. Is it worth organising a debate with them?
Bit of a double whammy really. To begin with, everything I 'know' about the world is basically inside my head. I perceive the existence of others and assume they have broadly similar thoughts and emotions to my own. But without the memories in my head, there'd effectively be nothing.Sci-fi author Robert Heinlein used to write about what he called 'multi-person solipsism'. It went something like this – the world came into existence when I became aware of it, and will end when I die. But it's the same for everybody else, so the world goes on.But now I'm told even my consciousness of the world is an illusion. You couldn't make it up!
Vin Maratty wrote:Amazing, but this thread started by a sympathiser has had more than 33,000 views! More sympathisers!!It would be nice to think that most of the viewers are sympathisers. I suppose there's no way of knowing.
As an addendum to the above, around 1974, while living and working in London, I was in a pub with some friends one evening and this chap somehow got into conversation with me. He was called Charlie, a postman, and he said he was a socialist. I told him so was my dad, a member of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. I myself still remained unconvinced about it all, but I remember feeling really proud that I could tell him my dad was in the SPGB. Turned out he was a member too! So I gave him my dad's phone number and they had a chat.What are the chances of that happening, eh?
As for me, seehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2009/no-1257-may-2009/how-i-got-be-socialist
So just let me get the gist so far.1. LBird makes a proposition purportedly about science and communism.2. Other(s) make a counter-proposition.3. LBird sneers at the counter-proposition.4. The other(s) sneer back at LBird.5. LBird acts offended at the sneering and threatens to take his ball home. I think he may have a defender somewhere but I’m not sure. Anyway, he decides to carry on fighting his corner, and why not?6. Slanging and personal insults follow. Offence is taken all round.7. Someone makes another proposition purportedly about science and communism.8. Back to 3.Have I missed anything?All in all, a good, grown-up, philosophical debate, which contributes greatly to the sum total of socialist and scientific understanding.I don’t know how many iterations of the cycle there’ve been but keep it up, folks, it could run forever.
Presumably, http://www.worldsocialism.org is doing exactly what it's supposed to do – representing the WSM as a whole. There are links in there to our companion parties as well as to ourselves.
Your 'karmic beliefs', for want of a better phrase, will be proved right or wrong as time goes by because they are rooted in real life. You're not hoping (presumably) that people will get their just desserts in heaven or hell when they die, but at some future point in the physical world. Your beliefs may or may not prove to be correct. There will no doubt be a statistical model for this kind of thing.It's a bit like football managers saying that luck balances out over a season. They may or may not be proved correct when the season is over (and no doubt, the ones who feel they've had more than their share of bad luck will find all sorts of scapegoats – referees, the fixture list, etc.)Of course, that begs the question whether the statistics involved are just a way of formalising the underlying karma…
Young Master Smeet wrote:Lets try this. If we held a vote on this board, and declared Lbird's positions to be wrong, what would be their response? Would they acfcept the democratic verdict of their peers, or would they stick to their guns, as an obstinate minority. I think we all know the answer: the the question becomes, why swhould anyone in socialism behave any differently?Would any of us be qualified to vote?
alanjjohnstone wrote:Perhaps this article might provoke further debatehttp://www.alternet.org/belief/scientific-journal-tries-prove-belief-innate-and-failsI like this sentence:'Humans continue to evolve and the processes that brought about our superstitious nature may no longer serve a purpose.'
According to Wikipedia, the translation of what Marx said is:"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_peopleI assume he wasn't using the word 'soul' in a religious sense.
