Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Labour win all three seats, taking one from the Lib Dems.Riddhi Bhalla (Conservative) 320*Janet Burgess (Labour) 2,228Michael Collins (Conservative) 361Giorgia Gamba (Liberal Democrats) 297Mick Holloway (Green) 717Daniel Hudson (Green) 621Stefan Antoni Kasprzyk (Liberal Democrats) 333*Kaya Makarau Schwartz (Labour) 1938Bill Martin (The Socialist Party of GB) 90*Tim Nicholls (Labour) 1,779Jill Renwick (Green) 720Victoria Savvides (Liberal Democrats) 245Oliver Peter Jonathan (Conservative) 314
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/NEB-SPGB/conversations/messagesAs a wee technical glitch (i.e. I unchecked the wrong box at some point) it's not visible to the public, but you can apply to join to see what is going on.
Vin,we have 350 words to make a statement: something will always be left olut. The aim is to bring people in to read more detailed discussion if their interest is piqued.There is a feeling around, generally, that we need to put the positive case for socialism (that happy images are a better sell than misery).Frankly, we're pitching for the people who already think capitalism is brfoken (and after the past 6 years, we shouldn't really need to persuade people of that fact, if we do, they aren't (yet) our target market). Whenever I've been on the stump, banging on about the ills of capitalism, someone will always ask "so, what are you proposing" (in effect, I'd ghave jkust wasted the previous fifteen minutes).
Not bad, at least we were the only ones not demanding control of borders: I hope a few Oxfordshire types spat their breakfast out when they heard her…
ALB wrote:Our candidate from Oxford Claudia's interview with BBC Radio Oxford will be broadcast between half 8 and half nine on Thursday morning (1 May). You can listen to it on your computer here:http://www.bbc.co.uk/radiooxfordBut you'll have to be quick as it only lasts a minute (though there is a "Listen Again" facility).Did anyone catch this? (What time in the programme was it?)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27217198
BBC wrote:Unlike a number of other financial institutions, before the merger, the Co-operative Bank obtained most of funding from its own customers' deposits.As a result, it was not adversely affected when the international money markets dried up during the financial crisis and considered itself as having "weathered the crisis well".But the bank was hurt by the prolonged period of low interest rates introduced by the Bank of England, which depressed its net margins and profitability.I think that's the key, although, in the way of things, this report cites personal failings, these would not have been an issue had there been a lot of profits to go around. Teh case of the co-op shows how the general inpersonal trends of the markets interracts with teh personal specifics of people in offices. I suppose psychologically we personalise faults, at the expense of looking at the system.
Apparently its for digitising and selling the collected works to academia. To be clear, they only own their translations.
The (returned) TSB has been advertising it's banking model. Clearly they are evil lying lizards:http://www.abouttsb.co.uk/truth_and_banking.html(actually a clever and informative video, we should make maximum use of it).
LBird wrote:I don't believe in 'elites', either in society or in science….'elites' in any sphere(Bold added) So, I provide an example of elites in society.And, by corollary, we can say that there are ability elites in science, some people are much better at doing sums in their head (whether by habituation and practice or any natural aptitude is irrelevent). So, we can have poetic elites, sporting elites and, yes, scientific elites.(p.s. and poetry has always had authority, the authority of the, er, author).
LBird,
Lbird wrote:I don't believe in 'elites', either in society or in science.But if you (and YMS, DJP?) do believe in 'elites' in any sphere, why not say so, and make it plain?I cited the example of sporting elites, they plainly exist, likewise I believe there are mathematical elites, and even linguistic elites. Try as I might, I can't write poetry what is as good as Shelley's. Or should we write poetry democratically?
I've played on the same pitch as elite sportspersons (well, an Ireland 7's international), so I quite firmly believe they exist…
LBird,to be fair, you haven't exactly engaged in argument, merely assertion. I asked a relatively sensible question, how you can refer to proletarian rationality/science, whatever, without reference to what the proletariate actually does in terms of reason/science, etc. If it's not the mode of science as practiced by proletarians, then isn't adding 'proletarian' just a bit of branding, a bit like 'All new and improved'?
Quote:No, if we start from the current practice of economics (and ignore theory), we're then compelled to use the present theories of that practice, like 'the firm', 'supply and demand', 'individual consumers', 'selfish human nature', 'marginal utility', etc., to understand that practice.But that is precisely what Charlie did? He started from the current practice, and the theories that accompanied it, he didn't start with a new critical theory: 99% of Capital can be found by reading Smith & Ricardo.ISTR he even discusses how the equation of labour and value is only revealed by the changes in the practice of production (quite where I can't call to mind just now).But all this evades my substantive point, that you can't talk about 'proletarian rationality' as divorced from the practical reason of actually existing proletarians.
Sorry, should have said: Wikipedia is noticeably not democratic (yes, this could be ascribed to the objectivist views of Jimmy Wales, but then, why would it fly if it ran counter to the ideology of the countless proletarians who contribute?). That said, I would expect science in Socialism to be like a giant wikipedia…
