| My new blog on 15:58 - Dec 2 with 7711 views | BigDaveMyCock |
'Socialist Movemen'
I think I booked them last time I moved house. |  |
|  |
| My new blog on 16:21 - Dec 2 with 7683 views | R17ALE |
I'd rather watch Dale play at home, than read anything to do with socialism.
B4E - haven't you got anything better to do with your time....and I really do mean anything?
Quite frankly, if socialism had never been invented, I think the country would now be in far better shape than the mess socialism (and the banks tbf) have got us into. |  |
| |
| My new blog on 16:22 - Dec 2 with 7669 views | wroughtironron |
Is the overwhelming red colour significant ?
 |  | | |
| My new blog on 16:57 - Dec 2 with 7651 views | cy74 |
| My new blog on 16:21 - Dec 2 by R17ALE |
I'd rather watch Dale play at home, than read anything to do with socialism.
B4E - haven't you got anything better to do with your time....and I really do mean anything?
Quite frankly, if socialism had never been invented, I think the country would now be in far better shape than the mess socialism (and the banks tbf) have got us into. |
Where as the Tories... | | | |
| My new blog on 17:17 - Dec 2 with 7629 views | D_Dale |
| My new blog on 15:58 - Dec 2 by BigDaveMyCock |
'Socialist Movemen'
I think I booked them last time I moved house. |
Some interesting things in the parts I glanced at, but unfortunately, typos of this sort have got into the text. There are also a few dubious points, eg the statement: "The LRC did much better in the 1906 General Election with twenty nine successful candidates winning their seats. This [These?] included ..." as not all LRC candidates were ILP members. And the campaign for women's suffrage included activists who would not have regarded themselves as part of the labour movement. Katharine Glasier also appears as Catherine Glasier, Sidney Webb as Sydney, Ben Tillett as Tillet, Christian Socialism is dated from 1948 as well as 1848 ... | | | |
| My new blog on 17:20 - Dec 2 with 7625 views | TVOS1907 |
| My new blog on 16:21 - Dec 2 by R17ALE |
I'd rather watch Dale play at home, than read anything to do with socialism.
B4E - haven't you got anything better to do with your time....and I really do mean anything?
Quite frankly, if socialism had never been invented, I think the country would now be in far better shape than the mess socialism (and the banks tbf) have got us into. |
At least he's not accusing Dale fans of lying about being assaulted in pubs by bury mongs this week. |  |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| My new blog on 19:33 - Dec 2 with 7574 views | Banned4ever |
| My new blog on 17:17 - Dec 2 by D_Dale |
Some interesting things in the parts I glanced at, but unfortunately, typos of this sort have got into the text. There are also a few dubious points, eg the statement: "The LRC did much better in the 1906 General Election with twenty nine successful candidates winning their seats. This [These?] included ..." as not all LRC candidates were ILP members. And the campaign for women's suffrage included activists who would not have regarded themselves as part of the labour movement. Katharine Glasier also appears as Catherine Glasier, Sidney Webb as Sydney, Ben Tillett as Tillet, Christian Socialism is dated from 1948 as well as 1848 ... |
thank you corrected what i could see | | | |
| My new blog on 19:39 - Dec 2 with 7561 views | Doris |
| My new blog on 19:33 - Dec 2 by Banned4ever |
thank you corrected what i could see |
politics and religion ,the 2 words should be banned ,causes more wars and bloodshed than anything else .just believe in what you can see BEER | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| My new blog on 19:44 - Dec 2 with 7551 views | Banned4ever |
| My new blog on 16:21 - Dec 2 by R17ALE |
I'd rather watch Dale play at home, than read anything to do with socialism.
B4E - haven't you got anything better to do with your time....and I really do mean anything?
Quite frankly, if socialism had never been invented, I think the country would now be in far better shape than the mess socialism (and the banks tbf) have got us into. |
sorry I did not meet your Approval.
must try harder next time  | | | |
| My new blog on 11:24 - Dec 3 with 7483 views | SFD |
| My new blog on 16:21 - Dec 2 by R17ALE |
I'd rather watch Dale play at home, than read anything to do with socialism.
B4E - haven't you got anything better to do with your time....and I really do mean anything?
Quite frankly, if socialism had never been invented, I think the country would now be in far better shape than the mess socialism (and the banks tbf) have got us into. |
That man should be banned from this board using language like s_______m |  | | |
| My new blog on 11:35 - Dec 3 with 7466 views | D_Alien |
The only socialist movement worthy of the name was started in Rochdale!
The rest have been the usual crap - sad blokes trying to claim power over other people - result: poverty, destruction, death. |  |
| |
| My new blog on 12:05 - Dec 3 with 7444 views | dalenumber2 |
| My new blog on 11:35 - Dec 3 by D_Alien |
The only socialist movement worthy of the name was started in Rochdale!
The rest have been the usual crap - sad blokes trying to claim power over other people - result: poverty, destruction, death. |
... national health service ? |  | | |
| My new blog on 15:26 - Dec 3 with 7397 views | D_Alien |
| My new blog on 12:05 - Dec 3 by dalenumber2 |
... national health service ? |
I work for the NHS...
... and it's full of sad blokes trying to build empires! | |
| |
| My new blog on 15:32 - Dec 3 with 7392 views | Sandyman |
| My new blog on 15:26 - Dec 3 by D_Alien |
I work for the NHS...
... and it's full of sad blokes trying to build empires! |
Which large company / organisation isn't! |  | | |
| My new blog on 15:44 - Dec 3 with 7385 views | BigDaveMyCock |
| My new blog on 19:39 - Dec 2 by Doris |
politics and religion ,the 2 words should be banned ,causes more wars and bloodshed than anything else .just believe in what you can see BEER |
Quite right. Beer has never caused any bloodshed. | |
| |
| My new blog on 17:08 - Dec 3 with 7356 views | D_Alien |
| My new blog on 15:32 - Dec 3 by Sandyman |
Which large company / organisation isn't! |
Watch BBC NW News & Panorama tonight.
No axe to grind here, except that medical knowledge and technology are moving ahead at a pace the NHS (in its current guise) can't possibly sustain. | |
| |
| My new blog on 17:34 - Dec 3 with 7344 views | Birchy915 |
As someone who has qualifications in politics, I feel I should say something.
But I think this picture may be easier to understand.
 |  |
| I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions -- but I don't always agree with them. |
| |
| My new blog on 18:04 - Dec 3 with 7329 views | BigDaveMyCock |
| My new blog on 17:34 - Dec 3 by Birchy915 |
As someone who has qualifications in politics, I feel I should say something.
But I think this picture may be easier to understand.
|
I genuinely don't get it. Is pragmatism burying capitalism?
(Right, I've had my tea now)
If so, are you seriously suggesting that the development of communism in the Soviet Union, for example, did not result from some form of pragmatism. If so, how do you explain Lenin's New Economic Policy, the reverse of the commitment of 'all power to the Soviets', Stalin's 'Socialism in one country', de-Stalinisation and Glasnost etc. The Soviet Union was shaped by reactions to various economic, social and political realities of the time. You could argue that Stalin was the ultimate pragmatist.
Also, the history of much of what we term socialism in this country - the welfare state (predominately the baby of the Liberal Party and not socialists) and nationalisation - was forged through the situation the country found itself ater the War. Private capital, after the war, was simply not strong enough to rebuild the economy and it was only the state that access to such resources. Moreover, are you really stating that the Attlee or Wilson Labour governments were not pragmatic.
If the picture represents the victory of pragmatism over so-called theories then the picture is ahistorical twaddle (and I don't mean Marc).
You can't distinguish pragmatism from any of those theories. In doing so, you must have the most rigid interpretation of those theories and pragmatism itself. [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
| |
| |
| My new blog on 18:52 - Dec 3 with 7300 views | Birchy915 |
| My new blog on 18:04 - Dec 3 by BigDaveMyCock |
I genuinely don't get it. Is pragmatism burying capitalism?
(Right, I've had my tea now)
If so, are you seriously suggesting that the development of communism in the Soviet Union, for example, did not result from some form of pragmatism. If so, how do you explain Lenin's New Economic Policy, the reverse of the commitment of 'all power to the Soviets', Stalin's 'Socialism in one country', de-Stalinisation and Glasnost etc. The Soviet Union was shaped by reactions to various economic, social and political realities of the time. You could argue that Stalin was the ultimate pragmatist.
Also, the history of much of what we term socialism in this country - the welfare state (predominately the baby of the Liberal Party and not socialists) and nationalisation - was forged through the situation the country found itself ater the War. Private capital, after the war, was simply not strong enough to rebuild the economy and it was only the state that access to such resources. Moreover, are you really stating that the Attlee or Wilson Labour governments were not pragmatic.
If the picture represents the victory of pragmatism over so-called theories then the picture is ahistorical twaddle (and I don't mean Marc).
You can't distinguish pragmatism from any of those theories. In doing so, you must have the most rigid interpretation of those theories and pragmatism itself. [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|
(I have also had my tea XD)
And my point is simply that Pragmatism is the answer, flaws were found in all of the existing doctrines, the future is and will always be pragmatism (in a logical, sensible and civillised country).
If you are a socialist and you find a flaw in the theory, you must be pragmatic, same goes for most doctrines, in essence, this is not putting the ideas pioneered by the doctrine to death, merely the belief that said doctrine is absolute and will lead the way forward. | |
| I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions -- but I don't always agree with them. |
| |
| My new blog on 19:22 - Dec 3 with 7281 views | R17ALE |
So by that theory, was Hitler* pragmatic to have a pop at the Jews as opposed to the Catholics for example?
*Himself a National socialist, so he claimed. | |
| |
| My new blog on 19:23 - Dec 3 with 7278 views | BigDaveMyCock |
| My new blog on 18:52 - Dec 3 by Birchy915 |
(I have also had my tea XD)
And my point is simply that Pragmatism is the answer, flaws were found in all of the existing doctrines, the future is and will always be pragmatism (in a logical, sensible and civillised country).
If you are a socialist and you find a flaw in the theory, you must be pragmatic, same goes for most doctrines, in essence, this is not putting the ideas pioneered by the doctrine to death, merely the belief that said doctrine is absolute and will lead the way forward. |
This only makes sense, however, if you believe that there is an autonomous category called, for example, 'socialism' and that this is distinct from an autonomous category called 'pragmatism'. Your methodolgy is to treat both as distinct. The category of socialism, or whatever 'total' theory it may be, is flawed and the category of pragmatism exists to plug the flaws.
I disagree with you that a 'total' theory has existed, whether that be socialism or communism. Theories are like the (historic or present) societies from which they derive. They move and are not rigidified or 'total'. Pragmatism is an expression of that movement, it is not seperate from it. Socialism or communism is pragmatism and vice versa. [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
| |
| |
| My new blog on 20:39 - Dec 3 with 7249 views | Birchy915 |
| My new blog on 19:23 - Dec 3 by BigDaveMyCock |
This only makes sense, however, if you believe that there is an autonomous category called, for example, 'socialism' and that this is distinct from an autonomous category called 'pragmatism'. Your methodolgy is to treat both as distinct. The category of socialism, or whatever 'total' theory it may be, is flawed and the category of pragmatism exists to plug the flaws.
I disagree with you that a 'total' theory has existed, whether that be socialism or communism. Theories are like the (historic or present) societies from which they derive. They move and are not rigidified or 'total'. Pragmatism is an expression of that movement, it is not seperate from it. Socialism or communism is pragmatism and vice versa. [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|
Well I see your point, but I think you are expanding it too far to suit the conclusion, while theorys are not set in stone, they do have a high level of rigidity.
As soon as that rigidity disappears it becomes almost impossible to classify anything.
You're attempting to impose a super philosophy on the idea of Ideology, I think we have to take things more at face value. | |
| I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions -- but I don't always agree with them. |
| |
| My new blog on 22:02 - Dec 3 with 7217 views | BigDaveMyCock |
| My new blog on 20:39 - Dec 3 by Birchy915 |
Well I see your point, but I think you are expanding it too far to suit the conclusion, while theorys are not set in stone, they do have a high level of rigidity.
As soon as that rigidity disappears it becomes almost impossible to classify anything.
You're attempting to impose a super philosophy on the idea of Ideology, I think we have to take things more at face value. |
What is meant by taking things at more 'face value'? One can attempt to create a rigid interpretation of communism for example. Where do you start...Das Kapital by Karl Marx? Well we could, but that wouldn't capture communism as it has existed. Instead, we may want to turn to the work of Lenin, but that was never realised in the Soviet Union for whatever reason. Stalinism is probably something like what we mean by communism, but that would only describe a specific era of the Soviet Union. Thus, our 'face value' communism is going to be a little inaccurate. We'll be ditching large swathes of history/theory. In fact, history will cease to become something that moved and categories such as communism as changing forms of societal organistion. History becomes rigid.
You are, in other words, creaing a straw man for the purpose of your theory of pragmatism. You're belief in taking things at more 'face value' is actually a necessary method that you have to adopt because once a societal mode of organisation is opened up to any sort of analytical rigour then the whole notion of rigidity collapses like a house of cards. You may think history is bunk, but what it does tell us is that it (history) definately wasn't rigid.
Moreover, why is it only pragmatism that moves/changes?
Unexplained and ahistorical rigidity has to be insisted upon because it is only from this methodological starting point that pragmatism is allowed to be the motor of change.
Pragmatism, by it's very definition, only exists in and through the very theories it purports to be seperate from. Pragmatism can't exist on it's own. Otherwise it would be a theory of societal organisation.
I also think you're normative attraction to pragmatism is confusing. Stalin was incredibly pragmatic (whatever worked for old smokey Joe) as to was Chairman Mao. However, I suspect this is not the pragmatism you support. I think you support some form of liberalism, but then you would have to deal with theory and I suspect you don't want to do that.
[Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
| |
| |
| My new blog on 22:10 - Dec 3 with 7203 views | R17ALE |
| My new blog on 22:02 - Dec 3 by BigDaveMyCock |
What is meant by taking things at more 'face value'? One can attempt to create a rigid interpretation of communism for example. Where do you start...Das Kapital by Karl Marx? Well we could, but that wouldn't capture communism as it has existed. Instead, we may want to turn to the work of Lenin, but that was never realised in the Soviet Union for whatever reason. Stalinism is probably something like what we mean by communism, but that would only describe a specific era of the Soviet Union. Thus, our 'face value' communism is going to be a little inaccurate. We'll be ditching large swathes of history/theory. In fact, history will cease to become something that moved and categories such as communism as changing forms of societal organistion. History becomes rigid.
You are, in other words, creaing a straw man for the purpose of your theory of pragmatism. You're belief in taking things at more 'face value' is actually a necessary method that you have to adopt because once a societal mode of organisation is opened up to any sort of analytical rigour then the whole notion of rigidity collapses like a house of cards. You may think history is bunk, but what it does tell us is that it (history) definately wasn't rigid.
Moreover, why is it only pragmatism that moves/changes?
Unexplained and ahistorical rigidity has to be insisted upon because it is only from this methodological starting point that pragmatism is allowed to be the motor of change.
Pragmatism, by it's very definition, only exists in and through the very theories it purports to be seperate from. Pragmatism can't exist on it's own. Otherwise it would be a theory of societal organisation.
I also think you're normative attraction to pragmatism is confusing. Stalin was incredibly pragmatic (whatever worked for old smokey Joe) as to was Chairman Mao. However, I suspect this is not the pragmatism you support. I think you support some form of liberalism, but then you would have to deal with theory and I suspect you don't want to do that.
[Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|
Wasn't Das Kapital written by Marx on a visit to Manchester? I seem to have it lodged in my mind it was written in Chethams School of Music next to Victoria Station.
Or was he on a visit to bury?
Pragmatism is another word for politician imho. | |
| |
| My new blog on 22:14 - Dec 3 with 7190 views | BigDaveMyCock |
| My new blog on 22:10 - Dec 3 by R17ALE |
Wasn't Das Kapital written by Marx on a visit to Manchester? I seem to have it lodged in my mind it was written in Chethams School of Music next to Victoria Station.
Or was he on a visit to bury?
Pragmatism is another word for politician imho. |
Marx's buddy Fredrick Engels worked at his father's mill in Manchester. Engel's was exposed to much of the poverty of Manchester at the time and he provided Marx with many of his examples in Das Kapital.
Anyway, it was Engels rather than Marx. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
