That's right; Hugh MacDiarmid, the communist, when asked what he wanted to do about the poor, said that he wanted to get rid of them; I don't think he meant by extermination...

Best,

Alistair

With respect, I don't agree with your final assertions there, and that's not even just because I don't believe that the way things have always been is the way things have to remain. But I fear we may be causing discords in what is already, admittedly, a sometimes alarmingly discordant subject (I'm talking about Eurovision, not Marx ) and I don't think we're about to agree anyway, besides which I have a massive pile of invoices to register so maybe we should leave this one for another time.

Speaking of which, is your SJSS concert on 22 June or have I misremembered that date?

If we want to continue this discussion concerning the nature of the bourgeoisie (to which I do essentially subscribe to the Marxist definition, maintaining that the ownership of capital is an essential prerequisite - putting specific numbers on it is meaningless, it is about owning enough capital to have that relationship Richard describes, so that one is not obliged to sell one's labour in order to survive) we should have another thread. The only relevance to Eurovision is in terms of those companies who finance it.

Last ever game at gay meadow has just finished then toneee.

Fair enough - and agreed in principle, at least. You have now defined your view of "significant amounts of capital" as amounts which enable their owners to survive without the need to offer their labour service and, without any need for you or anyone else to be specific about a threshold figure, I understand and accept that, as far as it goes; my earlier remarks about the fact that the dividing lines are far less defined than once they were remain, however, in that the clear once-and-for-all dividing line between members of "the bourgeoisie" and people outside that membership are quite different today to what they were - or may have been perceived to be - a mere half century ago.

Another thing that bothers me about the purely economic definition of "the bourgeoisie" or any other conveniently contrived definitional class is that, rather as in the case of the Indian caste system, there seems still to be quite a generalised repository of received opinion that if one is born to a particular "class" one should, as a matter of principle, expect and be expected to remain therein for the entirety of one's life; this, too, seems to be far less obviously prevalent in practice than once it was.

Perhaps the thing that concerns me the most is that so many people have only to hear the word "politics" nowadays and their thoughts turn - in some kind of kee-jerk response - immediately to specific issues of economics, as though the entire business of matters financial has somehow managed to invade all shades of public political "thinking" almost to the exclusion of other considerations; notwithstanding the undeniable importance of such factors, this strikes me - when I contempate it - as a matter of great sadness.

Anyway - that's more than enough of that stuff from me! I have that thing called "work" to do...

Best,

Alistair

It's all starting to make sense now. Sandie Shaw's winning song Puppet on a String is about a member of the proletariate who is being manipulated by the bourgeoisie.

Well, would you argue with the idea that ABBA's 'Waterloo' has something to do with imperialism? And then, not a Eurovision winner, but by the same group, there's 'Money, money, money'.....