|
John W
|
 |
« on: 13:12:03, 11-04-2008 » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Swan_Knight
|
|
« Reply #1 on: 13:26:28, 11-04-2008 » |
|
Good!
One less pseudo-Marxist won't necessarily make the BBC THAT much better, but it's certainly a step in the right direction.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
...so flatterten lachend die Locken....
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #2 on: 13:28:02, 11-04-2008 » |
|
it's certainly a step in the right direction For Abramsky, yes! Anything to get away from listeners who think 'pseudo-Marxist' is a term of abuse ... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #3 on: 13:32:34, 11-04-2008 » |
|
A Marxist writes:
I wonder what evidence there might be for regarding Ms Abramsky as a "pseudo-Marxist".
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Swan_Knight
|
|
« Reply #4 on: 13:34:03, 11-04-2008 » |
|
Isn't 'pseudo-Marxist' a term of abuse from wherever you happen to stand?
Yet, it seems, R3's gain is the Heritage Committee's loss: another step toward left-wing 'tick box' domination.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
...so flatterten lachend die Locken....
|
|
|
|
George Garnett
|
|
« Reply #5 on: 13:37:03, 11-04-2008 » |
|
A Marxist writes:
I wonder what evidence there might be for regarding Ms Abramsky as a "pseudo-Marxist".
I'm not sure whether it's evidence for or against but she does wear earrings so she presumably has a 'deeply conventional mind'. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Morticia
|
|
« Reply #6 on: 14:01:53, 11-04-2008 » |
|
A Marxist writes:
I wonder what evidence there might be for regarding Ms Abramsky as a "pseudo-Marxist".
I'm not sure whether it's evidence for or against but she does wear earrings so she presumably has a 'deeply conventional mind'. 'Hmmm', mused Mort, twiddling her earrings in a deeply conventional manner  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #7 on: 14:13:41, 11-04-2008 » |
|
I'm not sure whether it's evidence for or against but she does wear earrings so she presumably has a 'deeply conventional mind'.
Ah, but does she wear mind-rings? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
Swan_Knight
|
|
« Reply #8 on: 15:18:08, 11-04-2008 » |
|
Abramsky was one of the prime architects of BBC Radio's disastrous leftward drift.
You only have to look at the long shadow cast by her baleful influence on the Today programme - presented, as it is, by a pack of inadequates who wouldn't be employed on the basis of their presentational/journalistic skills. Yet being 'left wing' was enough to secure them employment with the BBC's flagship news radio programme. I find it very interesting that Brian Redhead, a Tory, felt it necessary to pretend to be a leftist in order to get anywhere in BBC radio.
During the Thatcher years, there may have been some rationale for much of the media to take a combative stance toward the government....however, during Blair's term of office, the Beeb gave Labour a very easy ride indeed.
Time and again we hear government ministers being attacked FROM THE LEFT (over tax/defence/foreign policy) with no balancing attack FROM THE RIGHT (ie, couldn't you get taxes down lower?)
Marxists/feminists/socialists/Maoists/Stalinists....they've had more than their two hours in the sun. Time to put them all out to grass.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
...so flatterten lachend die Locken....
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #9 on: 15:24:02, 11-04-2008 » |
|
Abramsky was one of the prime architects of BBC Radio's disastrous leftward drift.
What are you talking about? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Don Basilio
|
|
« Reply #10 on: 15:27:44, 11-04-2008 » |
|
sk
Given your contempt for sloppy thinking, (which is why you say you are still here) that is a bunch of totally un-nuanced generalisations.
Maoist and Stalinists, OK, but Marx has a complex body of thought which needs to be taken account of in most analysis of things. Feminism covers a whole range of things, but what can never be ignored is that males are not the default setting for humanity, specifically female experience is relevant to understanding the world and is not to be written off. (I do wish feminists would recognise that as well as patriarchy there is such a thing as matriarchy in some societies, and jolly unhealthy it is too.)
I am usually too bleary minded to take in Today, but if it is supporting the Blairite government, then some would say that is hardly socialist.
My dear gentle father was a paid up member of the Tory party (though no admirer of Mrs T) and we took the Telegraph. I can't remember being aware of the Guardian until I reached the 6th form.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.
A time to weep, and a time to laugh: a time to mourn, and a time to dance
|
|
|
|
George Garnett
|
|
« Reply #11 on: 15:35:54, 11-04-2008 » |
|
... they've had more than their two hours in the sun. Time to put them all out to grass.
[Shome mishtake? Could shomeone check up re. grass? Ed.] |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Morticia
|
|
« Reply #12 on: 15:47:48, 11-04-2008 » |
|
... they've had more than their two hours in the sun. Time to put them all out to grass.
[Shome mishtake? Could shomeone check up re. grass? Ed.] 's cool George. 's cool man. Hey, catch that rainbow sheep dancing with the fox. We're all happy together, right?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Swan_Knight
|
|
« Reply #13 on: 15:51:06, 11-04-2008 » |
|
sk
Given your contempt for sloppy thinking, (which is why you say you are still here) that is a bunch of totally un-nuanced generalisations.
Maoist and Stalinists, OK, but Marx has a complex body of thought which needs to be taken account of in most analysis of things. Feminism covers a whole range of things, but what can never be ignored is that males are not the default setting for humanity, specifically female experience is relevant to understanding the world and is not to be written off. (I do wish feminists would recognise that as well as patriarchy there is such a thing as matriarchy in some societies, and jolly unhealthy it is too.)
I am usually too bleary minded to take in Today, but if it is supporting the Blairite government, then some would say that is hardly socialist.
My dear gentle father was a paid up member of the Tory party (though no admirer of Mrs T) and we took the Telegraph. I can't remember being aware of the Guardian until I reached the 6th form.
From my perspective, Marxism was nothing but a global confidence trick: the man was a fraud and a humbug (he retained his mistress as an unpaid domestic and played the 'hated' stockmarket with considerable flair). He based his work on research that was long out date. But Marx was a great entrepeneur of ideas - he recognised a gap in the ideas market and he filled it, with incredible success. However, I think this says more about human gullibility than it does about K.M. Those feminists I know are appalling, hobbled, twisted creatures who insist on seeing the world through a distorted filter of their own making. Yes, the female perspective is as relevant as the male perspective - no sane person would deny that; and no sane person would deny that women and men deserve to be as equal as possible in the workplace and society. But feminists too often seem intent not so much on creating a balance, as on reversing the balance. But what all left-wing isms have in common is that they have all demonstrably failed[/i. To describe oneself as a socialist/Marxist/feminist in this day and age may not quite be tantamount to saying the earth is flat, but it's equivalent to saying 'I'm yesterday's person'.
Capitalism, for all its many faults, has survived because it is the system under which the majority of people find it easiest to live. If enough people had wanted to live in a left-wing utopia, we would be living in it by now. The fact that capitalism survives, despite the best efforts of powerful people like Abramsky (and her equally influential family), must say something, I feel. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
...so flatterten lachend die Locken....
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #14 on: 16:01:17, 11-04-2008 » |
|
From my perspective From my perspective your comments on feminists would seem to contravene some Board rules there. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
