Homebase let cat out of the bag about using workfare to reduce wage bills

'but it shouldn't be workfare, surely it should paid employment at a living wage claig?'

Yes I agree. I am not in favour of workfare. I am just a realist and believe that nothing I say or think will change Iain Duncan Smith's mind.

'n this way we change what we think but we also change our environment'

But how can we change our environment by thought alone. The environment is material. Surely we would need to act phsically to change it?

but it shouldn't be workfare, surely it should paid employment at a living wage claig?

No babies do not have fully formed thoughts using mother tongue unless they understand language. Does anyone have fully formed thoughts? no because our thoughts are constantly shaped by everything that we hear/see/feel and perceive around us, so all thinking is a dialectic btw man and his environment, in this way we change what we think but we also change our environment, it is a dialectic.

pumpkin you are right. These workfare jobs prevent peopel getting real jobs or working overtime if there are any real vacancies at all.

That is why workfare should be done in newly created public sector jobs created afresh for workfare schemes such as new road builds etc.

'Do babies have fully formed thoughts, yes or no? '

What is a fully formed thought because from whast I have heard of Marx, he never had one?

Have you got the actual quote from Marx because first you daid thought and now it is fully formed thought?

Marx wasn't interested in babies, that is my example because it is quite a good way to examine the difference in the two dialectic methods.

If they have enough jobs to hand out for workfare, they have enough to pay those workers a wage.
Maybe this is why there are next to no jobs going in my area.

If workfare was scrapped, there will be more paid jobs to go around. Yes we know they still get money through benefits, but £53 a week is no where near the nmw.

Its wrong on all levels.

Do babies have fully formed thoughts, yes or no?

Do you know it had never occurred to me that Hegel was wrong until I encountered Marx, now why is that? well that would be because we only question things as we encounter them. We can not think about something that doesn't actually exist for us.

Hegel is not evil, he is a genius.

The New World Order uses Hegel's ideas because he is a genius. But what they use his ideas for has nothing to do with Hegel.

That just smacks of hard cheese Claig

'But it doesn't think in mother tongue does it claig??????'

No but from what you quoted of Marx, he did not mention mother tongue, unless he has changed the goalposts.

Sorry, I like Hegel, I meant Marx was an idiot. Hegel is a genius and one of teh great philosophers of humanity. Marx isn't.

But it doesn't think in mother tongue does it claig??????

'All this nonsense about Hegel being some evil mastermind is nuts.'

Of course it is nits. He wasn't a mastermind, he was an idiot.

So you think Hegel is correct then , in which case what is your problem?

the whole basis of this NWO craparolla is the Hegelian dialect, now you say Hegel is right. What, so the Hegelians are not evil doers afterall.

'do you think that babies "think" with fully formed vocabulary in their head though. Of course they don't. Children learn language because we speak to them.'

The baby thinks and feels and makes sounds which have intention. It won't learn to speak English without any contact, but it is still conscious and would form thoughts.

All this nonsense about Hegel being some evil mastermind is nuts. The only reason the conspiracy theorists get away with it is because so few people can read Hegel without going insane.

Marx turned Hegel on his head alright. Marx would have fitted in well in Alice in Wonderland with his mate the Mad Hatter.

The baby can not effect a change in its circumstances or the environment around it.

Of course babies feel hunger, do you think that babies "think" with fully formed vocabulary in their head though. Of course they don't. Children learn language because we speak to them.

'A Marxist would argue that if you put a baby in a darkened room it would form no thoughts because we only form thoughts from what we see/hear and perceive around us, we then reflect that thinking back into the world around us. In this way we shape the world around us.'

But that is rubbish and Hegel is right. A baby would experience fear and begin to cry and feel hunger, so of course it is thinking and conscious just as Hegel said. A baby is alive so it thinks. It doesn't need light to think, just as a person blind from birth can think and feel and be conscious.

Marx is a materialist and that is why he is wrong.

'it isn't a free market because governments intervene and stack the odds in the favour of their pay master benefactors. Socialism for bankers fascism for workers.'

Exactly it is socialism and state intervention.

I am not defeatist, I am a realist.

'YOU gain some of those skills then, Claig'
But I am not on workfare, so why do I need to gain some of those skills?

'Why do they need to be exploited either for big business OR for 'public good', when those jobs could be given to them as paid jobs?!'

Ask Iain Duncan Smith, I don't know. There are no jobs available with those skills or they would be doing them.

'If the job is there, and needs doing, then PAY SOMEONE to do that job. Or don't expect it done.'

I presume teh job doesn't need doing which is why the poster that ttosca linked to was to convince managers to use people on workfare.

'Surely THAT is the 'free market' that the Tories seem to hold in such high regard?'

As I understand it, these jobs have been created as a form of training scheme and Iain Duncan Smith has been in charge of this policy which aims to help unemployed people get back to work and get some training. It is not that there are lots of vacancies but that they have been created to help people. That seems to be the intention.

'It will NEVER be a 'free market' as long as some sections of Society are being exploited.'

These jobs are not in teh market. They have been created as temporary posts for teh purpose of training. That is not the free market. That is big state socialism and state intervention with the help of big business, which is maybe why New Labour were teh ones who began teh process. I wonder if teh copied it from leftwing Clinton as well, or was it from Bush?

CouthySaysEatChoccyEggs so right, it isn't a free market because governments intervene and stack the odds in the favour of their pay master benefactors. Socialism for bankers fascism for workers.

"do babies think?"

A Hegelian would say yes they do, they think from day one and what they think is projected onto the world around them and that thought is reflected back at them. Nothing changes except their perceptions. We are shaped by our perceptions.

A Marxist would argue that if you put a baby in a darkened room it would form no thoughts because we only form thoughts from what we see/hear and perceive around us, we then reflect that thinking back into the world around us. In this way we shape the world around us.

Because it is quite a difficult concept to grasp, it has made it very easy for loons to misinterpret the difference btw Hegel and Marx.