Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:Actually,I think he came from the CPB, joined us for a while, and then returned to his first love. He is still a subcriber to the Socialist Standard.
Data Protection, Comrade, Data Protection!
gnome wrote:J Surman wrote:— celebrate difference in the party. We don't want to become drones.Or clones for that matter… and some of us have other fish to fry including participating in a five hour long branch meeting earlier today.
Exactly, Marra!
I think Mike's right. From my experience, for every contiruter, there are four or five readers. I don't contribute that often due to work commitments, but I read it practically every day and update it regulalry. I had a look at the CWO forum and by comparison we have a haven of activlty. On the upside, looking at what's going on, I haven't seen as many meetings and activities going on for quite some time. I genuinely think activity and interest is on an upward swing.
patreilly wrote:Bijou Drains wrote:Whilst the crisps were very nice I notice you didn’t mention the abomination that was Vaux’s horrible Sunderland beers.There is the old story of the young Geordie lad going to Amsterdam for the first time. Before he leaves his father advises him to give him a call if he feels uncomfortable about anything.24 hour’s late his father recieves a call from his son. His son says “Fatha me mates have just gone into a building with a red lantern hanging outside, what should I do?”The father replies “keep away son, it might be a Vaux’s pub”For the sake of historical accuracy, Vaux Double Maxim Brown Ale – produced at the very heart of the mackem empire – predated the Newcastle version by twenty years and I can veryfy that it was a fine drink as I would consume it on a regular basis during my younger years and I am still alive and well.Geordies never miss an opportunity to have a go at Machems and their cultural history. (Well one magpie in particular) I demand that you withdraw you scurrilous comment vis-a-vis "Vaux's horrible Sunderland beer"an dinnabe daft man
To be fair, Double Maxim was my default beer in a vaux pub, as it was there most drinkable ale. However it didn’t predate Broon. Maxim brown ale was introduced at the end of the Boer War, but Double Maxim was introduced in the late 30s as a stronger version of the original, as a response to Broon which was first brewed in the mid 1920s. The original brew master from Vaux has opened up a brewery on Wearside which is now making Double Maxim again. Broon is apparently now brewed in Holland!!!
imposs1904 wrote:Major McPharter wrote:Any Tudor crisps and a Pint of vaux.'Tudor crisps"? Someone is showing their age . . . and their fine taste in crisps.
Whilst the crisps were very nice I notice you didn’t mention the abomination that was Vaux’s horrible Sunderland beers.There is the old story of the young Geordie lad going to Amsterdam for the first time. Before he leaves his father advises him to give him a call if he feels uncomfortable about anything.24 hour’s late his father recieves a call from his son. His son says “Fatha me mates have just gone into a building with a red lantern hanging outside, what should I do?”The father replies “keep away son, it might be a Vaux’s pub”
ALB wrote:Bijou Drains wrote:The motion states “groups and individuals”, the SPC is neither of things, it is a political party and part of the World Socialist Movement. I would argue that the motion doesn’t and was never intended to cover this situation.I don't know if you were active in internal Party affairs at the time but this matter has a "history". When it was passed it unleashed a huge controversy on spintcom, with accusations that the EC had infringed it, calls for their resignation, etc. See the contributions to Spintcom in June 2006.Here's some extracts:https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SPINTCOM/conversations/messages/5624https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SPINTCOM/conversations/messages/5628https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SPINTCOM/conversations/messages/5642https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SPINTCOM/conversations/messages/5664Ever since the motion has been interpreted as meaning that the Party can't send money to anyone abroad. To change this interpretation now risks re-igniting the controversy.The best way out is to rescind or amend the resolution.
I missed the controversy that took place. As it was a conference motion, would it be possible to change it with an ADM motion ot does it have to wait until conference?Either way I think it would be good to clarify things.In the meantime, here is a link to the SPC website where there is a donations page for anyone to forward some cash to them. http://www.worldsocialism.org/canada/I'm speaking in Leeds next week and wasn't going to claim expenses, but I've asked the treasurer to send the cost of my rail ticket to the Candian Party, I presume that's ok?In the meantime, is it worth trying to put together a North American speaking tour, as Harry Young and Steve Coleman did in the 80s to try and help the comrades there out and reignite the WSM there, is looks like there is the climate to create some interest.
ALB wrote:I don't think we can use that argument as the intention of the movers was clear (it goes without saying that we can't give money to non-socialists). Personally I voted against it and didn't and still don't agree with it. I am imagine you are in the same position. In fact at that Conference most of the delegates were against it too, but the membership vote didn't back them and the motion was carried. Democracy is democracy and we have to abide by resolutions that we don't agree with.As I mentioned, when the Indian party asked for money (I think it was them — our retiring Treasurer will know) provision was made for individual members to pay.The motion states “groups and individuals”, the SPC is neither of things, it is a political party and part of the World Socialist Movement. I would argue that the motion doesn’t and was never intended to cover this situation.
gnome wrote:Given the Socialist Party of Canada's current financial predicament the SPGB should urgently consider sending them funds to allow them to continue the vital work of propagating socialism.I completely agree. Could a proposal be put to the next EC to send them over £2,000?
Although my working knowledge in these areas is very limited, I think this is an excellent initiative by the EC and any costs will far be outwighed by the benefit, a really progressive step!
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:It took me 30 minutes to read the wikipedia entries and write my reply. I want you to act for 30 minutes. Pick up litter in your neighborhood or plant a tree in the forest for 30 minutes. Don't spend your time on a reply for me please. Or maybe just spend 5 minutes on a reply and spend 25 minutes on planting a tree?I spent 25 minutes having a dump. I then spent five minutes wiping, guess what I used?
patreilly wrote:Bijou Drains wrote:Jeez I can't imaging Steve Coleman cutting a rug at his local disco, The thought of him in disco pants with an open to the navel silk shirt and medallion will now haunt me forever.That's a matter of taste. I think he would look pretty stunning in debate with the young tories.
Well. I suppose.I did hear a rumour that Harry Young had a brief stint with the Kids from Fame and that Adam Buick was one of the original members of Pan's People, but I don't know how true that is.
Jeez I can't imaging Steve Coleman cutting a rug at his local disco, The thought of him in disco pants with an open to the navel silk shirt and medallion will now haunt me forever.
alanjjohnstone wrote:The Gospel requires Christians to “denounce personal and social sins committed against God and neighbour in the name of the god money and of power for its own sake,” Pope Francis has written. He said, “the economy and markets have had a role in the excessive exploitation of common resources, increasing inequality and the deterioration of the planet.” “I have been able to see these contrasts more clearly than was possible in Argentina,” he said. The world has enough wealth to feed, house and offer medical care to all its inhabitants, but resources are concentrated in the hands of a few people and millions of others struggle to survive.“What I say and write about the power of the economy and finance is meant to be an appeal so that the poor would be treated better and inequalities would decrease,” Pope Francis said.A particular concern, he said, are the billions of dollars private individuals and companies make from manufacturing weapons, “funds that prosper from innocent blood.” People must become more aware of how the economy works and how much wealth is produced by exploiting people or the environment and by speculation or investing in money rather than in companies that employ people and produce useful products and services, the Pope wrote.http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2018/04/15/christians-must-denounce-sins-committed-in-the-name-of-money-and-power-says-pope/Do you think we should send him a free 1 year subscription to the Standard
Prakash RP wrote:' Nonsense. Work is voluntary, non-compulsory, non-exploitative. ' ( Comment #279 by Matt ) Beliefs or ideas not resting on sound logic ( not sophistries nor any stuff like blind faith ) are worthless in a debate aimed at finding the truth and so unbecoming of the sensible. And in order to be a true communist, you have to be the sensible first, IMHO. I think I've furnished plentiful incontestable logic to establish my thesis, i.e. the view that the sharing of social workload meant to produce wealth can't be ' voluntary '. My comments #243, #251, #253, #258, #263, #268, #277, #281, #285, #293, #301 & #308 are meant to enlighten you about it. Nevertheless, you're free to ignore it and join the swarms of the silly and benighted that make up the overwhelming majority in today's world. But if you choose not to join up with the silly crowd, I'd ask you to point to which one or ones of my arguments you think wrong and clarify why you think so. ' Access to the total common product is free for all. ' ( ibid ) If you mean, as it seems to me, that everyone is free to reach and enter the store room of social wealth, but none is free to take possession of as much wealth as they please, you're right. Nevertheless, the principle of ' to each according to his needs ' suggests everyone is entitled to grab as much wealth as they please. It's just not possible because the total amount of social wealth, be it superabundant or just abundant, is limited and can never grow unlimited, and because the unequal sharing of social wealth happens to be in irreconcilable contradiction to the foundation of classless society. ' The concept of equal contributions and access is meaningless and will eb seen to be so, in light of this advanced accelerated post-capitalist, production for use … ' ( ibid ) The ' advanced accelerated post-capitalist, production for use ' cannot grow beyond a limit. Besides, unequal share in social wealth clashes with the very basis for the classless order.Ironically reading the bollocks you write makes me reach for the Whiskey bottle!
