Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
gnome wrote:patreilly wrote:Does the SPGB have any plans for this event?
Why not ask your ex-comrades in North East Branch?
She has!
I don’t know if the “gobshite” and “don’t know what it means” comments were aimed at my posts, however just to put Paddy’s mind at rest I currently present lectures on the subject on MA course at a well known Northern University, so I feel I have a reasonable grasp of the topic. (Not that Universities are the font of all knowledge, by the way, but I do follow the Party example of preparing well and researching before speaking about a topic in my day job as well)interesting that Paddy should comment that the party should be free to discuss ideas and then dismiss those who are discussing his ideas as gobshites, who don’t understand the topic, physician heal thy self?
alanjjohnstone wrote:also worth a readhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adams%E2%80%93On%C3%ADs_TreatyBut isn't it time England claimed back its share of Francehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angevin_Empirewhat about Scottish occupied Northumbria?
gnome wrote:ALB wrote:Aagh "intersectionality" ! As the doctrine that "I am more oppressed than thou" it is identity politics gone mad, a dangerous recipe for different sections of the working class to engage in a free-for-all for a bigger share for their section of the crumbs capitalism has to offer. It has nothing to do with the class struggle between the owning, capitalst class and the non-owning, wage and salary working class nor to the struggle for socialism. Quite the opposite. It is a diversion from it, a dangerous, divisive doctrine and practice that Socialists should oppose. An understanding of this is indeed crucial.Absofuckinglutely! I'm sharing this post wherever I can, providing you have no objection. If this is being advocated it's a further example of a certain branch's 'shakiness'. First they wanted to ditch the Socialist Standard and then to 'water down' the Declaration of Principles!
the whole notion of intersectionality is based on the notion of inequality which is itself rooted in an acceptance of bourgeois notions of equality, i.e. the equalisation of workers, if we have equal opportunities in capitalism then for example, as well as equalising employment opportunities we are also equalising unemployment opportunities. As Socialist we can see beyond the chimera of identify politics, which sets worker against worker and reject the equalisation of misery and the self limiting reactionary view point of those who promote intersectionality. I hope the speakers at summer school, correctly, reject this bourgeois bollocks, in line with the party case.
Alan, you underestimate yourself, my guess is you are already bi-lingual. You can clearly read, write, speak and think in English, I would also hazzard a guess that you can do the same in the Old Northumbrian derived language of Scots, so dinnae fesh yersel, bonny laddie!
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?
